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 77
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
February 27, 1859, Philip Barton Key, United States District attorney for the District of Columbia, was shot by the Hon. Daniel E. Siekles, a Representative in Congress from New York City, at the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and Lafayette Square. Sickles charged a criminal intimacy between Key and his wife, Mrs. Sickles, and meet- ing Key at the place indicated, in broad day, and without warning to Key, shot and killed him. Sickles was immediately committed to
741
THE BENCH AND BAR.
prison to await the action of the grand jury. On the 7th of March the death of Key was announced to the Criminal Court, of which Thomas H. Crawford was judge, by Robert Ould, who had been appointed by the President to succeed Key as attorney for the District. On March 24, 1859, the indictment was presented to the court, it being for murder. The attorneys for Mr. Sickles were E. M. Stanton, since Secretary of War, Chilton & Magruder, and Daniel Ratcliffe. The trial was set for Monday, April 4, and commenced that day, the prosecution being assisted by J. M. Carlisle. After a trial lasting twenty days, closing April 26, the jury, after being out one hour and ten minutes, brought in a verdict of "Not guilty." Sickles afterward became distinguished as an officer of the army, and held many places of trust and honor. He still lives, and is highly esteemed by those who know him best.
Every incident connected with the assassination of President Lin- coln has passed into history, and has become familiar to every American citizen. John H. Surratt was charged with being an accomplice of Booth, the assassin, and an aider and abetter in his infamous crime. It was known that he had been in the city during all the day of the murder; that the conspiracy, of which the crime was the result, was concocted in the house of Mrs. Surratt, his mother; and that he, John H. Surratt, was with Booth up to the very moment before the fatal shot. Again, it appeared that immediately after the murder of the President, Surratt had fled the city. He was traced to Canada, and again to Italy, where he was found enlisted among the soldiers of the Pope. Here he was arrested, but escaped to Egypt; was again arrested, finally brought to this country, and an indictment for mur- der was found against him by the grand jury for the District of Columbia. On the 10th of June, 1867, his trial commenced before the Criminal Court (the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in special term as a criminal court) of the District of Columbia, with Justice George P. Fisher presiding. The United States was repre- sented by E. C. Cunington, the District attorney, and Nathaniel P. Wilson, his assistant, and associate counsel Messrs. Edwards Pierrepont and A. G. Riddle, and the prisoner by Joseph II. Bradley, R. T. Mer- rick, and Joseph II. Bradley, Jr. A jury was finally obtained on the 18th of June, 1867, and the trial was proceeded with. A great many witnesses were examined on both sides, and many interesting questions were discussed. On Wednesday, August 7, 1867, the case was given to the jury, and on Saturday, August 10, the jury, being unable to agree upon a verdict, were discharged.
742
HISTORY OF WASHINGTON.
Hallet Kilbourn, a gentleman engaged in business in the city of Washington, was submitted to an experience in the courts so remark- able as to make his case one of the most noted in our judicial history.
In the month of January, 1876, a committee was appointed by the House of Representatives to investigate certain matters growing out of the failure of Jay Cooke & Company, in which it was alleged that Jay Cooke, McCulloch, & Company, of London, were indebted to the country on account of some advances made by the Secretary of the Navy just prior to their failure. It was alleged by the committee that Kilbourn & Latta, real-estate brokers of Washington, had invested money for Jay Cooke & Company and others in real estate, in Wash- ington, in what was designated as the "real - estate pool," and the committee subpoenaed Mr. Hallet Kilbourn, of that firm, to come before it, and bring with him the books and papers of that firm for the inspection of the committee, and to testify in relation to the same. Mr. Kilbourn appeared before the committee, but declined to testify or produce the books and papers of the firm for the committee's inspee- tion, asserting under oath that the business of their firm was in no way connected with the Government; that their transactions with Jay Cooke & Company had been fully settled, and maintaining that the committee had no right to investigate and publish their private busi- ness affairs to the world.
