Reminiscences of Sixty Years in Public Affairs, Vol. 1

by George S. Boutwell

During his service in the House he introduced an extraordinary bill which received little or no support from the members. By that bill it was made a misdemeanor to flow the land of another for any purpose whatsoever, thus changing the ancient Mill Act of the State; provided, however, that it should not apply to any citizen of Massachusetts. It was said that Curtis had a client whose land had been flowed by a Rhode Island man, and not being willing to pursue him in the courts of the United States, he framed the bill in question. Of course the bill failed. Again in 1851 he gave an opinion that Sumner, Wilson, myself and perhaps some others, could be indicted for the coalition by which the Whig Party was driven from power in Massachusetts. The opinion was printed secretly and read in the Whig caucus, where it received so little support that it was suppressed. When the parties had disappeared, I read a copy that had been preserved in the office of the Boston Journal.

Judge Curtis was a jurist, and that only. He had no literary taste in the true sense, although the statement has been made that he was a constant reader of novels. However that may have been, his speeches were seldom if ever adorned or burdened by illustrations or references outside of the books of the profession.

George T. Curtis, a brother of Benjamin R., was a member of the House for several years, between 1840 and 1850. With the overthrow of the Whig Party in 1851, he disappeared from the politics of the State, and at about the same time he removed to New York. As a writer he is clear and methodical, but from choice or fortune many of his subjects have not been acceptable, and his treatment of his subjects has been counter usually to the general opinion of the country. As the son-in-law of Judge Story and the brother of Judge Curtis, there was a general expectation that his career would be distinguished. That expectation was not realized. His self-conceit was unbounded. That defect made him unpopular with his professional brethren, and at last it alienated his clients. Even Mr. Choate, the gentlest of men, could not endure Mr. Curtis. Of him he said, "Some men we hate for cause, but George T. Curtis we hate peremptorily."

Charles P. Curtis was also a member of the House for many years. He was a more genial man than either the Judge or George T. The three constituted the fraternity known as the Curtii. Chief Justice Shaw, who had married a Curtis, was also included in the brotherhood.

XV MASSACHUSETTS POLITICS AND MASSACHUSETTS POLITICIANS 1850-51 AND 1852

The defeat of General Cass in 1848 changed the policy of the leaders of the Democratic Party in Massachusetts. These leaders were David Henshaw, Charles G. Greene, and as an assistant Benjamin F. Hallett. The first two had controlled the patronage of the general government very largely during the administrations of Jackson, Van Buren and Polk. They looked to the election of General Cass as a continuation of that policy. These leaders considered the control of Massachusetts as hopeless, and not unlikely they considered the national patronage as more valuable than the offices of the State. Hence they were ready to endorse whatever the Washington authorities demanded. Consequently our platforms tended to alienate voters rather than to attract them. This policy was very disagreeable to the younger members of the party, but they were unable to resist it. The Boston Post, owned by Colonel Greene, was the leading Democratic paper in the State. Many of the country papers followed its lead. The Worcester Palladium was an exception, but its influence was limited.

Greene and Hallett attributed the defeat of General Cass to the defection of the South and for the time they were disposed to sanction or to permit a policy of retaliation. Consequently the State Convention of 1849 was disposed to utter the sentiments of the party in regard to slavery. For many years Hallett had been the chairman of the Committee on Resolutions. He was designated for that position in 1849. The Free-soil Party had already become a power in the State. It was led by men who had been prominent in the Whig Party in its last days. Hallett reported a resolution in which was this expression: "We are opposed to slavery throughout all God's heritage." When the Democratic Party regained power in 1853 this declaration threatened to impede Hallett in his plans for office and influence. Pierce made allowances for the circumstances and rewarded Hallett with the office of district attorney. The resolutions, however, tended to conciliate the anti-slavery element of the State and in many towns and in some of the counties the Democrats and Free-soilers coalesced and elected a formidable minority of the Legislature. The result of the coalition demonstrated the possibility of a combination which could control the State. The Convention gave me the nomination, and without any serious opposition. Stephen C. Phillips of Salem, was the candidate of the Free-soil Party. Together we had a majority of the popular vote, and Governor Briggs was elected Governor by the Legislature. The plurality rule had not then been adopted.

In 1850 each of the three parties nominated the same candidates and the coalition in the towns, cities and counties was much more complete. The victory was decisive. When the Legislature assembled, Henry Wilson, Free-soiler, was chosen president of the Senate and General Banks, Democrat, was chosen speaker of the House. The candidates of the Democratic Party were elected to the office of Governor and Lieutenant Governor. The council was divided between the parties. The selection of a candidate for the Senate was left for the Free-soil Party. The choice fell upon Mr. Sumner, although there was a large public sentiment, especially in the Democratic Party, in favor of Mr. Phillips. Such was my own opinion at the time, but the result showed the wisdom or good fortune of the selection that was made. Mr. Phillips was a man of education, a merchant by profession, and a gentleman who enjoyed the confidence of the public. He was an Anti- Slavery man upon principle, but his intellectual movements were slow, and his power as a forensic speaker was moderate only.

In January, 1851, when these events were occurring, the prospects of the National Democratic Party had improved. The Henshaw wing of the party in Massachusetts were anticipating a success in 1852. Mr. Webster had made his famous and fatal speech on the 7th of March, 1850. President Taylor had died, and Mr. Fillmore was President. He had reorganized the Cabinet and endorsed the Compromise Measures, and finally the Whig Party was divided, hopelessly. In this condition of affairs, Greene and Hallett entered upon a vigorous opposition to the election of Sumner. The Boston Post called upon the Democratic members of the House to oppose his election. About twenty-eight members known as "old hunkers" followed the lead of the Post. After a long contest Mr. Sumner was elected by a single vote. As far as I know, Mr. Sumner was not a party to any arrangement as to a division of the offices, and I am sure that I was never consulted upon the subject. As far as arrangements were made, they were made by members of the Legislature. The members had been elected by a coalition among the people and they executed the will of the people. The vacant places were filled by representative men from each of the parties. While the struggle over the election of Senator was going on, the Legislature proceeded to elect a Senator for the term that was to expire the 4th of March, 1851. It was the seat that Mr. Webster had vacated to take the office of Secretary of State under Mr. Fillmore. Governor Briggs had appointed Robert C. Winthrop to the vacancy.

The Legislature elected Robert Rantoul, Jr., to the vacancy. Mr. Rantoul was then in the West, and his address was not known to any one. Mr. Ezra Lincoln, a friend to Mr. Winthrop, came to me and said that Mr. Winthrop wished to have Mr. Rantoul's credentials sent to him, as he should feel unpleasant if they were sent to any one else. Accordingly they were so sent. In a few days Mr. Lincoln called and said that Mr. Winthrop wished to know whether he should present the credentials at once, or hold them until Mr. Rantoul appeared. I said in reply that I was the agent of the Legislature for the transmission of the certificate, and that I did not feel at liberty to give instructions. Thereupon Mr. Winthrop presented the credentials of Mr. Rantoul, and retired from the Senate. This act was followed by attacks upon me, by Senators and by newspapers, the charge being that I had driven Mr. Winthrop from the Senate and at a time when an important question relating to the tariff was pending. Neither Mr. Winthrop nor any of his friends made any explanation. Mr. Lincoln came to me and expressed his regrets that the attacks had been made, and he volunteered to use his influence with the Daily Advertiser, and induce it to suspend its attacks. This he did, I presume, as that paper made no further allusion to the subject. As for myself, I remained silent, following a rule that I had formed early in life, to avoid public controversy concerning my own acts. This rule, however, was not an inflexible one.