Select Speeches of Daniel Webster, 1817-1845 Part 15

Biographical.

First Period: Law and Politics in New Hampshire.

1782 Born at Salisbury, New Hampshire, January 18.

Early Education.

1797 Enters Dartmouth College.

1805 Admitted to the Bar, 1805.

Practises in Boscawen.

1807 Removes to Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

1813 Elected to Congress from Portsmouth.

1814-15 The Hartford Convention.

Second Period: Leader at the Bar and in the Forum.

1816 Removes to Boston, Ma.s.sachusetts.

1817 "The Defence of the Kennistons."

1818 "The Dartmouth College Case."

1820 Ma.s.sachusetts Convention.

Third Period: Expounder and Defender of the Const.i.tution.

1827 Elected to the Senate from Ma.s.sachusetts.

1830 "The Reply to Hayne."

1833 "The Const.i.tution not a Compact between Sovereign States."

1833-34 Removal of the Deposits from the United States Bank.

Rise of the Whig Party.

1835 Nominated to the Presidency by the Whigs of Ma.s.sachusetts.

1837 Reception in New York.

1839 Visits England.

1840 Presidential Canva.s.s.

1840-43 Secretary of State.

Ashburton Treaty.

Resigns the Department of State.

1844 Re-elected to the Senate from Ma.s.sachusetts.

1845 "Eulogy on Justice Story."

Annexation of Texas.

1846 Banquet in Philadelphia.

1850 Seventh of March Speech.

Secretary of State under President Fillmore.

1852 Public Reception in Boston.

Last Illness and Death.

Notes.

_DEFENCE OF THE KENNISTONS_

April, 1817.

Mr. Webster had been elected to Congress from Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in 1813, and his term expired in March, 1816. In August of that year (1816) he removed his family to Boston, and decided to devote himself exclusively to the profession of the law. He had won a high position both in law and politics in New Hampshire. The change of residence marks an era in the life of Mr. Webster. Mr. Lodge says that there is a tradition that the worthies of the Puritan city were disposed at first to treat the newcomer somewhat cavalierly, but that they soon learned that it was worse than useless to attempt such a course with a man whose magnificent physical and intellectual bearing won the admiration of all who met him.

He now began a career of great professional distinction, and took a place at the Boston bar even more conspicuous than his friends had antic.i.p.ated-- that of an equal of the most famous of its members. His cases called him before the Ma.s.sachusetts Supreme Court, the Circuit Court of the United States, and the United States Supreme Court. Among the first cases which came to him on his retirement from political life was the Goodridge Robbery Case, the argument in which was addressed to the jury at the term of the Supreme Judicial Court of Ma.s.sachusetts held at Ipswich in April, 1817.

The singularly dramatic story of the prosecutor, the almost universal belief in the guilt of the accused, both by the public and by the members of the Ess.e.x bar, and the impossibility of accounting for the motive (self-robbery) a.s.sumed by the defence, make this exhibition of Mr.

Webster's "acute, penetrating, and terrifying" power of cross- examination,--by which such a complicated and ingenious story was unravelled,--one of the most memorable in the history of the

Ma.s.sachusetts bar. It is a model of close, simple, unadorned argument, adapted to the minds of the jurymen. In it there are no attempts to carry the jury off their feet by lofty appeals to their sense of justice, nor to cover the weak points in the case by fine oratory. The oft-repeated, "It is for the jury to determine," ill.u.s.trates Mr. Webster's respect for the common sense of the jurymen before him and his reliance upon evidence to win the case. The following are the facts relating to the case:--Major Goodridge of Bangor, Maine, professed to have been robbed of a large sum of money at nine o'clock on the night of Dec. 19, 1816, while travelling on horseback, near the bridge between Exeter and Newburyport. In the encounter with the robbers he received a pistol wound in his left hand; he was then dragged from his horse into a field, beaten until insensible, and robbed. On recovering, he procured the a.s.sistance of several persons, and with a lantern returned to the place of the robbery and found his watch and some papers. The next day he went to Newburyport, and remained ill for several weeks, suffering from delirium caused by the shock. When he recovered he set about the discovery of the robbers. His story seemed so probable that he had the sympathy of all the country-folk. He at once charged with the crime Levi and Laban Kenniston, two poor men, who lived in an obscure part of the town of Newmarket, New Hampshire, and finding some of his money (which he had previously marked) in their cellar, he had them arrested, and held for trial. By and by a few of the people began to doubt the story of Goodridge; this led him to renewed efforts, and he arrested the toll gatherer, Mr. Pearson, in whose house, by the aid of a conjurer, he found some of his money. On examination by the magistrate, Pearson was discharged. It now became necessary to find some accomplice of the Kennistons, and he arrested one Taber of Boston, whom he had seen (he said) on his way up, and from whom he had obtained his information against the Kennistons. In Taber's house was found some of the money; he was accordingly bound over for trial with the Kennistons. As none of these men lived near the scene of the robbery, Mr. Jackman, who, soon after the robbery, had gone to New York, was arrested, his house searched, and some of the money found in the garret. The guilt of these men seemed so conclusive that no eminent member of the Ess.e.x bar would undertake their defence. A few of those who mistrusted Goodridge determined to send to Suffolk County for counsel.

Mr. Webster had been well known in New Hampshire, and his services were at once secured; without having time to examine any of the details of the case--as he had arrived at Ipswich on the night before the trial--he at once undertook the defence of the Kennistons and secured their acquittal.

