by Judge Curtis whose dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott case aroused the conscience of the North and hastened the great conflict that resulted in the emancipation of the slaves in the United States.

As matter of history only the Dred Scott decision is known to-day and few persons are aware that the foundation of that suit which intensified the bitterness then existing between the North and South arose out of a simple assault and battery that was within the jurisdiction of the inferior courts. The legal title of the case was Dred Scott vs. John F. A. Sanford. The matter was first heard in the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Missouri and judgment was rendered for the defendant on the ground that Scott was not a citizen, and had no standing in court. The case was then taken to the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of error and involved several complicated questions. The most eminent counsel in the country were arrayed against each other and the case was twice argued on account of differences of opinion among the members of the court at its first hearing. It was very expensive litigation but Scott had ample support from the abolitionists of the North while the slaveholders of the South backed Sanford.

After considering the case for nearly two years Chief Justice Taney rendered a decision that startled the North and was received with exultation in the South. A majority of the court proclaimed the "monstrous" doctrine, so designated in the North, that a person whose ancestors were of the African race could not be citizen of the United States and had no rights that a white

JOHN WILDER MAY

man was bound to respect. In other words it was held that a colored man was merely property and could be bought and sold like any article of merchandise. In the opinion, which showed remarkable learning and historical research, the Chief Justice held that the settlers of the American colonies inherited and displayed feelings toward men of African descent that had come from every European nation; and that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were adopted at a time when such feelings existed. Nearly every other member of the court, while agreeing with the Chief Justice, felt called upon to express their views because of the political considerations involved, and which also included private rights of value and constitutional principles of the highest importance.

Judge Curtis, a Massachusetts Democrat, read a dissenting opinion

Wharf where the slaves were put aboard vessels.

Richard H. Dana, the author of "Two Years Before the Mast" and a prominent abolitionist, was counsel for one of the slaves and Colonel Seth J. Thomas appeared for the owners. At a bar meeting held on the death of Mr. Dana Colonel Thomas made a remarkable address which will always be remembered by persons who were present. He referred to the legal battle between Mr. Dana and himself and described the events which led up to the civil war and the destruction of slavery. In closing his tribute to Mr. Dana, Colonel Thomas said, "I won, you lost! You won, I

lost!"

The United States Commissioner in Boston at that time was Edward G. Loring, who was also Judge of Probate for Suffolk county. John A. Andrew, then a young lawyer serving in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, started a movement to impeach Judge Loring and the powerful speech of Mr. Andrew is said to have influenced his colleagues to take action which resulted in the removal of Judge Loring. When the vote was announced Mr. Andrew exclaimed, "Thank God, the deed is done!" A few years later that remark furnished the key note to a campaign that made Mr. Andrew governor of the Commonwealth, a governor who during the four years of the civil war, with Governors Morton of Indiana and Curtin of Pennsylvania, sustained and strengthened Abraham Lincoln in some of the darkest periods of that momentous struggle. After the war ended Governor Andrew resumed legal duties and was foremost in the ranks of his profession

when he died in 1868. One of his great efforts was before a legislative committee in favor of more liberal legislation as to the sale of liquor and he aroused antagonism among the opponents of the measure by declaring and proving by medical experts that liquors contained a certain percentage of food products. products. The initiative taken by Governor Andrew stimulated a public sentiment against prohibition and culminated in the present local option statute, one of the most satisfactory laws ever enacted. Just before his death Governor Andrew was before the Supreme Court as counsel for the plaintiff in the celebrated breach of promise suit brought by Belinda B. Elms against Daniel D. Kelly, the large ship builder of East Boston. The jury returned a verdict of $8.000 for Mrs. Elms, but the exceptions taken by E. D. Sohier and G. A. Somerby, counsel for Mr. Kelly, were sustained by the full bench and a trial new was ordered. The vital evidence for the plaintiff was a ring inscribed from "Dan to Belle" which Mrs. Elms testified Mr. Kelly gave her after his promise to marry her. After the first trial Governor Andrew died and the two suceeding trials were conducted by Tolman Willey, a brilliant advocate who took the place of Governor Andrew. A second verdict for the plaintiff was set aside by the presiding justice and the third trial resulted in a verdict for Mr. Kelly. The sensational feature of this trial was the appearance of a jeweler from Portland, Maine, who testified that Mrs. Elms purchased the ring from him. and it was engraved as she requested.

