USA > California > Bench and bar in California. History, anecdotes, reminiscences > Part 4
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15
Felton frequently lectured for charitable causes. He was a great friend of learning, and responded to the calls of schools and colleges for public addresses. He was regent of the State University from its foundation until his death. In October, 1867, he addressed the graduating class at the com- mencement exercises of Toland Medical College. He delivered the oration at the dedication of the San Francisco Mercantile Library. In October, 1868, he addressed the Grand Lodge of Masons. These and many other of his orations, besides quite a number of political speeches, were fully reported and have been preserved in immortal type. They are all alive with thought, and are strikingly graceful in expression.
He had the most expensive habits in the way of eating the most delicately cooked food that could be procured, and drinking freely of the rarest wines. When dining with friends away from home he always insisted on paying the whole bill-nobody else could spend a cent-and, as a little mark at once of his extravagance, goodnature and liberality, he always carried a pocket-full of fine cigars, that cost, at wholesale rates, not less than twenty-five cents apiece, which he distributed indiscriminately. He was a poor judge of men, and seemed to give little study to human nature. When he was a candidate for the United States Senate he had parlors at Whipple's St. George's Hotel, on Clay street, which were open to all men without distinction of politics, creed, race or color. The loafers and bummers thought a golden age had arrived. They made him think they were "making his fight," whereas, as the saying is, they did not control their own votes. Felton sent to those rooms, liquors and cigars which cost $7,000.
A tippling friend met him on the street one day :
356
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
"They say, Felton, that we drink too much brandy and water." Felton-They ought to be more discriminating. They should say that you drink too much brandy and I drink too much water.
Tippler-I guess we do drink too much, Felton.
Felton-Who authorized you to use the plural ? Is it because you drink enough for two ?
He once accompanied an acquaintance to see a great spiritualistic medium -a wise man from the East, who could answer all questions. Felton asked the medium where Beideman died. (J. C. Beideman, died in San Francisco, July 8, 1865, having been for some years the largest real estate holder in the city. He was a native of Philadelphia). The wise man said he could tell where Beideman died, if Felton would name three places, one of them to be the true place. Felton gave him San Francisco, Philadelphia, and his own native town, Saugus. The latter being possibly a name he never heard before, the luminary replied promptly, "He died at Saugus." Felton thanked him and withdrew. He often spoke of his visit to the oracle, and it afforded him great amusement to recur to it. He had religious views, and, like Henry Clay, hoped to become a Christian before he died. He leaned towards Unitarian- ism. A half bargain was once struck between him and a brother lawyer shortly after he arrived in San Francisco, that both should study for the min- istry-Felton to become a Unitarian, and his friend an Episcopalian divine- and that they should pitch into each other from the pulpit, instead of at the bar.
Felton was a most forcible talker, never flowery or verbose. He was full of illustration, an adept at classic allusion, had a wide reach of information, had explored a vast domain in literature, was severe in logic, straightfor- ward, direct. He was wonderfully quick in grasping the chief points of a case, and in argument was excited and vehement, borne alone on tremendous waves of enthusiasm.
With his peculiar temperament, it can hardly be said that he was indus- trious. Here he contrasted markedly with McAllister. He certainly was not fond of work, but he never tired of reading. He was fitful in exertion. His clients would sometimes pursue him day after day for weeks at a time, urging him to attend to their business. When he did take hold, he made up for lost time, frequently burning the midnight gas in his office. On such occasions he used stimulants freely.
This brilliant man was very generally beloved. Lively, genial, witty, generous to excess, his conversation "flavored with the essence of all good literatures," showing in every word and movement the well-bred gentleman, he was a most delightful companion, and those who enjoyed his friendship speak of him with the utmost tenderness and affection.
His bon mots were many. He said, probably, more good things than
35c
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
any lawyer in the State. Seeing an Irish procession on Montgomery street, he called a friend's attention to the flag, and said : "That ought to be kept over the Caller's station in the big board of brokers." "Why ?" "Behold the sham rock and liar !"
There was a certain lawyer of this bar who was afflicted with cacoethes loquendi. He delighted to talk to the dear people from the platform, and never let pass an opportunity to enlighten them, as far as he could, upon any subject-political, religious, moral, historic or esthetic. Mr. Felton met him on the street one day, and invited him to join him and a few acquaintances. at dinner at a certain restaurant that evening. The "eloquent" speaker said he had to address the people that night at Platt's Hall, on the question: "What shall we do with our millionaires ?" It was a theme of great public interest, and he hoped to see Mr. Felton among his auditors. "If you will excuse me, Mr. Felton," he added, " I had rather make a speech than eat the finest dinner ever cooked."
