USA > Washington DC > Washington DC > Centennial history of the city of Washington, D. C. With full outline of the natural advantages, accounts of the Indian tribes, selection of the site, founding of the city to the present time > Part 76
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 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79
731
THE BENCHI AND BAR.
Laws was conferred upon him by Union College, at Schenectady, New York. He was a man of great learning and an educated and culti- vated lawyer. Personally, Judge Olin was the kindest and most sympathetic of men. He was at all times companionable, and won the affection of all who knew him.
George P. Fisher was born in Milford, Kent County, Delaware, in 1817, and graduated at Dickinson College in 1838. In 1843 and 1844 he was elected to the Delaware House of Representatives, and in 1849 was the confidential clerk of John M. Clayton, then Secretary of State. From 1857 to 1860 he was attorney-general of Delaware, and he was elected to the Thirty - seventh Congress from that State. He was appointed, March 1, 1863, one of the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which place he resigned to accept that of district attorney for the District of Columbia, from which position he was removed in 1875.
Andrew Wylie, who was also one of the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the District, was born in Washington County, Pennsylvania, February 25, 1814. His father was president sueces- sively of Jefferson and Washington colleges in that county, and Andrew Wylie attended the latter college until he was fifteen years of age. In 1829 his father moved to Bloomington, Indiana, and became president of the State university there, in which institution his son Andrew continued until 1832. For a year or two after this he lived upon his father's farm, and in 1834 entered the Transyl- vania University, at Lexington, Kentucky, gradnating therefrom in 1836. He entered the law office of Walter Forward, who then resided at Pittsburgh, and was afterward Secretary of the Treasury, remaining there a couple of years. . Abont 1840 he was admitted to the bar at Pittsburgh, and practiced law until 1845, most of the time being city solicitor. In 1845 he was married to Miss Caroline Bryan, of Alex- andria, Virginia, and in December, 1848, he removed to Washington City, and there began the practice of the law. In January, 1863, Judge Crawford having resigned, he was appointed judge of the Criminal Court, but before he could be confirmed the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia was established, and he was appointed by Mr. Lincoln one of the associate justices of that court, which position he held until 1885, when he retired, as he was entitled under the law to do, and he still lives in the city of Washington in great comfort and elegance, highly respected by all who know him.
David C. Humphreys was born in the State of Tennessee, and received his early education in that State. Upon his arrival at matur-
732
HISTORY OF WASHINGTON.
ity, he pursued the study of law at Nashville, in the office of his uncle, Hon. T. J. Campbell, at one time a Representative in Congress from Tennessee, and the clerk of the House of Representatives from 1847 to 1850. Soon after the completion of his law studies, Mr. Hum- phreys emigrated to the State of Alabama, and commenced the practice of law in the town of Elyville, now Birmingham, in that State. He was appointed an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the Dis- triet of Columbia May 13, 1870, and held that position until his death, in June, 1879.
Arthur MeArthur was born in Glasgow, Scotland, in 1815, and is a descendant of noble ancestry. He came to this country when very young, and was educated at Amherst, Massachusetts, and at the Wes- leyan University, Middletown, Connecticut. He studied law in New York, and was admitted to the bar in 1840. IIe practiced in New York and in Springfield, Massachusetts, for nine years with marked success. In 1849 he removed to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, commencing the practice of the law in that city, and in a short time attained a high position at the bar. He was elected city attorney, and in 1855 was elected Lieutenant-Governor of the State, and by reason of some defect in the title of the Governor, he served as Governor of Wiscon- sin for a short time. While he was Lieutenant-Governor he was elected judge of the second judicial cirenit of Wisconsin, holding the position six years, and at the end of his term was reelected, thus serving two terms in that office with honor to himself and to the satisfaction of the people. In 1870 he was appointed. by President Grant associate justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which position he filled for seventeen years, thus rounding out a period of nearly thirty years upon the bench.