The indictment against Taber was _nol prossed_. Later, he defended Jackman and secured his acquittal. Mr. Pearson brought action against Goodridge for malicious prosecution, and was awarded $2000, but Goodridge took the poor debtor's oath and left the State.

Cf. Curtis's _Life of Webster_, Ch. VIII.; Everett's _Memoir of Webster_, in Vol. I. of Webster's Works.

_THE DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE_.

March, 1818.

Within a year after the defence of the Kennistons, Mr. Webster was called upon to defend his Alma Mater against the acts of the Legislature of his native State.

The case was one of the most interesting ever argued before the Supreme Court of the United States, because there were involved in it certain const.i.tutional questions which had never been tested. "Mr. Webster by his management of this case," says Edward Everett, "took the lead in establishing what might almost be called a new school of const.i.tutional law." Not until within a few years has the complete history of the case been accessible. In 1879, a volume of "Dartmouth College Causes" was published by Mr. John M. Shirley, and in it we have, for the first time, a clear statement of all the points relating to the origin and development of the case.

Dartmouth College was originally a charity school, and was founded by Eleazor Wheelock at Lebanon, Connecticut, in 1754. Afterwards private subscriptions were solicited in England, and the Earl of Dartmouth was a large donor and became one of the trustees. The site was soon moved to Hanover, New Hampshire, where large grants of land had been made by the proprietors. It was chartered by the Crown in 1769, and was created a perpetual corporation, with Dr. Wheelock as founder and President; he was empowered to name his own successor subject to the approval of the trustees, to whom was given power to fill vacancies in their own body and to make laws for the College subject to the Crown.

It seems that in his early days Dr. Wheelock had a controversy on religious matters with Dr. Bellamy. These men were graduates of Yale; the former was a Presbyterian, and the latter a Congregationalist. This religious war was carried on by the successors of these men, the son of Dr. Wheelock, and President of the College, and a pupil of Dr. Bellamy, who had been elected a trustee; it soon, however, became a political contest between factions of the trustees, one of which objected to what it called the "family dynasty." In 1809 this faction became a majority and opposed the other so vigorously that in 1815 the Wheelock party set forth its case in a lengthy pamphlet. Much ink was shed upon both sides as a result. Wheelock then sent a memorial to the Legislature charging the trustees with violation of trust and religious intolerance, and prayed for an investigation by a committee of the Legislature. The trustees were Federalists and Congregationalists, the ruling power in State and Church.

Mr. Mason, Mr. Webster's old antagonist at the New Hampshire bar, was secured as counsel for the trustees. The Wheelock party made advances to Mr. Webster, but he saw that the case was fast a.s.suming a political tone, and he declined the offer. Contrary to Mr. Mason's advice, the trustees removed President Wheelock, and appointed Rev. Francis Brown in his place.

As a result all the Democrats and all religious orders, other than the Congregational, united against the trustees--and the political die was cast.

At the next election the Democrats carried the State, and the Governor in his message took occasion to declare against the trustees. The Legislature, in June, 1816, pa.s.sed an act to reorganize the College, and under this law the new trustees were chosen; thus the College became a State inst.i.tution. Woodward, the Secretary of the old board, had been removed, and became the Secretary of the newly const.i.tuted board. Suit was brought against him by the old board, for the College seal and other property, and the case in charge of Mr. Mason and Judge Smith came up for trial in May, 1817; it was argued and then went over to the September term of the same year at Exeter. It was at this stage of the proceedings that Mr. Webster joined the counsel for the College. He made the closing argument of such force and pathos as to draw tears from the crowd in the court-room. The decision was against the College.

In Mr. Mason's brief we find that there were three points made against the Acts of the Legislature: (1) that they were not within the power of that body; (2) that they violated the Const.i.tution of New Hampshire; and (3) that they violated the Const.i.tution of the United States, or the right of private contracts. The third point was not, however, pressed by the counsel, and was not considered as very important; they based their case mostly upon the first point: that the College was founded by private parties, for special purposes, and that any quarrel of the trustees was a question for the courts to settle, and not for the Legislature. When it was decided against them, they removed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States on this one point, that the acts impaired the obligation of contracts. The friends of the College now desired Mr. Webster to take entire charge of the case; he consented, and selected as his a.s.sistant, Mr. Hopkinson, of Philadelphia. Mr. Holmes of Maine and Mr. Wirt conducted the defence.

The case was heard on March 10, 1818, and was opened by Mr. Webster. With the notes and minutes of the previous counsel Mr. Webster was familiar, and he said that the credit of the legal points and theories he set forth was due to them; he was only the arranger and reciter of what they had prepared. Mr. Webster had a remarkable power of selecting and using the material of other men, but he was always ready to give them the credit due.

With a skill and judgment which Chief Justice Marshall said he never saw equalled, Mr. Webster outlined the question at issue, and by his marvellous adroitness in arranging, and clearness in presenting the facts, together with that wealth of legal and historical ill.u.s.tration with which he was always so well endowed, he seemed to carry with him every man in the court-room. Such was the ease, grace, and fascination of his argument, that Justice Story, who sat, pen in hand, to take notes, was completely absorbed and forgot his pen and paper.

[1]P. 58, l. 15. I. Here, the argument being ended, Mr. Webster stood still for some time before the court, while every eye was fixed upon him, and then addressing the Chief Justice, he proceeded with that n.o.ble peroration which has become one of the masterpieces of eloquence, and which is an expansion of the closing argument which he delivered at the previous trial in New Hampshire. This does not appear in the printed argument; I have added it from the report of Dr. Goodrich.