The committee thereupon reported Mr. Kilbourn to the House as in contempt, and on the 14th of March, 1876, the House ordered the sergeant-at-arms, John G. Thompson, to arrest and bring him before the bar of the House. This order was promptly executed, and in response to the Speaker, asking him if he still declined to comply with the commands of the committee, Mr. Kilbourn answered affirma- tively, whereupon the House passed a resolution directing the ser- geant-at-arms to confine Mr. Kilbourn in the common jail of the District of Columbia until he should purge himself of contempt by agreeing to comply with the demands of the investigating committee.
Mr. Kilbourn remained in jail five weeks, when he was brought before Chief Justice Cartter, of the District Court, on a writ of habeas corpus ( the sergeant-at-arms having been directed by the House, after three days' discussion in that body, by a vote of 165 to 75, to obey the writ), and after several days' argument by attorneys for the Gov- ernment and Mr. Kilbourn, he was discharged from custody by the order of the Chief Justice, April 28.
In August, 1876, Mr. Kilbourn brought suit against Sergeant-at-
743
THE BENCH AND BAR.
arms Thompson and others for false imprisonment. A majority of the court of the District in March, 1877, decided against Mr. Kil- bourn's right of action, from which decision he appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Supreme Court, in January, 1881, by a unanimous opinion, decided that the action of the House of Representatives, in ordering the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Kilbourn, was without law, and void, and sustained his action against Sergeant-at-arms Thompson, and remanded the case back to the court of the District for trial by jury to assess the amount of damages.
The first jury trial was had in April, 1882, before Judge Me- Arthur, in which a verdict of $100,000 was rendered, which was set aside by the judge as excessive.
The second jury trial took place in November, 1883, before Judge Cox, the jury returning a verdict of $60,000 damages, which the judge set aside as excessive.
The third jury trial was held in March, 1884, before Judge Hag- ner, the jury rendering a verdict for $37,500 damages, which the judge reduced to $20,000, and this latter sum, with interest, was appropriated by Congress on March 4, 1885.
The attorneys who at different periods represented the Govern- ment in this long contested case were S. S. Shellabarger, Robert I. Christy, Judge William Merrick, W. H. Trescott, HI. W. Garnett, Hon. Frank Hurd, Walter E. Smith, District Attorney Corkhill and Assistant Coyle, District Attorney Worthington, and Shellabarger & Wilson.
Those appearing for Mr. Kilbourn were Judge Jeremiah S. Black, Matthew II. Carpenter, General N. L. Jeffries, IIon. D. W. Voorhees, Enoch Totten, C. A. Eldridge, and W. D. Davidge.
On Saturday, July 2, 1881, as President Garfield was passing through the ladies' room of the Baltimore and Potomac Depot, at the corner of B and Sixth streets, in Washington City, Charles J. Guiteau, without provocation of any kind, fired two shots at him from a heavy revolver, the last proving fatal. The President lingered in great suffering, and died September 19, 1881. October 8, the grand jury found a true bill against Guiteau for the murder of James A. Garfield, President of the United States, and on the 11th of the month a copy of the indictment was served upon him. On the 14th of October Guitean was brought into court and arraigned for the murder of the President, and pleaded not guilty, his defense being threefold:
1. Insanity, in that it was God's act, and not his; the divine
744
HISTORY OF WASHINGTON.
pressure on him to remove the President being so great that it destroyed his free agency, and therefore he was not legally respons- ible for his act.
2. The President died from malpractice. If he had been well treated, he would have recovered.
3. The President died in New Jersey, beyond the jurisdiction of the court. The malpractice and the President's death in New Jersey were special providences, and he was bound to avail himself of them in justice to the Lord and himself.
The trial commenced November 14, 1881, the District attorney, Hon. George B. Corkhill, Judge Porter of New York, and Mr. Walter D. Davidge of Washington representing the Government in the pros- ecution; Mr. Leigh Robinson,1 of Washington, assigned by the court, and George Scoville and Charles Reed, of Chicago, being the counsel for the defense; Judge Walter S. Cox, of Washington, upon the bench. The defense of the prisoner was that he was insane, he contending that if he had shot the President on his own personal account, no punishment could be too severe, or could come too quickly; but that he was acting as the agent of the Deity, which put an entirely different construction upon the matter, and that he wished to put to the court, to the jury, and to the opposing counsel this condi- tion of things. That was the idea he wanted them to entertain, and not to settle down on the cold-blooded idea that it was murder, because he never had the first conception of murder in the matter. He had killed the President because he had proved a traitor to the men that had made him President, etc.
