Part 7

Strong and able in his profession, and popular with the people, the young lawyer’s way to official distinction was soon opened. In 1851, the State Legislature elected him Judge of the Superior Court of Cincinnati, for the residue of the term to which that court had been limited by the constitutional convention. He ably served in this position until 1853, when the court ceased its functions, and he then formed a co-partnership with Edward Mills. He was city solicitor of Cincinnati in 1855, and 1856, and became a member of the present Superior Court in 1859. Twice was he offered a seat upon the Supreme Bench of Ohio, but each time he declined. In 1856, the proffer came from Governor Chase, and in 1862 from Governor Tod. In 1864 he was re-elected to the bench, but resigned in 1866, at which time the firm of Hoadly, Jackson & Johnson was formed. The late Judge Alphonse Taft was his successor upon the bench. The new combination was soon ranked among the great law firms of the country, and Judge Hoadly was classed as one of the ablest and soundest of American jurists. Of this period of his life, an historian of Ohio has said: “They (the above mentioned law firm), have successfully tried some of the great railroad cases of the day, and are as noted in these cases in Ohio as was Samuel J. Tilden in New York ten years ago in litigation of the same kind. Judge Hoadly has also appeared as counsel in the most important litigations of other kinds tried in Ohio of late years, having among others conducted victoriously the cases involving the use of the Bible in the common schools of Cincinnati, the constitutionality of the Pond and Scott laws, and in the United States Supreme Court overthrown the Federal trade-mark system, and compelled the State of Tennessee to redeem the issues of the Bank of Tennessee.”

A position where his peculiar legal powers were called into play, and his knowledge of constitutional law and readiness in debate made him a leader, was his membership in the Ohio constitutional convention of 1873-4, to which he was elected without opposition from Hamilton County. Yet while engaged in the manifold duties of his profession, he found time to engage in other fields of usefulness, serving as professor in the Cincinnati Law School, a chair of which he held for over twenty years; a trustee of the University of Cincinnati, and of the Cincinnati Museum; member of the Committee of the School of Design; and was in other ways the patron of the arts and sciences, and a promoter of their development in his home city. Among other self-imposed tasks, he made himself acquainted with the Spanish and German languages, and became as he calls himself “a poor stenographer.”

While Judge Hoadly had thus far allowed his name to be used only in connection with official positions directly in the line of his profession, and while he had little taste and less time for the practical part of politics, he still held pronounced views upon public questions, and carefully watched the drift of events. He was from the first a Democrat—as his father had been before him—a believer in democratic principles as enunciated by the founders of the party who were among the greatest of the founders of our government. And being a Democrat to the logical conclusions of democracy, he took issue with his party upon the question of human slavery. During the war, he acted politically with the Union elements; when peace was restored and the slave freed, he took part in the Liberal Republican movement of 1872, and was a member of the Cincinnati convention, and of its Committee on Resolutions, but disapproved of the nomination of Mr. Greeley with whom he had no political principles in common except hatred of slavery and belief in hard money. He withdrew from the convention immediately after the nomination was made, and entered into correspondence with leading Democrats, endeavoring to bring about the nomination of a Democratic candidate whom he stood ready to support. Failing in this, he reluctantly voted for Grant’s second election.

In 1876, Judge Hoadly earnestly entered into the movement known to contemporary history as “Tilden and Reform,” believing that the interests of the country would be best subserved by the election of Tilden and Hendricks. In the memorable legal contest that ensued, before the electoral commission, the Democratic Committee invited Judge Hoadly to argue the Oregon and Florida cases before that body, which he did in such manner as to make national a reputation for legal ability that had heretofore been largely confined to his own portion of the West. This probably caused his call to the (temporary) presidency of the Democratic National Convention of 1880.

One of the immediate but unpremeditated fruits of this political activity came in 1883, when Judge Hoadly was named by the Democrats of Ohio as their candidate for governor. He entered upon the canvas with activity, and his speeches at Hamilton and Piqua, were reported and eagerly circulated by the Democratic State Committee as campaign documents. After making some ten speeches, he was unfortunately stricken with malarial fever, which prevented his continuing upon the stump until the last week of the campaign. Although not yet entirely recovered, he was able to appear in Cleveland, Sandusky, Toledo and Dayton, addressing immense audiences with marked effect. A campaign that had of necessity lagged because of the absence of its chief, took on a new vigor, the Democratic heart was fired anew, and George Hoadly became Governor of the State by the emphatic majority of 12,529 over Judge Foraker, the Republican nominee. Not only this, but the close counties went Democratic, a legislature was secured, and Henry B. Payne, the life-long friend of Governor Hoadly’s father, was sent to represent Ohio in the United States Senate.