"And I, fond as I am of a good dinner, had rather starve to death than listen to you," was the retort. The intensity of Felton's repugnance can only be appreciated by those who remember how really fond he was of a fine dinner.
Judge T. W. Freelon, Judge Levi Parsons, John B. Felton, and a few others, consentaneous souls, once made up a merry mess of bachelors at Mme. Touchard's private boarding house. Felton's winning smile, when he joined his table companions, his exultant mirth and words of wit and wisdom, gave a peculiar charm to his presence, and made the dining hall the place of delightful daily reunion.
It was in 1860 that Parsons went to Sacramento to urge the passage by the legislature of his famous " Bulkhead bill." Felton accompanied him as his friend and legal adviser. The epicure always had reason to murmur at. the Capital, but at that time some culinary Solomon had established there, at a convenient point, a first-class French restaurant. To this refreshing shelter would Parsons and Felton retreat every evening with their invited guests. Many times did they repair thither, sometimes hopeful, sometimes dejected, but always exhausted. The struggle in the legislature was long and stub- bornly contested; the shock of battle was felt throughout the State. Doing effective and silent work each day, Parsons and Felton withdrew from the conflict with a new coterie of friends every night. San Francisco was; anathematizing them, but they stood, " unmoved, enduring and immovable." Every day there was a great din in the metropolis, and every night there was. a great dinner in the Capital. Judge Freelon met the two warriors in Sacra- mento in the heat of the strife, and they told him that a seat would be reserved for him at their table that night. "But I ought not to partake of your hospitality while I am opposed to your scheme," said the Judge. "It
35ยข
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
doesn't matter," responded Felton. "You must come to-night, and every night during your stay in town. We never talk 'bulkhead ' at the table." Judge Freelon concluded to go. He was so well entertained that he went every night until he left the Capital. But he did not hear the word "bulk- head " mentioned at the princely table of the great Bulkheader.
This famous bill proposed to grant to the San Francisco Dock and Wharf Company (composed of Dr. H. S. Gates, J. Mora Moss, John Nightingale, Abel Guy, John B. Felton, John Crane and Levi Parsons-the latter being the great head of the concern) the right to build a bulkhead, or sea wall, with the necessary piers, wharves and docks, upon the water line of 1851, with the right to collect dockage, wharfage and tolls; also to construct wharves and piers, projecting at right angles from the sea wall, to a length of 600 feet; also to appropriate and take possession of any franchise rights, lands or. wharves belonging to the city, and also private property on making compen- sation.
The feeling of the people of San Francisco was reflected by the Governor, Hon. John G. Downey, whose veto of this bill made him the popular lion of the time. 'Governor Downey said, among other things, that from the time when the act should become a law, "all commercial intercourse with San Francisco would be effectually cut off, or be carried on upon such terms as the Dock and Wharf Company might dictate. The products of every branch of domestic industry as well as every article of foreign trade, all imports and exports, all vessels approaching the shore, and vehicles approaching the water, might be subjected to contribution. Foot passengers only, but not their baggage or effects, would be exempt from tribute. The right to con- struct the front streets, or to build a bulkhead, with the necessary piers, wharves and docks, and to fix and collect tolls, had been granted to the City and County of San Francisco, not in the same words adopted in this bill, yet in terms not less comprehensive and effectual. This bill attempts to divest and impair rights of property, which are to be regarded as contracts. It also empowers the company to take private property, not for any public use, but to facilitate a private enterprise. And it is plainly repugnant to the Federal Constitution and the Constitution of this State."
When the legislature had passed the Bulkhead bill, and Governor Downey had vetoed it, and the legislature had failed to pass it over the veto, and San Francisco was turning out en masse to do honor to the Governor, Judge Freelon (who, not long before, had made a public anti-Bulkhead speech) was marshal of the great procession which met His Excellency at the boat and escorted him to his hotel. The observed of all observers, he was observed most particularly by Felton and Parsons.
