Biographical sketches of the bench and bar of South Carolina, vol. II, Part 19

Author: O'Neall, John Belton, 1793-1863
Publication date: 1859
Publisher: Charleston, S.C. : S.G. Courtenay & Co.
Number of Pages: 636


USA > South Carolina > Biographical sketches of the bench and bar of South Carolina, vol. II > Part 19


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


243


MEMBERS OF THE BAR.


many arguments, which from 1830 to 1838, it was my privi- lege to hear. I select two cases only. His argument in 1834, in the State (ex relatione McCrady vs. Hunt, 2 Hill, p. 1,) is, I think, as fine a specimen of forensic argument as can be found. It commences at page 150, and extends to 189. If Col. Blanding had never made any other argument, this would have given him immortality; it literally annihilated all which was or could be said on the other side.


His argument in Murray vs. The South Carolina Rail-road Company, (1 McM., 388,) is a most ingenious and interesting discussion of the liability of a Rail-road Company for inju- ries to one of their employés.


Col. Blanding, at his death, left his widow and five sons: two of them, William and James, followed their country's standard through all the bloody fields of Mexico. (The first- named, as Captain of the Charleston company.)


Of Col. Blanding, little more need be said. As a lawyer, a man and citizen, his memoir testifies to his great, his ex- celling worth. Few men, in a life of 53 years, accomplished so much, or earned such a deserved reputation.


In all the relations of life, public and private, he is entitled to have it said, " well done thou good and faithful servant."


We append this letter, which may prove interesting to the reader :-


OCTOBER 7, 1805.


Sir,-Nor have I the pleasure of knowing you. But as a witness, material to Gen. Harrington's defence, I have taken the liberty of sending you a subpoena. Although there may be no authority, but the Legislature, which the Constitution authorizes to question executive proceedings, yet permit me to presume, that an ex-Governor may sometimes know facts which a Court of Justice may think proper, and may possibly possess the power to compel hin to disclose. It is not to in- vestigate your official proceedings, but to testify facts, that your presence is wanting at Court, and I know of no exemption from the discharge of this duty, which every citizen owes the


244


MEMBERS OF THE BAR.


public justice of his country. Although it may be the first time that a person connected with the executive station has been questioned respecting a matter of office, yet the novelty of the thing will hardly convince me that, if he knows a part material to a defence, he will find in our Court of Justice.an exemption from giving testimony. The source from whence he has drawn his knowledge will hardly exclude the party from the benefit of it.


I have not, in the humble station I hold at the Bar, been in the habit of calling witnesses unnecessarily into Court, much less of delaying the course of justice by resorting to the pitiful expedient you attribute to me as General Harrington's attor- ney. Nor should I now have called on you, could other testimony have supplied the want of your evidence, or could your examination by commission have been in the regular course of proceedings taken.


As far as your heavy censure has fallen on the conduct of General Harrington, I request you will do him the justice to believe, that his counsel have directed him in the selection of such witnesses as may be necessary to his defence. His con- duct has been the result of acquiescence in their directions; and if they have erred, let him not bear the weight of your displeasure, or sink in your esteem.


To convince you how little I am disposed to give you unnecessary trouble, I now assure you, that should not the cause be tried at the next Court, I will use my best exertions to procure the plaintiff's consent to your examination by com- mission. But at the same time, I must beg you to believe that, should I fail in this endeavor, I shall not neglect the duty I owe my client, of compelling the attendance of such witnesses as his defence may require.


I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,


ABRAM BLANDING.


Hon. JOHN DRAYTON, Charleston, S. C.


CAMDEN, August 21, 1815.


Dear Sir,-I may be compelled to visit Lancaster this sum-


245


MEMBERS OF THE BAR.


mer. This necessity I should consider a real misfortune, but that it will bring me into your neighborhood, and enable me to compensate myself for the disagreeable ride, by the pleasure I shall receive in spending a day or two with you.


