USA > Indiana > A biographical history of eminent and self-made men of the state of Indiana : with many portrait-illustrations on steel, engraved expressly for this work, Volume I > Part 102
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 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103 | Part 104 | Part 105 | Part 106 | Part 107 | Part 108 | Part 109 | Part 110 | Part 111 | Part 112 | Part 113 | Part 114 | Part 115 | Part 116 | Part 117 | Part 118 | Part 119 | Part 120 | Part 121 | Part 122
c-4
50
REPRESENTATIVE MEN OF INDIANA.
[7th Dist.
Mr. Gordon. Nevertheless, he did not allow it to ab- [ hundred and fifty dollars. The damage measures the sorb his entire attention or energies as a member of the House. He had long cherished a desire to secure, if possible, an entire change in our system of penal law, which he regarded, and still holds to be, in its funda-
mental principles and practice, a mere abuse. He brought forward a resolution which embodied the out- lines of a substitute for it. In this resolution he re- jected, as unfounded in justice, and therefore subver- sive of every just idea of a state, the notion of punish- ment, maintaining that in no relation whatever has man a right to inflict punishment upon man for crimes- that is, so much evil in suffering for so much evil done ; and that its infliction becomes, in almost every instance, an insurmountable obstacle to the reformation of those who suffer it, and tends to the constant reproduction and increase of the offenses at the suppression of which it is aimed. He maintained, on the contrary, that the function of the state, towards those regarded and treated as criminals, is: 1. To prevent their violation of its laws by the infliction of injuries upon others; and, 2. When such prevention has not been accomplished in any case, to employ such means as may best prevent a repetition of like injuries from the same person; and secure to the person injured, as nearly as possible, com- pensation for the wrong done him. The prevention of future injury by one who has already wronged another would, he contended, require the imprisonment of the offender until his reformation should remove all reason- able grounds to apprehend further danger from any law- less act of his. The compensation to the injured party for the damage resulting from the injury, he insisted, should be made the measure of all further claim upon the offender. Such compensation is simply just, and in- volves no element of punishment whatever. The mag- nitude of the wrong done would thus, in every case, be measured by the damages resulting from it, and the claim of the state upon the wrong-doer ought to cease whenever compensation to the injured party was made. This compensation excludes from the code the inflic- tion of death, except under circumstances which are not compatible with established civil society and gov- ernment. He illustrated the proposed system thus: Suppose A steals B's horse, and succeeds in taking him away. B loses the value of the horse, say one hundred dollars, by the theft. The original injury, thus inflicted, gives B the right, either with or without the aid of the state, to pursue and arrest A, and, if possible, to recover possession of his horse. Suppose he succeeds so far as to arrest A, but does not regain pos- session of his horse, he will then have lost by A's wrongful act the value of his horse, and such expense 'in time and money as the pursuit and capture of the thief has cost him, say fifty dollars. The injury done by A to B has thus damaged him in the sum of one
wrong, as well as the right of the state to enforce com- pensation. But the thief, in addition to this damage, has created a sense of insecurity in society by his wrongful act, which is felt even before the conditions necessary to estimate the amount of B's damage can be arrived at; and this result of the offense may remain long after B's damage has been ascertained and com- pensated. Now, against this sense of insecurity thus resulting the state is bound to protect society. In the nature of the case, this right of the state in the offender attaches before, and may survive the consideration of, the question of damage resulting from the private in- jury. A, upon his arrest, is therefore in the hands of the state to respond to both these demands, and must remain a prisoner until both are answered. But a trial is necessary in order that it may be ascertained whether he has really been guilty of any wrong at all, and, if he shall be found guilty, what may be the amount of the damages so resulting from his wrongful act. While awaiting this trial, before any steps can be taken by him to lessen the obligation supposed to have been contracted by his injurious act, there will be necessarily incurred still other expenses for his board and lodging. Let it be supposed that these additional expenses amount to fifty dollars. Then, up to the date of his trial and judgment, he will, if found guilty, owe in all the sum of two hundred dollars. To these must be added the costs of trial, which may amount to fifty dollars more. So let the judgment go against him for the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars in favor of those who may be entitled to receive it. At the same time let it be ad- judged that he be imprisoned in one of the state-prisons until the net proceeds of his labor shall pay the debt. And he must understand that, although he may be re- leased from confinement when he shall thus have satis- fied the judgment against him, yet such release shall depend upon the fact whether he shall at that time be able to prove that he is a reformed man, of habits of industry and honesty so well established as to make it safe to restore him to liberty. If he can not show that he is thus reformed, and so fit to be intrusted with freedom, he must still remain a prisoner; no longer, however, with reference to the private obligations re- sulting from his wrongful act, but merely with a view to the protection of society and his own reformation. The proceeds of his labor will, therefore, be his own, but may be applied to support his family if he have one. In order to determine whether his private obliga- tion has been paid, and his moral character established, the plan embraced the creation of a court to sit at the prison to hear and determine all such questions. It was maintained that the principle involved in this illus- tration might be applied to all acts now regarded and punished as crimes, and that the analogue of the whole
51
REPRESENTATIVE MEN OF INDIANA.