Judge MeArthur was recognized as an active, fearless, and con- sistent judge, and in the performance of the duties of his office was at all times impartial, kind, and considerate. It is owing to his industry that the cases decided in the courts of the District of Columbia are reported in such a way as to be available to the profession. For more than thirty years before Judge McArthur undertook to report the decisions of the courts, no publie report had been made of them, whereas now there is only an interval of twenty-two years, from 1841 to 1863, for which there are no reports. During his entire career Judge MeArthur has shown great interest in the charitable and educational institutions of the community, having been for many years president of the Humane Society, and having written a work entitled "Education in Relation to Manual Industry." IIe is also the
733
THE BENCH AND BAR.
author of the following works: "A Biography of the English Lan- guage from the Earliest Times, with Notices of its Authors, Ancient and Modern"; " An Historical Study of Mary Stuart, Commonly Called Mary, Queen of Scotts, Recounting the Principal Events of Her Life, and Illustrating the Injustice that has been done Her Memory and Character"; " A Series of Twelve Lectures on the Law as Applicable to a Business Edneation"; and a volume of " Addresses and Papers on Various Subjects." All of these are works of great research, and bear witness to the scholarship and industry of their author. Judge MeArthur still lives in the city of Washington, his remarkable vigor and active energy giving promise of many years of usefulness. His family consists of his wife and one son by a former marriage, and he is spending the evening of his days in great com- fort, surrounded by a host of friends and in the possession of the esteem of the entire community.
A. B. Hagner was born in the District of Columbia, being a son of Peter Hagner, the first Third Auditor of the Treasury, was gradu- ated from Princeton College in 1845, and was admitted to the bar in Maryland and settled at Annapolis. He was, on one occasion, judge advocate-general of a naval conrt-martial, and was a special judge in Prince George's County, Maryland, in 1864. He was twice a candidate for Congress, but failed to be elected. He was a Presidential elector in 1871, and in 1879 was appointed, and is to-day, one of the asso- ciate justices of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
Walter S. Cox, the son of a lawyer of distinguished ability, was born in Georgetown, and received his education at Georgetown Col- lege, taking a degree at that institution in 1843. Ile studied law at Harvard College, where he graduated in 1847, and was admitted to the bar of the District of Columbia the same year. lle commenced practice in the office of his father, and in 1848, his father having died, he succeeded to the entire practice. Ile was a very successful practitioner, being always distinguished by his great familiarity with the abstruse doctrines of the law relating to real estate. In 1879 he was appointed one of the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which position he still holds.
Charles P. James was appointed on the District Bench July 29, 1879, and holds a commission as one of the judges of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia dating from December 10, 1879, the date of the confirmation of his appointment by the United States Senate. Judge James, in addition to his duties upon the bench, was for four years a professor in the law school of Georgetown College,
734
HISTORY OF WASHINGTON.
performing the duties of that position with entire satisfaction. He was born in Ohio, graduated at Harvard University, and commenced the practice of the law in the city of Cincinnati. After several years of snecessful practice at the bar, he was appointed a judge of the Superior Court of Cincinnati and held that office for several years with great credit to himself and satisfaction to the community. In January, 1864, he came to the city of Washington and entered upon the practice of his profession in the city. He was successful as a practitioner, was engaged in several cases of importance, and was distinguished for those sterling qualities of patience and unassuming industry that are the best guaranties of professional distinction. When Congress determined to create a commission to make a complete revision of the statute law of the United States, Mr. James was appointed one of the commissioners. With that energy and strict attention to the appointed duty before him which has always distin- guished him, he entered upon the work of the office to which he was assigned, and the result shows how faithful and industrious he was.
Martin V. Montgomery was born in Eaton Rapids, Michigan, in 1840. He was in the Union Army in 1861, serving in the Second Michigan Cavalry. In 1862 he studied law, and in 1863 was elected clerk of his township. In 1866 he commenced the practice of the law, and was elected a representative in the legislature of his State in 1870. In 1874 he was an unsuccessful candidate for the attorney- generalship of the State, and in 1885 was appointed by President Cleveland Commissioner of Patents at Washington. In 1887 he was appointed one of the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. He has recently announced to the bar his intention to resign his position on the bench and return to the prac- tice of his profession. This step is sincerely and universally regretted by the bar and the citizens of the District, notwithstanding that it is considered wise on his part. Judge Montgomery will carry with him wherever he goes the kindest wishes of all who know him.