Felton's conversation was fresh, original and sparkling. His wit was abundant, and was set off by the most spontaneous, exuberant and contagious
36
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
laughter of his own. Herein, he closely resembled his distinguished father- in-law, Judge Joseph G. Baldwin. Baldwin was full of fun, and laughed uproariously at his own jokes. Baldwin and Felton never impaired the effect by their turbulent enjoyment of their own sayings. Their laughter seemed to follow naturally, and it was as refreshing to hear it as the wit that evoked it. It convulsed all who heard it. Of course Felton was intimate with Shakespeare. J. F. Bowman (who died in 1884), once entertained the members of the Bohemian Club with a disquisition on the authorship of the Shakespeare plays. Felton heard of it and asked Bowman if there was really any basis for the claim that Bacon was the true author. He was assured that there was a good deal to be said in favor of the Baconian theory. Felton and Bowman oystered together that night, and Felton listened with great interest to Bowman's recapitulation. In the discussion that ensued, Felton astonished Bowman by his thorough Shakespearean scholarship. He spoke with enthusiasm, and Bowman wondered if his friend had not made Shakes- peare the special study of his life.
The profession, and the people heard with genuine sorrow of the death of this unselfish spirit, this master of the law. In the Supreme Court, Mr. Pringle, his old college mate, friend and partner, and his ardent admirer, Clark Churchill, since Attorney-General of Arizona, paid tender tribute to his memory. Eminent counsel made appropriate remarks in all the courts, and the judges responded with feeling. The bar memorial, addressed to the courts-a classical production-was from the prolific pen of Joseph W. Winans. I doubt if Mr. Winans ever wrote anything finer than this, of which I offer two extracts.
"To the profession of his choice he consecrated the supremest labors of his life. With him the law was no narrow system, fettered by precedent and cramped by forms, but a broad, comprehensive science, devised by the highest wisdom, for the proper direc- tion and government of man in all the relations of society and State. Imbued with such a conception of its dignity and objects, he was singularly successful, through the sound- ness of his reasoning, the persuasion of his address, and the resistless power of his logic, in eliminating and bringing into practical enforcement those great principles of truth and right which constitute the theory of jurisprudence. It was the aim of his mental effort to convince the understanding, rather than inflame the passions. Possessing a faculty for accumulation almost unexampled in the practice of the law, he made no idol of his acquisitions, but what his toil had won his liberality dispensed with lavish hand. In his munificence he was a prodigal ; in his hospitality, a prince.
" His life, though blasted in its prime, was fruitful of achievement, and his memory is fragrant with reminiscences of noble words and manly deeds. Contemplated as a patron of the arts and sciences, a promoter of public and private enterprises, and a phil- anthropist, he was in each capacity alike conspicuous; and severely will be felt the absence of that stimulating hand."
37
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
Of Felton, let me recall last what I love to recall best-his own noble utter- ance in closing the oration at the dedication of the Mercantile Library build- ing, at San Francisco, June 18, 1868:
"And now," he said, "I dedicate this temple to the true mercantile spirit-to the spirit of true honesty, which, rejecting the letter of the written contract, looks to its spirit; which, disdaining all deceit, all mean and petty advantages, takes the just for its rule and guide; to the spirit of true equality, which, stripping off from man all accidental circumstances, respects and reverences him according to his merit; to the spirit of enterprise, whose field is the earth, the air, the sea, the sky, and all that in them is; to the spirit of munificence, that never tires in lavishing its treasures on all good objects, on the scientific expedition, on the library, the University, on the cause of re- ligion, and on the soldier battling for the right; to the spirit of loyalty, that submits calmly and patiently to that great bond which holds society together- the law-which aims to reform, but never to resist or overthrow; to the spirit of patriotism, which follows with affection, pride, and devotion the daring mark of our country's flag; and to the spirit which worships God. "
CHAPTER IV.
Joseph P. Hoge-Sage of his Party and Nestor of the Bar-His Record in Congress-A Colleague of Stephen A. Douglas and E. D. Baker-The Oregon Question-The Wilmot Proviso-The Galena Lead Mines-At the Bar in Three States-Humorous Notes-A Long Prosperity and a Green Old Age.
