CHAPTER XLII.
LAWYERS.
Our early legislatures never thought it
necessary to protect us against ignorant pretenders in the practice
of medicine, but did in the practice of the legal profession; and we
have always had laws that required every lawyer to undergo an
examination as to his qualifications before he received a license to
practice law. Not only does the law require that the student
shall know the law, but he must prove that he has read at least for
the space of two yeas in the office of some regular practitioner.
This being so, it has been wondered how some have obtained license
to practice without any legal learning. The thing is simple
enough when explained. The Supreme Court has always deemed it
an act of courtesy to the sister states that any lawyers they had
examined and admitted to practice there should be admitted here
without an examination, and some of the sister states require no
particular amount of reading before being admitted. At one
time our Supreme Court was very exact on this subject. While
that was the case, young men could go across the line and get a
license, and walk into court here with triumph, without having
studied the two years, or two months even. Much of the time
our court here has been very indulgent on the subject, and, in stead
of examining the student themselves, would appoint a committee to
examine him, who, having enough to do, and expecting no pay for the
service, would sign a report in the student's favor with little or
no examination. I have seen poor fellows examined in open
court, until they would sweat profusely; I have also known licenses
granted upon examinations that amounted to nothing.
Gov. Ford and some one, I believe G. T.
Metcalf, Esq., and I, were appointed a committee to examine an
applicant. We met in Mr. M.'s office; Gov. Ford asked
"What is law?" and the usual answer being given, he signed the
recommendation. Mr. M. asked a similar question, and
signed it; I asked two or three others, and signed it also.
Then, all at once, he who dreaded the examination and looked upon it
with awful misgivings lest he should be rejected, found himself a
happy, new-fledged lawyer.
Samuel Q. Richardson, who, in his day, was well
known in Kentucky (especially will his tragical death be
remembered), told me (nearly forty yeas ago) the following story:
He and two others were appointed by a court in Cincinnati to examine
an applicant for the profession; they met, and a tall, rather
good-looking, but at the same time a verdant, young man made his
appearance before them. They examined him a little and told him
they could by no means recommend him to be court as qualified to
practice the legal profession. He told them that he was no
lawyer; that he had been brought up a carpenter, and was plying that
trade then in that city, but he had concluded he could do better.
I see, said he, where the shoe pinches. You perceive I am
ignorant (which fact is as well known to me as to you), and you are
ashamed to have such a one side by side with you in the bar of
Cincinnati. I propose nothing of the kind. If you will
procure my license, I will go immediately to Indiana, and apply
myself to reading, and before the people find out how ignorant I am
I will cease to be so ignorant. His argument prevailed, and he
obtained the license, went to Indiana, and, when the story was told
to me he was governor of that state. His name was James B.
Ray.
I once heard of, but was not present at, the following
examination:
1st Committeeman - What is law?
2d Committeeman - What is meant by the common law?
3d Committeeman - What is meant by the civil law?
1st Committeeman - What is good brandy made of?
2d Committeeman - Are you a judge of the article?
3d Committeeman - Do you know where the article can be
got? Ans. I do.
1st Committeeman -That will do.
And while he was getting the brandy they signed his recommendation,
and the brandy ended the farce.
This sounds ridiculous enough, but really the public
needs but little protection against ignorant lawyers. Let a
fellow who knows nothing obtain a license to practical law, and who
will employ him? He will not get business enough to keep him
from starving, and will have to quit and go to some other business.
This is the rule. The only exception is that a man of great
persistence may endure the mortifications of defeat until he rises
above them.
Not so with doctors. If a lawyer commits
blunders, there is always a man on hand hired to expose them;
whereas, the quack, with his dignified and mysterious airs, creeps
quietly into your family (perhaps in the dead hours of night), and
administers to your dearest friend a nostrum that will kill or cure,
no one knows which, nor will the secret ever be known until
Gabriel's last trump shall be sounded. How villainously wicked
is the man who, when intrusted with the life of your wife, your
husband, or child, will administer a drug that he does not know
whether it will kill or cure, or do neither! Every honest,
well-educated physician ought to be in favor of a law that would
prohibit a man from practicing medicine or surgery who is not
acquainted with the power of medicines and the anatomy of the human
frame.
I would make the same remarks with regard to the
necessity of having learned men in the profession of divinity (for
divines, like doctors, have no one present hired to expose their
errors); but, from the earliest history of man up to the present
time, a large majority of men have had the organ of marvelousness so
strangely developed, that they must be humbugged. They
can not do without it; and if no one will humbug them gratis, they
will readily pay some one to do it. For the present, at least,
every body must be permitted to preach - saints and sinners,
philosophers and fools.
To John L. Bogardus, Esq., must be awarded the
credit of being the pioneer lawyer of Peoria, and next in order of
time stands Hon. Lewis Bigelow.