Andrew C. Bradley is a native of the District of Columbia, and belongs to the family of Bradleys which has been for so many years prominently identified with the history of the District. He is a descendant of Phineas Bradley, who was appointed Assistant Post- master-General in 1818. He was educated at the schools of the Dis- trict, studied law, was admitted to the bar, and for several years was a successful practitioner in its courts. While still a young man he was appointed by President Harrison an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which position he still retains.
735
THE BENCH AND BAR.
The Criminal Court of the District of Columbia was established in 1838, previons to which time criminal jurisdiction had been exercised by the Circuit Court. Thomas F. Mason was the first judge of the Criminal Court, holding the position, however, only a short time. James Dunlop was the second judge of this court, serving in this capacity from 1839 to 1845. He was succeeded by Thomas Hartley Crawford, who was born in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, in 1786, and graduated in 1804, studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1807. He served as a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania from 1829 to 1833. In 1836 he was a commissioner to investigate certain alleged frauds in the purchase of lands from the Creek Indians, and in 1838 was appointed by President Van Buren Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and took up his residence in Washington, holding the office for seven years. In 1845 he was appointed by President Polk judge of the Criminal Court of the District of Columbia, which position he held until his death. He was a man of distinguished ability, and during his occupancy of the position of judge of the Criminal Court of the District tried several of the most important cases that ever came before any criminal court in the United States. He was a patient, careful, consistent judge, and was distinguished for his devotion to the work imposed upon him by the position he held.
In addition to these two courts already mentioned, there was created by Congress the Police Court for the District of Columbia, consisting of one judge. This court, under the act creating it, was restricted in its jurisdiction, but was clothed with power to hear and determine a large number of cases that otherwise would have had to be tried in the Supreme Court of the District. Within the past few years the business of this court has increased to such an extent that Congress has authorized another judge, so that now there are two judges of this court. One of these judges is Thomas F. Miller, the other being Irving G. Kimball.
The courts of the District of Columbia have been the arena of so many remarkable trials that any history of these courts will be incomplete without some account of the great causes that have been considered and adjudicated before them. It will not be out of place, therefore, to give a brief account of the trials referred to as a part of this history.
Richard Lawrence made an attack, January 30, 1835, upon the life of Andrew Jackson, President of the United States, snapping two pistols at him, both of which failed to explode. President Jackson was at the time coming out of the rotunda of the Capitol, having attended
47
736
HISTORY OF WASHINGTON.
the funeral of Warren R. Davis, a member of Congress. Lawrence was arrested and put upon trial for his crime, the punishment for which could only extend to fine and imprisonment, if found guilty. An attempt was made before the grand jury to prove his insanity, to which the District attorney objected. The jury therefore asked for the opinion and instructions of the court, Judge Cranch being then chief justice of the Circuit Court. Judge Cranch delivered the opinion of the court on this question, to the effect that every person was pre- sumed in law to be sane until the contrary was proved, and hence it was unnecessary to summon witnesses to prove the sanity of the accused. The prisoner should wait for that until he should be put upon his trial. Quoting from Chief Justice MeKean, in Schaffer's case, he said: "If, then, you undertake to inquire, not only upon what ground the charge is made, but also upon what it is denied, you will in effect usurp the jurisdiction of the petit jury. You will supersede the legal authority of the court in judging of the competency and inadmissibility of witnesses, and having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined upon by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body than twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land," etc.
W. L. Brent & Son were the attorneys for the defense. February 5, 1835, they made application to the court for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus upon the ground of the prisoner's insanity, and on the 14th of the month the petition was refused, because the judge was of the opinion that a writ of habeas corpus was not to be granted upon application merely; it was not to be awarded without some reasonable ground shown by affidavit, and that if a prisoner were a dangerous maniac the only way in which he could insure the safety of the public was to remand him to the prison in which he was confined; and were that done, his imprisonment would be interminable; he would have no day in court, no means to compel a trial, etc.
The case came on for trial April 11, 1835, before Judge Cranch, of the Circuit Court, the indictment being for an assault upon Andrew Jackson, President of the United States, with intent to kill and murder him. It was shown to the satisfaction of the jury that the defendant was really insane, in that he supposed himself to be the King of England and also of the United States, the United States being in his view an appendage of England, and that Andrew Jackson was in his way in the enjoyment of his right; and that the assault upon the President was done under that delusion. The jury, after five minutes' deliberation, brought in the following verdict: "We find the prisoner
737
THE BENCH AND BAR.
not guilty, he being under the influence of insanity at the time he committed the act." The court remanded the prisoner, being of the opinion from the evidence that it would be extremely dangerous for him to be at large while under such mental illusion.
