VOL. XVI. No. 7. BOSTON. JULY, 1904. T REMINISCENCES OF THADDEUS STEVENS. BY THOMAS W. LLOYD. HE first case ever tried in the courts by Thaddeus Stevens, the "Grand Old Commoner" of Pennsylvania, was one arising under the Fugitive Slave Law, and strangely enough, Stevens was against the fugitive slave. How much this may have had to do with shaping his future career as an uncompromising abolitionist and friend of the negro, it would be interesting to know. Certain it is, that next to Abraham Lincoln, he was the best friend the negro ever had, both in public and private life. With all his unbending rigor and apparent sternness he was possessed of the kindest of hearts, as the following incident well illustrates. He was very fond of the game of draw poker, and frequently sat down to the enjoyment of a "little game" with a few congenial friends. One morning, as he was on his way to the Capitol, after an all night sitting, at which he had come out winner to the extent of one hundred dollars and which he had rolled up in bills in his trousers pocket, he was accosted by an old colored woman, who asked for alms. Without a moment's hesitation, Stevens pulled out the roll of bills and handed it all to her, remarking to his attendant, "God moves in a mysterious way his wonders to perform." In the House of Representatives he was the unquestioned leader and he ruled it with a rod of iron. It was very dangerous to arouse him, as many a member learned to his cost, and any attempt to cross swords with him in debate, savored of rashness. His wit was as keen as a rapier, and few of his colleagues ever had the temerity to provoke it. Upon one occasion, however, a new member referred to Stevens in a rather sarcastic manner, and when he had finished the latter arose and drawled out: "Mr. Speaker, I did not know the gentleman had so much wit, but he has just so much." Upon another occasion, when a bill was under consideration prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors in the Capitol building, an amendment was offered, making it apply to all public buildings. "Ah, Mr. Speaker," said Stevens, "I know what the gentleman is after. He wants to put the bill in such shape as to be certain of having it vetoed." When it is remembered that Andrew Johnson then occupied the White House, whose fondness for the "cup that cheers" is well known, the point of the remark will be appreciated. During his last illness, a number of Pennsylvania politicians called upon Mr. Stevens to pay their respects and in the course of the conversation, one of them remarked upon his appearance. "Ah, gentlemen," he said, "it is not my appearance that I am concerned about just now but my dis-appearance." When they were about to take their leave, Stevens said to the gentlemen, "My friends, I am much obliged to you for this visit. I wish you could stay longer. I would like to talk to you about the political situation and the state of the country, but you may be assured that things are all right now, and when I am dead and buried and forty million worms have been poisoned by the medicine that Dr. Young has been stuffing into me, this Government will be standing as strong as ever." This indulgence in wit was continued until his latest hour, and affords another instance of "the ruling passion strong in death." Stevens was a unique figure in our legislative history; as absolutely so, in his particular sphere, as were Lincoln and Grant in theirs. They were a wonderful triumvirate, each seeming born for the niche he was destined to fill. There was nothing in the previous history or experience of Stevens to particularly point him out as the man who was to shape all the important legislation needed in the great crisis of our history. He was a lawyer, devoted to his profession, and not known as a man of affairs, and yet on his entrance into Congress, he went at once to the head, by a sort of mental gravitation, and no man questioned his supremacy. His tactics were peculiar, notably so in the exceeding paucity and brevity of his remarks. He rarely made a set speech. The matters of legislation which he had in charge were perfected in committee, and he rarely permitted an amendment. Upon one occasion an amendment was proposed to an appropriation bil. Stevens said, "Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment. I don't know what the amendment is, but I am opposed to it." It was defeated. On another similar occasion, he said, "Debate is exhausted on the amendment and everybody here is exhausted. Let's have a vote." In replying to Brooks, of New York, whom he came as near hating as he could hate anybody, he said, "I do not think it is worth while to reply to the remarks of the gentleman from New York, because, according to his own statement, he has the sym pathy of no party, stands by himself, speaks nobody's opinion but his own, and expects nobody to believe him." And on another occasion, in reply to the same member, he said, "Mr. Chairman, I do not very well understand how a gentleman on this floor can justify himself in occupying the time of the House and wasting the money of the country when he tells us, upon rising and upon sitting down, that he knows he is doing a vain thing and that he is expending time for nothing. If I thought that, sir, I would hold my tongue." Stevens' adroitness of statement was shown on another occasion, when he and Washburn of Illinois got into an unseemly wrangle and a member from Michigan made a point of order on them and said that they were both old enough to know better. Stevens said, "Mr. Speaker, The gentleman from Michigan is right and I feel that I owe an apology to the House for the remarks made by the gentleman from Illinois." said of Henry J. Raymond, who was accustomed to make a speech on one side of a question and then vote on the other, that he had the advantage of other members of the House in the matter of pairing, as he could always pair with himself. He FINK v. EVANS. II PICKLE 413. BY ALBERT W. GAINES, Of the Chattanooga, Tennessee, Bar. 