The fall of the French Emperor has been more sudden than was expected, and proves very satisfactorily, that his late ele- vation was the work of the army ; and that his power did not rest on the affections of the people. Indeed, it is strange, that a people, who have suffered so much from his ambition, should entertain any other than sentiments of detestation for him. The Democrats here are quite at a loss how to dispose of him, or how to fill the vacant throne. They seem to wish it in their power to do both. They would, no doubt, invite their fallen favorite to "this asylum of oppressed humanity." If he comes, I hope he may be quartered on his good friend, Jefferson, and both be set to writing the history of their own times. I guess they could give a tolerable account of the continental system and embargo. The young Duke of Orleans seems to be the favorite candidate for the throne. It seems our Democrats have some confidence in hereditary virtue. The son being known only by the merits of the father would, no doubt, be elected, if the choice depended on them. They want no better reason for making the one a king than that the other was a regicide.


I have understood that you visit Columbia in September. If you do, I hope you may not be prevented from passing through Camden. We shall be much pleased, if you can spend a day with us; and I will then accompany you across the sand hills to our friends in Columbia.


The much-to-be lamented death of Mr. Hooker will make some change in the course of business on your circuit; and I doubt not that you will receive your share of what must now pass into other hands. I have almost concluded to attend the Court of Common Pleas, at Columbia, in future. This I can do with ease, by dropping a Pee Dee Court. With the pros- pect before me, the temptation to make this change is so much increased, that I shall not be able to resist it, although a change of circuit, generally, is not advisable.


246


MEMBERS OF THE BAR.


Do make my best respects to Mrs. D. I hope we may soon meet again, in that charming circle, where we first formed our acquaintance.


I am, dear sir, very sincerely, yours, A. BLANDING. WM. F. DESAUSSURE, Esq., Landsford, Chester, S. C.


247


MEMBERS OF THE BAR.


JOHN HOOKER.


How soon does the memory of great virtues and great ac- quirements vanish from the memory of the sons of earth ? Who now has any remembrance of John Hooker, even in the city where he last lived and died ? To rescue, in some degree, the memory of the Bench and Bar from this oblivion, is the end of the work to which I am devoting so much time and attention.


John Hooker was the eldest son of Col. Noadiah and Mrs. Rebecca Hooker, of Farmington, Connecticut. He was born in the year 1774, and graduated at Yale College about 1800. He studied law, and was admitted to the Bar, in Connecticut in 1802, and came to South Carolina in the following year.


He was first employed by General Wade Hampton as the tutor of his sons for one or two years, and was admitted to the Bar, and in Columbia commenced the practice, as the partner of John Henry Egan. In about four years, he re- moved to Yorkville and remained there three years.


Through the influence of his early friend, General Hampton, and other friends, in Columbia, he returned to that town. On the 8th of October, 1808, he was married to Miss Mary Ann Chapman, the eldest daughter of Mr. Gersham Chapman, of Columbia. He was elected a Trustee of the South Carolina College in December, 1813, and successfully practiced his pro- fession in this city to his death.


This said event took place on the 28th July, 1815. He was then forty-one years old, and, of course, he was cut off in his prime, and in the midst of his usefulness.


Mr. Hooker was one of the committee who examined me in May, 1814, for admission to the Bar. Whether I ever saw him before or afterwards, I do not remember, and, of course, therefore, I cannot speak of him as he ought to be.


From my much-esteemed friend, Dr. George W. Glenn and his lady, the widow of Mr. Hooker, I am indebted for the means of giving this short sketch.


248


MEMBERS OF THE BAR.


Dr. Glenn says: "I never heard Mr. Hooker but once at the Bar of South Carolina, and that was in Columbia, when I was a student of the South Carolina College." (Dr. Glenn gradu- ated in the second class, December, 1806.) "Mr. Hooker spoke in behalf of a poor person, who had been slandered by a rich man. He insisted on a verdict of heavy damages, and said it would learn the defendant two important lessons, first, to be more careful about speaking evil of his neighbors, and second, the necessity of keeping his tongue within proper bounds."


He was, it seems, very cautious about the institution or de- fence of cases where the justice was doubtful, and, when fully satisfied that a case or defence was founded in injustice, no fee could induce him to undertake it.


The following, written by one of South Carolina's most eminent and loved sons, Chancellor DeSaussure, and inscribed upon Mr. Hooker's tomb, is the best sketch of his character, as a man and a lawyer, which can now be given.


" Possessed of an acute, logical mind, and a sound judg- ment, guided by the purest integrity, he became a very emi- nent member of the Bar of South Carolina. The public re- spected him for his virtues; the Court esteemed him for his talents and learning; his brethren loved him for his amenity and kindness. In private life, his unassuming deportment, his active benevolence, and the purity of his affections, endeared him to a large circle of friends, but above all, to the beloved partner of his life and her family."