After a long trial, the incidents of which are most remarkable and well known, on January 20, 1882, Mr. Scoville having finished his speech, which had consumed five days, the case went to the jury, who in a short time returned with a verdict of "Guilty, as charged in the indictment." A new trial was refused, and the prisoner was sentenced to be hanged June 30, 1882.
The Star Route cases, as they are called, were in many respects more worthy of notice than any that have ever taken place in the courts of our country. There was, in fact, but one case, except that there were a number of defendants, the charges against whom were several and distinct in their character, involving the consideration of different facts and requiring different verdicts, but they all proceeded at one time and were submitted to and decided by one jury.
1 Mr. Robinson, finding it impossible to attend to the case, withdrew almost at the outset of the trial.
745
THE BENCH AND BAR.
George Bliss, Esq., in his opening address to the jury, speaking of the importance of the case, uses the following language:
"In the view of the Government, by the fraudulent action of the defendants, more than $600,000 have been fraudulently taken from the treasury of the United States without any adequate return being made for it, and without any necessity for its being so taken on public grounds. It [ the case] is important, too, from the former position of the parties involved. One of the parties was formerly Second Assistant Postmaster-General of the United States, and as such, was by virtue of his office charged with the reputation, and the manage- ment, and the control of the entire mail service of the United States so far as it relates to the transportation of the mails, and having under his care practically the disbursement of, I think, about $16,- 000,000 a year. Another of the defendants was an Ex-United States Senator from the State of Arkansas."
Mr. Bliss, speaking further, and by way of explaining the term "star route," says:
"Section 3949 of the Revised Statutes provides that 'all contracts for carrying the mail shall be in the name of the United States,' and shall be awarded to the lowest bidder tendering sufficient guaranty for faithful performances, without other reference to the mode of trans- portation than may be necessary to provide for the due celerity, cer- tainty, and security thereof.
"And here let me say, gentlemen, you hear a great deal of star route prosecution and of star routes. It is in this section, which is a reenactment of an act passed in 1845, that that phraseology has its origin. The phrase as used was 'celerity, certainty, and security.' This statute made a change from a practice which prevailed before, authorizing regard to be had to the conveyances in which the mails were to be transported, etc., and it declared that the only element was celerity, certainty, and security, and on the post-office records, when they came to designate the routes under the statute, they put three stars against them instead of writing out the orders, as repre- senting the words ' celerity, certainty, and security.' That is the origin of the phrase 'star routes,' as I understand it."
In these cases the defendants were John W. Dorsey, John R. Miner, John M. Peck, Stephen W. Dorsey, Harvey M. Vaile, Mont- fort C. Reredell, Thomas J. Bradley, and William H. Turner. The first proceeding in the case was by information which was quashed by the court. Indictments were then found against the several de- fendants for conspiracy to defraud the Government in certain mail
746
HISTORY OF WASHINGTON.
contracts. The United States was represented by George B. Cork- hill, United States attorney for the District of Columbia, who had associated with him George Bliss, of New York, R. T. Merrick, and W. W. Ker. The defense had for their counsel Messrs. Shellabarger & Wilson, Jeff Chandler, Enoch Totten, A. B. Williams, Robert G. Ingersoll, Judge Carpenter, C. C. Cole, Mr. Wiltshire, John McSweeney, L. G. Hline, S. S. Henkle, and Walter D. Davidge. The first trial commenced June 1, 1882, Mr. Justice Wylie presiding, and terminated September 11, 1882. The jury by their verdict found M. C. Reredell and John R. Miner guilty, John M. Peek and Wil- liam H. Turner not guilty, and as to J. W. and S. W. Dorsey, Harvey M. Vaile, and Thomas II. Brady they could not agree. The case was tried again by the same justice, commencing December 7, 1882, the same counsel appearing, with one or two exceptions, and a verdict was rendered June 14, 1883, by which all the defendants were acquitted.