7th Dist.]
proceedings already exists, though not in a single action, in actions civil and criminal already established by law. One great advantage of such a system, it was con- tended, would be the substitution of voluntary for in- voluntary labor whenever that might be possible, and so afford the best condition for the establishment of habits of industry and a reformed life. Without such habits it is impossible to reform any offender, for the essential conditions of an upright life in their absence can not exist. It was urged that the proposed system would secure the best results of prison labor, and be sure to make our prisons self-supporting. It would keep constantly before the offender's mind the justice of his sentence, and so teach him, if that may be possible, that wrong-doing is an expensive luxury, oppressing and humiliating him who falls into it. In murder, the of- fender should be treated as having so far committed himself against society as never again to be intrusted with the liberty of repeating it. But while the state maintained its right to perpetually detain him in cus- tody, for the safety of society, no argument could be urged against a judgment compelling him to labor for the support of those dependent upon the exertions of his victim. Such a judgment would be simply just. A man guilty of treason, or other crime against the pub- lic, involving no private injury, ought to labor for the state ; and be restrained of his liberty, in case of treason, during his natural life; and, in lesser offenses, until, as in other cases, the pecuniary injury resulting from the offense should be compensated, and his moral char- acter established. There should exist no power to par- don the imprisonment in any case. Indeed, the ends to be attained by means of the imprisonment would render the principle of pardon wholly inapplicable. On the other hand, the individual injured by any crime, might at any time, after sentence had been passed, pardon the injury and resulting damages, after which the net proceeds of the offender's labor should inure to his own benefit, or that of his family, as in cases when the private damages had been paid. Such a pardon would be a personal charity, involving the principle of forgiveness of injuries, and would, if any thing could, touch the heart of the offender, and lead him to better thoughts and a higher life. It is the " goodness of God that leadeth men to repentance." Shall not the mercy and charity of men help in the same direction ? Of course this plan did not command a majority in the House of Representatives. It was defeated. In 1858 Mr. Gordon was elected again to the House, and re- newed the proposition, but with similar results. He succeeded, however, in securing the appointment of a standing committee, with instructions to inquire touch- ing the proposed system, and the reasons for and against its adoption, and to report the result to the next Gen- eral Assembly. This committee, owing to the troubled
state of the country, never met; and the plan, so far as legislation in the state was concerned, died with it. It was not, however, abandoned, but was presented to the National Congress on Penitentiary and Reformatory Dis- cipline, which convened at Cincinnati, Ohio, in October, 1870, in an essay prepared by Mr. Gordon, and read be- fore that body by the Hon. Barnabas C. Hobbs. Owing to its author's views of its incompleteness, the essay was withdrawn, and does not appear among the published proceedings of the congress. The proposed system is still maintained by him, and not without hope of its ultimate adoption, for some of the ablest men of the state are now its earnest advocates. When the General Assembly met in special session, in November, 1858, under the Governor's proclamation, Mr. Gordon was chosen speaker of the House. He did not, however, confine his attention or labors to the duties of that po- sition, but gave himself up entirely to the work of in- vestigating abuses, and providing by suitable legislation against the possibility of their recurrence. In the work of investigation he was the real leader, while in the still greater work of preparing measures that should prevent future abuses in administration, he earnestly co-operated with Messrs. D. C. Branham, Hamilton Smith, James Harney, John L. Mansfield, and others, who were their authors, and are entitled to the honors of the pre-eminent services which they thereby rendered the state. At the distance of more than twenty years, it seems strange that measures which have entirely prevented the evils at which they were aimed, and which still bear the seal of public approval, should ever have encountered serious opposition; but so it was, that at the time of their adoption a great party, with the Governor at its head, was almost unanimously opposed to them. Messrs. Smith and Harney should always be remembered as honorable exceptions, preferring, as they