Part 8
Isaac Newton Arnold was born at Hartwick, near Cooperstown, Otsego Co., New York, Nov. 30, 1813. His father George Washington Arnold was a physician of honorable standing, and the family in America dates back to the earliest settlement of New England, some of its members being associates of Roger Williams and other sterling men, who established in Rhode Island the first real Republic that ever gladdened the hearts of men with its assertion and protection of liberty and independent, sovereign manhood. The natural surroundings of his youth—the romantic scenery of Otsego County, with its beautiful lakes and extensive forests, so delightfully picturesque—were well calculated to develop a strong and noble manhood. Amidst this beauty of nature and comparative solitude, the man who was to make such a success of life drank in inspiration and learned to love the pure and the beautiful. Early thrown upon his own resources, self-made and self-reliant, he reached a position of greatness, through a career of usefulness, honor and integrity. His early education was obtained in the country schools and the village academy. From seventeen to twenty years of age he employed his time in teaching half the year and in attending school the other half, his revenue from teaching enabling him to support himself in his pursuit of an education. Ultimately he began to prepare himself for the profession in which he afterwards achieved such a notable success. Reading law in the offices of Richard Cooper and Judge Morehouse of Cooperstown, Mr. Arnold was admitted to the bar in 1835, and after practicing for a brief time as a partner of Judge Morehouse, he came to Chicago in 1836, and at once began that illustrious professional career which placed him among the foremost jurists not only of Illinois, but of the nation. It is scarcely possible to have a more graphic and faithful picture of a life than was drawn by Hon. E. B. Washburne in his eloquent eulogy of Mr. Arnold before the Chicago Historical Society. He said: “During all the active years of a long and well-spent life, Mr. Arnold has been a citizen of Chicago, contributing by his indefatigable industry, his unimpeachable integrity, his patriotism, his public spirit, his rare abilities, his great acquirements, his spotless moral character, his high social qualifications and instincts as a thorough gentleman to give lustre to the city of his residence and to the generation to which he belonged; a successful lawyer that stood in the front ranks of his profession; a cautious, far-seeing and wise legislator, distinguishing himself in the halls of legislation, national as well as state; a successful public speaker and a writer of great power and wide-spread popularity, he has left to the generations that succeed him the legacy of a noble example and a noble name.”
Mr. Arnold was enrolled at the bar of the Supreme Court in Illinois Dec. 9, 1841, and in that same year he became counsel in a case which established his ability as a lawyer and brought him prominently before the profession. It was a time of great business depression, and a recreant legislature had passed an act of repudiation of public debts and providing that unless the property of a judgment debtor should bring two-thirds of its appraised value, it should not be sold under execution. Mr. Arnold was a determined opponent, of such legislation, and being employed by a New York judgment creditor to enforce his claim against a debtor, he attacked the constitutionality of the act, carried the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the case came on in January, 1843. Mr. Arnold presented an irrefutable written argument and Chief Justice Taney in one of the ablest and most elaborate opinions ever delivered in the court, sustained the position of the counsel for the appellant. Mr. Arnold was a powerful advocate whether before court or jury. He was exceedingly pains-taking in the preparation of his cases—which is half the battle with the lawyer—and before a jury he had no superior. As one of his associates at the bar has put it: “He was a learned lawyer, a jurist in the same sense of the term, and for more than thirty years stood at the head of the Chicago bar.”
In 1842 he was elected to the Lower House of the Illinois General Assembly. There were in that body at this time many men of distinction and marked ability, but none that were superior to the subject of this sketch. In 1844 Mr. Arnold was again elected to the House. At the close of this session of the legislature in 1846, Mr. Arnold retired from public life, and did not re-enter it until 1856. In politics he had been a Democrat, and in 1844 was a presidential elector on the Polk ticket. But becoming indignant at the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, he became what was known as an anti-Nebraska Democrat and in 1856, at the urgent solicitation of the anti-Nebraska Democrats and Republicans of Cook County, he again consented to become a candidate for the House of Representatives in the State Legislature. This was at the time that Bissel was elected Governor and his right to take the seat was challenged by the Democrats on the ground that he once accepted a challenge to fight a duel. Mr. Arnold championed the Governor’s cause, and his speech in his defense not only really settled the question, but gave him a high reputation over the whole State, marking him as one of the ablest public men of the time.