It is a matter of settled historical opinion, that the Buckeye State, with all its famous governors, was never possessed of a better chief magistrate than the one whose administration opened under such favoring influences. A knowledge of the needs of the state, gained from long acquaintance, a wisdom that could be made effective in practical affairs, calm judgment, and an eye that could look higher than the levels of mere partisanship, were among the things that aided him; and “the greatest good to the greatest number” was the principle that inspired all his acts.

A renomination was, of course, a foregone conclusion. In 1885, the Democratic State Convention proclaimed by acclamation that George Hoadly should again become its candidate for governor. He accepted, although knowing that Ohio was then practically a Republican State, and that one man could hardly expect to accomplish the miracle of permanent Democracy. Judge Foraker was once more the Republican choice, and in the fall election was chosen by a vote of 359,281 to 341,830 for Hoadly; the Rev. A. B. Leonard, the Prohibition candidate receiving 28,081, and John W. Northrup, the Greenback candidate 2,001 votes. Although the defeat was decisive, it was sweetened to Governor Hoadly by the fact that in 1885, as in 1883, he ran ahead of his ticket, being defeated by the smallest, and, in 1883 elected by the largest plurality given against or for any of the gentlemen upon the same ticket.

When Governor Hoadly saw his successor duly inaugurated, he cheerfully returned to the active labors of his profession, in Cincinnati, where he remained until March, 1887, when the call to the chief city of the Union came in such shape that it could not be ignored. His practice had extended into such fields that the removal was almost a necessity, and his health demanded a change of climate. He located in New York, and became a partner in the firm of Hoadly, Lauterbach & Johnson—a firm that stands in the front rank, and that has an immense clientage, not only in New York, but all through the country. His chief thought and ambition since then has been in his profession. In the spring of 1890, Governor David B. Hill appointed him a member of the commission to revise the judiciary article of the constitution of New York, but because of professional engagements which detained him in the trial of a case in Detroit, Michigan, during the entire spring and summer months of that year, he was compelled to decline the appointment.

In recent years, Judge Hoadly has been honored by the degree of Doctor of Laws, conferred by Yale College in 1885, by Dartmouth College in 1889, while his own college, once Hudson but now Adelbert, gave him the same title some years ago. He is a Free Mason, a Knight Templar, and has taken the 33rd degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish rite, and has always performed anything in his power to advance the interests of the order.

Of Judge Hoadly’s professional life in New York, much might be said, were this the place to say it. Outside of that, little can be said, for he has had time for little else. As “an Ohio man” he is always at home to any Buckeye neighbor, or impression, or memory that connect him with the days and scenes of his youth and early manhood. He may be seen occasionally in the gatherings of the Ohio Society, and when there, he is not allowed to remain in his seat unheard. Few men are as approachable in any walk of life; few men more companionable when he can command leisure for companionship. His friendships are strong, his decisions intuitive, his principles those of his honored ancestors, and Jonathan Edwards’ severe theology has had little reflection in his generous religious views. A single phrase might sum up his whole life and character: A typical American jurist and gentlemen.

JAMES HARRISON KENNEDY.

FOOTNOTES

[10] “The founding of Ohio,” an address of Senator George F. Hoar, at Marietta, Ohio, April 7, 1888.

DE SOTO’S CAMPS IN THE CHICKASAW COUNTRY IN 1540-1.

North Americans will probably always take a special interest in the adventures of the army of the Spanish commander De Soto, apart from the general charm of the subject, for it is to the chronicles of the same that they are indebted for the very earliest accounts of the Indian nations, who, in the sixteenth century inhabited the territory now comprising the southeastern quarter of the United States.

The route pursued by the expedition during the years 1539 to 1543 has long been the subject of much discussion, but no satisfactory conclusions have been arrived at concerning the matter as a whole. Indeed there can scarcely be said to be a single point on the entire line of march which has been established beyond cavil. It is not now my intention to add to the mass of general comment, but merely to treat of a certain point of the route which personal enquiry and exploration in the field have enabled me to make up my mind about in all surety.