Richard H. White was accused of setting fire to the Treasury building March 30, 1833, and was indicted and tried for this crime March 30, 1836. Brent & Brent were his attorneys, the attorney for the prosecution being J. R. Key. White's attorneys moved that the indictment be quashed, on the ground that more than two years had elapsed between the burning of the Treasury and the finding of the indictment, and pleaded the act of Congress of April 30, 1790, to the effect that no person should be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense not capital, nor for any fine or forfeiture under any penal statute, unless the indictment or information for the same should be found or instituted within two years from the time of the committing of the offense or incurring the fine or forfeitnre; "Provided, that nothing in said statute contained should extend to any person fleeing from justice."
The court refused to quash the indictment, because, until the fact should appear upon the trial, it could not be certain that the person was not one fleeing from justice, and the case came before the court and jury for trial.
After a pretty full hearing of the case, the jury retired on Saturday, December 24, 1836, and were kept in their room until the 27th, when they were discharged because they could not agree.
A second trial commenced on January 6, 1837, and the case was given to the jury on the 13th of that month. The verdict this time was that the defendant was guilty of burning the Treasury, but that he was acquitted on the plea of limitation. This not being a formal verdict, it was agreed that the District attorney and the counsel for the defense should each submit to the jury such form of verdict as they supposed would be conformable to the intention of the jury. This was done, and the jury then returned their verdict in the following form: "We, the jury, are of the opinion that the offense as charged was committed by the prisoner, and we find him not guilty upon the plea of limitations, more than two years having elapsed from the com- mitting of the offense to the finding of the indictment."
J. R. Key, for the United States, then moved for a venire de novo, which, after argument, was awarded by Chief Justice Cranch.
The cause then came up for trial at the March term, 1837, with the same counsel as before. The jury, on April 29, failed to agree
738
HISTORY OF WASHINGTON.
and were discharged. At the November term, 1837, the court quashed the indictment. Mr. Key, for the United States, sent up another indictment to the grand jury, the prisoner not being discharged, but being permitted to go at large on the old recognizance. The case was continued until the next term, when it was argued by Key for the United States, and by the Messrs. Brent for the defense, from the 8th to the 13th of June, and on the 14th the jury gave the following verdict: "We find for the defendant on the plea of limitations, not guilty," and he was discharged.
The Gardiner case, as it is called, was in substance as follows: It is well known that by the treaty of Gaudalupe Hidalgo a board of commissioners was provided for which had for its duty the adjudica- tion of claims of citizens of the United States against Mexico. Dr. George A. Gardiner brought a claim against the United States on the ground that he had purchased a valuable mine in the State of San Luis Potosi, paying therefor $330,392, which he was working, and making in gross $20,000 per month, his expenses being from $10,000 to $12,000 per month, and that on the 21st of October, 1846, he was ordered out of Mexico by the Mexican authorities, and thus the value of his property, which he placed at $500,000, was entirely destroyed. He presented evidence to the board of commissioners in the shape of authenticated documents showing his ownership of the mines, and in November, 1850, presented additional testimony at the request of the board, this additional testimony consisting of a copy of his mining title taken from the book of registry of mines in the office of the prefect of Rio Verde, sustained by affidavits.
It was subsequently discovered that all of his alleged testimony was manufactured, and he was indicted for perjury on July 19, 1851. Dr. Gardiner fled to England, but returned, in accordance with an arrangement that he should be admitted to bail in the sum of $20,000, this money to be a part of that which he had obtained from the Government on his alleged title to money from the Government on his claim. The indictment was in accordance with an act of Congress passed March 1, 1823, section 3 of that act being as follows:
"That if any person shall swear or affirm falsely touching the expenditure of publie money, or in support of any claim against the United States, he or she shall, upon conviction therefor, suffer as for wilful and corrupt perjury."
The United States District attorney at that time was Philip R. Feudall, and in the prosecution he was assisted by Henry May. The attorneys for the defense were Joseph H. Bradley and J. M. Carlisle.