From the life of Mr. Hooker, one matter deserving the imi- tation of the Bar of the present day, ought to be noticed, to wit: his refusal to subserve " the cause of injustice." I am well aware that lawyers, by employment, can, generally, only see justice on the side of their clients. Yet cases, and espe- cially criminal cases, are often so obvious, that the " injustice" cannot fail to be perceived. Yet lawyers leave no means un- resorted to, which may avail a client. The sickly sentimen- tality of the present day, which is catered to by some at the Bar, is to save criminals from capital or disgraceful punish- ment. The safety of society is totally disregarded, and the


249


MEMBERS OF THE BAR.


preservation of the guilty Cain, though covered by the blood of the righteous Abel, is regarded as a first duty, both by Bar and Jury.


Well might my pure and experienced friend, Dr. Glenn , say, " the lawyers make Herculean efforts, and compass 'sea and land,' to clear the notoriously guilty ;" and I would add, are too often successful by the weakness or wrong-headedness of Jurors. "Murder," adds my friend, " is rife in our midst, and I apprehend our State will be compelled to adopt the peni- tentiary system to enable her, in some measure, to punish the guilty. When you and I were Members of the Legislature, many years ago, the policy of that system was brought before that body and ably argued, but no definite action taken at that time. A committee was, however, appointed to collect information and report at the next session, Daniel E. Huger was the chairman, and made an able report against the policy of adopting the system at that time. You recollect, no doubt, the main argument relied on in that report, which was from the best authority obtained in Europe and this country, that when it was established, crime, in proportion to population, was on the increase, while in South Carolina where there was no penitentiary, crime, in proportion to population, was on the decrease. Now the tables are turning, if not already turned."


True, most true, my good friend. We have lived to have the experience of more than forty years since that period ; and of late, together, we have mourned over the blood which has stained the once pure vestments of our native Newberry. We have both learned the necessity of a penitentiary system to punish the guilty, which we once thought unnecessary; and I hope the public. mind has made that " a fixed fact," with a certainty unknown to the origin of the term.


To the members of the Bar, it may be said: Brethren, be like Mr. Hooker-spurn the wages of injustice as you would those of sin. Be like him, pure and spotless, and the com- munities in which you live will be so too.


250


MEMBERS OF THE BAR.


JOHN JOEL CHAPPELL.


It is not the general purpose of the author to give sketches of the living members of the South Carolina Bar; but of such as have retired or removed, where he could obtain suitable autobiographies, he has thought it desirable to preserve such memorials by placing the substance in this work.


The gentleman, whose name is above, is the oldest living lawyer in South Carolina. He has long been most advan- tageously known to the public; hence I propose that his name should live among his brethren before he is called to his last home.


He was born in Fairfield District, on Little River, on the 19th of January, 1782, but his parents, when he was an in- fant, removed to Richland District, on the Congaree River, where he was raised, and where he still lives. His education was, as usual, first in the common schools of the neighbor- hood. In 1794, or '95, he was sent to Columbia, but the small pox, which prevailed in the young town, soon broke up the school and sent him home, until the next year, when he returned, and progressed in the acquirement of an academical education under the teaching of Major William C. C. Clifton, the Rev. David E. Dunlap, the Rev. Mr. Reid, and Colonel Abram Blanding.


In the spring of 1800, he devoted himself to the study of the law for four years, (the term then required for non- graduates,) in the office of Thomas Henry Egan, Esq.


The South Carolina College had not, at that time, been founded. In the winter of that year, the Act, establishing it, was passed. The first students entered its walls in the winter of 1804, after Colonel Chappell was admitted to the Bar. He was licensed, as an attorney-at-law, at the Spring Term of the Constitutional Court, at Columbia, in 1805, and settled, as a resident lawyer, in Columbia. He says, "I rode the circuits with the Judges and lawyers whether I had cases or not, and


251


MEMBERS OF THE BAR.


attended at Orangeburgh, Barnwell, Edgefield, Newberry, Richland, and Lexington, after it was established as a judicial district.