In the historical election at which Abraham Lincoln was first elected President of the United States, Mr. Arnold was elected a representative in the Thirty-seventh Congress from the Chicago district. That Congress met in extra session, July 4, 1861, and has passed into history as one of the most notable and momentous events in the life of the Republic. The Administration at the time was confronted by an open rebellion against the National authority, and it was for this session of Congress to determine just what should be done in the premises. Mr. Arnold had long known Mr. Lincoln, and between the two men there was a warm feeling of regard, and perhaps no man took his seat in this memorable session upon whom the President placed greater reliance than he did upon Mr. Arnold. The respect that was generally entertained for his abilities was evidenced by the fact that he was selected to pronounce the eulogy on the occasion of the death of Stephen A. Douglass. The regular session of the Thirty-seventh Congress met on the second day of December, 1861, at a time when the country was fully plunged into the midst of civil war. Mr. Arnold took his seat in the House, and at once entered actively into all the important proceedings of the body. His labors as a representative were very great and of the highest usefulness. Among his official acts that will live forever as a memento to his manhood and his statesmanship was his vote to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia and his introduction of a bill, which against a determined opposition he persistently pushed to enactment, to prohibit slavery in every place subject to the National jurisdiction. One who knew him well, expressed the opinion however, that the ablest and most notable speech which he made in Congress, was the one delivered May 2, 1862, in the support of the bill to confiscate rebel property. This speech, because of its value as an exponent of constitutional law, challenged the attention of the lawyer members. He was ceaseless in administering blows against the institution of slavery. He acted in this regard steadily upon his own declaration: “Whenever we can give slavery a constitutional blow, let us do it.” On February 15, 1863, he introduced a resolution, which was passed, declaring that the constitution should be so amended as to abolish slavery in the United States; and this was the first step ever taken in Congress in favor of the abolition and prevention of slavery in the country.
In his speech advocating this resolution, he uttered the following vigorous language and eloquent sentiment: “In view of the long catalogue of wrongs that slavery has inflicted upon the country, I demand to-day in the Congress of the United States the death of slavery. We can have no permanent peace while slavery lives. It now reels and staggers in the last death struggle. Let us strike the monster this last decisive blow. Pass this joint resolution and the Thirty-eighth Congress will live in history as that which consummated the great work of freeing a continent from the curse of human bondage. The great spectacle of this vote which knocks off the fetters of a whole race will make this scene immortal.” Further on he said: “I mean to fight this cause of the war—this cause of the expenditure of all the blood and treasure from which my country is now suffering; this institution which has filled our whole land with sorrow, desolation and anguish—I mean to fight it until neither on the statute-book nor in the constitution shall there be left a single sentence or word which can be construed to sustain the stupendous wrong. Let us now in the name of Liberty, Justice and of God consummate this grand resolution. Let us now make our country the home of the free.”
Mr. Arnold’s congressional career ended with the Thirty-eighth Congress March 3, 1865. He had served his country so well, had given the Administration such loyal, able and efficient support and won such a splendid fame that it was generally regretted that he would not consent to be returned. After President Lincoln’s assassination, he accepted the appointment from President Johnson of Auditor of the Treasury for the Port Office department, as a residence in Washington afforded him a more ready access to documents that were necessary to enable him to complete his work entitled the “History of Abraham Lincoln and the Overthrow of Slavery in the United States,” the preparation of which he had commenced before the assassination. He finally resigned the position however, and returned to Chicago in 1867. He then completed his work referred to, which is one of surprising interest and of exceptional historic value. In 1872, he resumed his bar practice in Chicago and continued actively in his profession for two or three years, when failing health compelled him to abandon it. From that time until his death, he lived a retired life in his pleasant home among his books and papers, where surrounded by his family and congenial friends he dispensed an elegant and gracious hospitality. He now had leisure to devote himself to favorite literary pursuits. He devoted himself to historic themes as he had a love for historical research, and a power of analysis which enabled him to do valuable work in historical and biographical writing. In 1880, he brought out a work entitled “Life of Benedict Arnold—His Patriotism and His Treason.” It is generally acknowledged to be a work of ability and fairness. Certainly it showed the independence and courage of the author for it required something of courage to meet the popular prejudice with which the name of Benedict Arnold is regarded. But the author said that he wished to “make known the patriotic service of Benedict Arnold; the sufferings, heroism and the wrongs which drove him to a desperate action and induced one of the most heroic men of an heroic age to perpetrate an unpardonable crime.” The book is really one of great historic value. Mr. Arnold was never quite satisfied with his work on Mr. Lincoln and the overthrow of slavery. About two years before his death, therefore, he began to write the “Life of Abraham Lincoln,” and it is upon this work, says one of his ardent admirers, that his reputation as a biographer and historian must rest.