It would seem to imply a lack of respect to refer to this venerated Nestor of the San Francisco Bar as plain Mr. Hoge ! But such he is, and no more. He is no Colonel at all, except by courtesy. He never had his "baptism of fire," as Napoleon III. styled it, or, to use the heroic speech of Caleb Cush- ing, he was never immersed in "the red baptism of the battlefield;" nor was lie in the militia, even. "I tell you it is a great thing," said the versatile William H. Barnes (not William H. L. B.), in one of his capital temperance talks, "I tell you it is a great thing to be able to do something for your fellow man." It is very true. And the man who can make a Colonel, or a General, or a Governor of another by his own simple fiat, has not lived in vain. When the late Benjamin F. Washington, once collector of this port, and for so many years editor of the Examiner, arrived at Sacramento in 1850, after a weary tramp across the continent, as soon as he had washed himself and put on a clean shirt, he was ushered by General A. M. Winn (who later founded the order " Native Sons of the Golden West " ) into a little circle of pioneer upper tendom, where some half dozen ladies were trying to accommodate ten times as many gentlemen in the labyrinths of the dance. "Ladies and gen- tlemen," said the General, " let me introduce Colonel Washington, of Vir- ginia." "That's the way I became Colonel," the Colonel told me in 1870. When Judge George W. Tyler concluded to make "General " Cobb he only spake the word, and it was done. I refer not to H. A. Cobb, the militia General, who, by the way, had his birth in the Azores Islands, but to Moses Gill Cobb, of Boston. Judge Tyler and M. G. Cobb were about forming a law partnership in Stockton. The former had been County Judge of San Joaquin, and having a title, determined that his partner should, for the sake of the firm, enjoy a like dignity. So he introduced him to all Stockton dur- ing the first week after his arrival as "my partner, General Cobb, gentle- men." "Yes, I made him a General," said the Judge to me in 1874.
39
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
After this fashion did Joseph Pendleton Hoge become a "Colonel," and his military creator was a Galena editor, who did the business about 1840. It seems that plain "Mr." is too common a title for a man of fame, even in a Republican-Democratic country. The tendency is to distinguish by some higher style those who have won our special regard. So it is generally accepted all over the Pacific slope that if J. P. Hoge is not a Colonel he ought to be. It seems entirely out of place to say "Mr." to him, or of him. No Judge on any bench would address the Colonel thus. Imagine Chief Justice Searls saying in open court, "Mr. Hoge, will you state that proposition again !"
Colonel Hoge is a native of the great State which has become a new inother of statesmen, and which has been doing so much for the country of late years in the way of supplying it with officeholders. He was born seventy- six years ago, according to our Great Register. He studied law and was admitted to the bar also in Ohio. He received what is called a classical education, graduating from Jefferson College, Pennsylvania. When he was about thirty years old he removed to the Prairie State, settling at Galena and there entering on his profession. He soon became popular and moderately prosperous. An inborn love of politics was his, which has ever since asserted itself, but which was never so strong as to require medical treat- ment. He has not been "discharged cured,"' becaused he has not needed curing. He has always desired to be United States Senator, but has never set his heart upon it.
The Colonel had not been long in Galena when the Democracy sent him to the Twenty-eighth Congress. In the campaign which preceded [his election he made many brilliant stump speeches, and took his place among party leaders of the great West. At Washington his was a prominent figure, and he was returned to the Twenty-ninth Congress. His political period was 1843-47, and in the House of Representatives, during his four years of service were these eminent men: Hannibal Hamlin, Robert C. Winthrop, John Quincy Adams, John P. Hale, Hamilton Fish, Washington Hunt, Henry A. Wise, R. Barnwell Rhett, Howell Cobb, Alexander H. Stephens, Lynn Boyd (once Speaker), John W. Jones (once Speaker), Garrett Davis, Andrew Johnson, Cave Johnson, John B. Weller, Robert C. Schenck, Joshua R. Giddings, John Slidell, Robert Dale Owen, Thomas J. Henley (since prominent in California and father of the brilliant advocate, Barclay Henley), John A. McClernand, John Wentworth, Stephen A. Douglas, Jacob Thompson, David Wilmot, E. D. Baker, John A. Dix, Beverly Johnson; while in the Senate during the same period were: Levi Woodbury, Silas Wright, W. L. Dayton, Rufus Choate, James Buchanan, Wm. C. Rives, John J. Crittenden, Thos. H. Benton, Robert J., Walker, John C. Calhoun, Thos. Corwin and Lewis Cass.