The course pursued by Colonel Chappell deserves to be commended to the young lawyers of the present day. Instead of lounging about their own Court-Houses, if they would strike out and ride on horseback the circuit in which they live, and make arguments, "without money and without price," when- ever they could get the chance, they would learn more law, and get more practice in a year, than they do now in ten. I recollect seeing, at Newberry, attending the Courts as far back as 1807, Robert Stark, from Columbia, Richard Gantt, from Edgefield, William Nibbs, from Ninety-Six, Eldridge Simkins, from Edgefield, John C. Calhoun, from Abbeville, Robert Creswell, from Laurens, Samuel Farrow, from Spartanburgh, George Warren Cross, from Charleston, and Colonel John Joel Chappell, from Columbia. All seemed to have business. After I was a Judge, Robert Stark and Colonel Chappell, who were lawyers of some distinction, when, as a school-boy, I looked on and wondered at their dignity as lawyers, rode a part of my first circuit with me in the spring of 1829.


In a year or two after Colonel Chappell's admission to the Bar of the Law Courts, he was licensed as a Solicitor in Equity.


Like most young lawyers, then and now, Colonel Chappell sought and found promotion in the ranks of the militia. In 1801 or '2, he , was appointed Adjutant of the Thirty-third Regiment, which commission he retained until 1805, or 1806, when he was elected Captain of the Beat Company, which then included the whole town of Columbia. In 1808, or 1809, he was elected Colonel of the Thirty-third Regiment.


In October, 1808, he was elected from Richland District a Member of the House of Representatives, of South Carolina, and took his seat the fourth Monday in November following. At that session was ratified the amendments of the Constitu- tion, which provided for the apportionment of Representatives upon the basis of population and taxation combined, by allow- ing one Representative for every sixty-second part of the


252


MEMBERS OF THE BAR.


white inhabitants, and one Representative for every sixty- second part of the whole taxes. This wise provision, which harmonized the upper and lower country, and ended all the disputes which had divided the two sections on the subject of representation, originated, as Colonel Chappell says, with Colonel Blanding, who was then a Member from Kirshaw District.


In an autobiography, now before me, Colonel Chappell says: "I had never ascribed, nor heard any other person ascribe the honor of originating this new principle of representation to any other person than Colonel Blanding, until a few years ago, meeting with Governor R. F. W. Allston, in Columbia, he re- quested me to give him my recollections about the matter, stating that he wished to collect facts for some work, which he designed publishing, and said he had recently seen Judge Cheves on the same subject, and mentioned that his (Governor Allston's) impression was that Mr. Lowndes had suggested the idea of such a plan of representation a year or two before the time referred to, and whilst Mr. Lowndes was a Member of the Legislature. Of this, I have no knowledge or recol- lection, but I am strengthened in my impression of Colonel Blanding being the originator, from the fact, that soon after it was published, I saw a letter from the late Governor Taylor, from Washington City, published in some newspaper, in which Colonel B. was highly complicated for having conceived so novel, just, and wise a plan for governing our State, and for harmonizing the disquietude of our people., The honor is great to whichever of these gentlemen it belongs, and if it could be divided it is sufficient to ennoble each of them."


In the session of 1808, was passed, "the Act for the better ar- rangement of the sitting of the Courts of Equity, and the estab- lishment of Courts of Appeal for the same, and for other pur- poses therein mentioned." By this Act two additional Judges of Equity were provided to be elected, and accordingly Theo- dore Gaillard, (the Speaker,) and Henry William DeSaussure, were chosen to fill those highly responsible offices; in the Act and the election Colonel Chappell concurred.


In 1808, was passed the "Act to authorize the citizens of


253


MEMBERS OF THE BAR.


this State, in the several Circuit Districts within the same, to elect by ballot, the Sheriffs within their several respective districts."


Of this, Colonel Chappell says : "I sanctioned, though I did not like the change, the giving the election of Sheriffs to the people. I thought it of doubtful policy, but as it could be done without altering the Constitution, and if found impolitic, the Legislature could resume the power, I approved it." This change was, it is true, very doubtful; and in fifty years it has, in many instances, operated to put bad men into the office; yet, in the main, I think it has done as well, if not better, than if the Legislature had retained the power. My friend, Colonel Chappell was mistaken in supposing the Legislature "could resume the power." Power once yielded to the people can never be resumed.