'Twis a starlit bright November night, And the moon, with its shimmering beams, Silv'ring the woods and streams. 'Twas an ideal night for the chase of the fox Calls yelping forth many a hound. Then away they fly with a hue and cry, Through wood, o'er hill and dale, Till the baying sound from a distant hound Announces the strike of the trail; Then vet'ran and pup take the leader's call up, Till the cry of the howling pack, On the wings of the night, brings the hunter delight, For the dogs are now hot on the track. But Reynard was ever a sly, old fox, And he deals in deepest disguise, In the midst of the chase, an arch smile on his face, He takes to the railroad ties. The west-bound fast express was due Which was probably known to the fox Who now leaves his trail and the scent on the rail, So hound after hound, with his nose to the ground, As the train thunders down the grade, Along the track flies, fairly leaping the ties, Not suspecting the trap that was laid. O, horror to relate! 'tis as certain as fate, There'll be a collision, unless One gets off the track or the other goes back. The dogs or the fast express. With dogged, unyielding persistence, the hounds Dispute the right to the track, Till along come the cars, like the mad rush of Mars, And kill about half of the pack. Now the hunter who owned those valuable dogs— Was sorely aggrieved at the treatment received, So he sued the receiver-Fink. Grave, serious, difficult questions of law Rose before the honorable courts; Fierce the battle was waged by the counsel engaged, As we gather from Pickle's Reports. One very vexed question arose in the case, Whether, under the Tennessee laws, For it may be admitted that, if as a fact, Then another difficult question arose In which of them lay the clear right of way, The cars had the right to the railroad track, But the right of the pack on the fox's track Then the question of right becomes one of might, But what was the value of the dogs deceased? A question of dire import, And one that was vexing and very perplexing, And that worried the honorable court. The proof of the plaintiff established the fact, That the dogs were young and fleet, And that while ev'ry hound was good "all round,” For the possum they couldn't be beat. The plaintiff himself when he got on the stand, Told the twelve as they sat in the box, That a hound, as a rule, was worth more than a mule That is for the chase of the fox. The defendant made light of the proof thus adduced, As foolish, absurd and thin, And he proved without doubt that hounds were without Any value in old McMinn. But the court, considering all of the facts, Held the hounds did not exercise That care and forethought which the law says they ought. Thus causing their own demise; That a prudent hound-dog, in a case like this, Would employ his gumption and brain, When the whistle would blow he wouldn't be slow In giving away to the train. When the plaintiff was told the result of the suit, And he figured the costs and the fees, It is thought then and there the circumambient air Felt quite a perceptible breeze. When further informed, in a technical way. That the learned Court,, the Curia, Had decided his case by applying the phrase Of damnum absque injuria, It is possibly true that he said that he knew No Latin-and couldn't translate, But he thought that he heard a strong English word In the Latin which settled his fate; To his feelings long pent he would have to give vent, For his feelings were best and most clearly expressed 449 0 DECISIONS IN FRANCE. BY H. CLEVELAND COXE, NE of the first things an American lawyer asks, when visiting France, is "What are the decisions" on this or that point in connection with the interpretation of the Civil Code? When told that decisions of Courts are not binding, he is not unlikely tempted to compliment himself on being an American lawyer and living in a country where he can tell beforehand, approximately, how the Court is going to decide on many questions propounded by his clients. The American lawyer, however, resident and practising his profession in France, while, perhaps, flattering himself on his American judicial system, is sometimes puzzled to know how to explain superiority of his sys tem to a Frenchman who asks "What is the American law?" on this or that point. The American lawyer, of course, explains that in his country there are forty-five States and that each State being, in certain respects, quite an independent country, makes its own laws on this or that subject, and their Courts are independent one of the other. Then his French confrère is likely to smile politely and, without making open comparisons, will leave the American lawyer a vague impression that somehow the American system may be open to criticism after all. Now, the fact is that both systems are good and that when you are accustomed to |