When I came here, in November 1831, they were the
only lawyers here, and the latter was only looking out for a
location. He only remained a few days, and then went to St.
Louis, and spent the winter there, I suppose because there was no
place in Peoria where he could comfortably board. About the
middle of March he returned to Peoria,, and made this place his home
until he died, in October 1838. He may, therefore, be called
the second lawyer who settled in Peoria.
He was born in Massachusetts in 1783; was educated to
the law, and practiced that profession for years there, and was a
member of Congress from 1821 to 1823. He published a 'Digest
of the first twelve volumes of Massachusetts Reports'.
Mr. Bigelow was a well-read lawyer, but not a
successful practitioner. He was a man of strong prejudices,
and lacked complaisance of manner. He was not void of logic,
and appeared to be a good grammarian, and would argue a question of
law pretty well, but his speeches were destitute of ornament, and
his action was ungraceful. But probably the main reason of his
failing as a lawyer was his want of tact. He seemed to me to
be unskillful in the selection of a jury and when selected in
addressing them so as to take advantage of their prejudices, or to
avoid running against them. He would have selected the same
kind of jurymen were he defending a horse-thief, as he would had he
been prosecuting him; or had he been adjusting a mercantile policy
of insurance, or a controversy between farmers about the trespasses
of cattle. The question with him was not whether this man,
from his peculiar habits and prejudices, will likely go against him
or for him, but whether, according to Mr. B.'s standard, he
was a sensible and good man - that is, whether he was a man of staid
New-England habits. He seemed to have a poor opinion of
southern and western people and their habits.
He was not an orthodox Christian, according to
New-England ideas. He was, as I understood him, a strong
believer in the Christian religion, but not in the Trinity, and some
other strong Calvinistic doctrines. I understood him to be a
Unitarian.
He seemed to be aware of his want of adaptedness to the
kind of jury practice we had here, and withdrew from the practice of
the law for the offices of Justice of the Peace and Clerk of the
Circuit Court, although those offices were then by no means
lucrative.
The name of Mr. Bigelow is made most familiar to
the present generation by his being one of the proprietors of
Bigelow & Underhill's Addition to Peoria. He left, at his
death, no wife nor son, but four daughters, Mrs. Frisby,
afterward Mrs. Rankin, Mrs. Harding, Mrs. Armstrong, and
Mrs. Metcalf, all of whom have raised children.
Several lawyers who have cut a considerable figure in
their profession in Peoria have left this scene of action, whether
for a better or worse, the writer hereof presumes not to decide,
viz., William Frisby, Lincoln B. Knowlton, Onslow Peters, Norman
H. Purple, Halsey O. Merriman, Julius Manning, Thomas Ford, Ezra G.
Sanger and William L. May. Mr. Frisby and Mr.
Sanger died young, before they had had time to establish high
reputations, but their prospects of success as lawyer were bright.
Mr. May was more of a politician than lawyer. He seldom
attempted to argue a question of law, but on a question of fact,
before a jury, or in a political speech, his ability was above
mediocrity.
He was by birth a Kentuckian, and at one time a member
of the Illinois Legislature, and at another register at the
Springfield land-office, and from 1835 to 1839 he was a member of
Congress. He, with thousands of others, rushed to California
on the first report of the discovery of gold in that country, but
the fatigues and exposure of that journey were too severe for his
constitution. He sickened and died, leaving a wife and some
children in Peoria. He had had, in his life, three wives.
The one he left when he died was the daughter of the once somewhat
celebrated Caesar A. Rodney.
Mr. May was a profane man, who
made no pretensions to religion of any kind; yet as such men at
heart often believe the Christian religion, he may have done so.
He, however, was one of those who do not 'show their faith by their
works'.
The following compose the present bar of Peoria:
Elihu N. Powell,
Bryan & Cochran,
Cooper & Moss,
Wead & Jack,
Henry Grove,
Johnson & Hopkins,
Ingersoll & McCune,
Robison & Caldwell,
McCoy & Stevens,
McCulloch & Rice,
Kellogg & Son,
Thomas Cratty,
Julius S. Starr,
Ellis Powell, |
L. H. Kerr,
H. W. Wells,
O'Brien & Harmon,
Lindsay & Feinse,
Chauncey Nye,
Worthington & Puterbaugh,
F. W. Voight,
Griffiths & Lee,
M. C. Quinn,
L. A. Lapham,
W. Loucks,
A. M. Scott,
George E. Ford,
George L. Bestor. |
Several of these do but
little business, but as they have license and are willing to do
business, I include them. There are several others who
have license, but, as I suppose they obtained it not expecting
to practice, but for the honor of the thing, I omit them.
I also omit Hon. S. D. Puterbaugh, because he has left
the bar for the bench; Hon. E. C. Ingersoll because he
has abandoned the bar for a seat in Congress; and myself,
because I have not abandoned the profession temporarily,
as I suppose they have done, but for life.
|