The criminal side of the Superior

GEORGE P. SAWYER

Court has made rapid advances within twenty-five years and has kept pace with the civil sessions. Since the days of District Attorney Samuel D. Parker, a remarkable prosecuting officer, the position has been filled by George P. Sanger, afterward United States District Attorney, John Wilder May, later a justice of the Municipal Court, Oliver Stevens and now John B. Moran. With Mr. May was General Patrick R. Guiney, (the father of Miss Imogene Guiney the well known writer,) who achieved distinction in the War of the Rebellion; and among the assistants under Mr. Stevens were Samuel Hoar, now dead, Moorfield Storey, Timothy J. Dacey, Melvin O. Adams, Thomas W. Proctor, Robert W. Nason, John D. McLaughlin and Frederick H. Chase.

Mr. May, who was a thorough lawyer, first came into prominence as a member of the Common Council of Boston representing Roxbury

HENRY W. PAINE

could only exercise legislative and not judicial powers. Mr. Whitcomb subsequently brought suit against the city for false imprisonment claiming damages for a large amount. The case was never tried but was settled on the payment of a substantial sum to Mr. Whitcomb.

Before Mr. May became District Attorney he acted in a criminal case that attracted a good deal of attention. A man had died leaving an estate of about one million dollars

to two minor children and a well known lawyer was appointed trustee. When the children became of age and demanded an accounting it was found that the entire fortune had been dissipated. Mr. May as counsel for the heirs made strong efforts to induce the justices of the Municipal Court to issue a warrant for the arrest of the lawyer, but it was decided that there was no statute covering the offence and that it could not be reached at common law. The legislature was in session at the time and passed the so-called embezzlement law as applied to "clerks, servants or agents." In the meantime Mr. May had become District Attorney for Suffolk county, and intended to present the case to that body but Judge Aldrich forestalled possible action by instructing the grand jury that any embezzlement of trust funds before the law was passed was not subject of indictment, as the law could not be made retroactive in its operation. This ended the legal proceedings and nothing more was done.

a

Mr. Stevens who was District Attorney for more than thirty years represented the government at many important trials where the accused were defended by the ablest attorneys at the bar. One of the most interesting cases was against 'young man named Fitzgerald who had an extensive acquaintance among public men at Washington and who was charged with obtaining a check for about $2,500 from the Hon. Charles Francis Adams by means of a bunco game. Mr. Adams enjoyed the unique distinction of being not only a son but a grandson of a president of the United States, his grandfather John Adams and his father John Quincy

Adams having both held that exalted position. Charles Francis Adams, who was minister to the Court of St. James during the War of the Rebellion, rendered his country the most distinguished service in that position and laid the basis for the Alabama Claims which cost England $20,000,000 for the destruction of American shipping by Confederate privateers built and fitted out in English shipyards. At the time of the incident under consideration Mr. Adams was well advanced in years and it was found that his mental condition was such that he was unable to testify. To establish a case for the government Mr. Stevens had to rely upon the testimony of Hon. Richard Olney and John Quincy Adams the son of Charles Francis Adams, neither of whom had personal knowledge of the transaction. It was a difficult matter for Mr. Stevens to lay a foundation but he succeeded in overcoming all objections raised by ingenious counsel and Fitzgerald, who was convicted, was sentenced by Chief Justice Brigham to a long term in state prison.

John A. Andrew and George Sennott-the latter a celebrated criminal lawyer in Boston-who in 1859 volunteered their services in defence of John Brown when tried in the courts of Virginia for treason in an attempt to incite the slaves to insurrection, made quite a reputation in the North and won the gratitude of the abolitionists. The trial did not give Mr. Andrew or Mr. Sennott an opportunity to show their legal abilities but it evoked. humanitarian considerations that molded and shaped public opinion for the tremendous conflict of arms that soon followed. It was a cour