It will appear from a glance at the history of the courts of the District of Columbia that, while those courts have been, during the whole period of that history, presided over by judges eminent for their ability, fidelity, and learning, the lawyers who have practiced therein, and have formed the bar of those courts, have been equally distin- guished for that talent and industry at all times so essential as an aid to the courts. The bar of the District of Columbia (and in this con- nection reference is made to the local bar, and not to that large number of eminent lawyers who come to the courts of the District in special cases ) has always been distinguished for the high character and great learning of the men who composed it. It will not be amiss to mention a few of the men who, in past times, have admittedly held the highest places at the District bar, and who have illustrated the character here- tofore claimed for that bar. In making this mention, which necessarily must be confined to a comparative few, no discrimination against any whose names are omitted is intended, and there can be no room for the feeling that anyone has been forgotten. The necessity of the case and the need of brevity in the mention made of men who, if prop- erly treated, were worthy each of a full biography must be carefully considered and acknowledged.
Preeminent among the members of the early bar, and unequaled throughout its whole history, was Walter Jones. While he was in fact a member of the local bar of the District, he ranked among the greatest lawyers in the whole country and was the peer of any who adorned the day in which he lived, among them Binney, Sargeant, Pinckney, Wirt, Taney, Webster, and Reverdy Johnson. Except that
747
THE BENCH AND BAR.
he was born in Virginia and secured his education in that State, com- meneed the practice of law in Alexandria, and from there came to the city of Washington, the writer knows very little concerning the early life of the great lawyer. He was an omnivorous reader, and had the faculty of so assimilating what he read that his aequirements were always at his command and ever ready for use. In every branch of the profession he was most accomplished. So remarkable was his knowledge of the rules of common law pleading that the papers prepared by him in some of the cases in which he was engaged as counsel are bodily copied into reports as examples of excellence. Un- equaled in the close reasoning which distinguished his argument at the bar, he was at the same time so powerful in his use of facts as to be a most formidable adversary before a jury, and in his examination of witnesses his knowledge of men was manifested in a manner most, wonderful. Somehow he managed to throw an interest about the ease which he tried most peculiar in its kind and not always observ- able. Perhaps his most distinguishing characteristic was his power of statement. It could be said of him, as it has been said of other great lawyers, that his statement of a case was worth the argument of twenty other men. Every lawyer knows how to appreciate and value the possessor of this power to state a case so clearly.
The only public office he is known to have held was that of general in the militia of the District of Columbia, and he was always addressed as General Jones. Like many other men of his character, he lacked the faculty of taking care of the money that he made by his profes- sional labors, and though his fees must have been at times quite large, he lived and died comparatively poor. Such a man could not fail to be eccentric, and this, combined with his constant occupation in the great cases in which he was engaged, made him somewhat of a recluse and kept him away from familiar intercourse with his fellow-men. Hle was so warmly admired and esteemed, however, that his memory is cherished by all who knew him with a feeling akin to affection.
Francis S. Key, whose fame would seem to rest most upon his authorship of the famous patriotic song so dear to every American heart, was nevertheless a very distinguished lawyer, and for many years held the very highest positions at the bar of the District of Columbia. He was a man of great brilliancy of intellect, and was a ready and powerful debater. For many years he was the attorney for the United States for the District of Columbia, and as such was engaged in several cases of the greatest importance. President Jack- son manifested for him at all times the sincerest respect and esteem, and
748
HISTORY OF WASHINGTON.
gave freely to him of his confidence and friendship. After living for many years in the District, he removed to Baltimore, but while he became a leading member of the Maryland bar, he gained his earliest laurels at the bar of the District of Columbia, where he was long and well remembered.
William L. Brent was born in Maryland, from which State he emigrated to Louisiana, and from there was sent to the Congress of the United States, serving in the House of Representatives from 1823 to 1829. At the end of his service in Congress he settled in the city of Washington, and commenced the practice of the law. The records of the the courts and the reports of the cases tried before them show that his practice was extensive and important. At one time his name appeared in almost every case of importance, and it is concluded that he bore himself so as to merit the favor shown him.