did, public welfare to party dictation and harmony. In the earnest advocacy of these measures Mr. Gordon took a leading part. He was re-elected speaker at the commencement of the regular session by an increased majority, although he lost the votes of two of his own party, who opposed him from private pique. At the close of the session, Mr. Gordon, in his valedictory address to the House, reviewed the labors of the General Assembly, and did not fail to point out what he regarded as well done or iil done, and to expose the means by which some of its wisest measures and best efforts had been defeated. And now, looking back over the political contest of 1860, it may be safely said that the Republican party owed its success in the state that year quite as much to the investigations thus made, and the measures thus passed to secure honesty in public administration, as to all other causes. In 1859 the office of Common Pleas Judge of his district became vacant by the death of Hon. David Wallace, and very many of his friends of
52
REPRESENTATIVE MEN OF INDIANA.
[7th Dist.
the bar of both parties united in a request that he should become a candidate for the position. At first he consented, but soon withdrew upon finding that there were men in his party who would not suffer even the election of a judge without a partisan conflict. As this became manifest, he withdrew, giving his reasons for so doing in a letter of which he may always be proud, in which he said :
"I retire from this contest, therefore, for no other reason than because it is a contest; for both my friends and my own judgment assure me that I could succeed. But success to me would not compensate for the danger and disgrace that must arise to the Republican cause from a heartless scramble for place among Republicans. I will be no party to such a scramble now or hereafter; and especially not for the sake of a judicial position, upon whose occupant should continually rest the light of general public confidence."
There are always men who, deeming that the course of public opinion and action may be formed and con- trolled by their own little expedients, are constantly preparing platforms and candidates in advance for the party to which they belong. A number of this class in 1858 commenced choosing a course which the Republi- can party should adopt and pursue to gain power. It was nothing to them that the party would have to give up all the objects which would make power available to any good end. With them power was the chief object of political action. So they began in that year to seek to merge the party in a fusion party, by dropping all its distinctive principles and aims, and uniting with Mr. Douglas in a mere opposition league against the administration of Mr. Buchanan. They succeeded in Indiana in effecting a kind of union with the followers of the "Little Giant," but gained no substantial ad- vantage by it, while their example and moral influence gave encouragement to enough Republicans of their own class to defeat Mr. Lincoln in Illinois. But their scheme went further. It aimed at effecting a similar fusion in the presidential contest of 1860; and they em- ployed themselves earnestly, from 1858 until the meet- ing of the Chicago convention in 1860, in endeavoring to suppress the distinctive platform of the party, and in placing at its head Edward Bates, of Missouri, who in 1856 was one of its most pronounced and bitter enemies. In this purpose there was a union of men in several states who had outlived their usefulness to the progres- sive tendencies of the times. Horace Greeley, Francis P. Blair, senior, and his sons, Francis P. and Montgom- ery, John D. Defrees, Caleb B. Smith, Schuyler Colfax, and others, East and West, co-operated in the move- ment. It was a queer enterprise, and yet, at one time, had the support of a great many of the active politi- cians of Indiana. Its friends boasted that it was sure of the votes of the delegates from a majority of the congressional districts of the state. Papers were found to
openly support it, and leading public men were ac- tive and even zealous in their measures to secure its suc- cess. The means adopted to this end were novel, and fell below those which are suitable to any just public purpose. It was known that Mr. Bates resided in a slave state, and they took pains to let those of the South know that he was a slave-holder and a Whig. These were to be the factors of his strength in the South. Another set were necessary to commend him to the earnest men of the North, who regarded slavery as in- imical to our free government and its institutions, and at war with the peace of the country. To make him suit these, they procured him to write a letter to one of their number, of which they made many copies, which were placed in the hands of those already committed to their cause, to be by them shown to others whose co- operation they desired. This letter