40
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
The Congressional Globe discloses that on March 26, 1844, Col. Hoge pre- sented the petition of L. W. Guiteau and fifty-six others, citizens of Stephenson county, Illinois, praying Congress to make appropriations for the immediate improvement of the Missouri and Upper Mississippi Rivers. The chief petitioner was the father of him who was destined to be President Garfield's assassin. On April 3, 1844, he spoke in favor of the bill introduced by him March 6, 1844, directing the sale by the government, of the reserved lead mines of Illinois, Missouri, Iowa and Wisconsin. In this debate he had a tilt with Cave Johnson, of Tennessee, afterwards Postmaster General under Presi- dent Polk. He alluded to Johnson as "the Cerberus of the Treasury," when Cerberus turned upon him and charged him with indulging in ridicule and personalities, which he promptly disclaimed. Johnson "expressed his satis- faction at the explanation of the gentleman," but wanted to know what the gentleman meant by calling him the Cerberus of the Treasury. He continued that he had always gone as far as any man in liberality to settlers. If he had his way, he would not sell an acre of the public domain, but give the soil to those who settled upon it in good faith. He opposed the pending bill because he wanted to keep the lands out of the hands of speculators. He desired to see some other plan adopted for their disposition.
Col. Hoge did not reply. The bill was defeated, but on reconsideration was amended so as to make the minimum price of the lands five dollars per acre, and as thus amended passed the House by 92 to 71. But in the Senate, being referred to the Committee on Public Lands, it was there smothered.
On December 10, 1844, Colonel Hoge introduced another bill, directing the President of the United States to cause the reserved lead mines of Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin to be exposed to sale. The bill was referred to;the Com- mittee on Public Lands. This bill shared the fate of its predecessor.
At the first session of the Twenty-ninth Congress, Dec. 19, 1845, Colonel Hoge introduced a similar bill, which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. When the bill came up, June 1, 1846, an amendment making the minimum price ten dollars was offered and rejected, Another amendment making the minimum five dollars was then offered. Colonel Hoge spoke at length against the amendment. He said the settlers could not pay so much, and declared that the lands were chiefly valuable for agricultural purposes. On June 9, 1846, the bill was passed in the House with the five dollar amend- ment. It went to the Senate, and came back with another and longer amend- ment, and the House amended it further and finally passed it, in a shape obnoxious to those who favored the original bill.
On January 30, 1846, Colonel Hoge made a powerful and brilliant speech in the House of Representatives, on "The Oregon Question," which so long agitated Congress and the country. He took strong ground in favor of "Fifty- four Forty, or Fight." "I do not like," he said, "the patriotismn which
41
BENCH AND BAR IN CALIFORNIA.
counts the costs, which turns pale and trembles at the consequences ; which hesitates, falters and doubts when great national questions are to be decided, when great national interests are at stake." The question was on the resolu- tion of Stephen A. Douglas, Colonel Hoge's colleague, declaring that a title to any part of the Oregon Territory south of 54 deg. 40 min. of north latitude is not open to compromise so as to surrender any part of said Territory. E. D. Baker, another colleague of Colonel Hoge's, although a Whig and English- born, came out bold and brilliant for "Fifty-four Forty, or Fight."
Colonel Hoge's speech, just alluded to, occupied fourteen columns of the Congressional Globe.
As everybody knows, we did not get Fifty-four Forty, and we did not fight. The country decreed a change of administration, calling to power a great party, one of whose rallying cries was, "Fifty-four Forty, or Fight ;" yet the President of its choice (I do not say it in criticism or censure) sug- gested to the British government a settlement upon the forty-ninth parallel as the dividing line. It is said that Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Polk's Secretary of State, felt bound to make this offer, because it had been made by Mr. Tyler before him. It was declined by Mr. Packenham, the British representative, whereupon Mr. Buchanan withdrew the offer, setting forth in a fine state paper the justice of the claim of the United States to the whole of the north- west Territory. Subsequently, the British government expressed its readiness to accept the forty-ninth parallel as the dividing line, if the offer of settle- ment were so modified as to secure to Great Britian the whole of Vancouver Island. This it announced as its ultimatum. President Polk submitted this proposition to the United States Senate, which advised its acceptance, and it was accepted. In June, 1846, a treaty was signed between the two govern- ments, declaring the forty-ninth parallel to be the dividing line. And thus was surrendered the country's claim to a vast region which it had, with loud acclaim, declared its readiness to fight for; an area as great in extent from north to south as that of the State of Oregon added to one-half of Washington Territory.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.