It is impossible in the brief space allotted in this work to do justice to the abilities, character, and acquirements of such a man as Philip Richard Fendall. He was born in Alexandria, Virginia, in 1794, after the cession of the part of the State in which that city was situated to the General Government for the purposes of the Capital City, and so he can be well considered a native of the District of Columbia. In 1815 he graduated at Princeton, in New Jersey, and in 1820 was admitted to the bar of Alexandria, and a few years later came to the city of Washington to live. Mr. Fendall, from the beginning of his career, was distinguished for that intellectual excellence which comes from faithful mental training and culture. No man was more exact in his knowledge, more careful and reliable in his statement about every subject to which he addressed himself. He first attracted atten- tion by his writings on literary and political topics, and several of his essays were recognized as deserving of great distinction for the beauty of the style in which they were clothed and the depth of thought and power of reason which they displayed.
But though Mr. Fendall, through his long life, always manifested a love for the charms of literary culture, he was seriously devoted to the sterner duties of his profession with his whole mind and soul. Professional distinction came more slowly, but it came all the more truly. Ile was a painstaking, most careful, laborious, and industrious lawyer, and it was not long before those who knew how to value such qualities sought his counsel and professional assistance. We do not mean to dwell upon the professional career of Mr. Fendall. The best evidence of his success as a lawyer is to be found in the fact that he filled the office of United States attorney for the District of
749
THE BENCH AND BAR.
Columbia from 1841 to 1845, and again from 1849 to 1853, and that during the period in which he held that office he prosecuted success- fully some of the most important cases that ever came before the courts of the United States. It was somewhat remarkable that in all and through all the active scenes of his professional career Mr. Fendall should have preserved his scholarly character as completely as he did. In all of his arguments to the court, in all of his speeches to the jury, this peculiar characteristic was ever a striking feature, and he was at all times remarkable not only for the beauty and completeness of the style of his efforts, but for the charm of his manner as an orator. After a most honorable career, he died in 1868. The city manifested its grief for his loss in a pronounced demonstration, and the courts and the bar paid his memory the fullest honors. He was preeminently devoted to his family, some of whom survive to-day, and it is manifest that his talents, his excellencies, and his virtues have been inherited by those who are now treading in his footsteps.
Richard S. Coxe, who came to the city of Washington from the State of New Jersey, brought with him from that State a reputation for considerable eminence already acquired. He had reported some of the decisions of the courts of that State, and had compiled and published a general digest, which was recognized as authority of the very highest character. Nothing more was wanted than these achieve- ments to show that he was thoroughly equipped for the work of an active practitioner of the profession of his choice. But his studies were not confined to the law; he had devoted himself so assiduously to the study of the literature of our language that he had become the anthor of a work called " A Dictionary of the English Language, by an American Gentleman," which at the time of its publication, and long afterward, was esteemed authority of the very highest character. Those who remember him, and who associated with him in his. best days, cannot fail to recall his wonderful familiarity with the writings of the best of our English classics. But these were merely accomplish- ments; the reputation of Mr. Coxe was based upon more substantial acquirements. No one excelled him in his excellence as a lawyer in any way, and the best proof of this is to be found in the fact that it was said of him, at one time, that he was employed in more cases upon the docket of the Supreme Court of the United States than any other lawyer in the United States. It was in such a forum as the Supreme Court that his talents were best exhibited and appreciated. The very facility which his early training had given him in the use of the English language, served him a great purpose in the court, and his
750
HISTORY OF WASHINGTON.
arguments gained new strength from the fact that they were always clothed in such pure and beautiful English. Through a long life Mr. Coxe was always distinguished as a lawyer, and died in Wash- ington greatly esteemed and respected.
For nearly fifty years Joseph H. Bradley was engaged in the active practice of law in the courts of the District of Columbia, and was most of that time admittedly one of the leading members of the bar. It would have been difficult at any time during his attention to active practice to have found anywhere in the country a better trial lawyer than Mr. Bradley. What distinguished Mr. Bradley in his practice was his entire devotion to the interest of the client whose cause he undertook. Everything else was forgotten by him for the time being, and every energy, talent, and capacity he possessed were devoted to the matter in hand. He worked and toiled early and late for his client; he left nothing undone that could be done in his cause; no expedient was left untried. Indeed, so earnest was he always that, if need be, he was ready to make his client's case his own personal quarrel, and it took very little to make him fight for him, if need be.
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.