This point is the location of the particular village of the Chickasaws in northeastern Mississippi, where De Soto went into camp on December 17, 1540, and of the smaller village to the northward whither he retreated about the first week in the ensuing March, after the fierce night attack of the natives which almost ruined the Spaniards.

Before proceeding to give my own conclusions as to the true position of these villages, it is but proper to furnish an abstract of the descriptions given by the old writers, together with the opinions of the modern historians of Mississippi and of other people now inhabiting the northeastern counties of the State. The various authorities (excepting the popular views) will be quoted in the order in which they have appeared in printed form before the world.

The anonymous “Gentleman of Elvas” one of the Portuguese volunteers, an eye-witness, comes first. His work, the “True Relation” etc., appeared in 1557. He says that Chicaza was a small town of twenty houses, and that the land was thickly inhabited, and that it was fertile, the greater part being under cultivation. Also that the Spaniards removed from that town where they wintered to the one where the cacique was accustomed to live, half a league off, because it was in the open country, on a prairie favorable for them.

The second authority is Garcilaso de la Vega, “the Inca,” who, however, was only a compiler, writing in 1591, from information given by three separate members of the little army. His book, “La Florida del Ynca” etc., first appeared in 1605. It furnishes a more elaborate account of the Chicaza transactions than the proceeding one, and to the following effect. The place had two hundred fires and was situated on a hill extending north and south, which was watered by many little brooks covered with nut, oak, and other similar trees. In order to lodge more commodiously they built themselves houses with wood and straw that they procured from the neighboring villages. Three days after the fight referred to, the General ordered the force to advance a league, search for wood and straw, and build a town to be named Chicacilla.

Factor Biedma’s account of the expedition, first published (in French) in 1841, is a very brief one. In the Chicaza affair, Buckingham Smith (1866) renders his words as stating that the army moved to “a cottage about a mile off.”

Nor does the abridged journal of Rodrigo Ranjel, De Soto’s private secretary, which was not printed till 1851, afford any information as to the first town. But he relates how the Spaniards, after their defeat, at once went to a savana or prairie a league off, where they erected huts and barracks, and established camp on a declivity and hill.

As may be easily supposed the next Europeans to visit that region, the English and French traders and soldiers of the eighteenth century, had more urgent matters to attend to than the verification of historical statements, for no mention of De Soto or the expedition is made in their scanty writings or reports on this region, and apparently the Chickasaws had forgotten all about his invasion. The American settlers of nearly a century later were still less likely to know about the matter, for the De Soto expedition can scarcely be said to have become known to people in general in the United States till after the publication of Theodore Irving’s interesting book in 1835.

Searching next in all accessible modern histories and books, the first attempt at definite localizing that I can find is in the appendix to the Smithsonian Report for 1867. The Rev. Samuel Agnew, writing from Guntown, Mississippi, under date of January 11, 1868, states that twelve years before, there had been pointed out to him on a long ridge between John’s Creek and Friendship Church, in Pontotoc County, the remains of ancient ditches or embankments. These he surmised might probably be the remains of De Soto’s winter camp, but he hoped that some intelligent antiquarian would look further into the matter.

The most comprehensive attempt however, to identify these camps, was made by Hon. J. F. H. Claiborne, in his “Mississippi as a Province” etc., published in 1880. In this book he wrote that:—

“There (the old Indian trail) struck Pontotoc ridge, four miles east of the ancient Chickasaw Council House. Near this point stood the first Chickasaw town, and in this vicinity the Spaniards went into winter quarters.

“At that period a portion of the Chickasaws still resided in the mountain region of east Tennessee, but a large body of them had taken possession of the territory where De Soto found them, and their principal settlement or town, or series of villages, was on the ridge from the ancient Council House (near Redland) north fifteen miles (near Pontotoc) and northeast, on the ‘mean prairie’ eight or ten miles, within a few miles of Tallahatchie River....