In 1809, Colonel Chappell was elected a member of the Board of Trustees of the South Carolina College. He, with Benjamin Haile, and John Murphy, a graduate, in the class of 1808, were appointed on the Executive Committee, charged very much with the government of the college during the re- cess of the Board. They had a very delicate duty to perform in attending to the demerits of the students, steward and faculty. These duties they seem to have performed very well. Colonel Chappell was Chairman, and says: "I don't know that my position was ever more embarrassing, than when, as Chairman, it became my duty to catechize and lecture the parties, and especially its venerated President. But it had to be done and a report made to the Board at the succeeding meeting. This was done verbally." "Our conduct," says Col. Chappell, "was approved." One of the Board (Richard Gantt, Esq., afterwards Judge Gantt), was quite complimen- tary to me.


Colonel Chappell says, that to induce a closer observation of the college, on the part of the Legislature, he introduced a resolution, "That both Houses would attend the College Commencement." "It was adopted," he says, "and each House, preceded by its officers, marched to the college and witnessed the ceremonies, which custom, I think, has been


254


MEMBERS OF THE BAR.


observed ever since, and is a good one." I have sought, in vain, for the resolution; no trace of it can be found, and had it not beeu for the statement of Colonel Chappell we never should have known whence came the custom for the Legisla- ture to attend the Annual Commencement on the invitation of the Board.


In 1809, originated the amendment of the Fourth Section of the First Article of the Constitution of South Carolina, called the General Suffrage Bill, and which, in 1810, became a part of the Constitution. In 1809, Colonel Chappell voted against this popular measure with thirty-three other members. From this it seems that the measure passed by a bare constitutional majority. In 1810, he was again returned for Richland Dis- trict by an increased and flattering majority ; and again, with a diminished minority of thirteen other members, voted against the amendment of the Constitution (the general suf- frage). The wisdom of the change is from a property qualifi- cation, a frec-hold of fifty acres of land, or a town lot, or not having such, the payment of three shillings sterling tax, to mere residence of six months by a free white man of the age of twenty-one years, was then, and still is, of very doubtful policy. Its working for more than fifty years, and its univer- sal application throughout our great and growing republic, has not, it seems, resolved the doubts of the venerable gentle- man of whom we are speaking. Indeed, in the great cities New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Charleston, and New Orleans, its operation has been most mischievous. In the extra session of August, 1812, he was Chairman of the Com- mittee who prepared the " Act prescribing, on the part of this State, the time, place and manner of holding elections for Representatives in the Congress of the United States."


In 1811, Colonel Chappell associated with him Mr. William Harper, in the practice of the law. The partnership was of short duration, as Mr. Harper dissolved it while the Colonel was attending to his duties as a Member of Congress.


In May, 1811, Colonel Chappell was married to Sophia Maria, the daughter of Colonel John Greene, of Georgia, who, in the Revolutionary war, was an active Whig, but who had


255


MEMBERS OF THE BAR.


the misfortune to be severely wounded, by having both his arms broken, and thus rendered so stiff that he could not tie his cravat. Mrs. Chappell lived until September, 1834, when she died, leaving seven children surviving her. Six died be- fore her, all very young, except the oldest daughter, who died after her marriage with A. P. Calhoun. Colonel Chappell has testified his great respect for his deceased wife by remaining a widower.


In 1812, soon after the declaration of war, Colonel Chappell was appointed, by Governor Middleton, to the command of the militia regiment, which was ordered to be organized for the defence of the seaboard. Majors Savage Smith, of George- town, and Banoni Robertson, of Fairfield, had command of the battalions. The whole regiment was never called into service, and of course Colonel Chappell never rendered any service.


In October, 1812, he was elected a Member of Congress, from Orangeburgh, Barnwell, Lexington and Richland; and in May, 1813, took his seat at an extra session called by Presi- dent Madison, to provide the ways and means of carrying on the war declared in the previous June, but for which Colonel Chappell says, " no adequate means had been provided." In 1814, he was the President of the Court Martial which tried Colonel Starling Tucker, a full account of which is given in the memoir of Mr. Stark.


He attended five sessions of Congress, having been elected a second time in 1814. He was, he says, "of the then Repub- lican party, as opposed to the Federalists, and gave his support to the administration of Mr. Madison." "I have since been," says he, "Democrat, though not ultra. I have been in favor of States Rights, and of Nullification, and of Secession, though with co-operation. But all these have lost their ascendancy with me."




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.