He was the author of a great number of sketches. “To whatever he undertook,” says one, “Mr. Arnold brought the qualities of a ripe intelligence, great vigor and a sound judgment.” At an age when most men rest, he was pursuing to its legitimate honors and rewards the career of a man of letters and of a historian. With an intellectual and finely chiseled face, of an erect and well-formed person, of quiet and gentlemanly manners and courteous carriage and bearing, Mr. Arnold was a man who always attracted attention. He was a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and for many years a vestryman of St. James’ Church in Chicago. The successes of life and the usual hardening influences of public life had no effect upon his manly Christian character. The better side of his nature was at all times in the ascendancy. His earnest, paramount desire was to be useful in the world, and he freely understood that to gratify that desire man must be alive to the claims of his fellow man upon him. On his seventieth birthday he wrote: “Three score and ten; Death must be at no great distance. I wish to live only so long as I may be to some extent useful, and not when I shall be a burden. May my remaining days be useful and innocent.” He was possessed of many noble traits of character, not likely to be known outside of his immediate circle of friends. He was a great lover of children, and devotedly tender in his own home.
Mr. Arnold was twice married. His first marriage was with Catherine E. Dorrance of Pittsfield, Mass., who died October 1839. His second marriage was with Harriet Augusta Dorrance, a sister of his former wife, August 4, 1841. Nine children were born of this marriage. Mr. Arnold died at his residence in Chicago, April 24, 1884, mourned by the great city in which he lived and a multitude of others who appreciate the worth of true manhood. No citizen of Chicago ever had more numerous or more eloquent eulogies pronounced upon his death; the memory of no citizen was ever honored by such a gathering of distinguished people as assembled to pay the last sad tribute to Mr. Arnold’s memory.
HOWARD LOUIS CONARD.
SOME ANCIENT METHODS OF PUNISHMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS.
Scarcely anything indicates so accurately the predominant traits and condition of a people at any given period, as do the laws by which they are governed and the mode in which those laws are administered. Hence, in studying the early history of Massachusetts much important aid may be derived from the records of the courts and magistrates of that time. These give us a tolerable correct idea of the laws then in force which were designed to regulate the conduct of men in the various relations of life and show what was the practical administration of those laws. This is quite as true (perhaps more so), of the laws concerning what may be termed minor offences or breaches of social duty, for which men were held legally accountable, as it is of the graver crimes.
Some of the laws relating to this class of minor offences have undergone changes within the last two hundred years, particularly since our separation from the Mother Country.
These changes have been not so much in regard to the nature and description of the offence itself, as in regard to the penalty. They have in Massachusetts at the present time, and have had ever since the American Revolution, laws against drunkenness, vagrancy, petty larceny, libel and slander, profane cursing and swearing, Sabbath breaking, unlawful games or plays, lewdness, common railing and brawling, and idle and disorderly conduct generally. Our Colonial ancestors had laws substantially like those in force so far as relates to the offences themselves.
In fact, the present statutes on these subjects are many of them copies of the provincial statutes. But the penalties are quite different. They now punish breaching of these laws by a small fine or by imprisonment for a short term, or by both. For similar breaches of the statute and common law in the early history of Massachusetts some very different penalties were provided. These were actually enforced in frequent instances, which is hardly true of similar cases at the present day.
The Magistrates and Courts that administered the laws in Massachusetts during the first century and a half after its settlement were full believers in the propriety and efficacy of corporal punishment for a certain class of transgressions. Having based their criminal code largely upon that of Moses, they were well persuaded that, if in no case they exceeded the Hebrew limit of forty stripes, they would have the Divine sanction. With this illustrious precedent constantly in view as a rule of action, they did not hesitate to apply the rod whenever it seemed to them appropriate and adequate penalty for the offence. Crimes of a graver character were dealt with by tribunals of larger jurisdiction and punished by imprisonment or death. But for a large class of misdemeanors, particularly such as were considered scandalous or tending to disorder and of evil example, the rod was a very frequent instrument of punishment.
It was a matter within the discretion of the Magistrate to some extent. This office was held by William Pynehon, of Springfield, Mass., for the first eleven years, afterwards for half a century by John Pynehon and his associates. In awarding this punishment of whipping little regard seems to have been paid by the court to the sex or social position of the offender. If the infliction of the penalty tended to disgrace the culprit, the commission of the offence was in itself disgraceful. The degrading punishment was regarded the just and proper sequence of the disgraceful crime.