was abreast with the most advanced principles of the party, and in com- plete accord with its platform. It was used by the leaders of the plan without the name of its author until the person to whom it was presented expressed himself satisfied with its doctrines. Then he was asked how he would like its author as a candidate for the presidency, and, finally, when it was deemed that he was sufficiently committed, the whole plan was opened to him, with an offer of "stock in it " if he would aid in its accomplish- ment. In other words, it was to be a kind of party within the party; a close corporation, which should, in case of success, receive and control its entire patronage. It was proposed to Mr. Gordon with the usual offer of stock in it; but it was repugnant to his convictions of duty, and he rejected it promptly, saying: " Publish that letter and open the whole matter to the public, and then I can cheerfully give your candidate my support ; but never shall I do so in the form in which you pro- pose to carry it." In December, 1859, he was requested to address the Young Men's Republican Club of Indian- apolis, and consented to do so. He accordingly pre- pared an elaborate speech upon the philosophy of polit- ical life and action, and the conditions essential to their preservation and usefulness, and concluded the whole by a thorough exposure of the utter unfitness of Mr. Bates to be the candidate of the party for the presidency. Not wishing, however, to obtrude unacceptable views upon the club without informing its members that his utterances might not please them, he opened the nature and subject of the speech to the president of the club beforehand. The result was, the speech was never called for, and, after waiting for nearly two months for an opportunity to deliver it, he and others called a meeting to organize the Old Men's Republican Club, for the night of February 5, 1860, and after it was organized the speech was immediately delivered before it. A very large edition of that part of it which related to the candidacy of Mr. Bates was
53
REPRESENTATIVE MEN OF INDIANA.
7th Dist.]
published in a pamphlet of sixteen octavo pages, and circulated at once awide over the state and country at large. From that time until the close of the state convention the contest between the supporters and op- posers of the scheme was pronounced and bitter. The pamphlet had for its title-page the question: "Edward Bates-is he fit, is he available as the Republican can- didate for the presidency?" Mr. Greeley responded to it in an article of two columns in the Tribune, under the caption, "The Fittest Man to be President." These were employed at the state convention by the friends and foes of the scheme, which failed at last to secure the indorsement of that body. This was all that its ad- versaries desired; for it left the delegates to the national convention free to pursue their own inclinations, while it gave them a very clear intimation that Mr. Bates was not as strong in the state as his friends had maintained. The result of it all was that the vote of the state was given entire, throughout, to Mr. Lincoln. Had Mr. Bates received it on the other hand, it would almost certainly have defeated Mr. Lincoln's nomination ; and, while it is certain that Mr. Bates could never have suc- ceeded, the choice of the convention must have fallen on some other candidate. Who he might have been we are left to conjecture; but now, at the end of twenty years, with all the light they and their deeds shed upon the illustrious men who were there before the conven- tion, it would be difficult to find an intelligent patriotic man in the country who is not satisfied with its choice, and, even more, glad that Mr. Bates was not nominated. Mr. Gordon, at least, has never repented of that day's work, although to his own political ambitions it was quite as disastrous as to Mr. Bates's aspirations for the presidency. At the organization of the General As- sembly in 1861, he was elected clerk of the House of Representatives, a position which he accepted that he might be able to aid his party friends in completing the system of laws regulating the administrative department of the government, which had been left imperfect at the close of the last preceding session, owing to the fact that one of the bills of the system had been vetoed by the Governor. This bill affixed pains and penalties to certain acts of malversation in office, and was drafted by Mr. Gordon, and became the first bill of the session of 1861, being introduced by Hon. D. C. Branham, who is justly entitled to the honor of devising the entire system, which remains to-day almost unaltered upon the statute book. As soon as its passage was effected Mr. Gordon cared not to retain the position of clerk ; and, accordingly, at the opening of the special session of 1861, he resigned it for a place in the ranks of the vol- unteer army called into existence by the President. Between the election and inauguration of President Lincoln, Mr. Gordon was active and zealous in his endeavors to give strength and consistency to public