739
THE BENCH AND BAR.
The District attorney said that the evidence presented was designed to establish four points:
1. That Dr. Gardiner had large mines.
2. That he was personally present at his alleged mines in Lagu- nillas through the term of his mining operations.
3. That the alleged mines existed, and were of great value.
4. That he was the owner of these mines.
And that if the falsity of any one of these propositions was proven, then the defendant was guilty. The District attorney then went on to prove that every one of the four propositions was false.
The case or trial commenced on March 11, 1853, and was given to the jury May 20, following. The jury came into court on the 28th of the month unable to agree, and were discharged.
The original award to Dr. Gardiner was $428,000. Gardiner paid his counsel one-fourth of this sum, and sold one-fourth for $22,000. Thus $214,000 of the award remained, together with the $22,000 received for one-fourth, making in all $236,000, as the net amount received by Dr. Gardiner. The Government attached $220,000 or $230,000 of this amount, leaving him only $16,000 or $6,000 as his share, according to which amount the Government attached.
After the disagreement of the jury, a new trial was ordered and a commission appointed to visit Mexico. Henry May was placed at the head of the commission, and nearly a year elapsed before the second trial commenced. During the progress of the second trial, and just before the cross-examination of J. Charles Gardiner, or I. Carlos Gardiner, as he was called, began, Henry May left the court room and soon returned with a tin box, and, opening it, produced a letter from I. Carlos Gardiner to his brother, George A. Gardiner, containing the most conclusive evidence of the fraud. The witness, though admitting that the handwriting looked like his, would not admit that it was his. Mr. May then proceeded to unfold the most extraordinary story of fraud, forgery, and perjury that was ever heard in any court, astonishing every one who heard it, and at the same time also completely establishing the guilt of the aceused. The case being given to the jury, they soon returned with a verdict of "Guilty." Dr. Gardiner thereupon took something out of his vest pocket, put it in his mouth, and asked for a drink of water, and upon reaching the rail, fell in a fit at the entrance. While stoutly denying that he had taken poison, he died in about an hour's time. This aet of suicide was in accord with the determination frequently expressed on his part never to suffer any sentence the court might pronounce.
740
HISTORY OF WASHINGTON.
Philemon T. Herbert, Representative in Congress from California, shot and killed Thomas Keating, a waiter in Willard's Hotel, May 8, 1856. Mr. Herbert was arrested and placed in jail. Philip Barton Key was District attorney at the time, and the counsel for the prisoner were Joseph II. Bradley, Hon. John B. Weller, Hon. Percy Walker, and Hon. Philip Phillips. His counsel immediately procured a writ of habeas corpus, and brought the prisoner before Judge Crawford on Sat- urday, the judge withholding his decision as to the granting of the writ until Monday, when he decided "that a conviction for murder should not take place," and that the prisoner should be admitted to bail in the sum of $10,000 to answer to a charge of manslaughter. July 2, the grand jury made a presentment for murder against the accused, and he was forthwith arrested and placed in jail, the trial being set for July 9. The trial commenced on the 10th, with Bradley and Walker, as- sisted by Daniel Ratcliffe, for the defense. After a careful trial the jury failed to agree, and a new trial was had, occupying from the 17th to the 25th of that month. In this second trial the prosecution was assisted by William P. Preston, of Baltimore, the counsel for the de- fense being the same as before. The evidence showed that Herbert came into the dining-room of the hotel late, and in a rough manner ordered a servant to get his breakfast, which order was executed only in part; and that he thereupon ordered Keating to assist the other waiter in getting his breakfast, which Keating refused to do, as one waiter was enough. This made Herbert very angry, and he drew his pistol and advanced upon Keating with the apparent intention of shooting him, but withdrew without doing so. Immediately after, a quarrel arose over the matter, and a number of persons made an attack upon Herbert, who then fired, killing Keating. The instruc- tions to the jury were to this effect: That "if the jury believed from the evidence that at the time the pistol was fired Herbert was being pressed by superior numbers, and was in danger of death or of serious bodily harm, from which he could not safely escape, he was justified in taking life." The jury retired at 8:00 P. M., and in an hour returned with a verdict of acquittal.
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.