The constable was the officer by whom the sentence was executed, and the public whipping post was the place. The time was sometimes the day on which the court was held. Occasionally, the day of the weekly religious lecture was designated as the time for the infliction.
Sometimes whipping was an alternative sentence to be inflicted if the offender failed to pay his fine. Often it was the only punishment awarded.
Some instances will be given, taken from the records—most of them are from the Pynehon record, containing cases tried by William Pynehon as a Magistrate, and cases tried by his son, John Pynehon, in connection with Eleziar Holyoke and Dr. Samuel Chapin who were commissioners appointed by the General Court.
FALSE REPORTS, SLANDERS, ETC.
In May, 1645, the General Court enacted a law designed to suppress the invention and circulation of false reports, whether injurious to private individuals or to the public in general.
The preamble was in these words:
“WHEREAS, Truth in words, as well as actions, is required of all men, especially of Christians who are the professed servants of the God of truth; and
“WHEREAS, All lying is contrary to truth, and some sort of lies are not only sinful (as all lies are), but also pernicious to the public weal and injurious to particular persons. It is therefore ordered that every person who shall wittingly and willingly make or publish any lie pernicious to the public weal or tending to the damage or injury of any particular person, or with intent to deceive and abuse the people with false news and reports shall be punished.
For the 1st offence a fine of 10 shillings, &c.
For the 2d offence a fine of 20 shillings or be whipped upon the naked body not exceeding 10 stripes.
For the 3rd offence a fine of 4 shillings or 15 stripes, &c., &c.”
The following is a case for slander in imputing to a woman the offence witchcraft.
“May 29 and 30, 1649—The widdow Marshfield, complains against Mary, the wife of Hugh Parsons, of Springfield, for reporting her to be suspected for a witch, and she produced Jo Matthews and his wife for her witnesses who were examined upon oath. Jo Matthews said that Mary Parsons told him how she was taught to try a witch by a widdow woman that now lives in Springfield, and that she had lived in Windsor, and that she had three children, and that one of them was married, and at last she said it was the widdow Marshfield. Jo Matthews answered that he believed no such thing of her—but, thereupon, said he, Mary Parsons replied, you need not speak so much for goody Marshfield, for I am sure (said she), she hath envied every woman’s child in ye end (?) till her own daughter had a child, and then said she yt child died and ye cow died, and I am persuaded said she, they were bewitched, and she said moreover, it was reported to her by one in town that she was suspected to be a witch when she lived in Windsor, and that it was publicly knowne that the devill followed her house in Windsor, and for aught I know said she follows her here.
Goody Matthews saith upon oath that when Goody Parsons came to her house she said to her, I wonder what is become of the half pound of wool. Goody Parsons said that she could not tell except the witch had witched it away. I wonder, said I, that you talk so much of a witch—do you think there is any witch in towne? Yes, said she, and she came into my house while the wool was cardinge. Who is it, said I? She said that An Stebbinge had told her in Mr. Smith’s chamber that she was suspected to be a witch in Windsor, and that there were divers strange lights seen of late in the Meddow that were never seen before ye widdow Marshfield came to town, and that she did grudge at other women that had children because her daughter had none, and about the time (namely of the grudging) ye child died and ye cow died.
Goody Parsons did stiffly deny the truth of their testimonys, but the said witness had delivered their testimony upon oath, and finding that she had defamed ye good name of the Widdow Marshfield I sentenced her to be well whipped on the morrow after lecture with twenty lashes by the constable unless she could promise the payment of 3L to ye Widdow Marshfield for and towards the reparation of her good name.”
MARRIAGE—PLYMOUTH COLONY LAWS.—1638.
“Whereas divers persons unfit for marriage both in regard of their young years and also in regard of their weake estate, some practising the enveagling of men’s daughters and maids under guardines contrary to their parents and guardians likeing, and of maid servants without leave and liking of their masters.
“It is therefore enacted by the Court that if any shall make any motion of marriage to any man’s daughter or mayde servant not having first obtayned leave and consent of the parents or master so to doe, shall be punished either by fine or corporal punishment or both, at the discretion of the bench and according to the nature of the offence. It is also enacted that if a motion of marriage be duly made to the master, and through any sinister end or coveteous desire he will not consent thereunto, then the cause to be made known unto the Magistrates and they to set down such order therein as upon examination of the case shall appear to be most equal on both parts.”
COURTSHIP AND MARRIAGE—PROVINCE LAWS.