opinion, that it might be fitted for the great crisis that was manifestly at hand. In favor of according to the Southern people their utmost rights under the Constitu- tion, he was, nevertheless, utterly opposed to all further compromises with them. He both wrote and spoke elaborately upon the subject, and when the outbreak finally came he placed his name first upon the roll of volunteers in the state capital. At the request of the Governor he raised one hundred and forty men, who were to have been mustered as a battery; but, failing to procure guns and equipments, they were finally, after much discontent and ill feeling among the men, dis- banded. This, it is believed, led to ill blood between the Governor and Mr. Gordon, which continued to the end of the Governor's life. It is useless, however, to inquire into the grounds of this ill feeling and quarrel, as the one is now dead and the other content to let them remain fallow forever. It was too late when his company was disbanded for Mr. Gordon to raise an- other; for the first six regiments required of Indiana by the proclamation of the President the whole number . of companies was already made up, and more asking admission. He was, therefore, under the necessity of enlisting, or awaiting the next call for troops. He was unwilling to wait, and accordingly sought and obtained a place in Company G, 9th Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry, with which he was mustered into the service of the United States, April 23, 1861. Three days later, the colonel appointed him sergeant-major, in which capacity he went to West Virginia. The day after the surprise and capture of Philippi, he was placed in com- mand of a small body of mounted scouts, which he led until the President appointed him a major of the 11th Regiment of Infantry in the army of the United States. This appointment reached him June 18, 1861, and was accepted a few days later. He remained with General Morris, however, until the close of the campaign. It was while serving in that capacity that he took part in the battle of Carrick's Ford, and received from the general special notice for courage and coolness, in the preliminary report of that officer. At the close of the action he was at the front, called the attention of our troops to a party of the enemy with which General Garnett was opposing our passage of the second ford, and directed the fire which resulted in his death and the rout of the party. He took charge of the remains, arms, and other property of the fallen general, and re- ported them to General Morris upon the field, with the request that he might be permitted to return them to the friends of the dead. This request was granted ; and thereupon he gave the general a receipt for them, one clause of which bound him "to transmit them to General Garnett's relatives as soon as practicable." In going to the headquarters of his regiment, at Boston, he stopped at New York, where George S. Nelson, Esq.,
54
REPRESENTATIVE MEN OF INDIANA.
[7th Dist.
the father-in-law of General Garnett, then resided ; and there, in the presence of Hon. Robert N. Hudson and Algernon S. Sullivan, delivered every article of General Garnett's property to him, who received and receipted for it, in trust for the Garnetts. Along with the property there delivered he gave Mr. Nelson a letter, designed to let the friends of the deceased know the circumstances of his death In this letter he said :
" He died like a brave and gallant soldier ; and al- though the shot took effect in his back, I take a melan- choly pleasure in bearing testimony that there is no ground of reproach in the fact. The state of his forces made that position necessary to the continuance of the contest, which he manifested no disposition to abandon."
Yet, notwithstanding this honorable treatment of the dead and his friends, Major Gordon was nevertheless assailed by part of the Democratic press of the North, and very generally by the press of the South, for having carried the arms and other property of the dead enemy home with him; and enormous falsehoods were invented and put into circulation, as if to fire the blood of Southern people against him whose kindness had far outrun the utmost spirit of the laws of civilized warfare in respect to an enemy's property, and especially to his arms. Among other things, it was declared that Major Gordon had directed the fire that killed General Gar- nett while that officer was waving a white handkerchief in token of his desire to surrender, and so had violated the laws of war. This accusation made it proper for him to advert to these charges in his letter to the rela- tives of the dead. He accordingly said :
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.