Reminiscences of Sixty Years in Public Affairs/Chapter 08
VIII
FIRST EXPERIENCE IN POLITICS
AT the spring election of Groton in 1839, I was chosen a member of the school committee. The other members had been in the service in previous years. They were the Rev. Charles Robinson, the Rev. Mr. Kittredge, Dr. Joshua Green, and Dr. George Stearns. In the early Colonial period the “minister” was often the schoolmaster also. Naturally he took an interest in the education of the children, and previous to the time when school committees were required by statute, he was the self-constituted guide of the teachers and schools. Indeed, the schools were parochial. Whenever the minister visited a school he made a prayer, and the morning exercise in reading was in the New Testament Scriptures,—two verses by each pupil. In 1840 the entire board was rejected, and a board composed of school teachers and non-professional men was chosen.
In 1838 the Massachusetts Legislature passed what was known as the Fifteen-Gallon Law. The statute prohibited the sale of distilled spirits in “less quantity than fifteen gallons.” It did not take effect immediately and the election of that year was not seriously disturbed, but before the autumn of 1839 the State was thoroughly aroused. A cry was raised that it was a law to oppress the poor who could not command means to purchase the quantity named, while the rich would enjoy the use of liquor notwithstanding the statute. The town of Groton was entitled to two members in the house of representatives. Both parties nominated candidates who favored the repeal of the Fifteen-Gallon Law. The temperance voters put a ticket in the field, the Rev. Amasa Sanderson, the minister of the Baptist Society, then a new organization, and feeble in numbers and wealth, and myself. At that time my associations were largely with Whigs, but I was opposed to a national bank, and in favor of free trade. With those views it was not possible for me to act with the Whig Party on national questions or in national contests. Mr. Sanderson and I received about seventy-six votes, and as none of the candidates had a majority, the town was unrepresented.
Edward Everett was Governor when the law was passed, and he was a candidate for re-election in 1839. I supported Mr. Everett on the temperance issue against Judge Marcus Morton, who was the candidate of the Democratic Party. Judge Morton had been on the bench of the Supreme Judicial Court where he had the reputation of an able judge by the side of Shaw, Wilde and Putnam. At that time I had not seen Morton or Everett. In the year 1836 or 1837 I went to Boston to hear Alex. H. Everett deliver a Democratic Fourth of July oration. The effort was a disappointment to me. A. H. Everett had a reputation as an orator, but he was far inferior to his brother Edward. In later years I heard Edward Everett often. His genius in preparation and in the delivery of his orations and speeches was quite equal to anything we can imagine at Athens and by Athenian orators, excepting only the force of the argument.
In 1851 or 1852 I was present at an agricultural fair at Northampton and in company with Mr. Everett. After dinner speeches were made. When we rode to the fair grounds in the morning a dense river fog covered the valley but at ten o'clock it lifted, and the day became clear. At the dinner Mr. Everett in his speech described the morning, the dense fog, the lifting, the sun illumining first the hills and then the valleys, revealing the spires of the churches, etc. For the moment I was deceived. But when he had concluded I saw him hand his manuscript to a reporter and the speech appeared the next morning, verbatim as he had delivered it. He knew the river towns, and he knew that every fair day in autumn was preceded by a dense fog, and the speech was written upon that theory. What alternative he had prepared in case of a rain, I know not.
As a judge, and at the same time the candidate of the Democratic Party for Governor for many years, the rank and file of the party came to regard Judge Morton as a man of fine abilities and sterling integrity. His abilities were sturdy rather than attractive. In this respect he was the opposite of Governor Everett. In the canvass of 1839 Morton was elected by one vote in a contest of unusual warmth. This election removed him from the bench, much to his regret, it was said, as under the circumstances he could hardly hope for a re-election. The House and Senate were controlled by the Whigs, and the Governor was surrounded by a council composed of Whigs. The Fifteen-Gallon Law was repealed and in other respects the government was not different from what it would have been had Mr. Everett been re-elected.
Governor Morton continued to be the Democratic candidate, and though defeated in 1840 and 1841 by John Davis, he was again elected in 1843 by the Legislature, there having been no choice by the people, a majority being required. The Senate was Democratic by a considerable majority. The House was equally divided at the opening of the session, and there were four abolitionists who held the balance of power. After several trials the Whigs succeeded in electing Daniel P. King of Danvers, by the help of one or more of the abolitionists. There were several contested seats, and when the house had been purged, as the process was called, the Democrats were in a majority. The session was a short one. A few political measures were passed, salaries were reduced, and much below a reasonable compensation for those days even. Governor Morton had a Democratic Council, but they were not agreed in policy and the administration lost strength even with Democrats. Its defeat, in the autumn was inevitable, and Gov. Morton ceased to be a candidate for an office that he had sought in twenty elections and gained in two. With others I lost confidence in his ability, but that confidence I afterwards regained.
He was a member of the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1853, and in that body his ability was conspicuous. His style was clear and logical, and his processes of reasoning were legal and judicial in character. In his speeches he avoided authorities and spurned notes. He prepared himself by reading and reflection, and the arrangement was dictated by the logic of the case. His speeches were the speeches of a strong man, and he was a dangerous antagonist in debate. His reasoning was faultless and he kept his argument free from all surplus matter.
In a conversation that I once had with him at his home in Taunton, he said that the best legal argument to which he had ever listened was made by Samuel Dexter. As Governor Morton had heard Pinckney, Wirt, Webster, Mason, Choate, Curtis and many others, the praise of Dexter was not faint praise.