“Four miles east of the ancient Council House, on the Pontotoc ridge, near the source of the Suckartonchee Creek, are the vestiges of a fortified camp, evidently once strongly entrenched, after the European style of that day, with bastions and towers. Leaden balls and fragments of metal have been often found in these ruins. The enclosure was square, and the whole area, as evidenced by the remains, would have afforded shelter to the Spaniards and their live stock.... The chief of the Chickasaws resided about two miles southeast of the present town of Pontotoc, on the head-waters of Coonawa, now called Pontotoc Creek.... The exact position of this entrenched camp is still indicated by the vestiges that remain. Some persons contend that De Soto left this stronghold, advanced to Chickasilla, one mile northwest from where Pontotoc now stands, and commenced the attack on the Chickasaw towns. This would be to reverse the detailed accounts of the writers that accompanied him.... After the destruction of their camp, the Spaniards moved three miles to the village of Chickasilla, where they were annoyed by desultory attacks.”

In forming his opinions on the matter, Claiborne acknowledged his indebtedness to W. J. N. Walton of Aberdeen, Mississippi, a gentleman who “in early life was secretary of Levi Colbert, head chief of the Chickasaws, familiar with their language and with all their traditions,” and to W. B. Wilkes of the same place, a man whose tastes inclined him to archaeological pursuits. It is with diffidence therefore, that I venture to disagree with these conclusions, in my own statement.

As to the ideas of the farmers and others living in the old Chickasaw County, there is no uniformity of opinion as to the site of Soto’s camps. There are many local candidates for that honor, and so far as I could find out, there is no good reason to adopt one more than another. The place pointed out to Mr. Agnew is probably the site of Mound Builder’s work, of which class of remains there is no lack in northern Mississippi.[11] The same may be said of the position assigned to Chicaza by Claiborne, though the locality he means is rather to the southeast of Redland and in Chickasaw County.

The Chicaza of Soto’s time was on a high ridge or hill located about one mile northwest of Redland, on the S½ of the S¼ of Section 21, and the N½ of the N W½ of Section 28, town 11, range 3E. in Pontotoc county. The hill extends north and south, and on both sides there are many little spring branches flowing out of the base of the hill and uniting with the larger streams at a distance of from one to four or five rods. The main part of the town was located on Section 28. A part of it is under cultivation and has farm buildings upon it, while the remainder of the site is covered by young timber and brush.

Many years ago there was an Indian mission school that is said to have been located where the farm building now stands. In the new ground broken up within recent years, there were beds of charcoal and ashes found at different points, and even in the old portion of the cultivated land charcoal is occasionally brought to the surface by the plough. These are undoubtedly remains of old Chicaza, and the beds of charcoal and ashes mark the sites of the houses burned by the Indians. As regards the location, there is no other place in either Lee or Pontotoc counties—where the oldest Chickasaw settlements were undoubtedly situated—that corresponds to the topographical description given by the Inca.

Chicacilla was probably located on the S E¼ of Section 5, town 11, range 3 E., about 3½ miles north and a very little west of Chicaza. At this point there is debris, etc., indicating that there was once an old Chickasaw village there. The narratives of the expedition, however, do not give sufficient data regarding this site, so that it is impossible to fully identify the place by them, there being nothing beyond the statement already quoted that it was located on a sloping hill, a league distant from Chicaza. This being the only ancient Chickasaw village site properly lying on sloping ground, and at about the right distance from the burned town; it is more than probable that the position given above is the correct one. It is presumable that after the place was abandoned by the Spaniards, the Indians took possession of it, and occupied the houses in lieu of those destroyed by both parties. Besides this, it supplied them with a well fortified (palisaded) town in which to re-establish themselves.

At these two towns of Chicaza and Chicacilla, there are no vestiges of fortifications or entrenchments of any description, in fact there are none to be found in any of the Chickasaw old towns (or “fields”) that can be identified. It is probable that the fortified towns described in the De Soto and the early French expeditions were merely wooden walls or palisades, for otherwise there would be traces of them still remaining, so that at least some of them could be recognized as such.

The above conclusions were incidentally arrived at in the course of some archaeological explorations made in January and February 1891, in the former country of the Chickasaws, and may be considered as a contribution to some future revision of the generally accepted route of De Soto and his little army east of the Mississippi.

T. H. LEWIS.

FOOTNOTES

[11] Continuous wet weather and the resulting flooded state of the country prevented the writer from visiting the Agnew locality, which he had intended to examine like the others.

CHICAGO PIONEERS.

HON. ISAAC N. ARNOLD.