Top

AT THE BAR.

The young lawyer, R. B. Hayes, full of hopefulness and ambition, commenced the practice of the law at Lower Sandusky, now Fremont, Sandusky county, Ohio. This growing town of Northern Ohio was selected because it was the home of the uncle whose extensive business connections would naturally throw more or less law business into the nephew's hands.

His first case was one against a sheriff's sureties, the sheriff having become insolvent. There were five or six bondsmen, who employed as many different lawyers, who of course made a fierce fight to protect the pockets of their clients. The pleadings were difficult under the old practice, and the slightest technical defect in them would adroitly be taken advantage of by the defendants' attorneys. But so accurately had the pleadings been drawn, and so well had the case been worked up by the young lawyer, that no flaw could be found, and his suit was at all points successful.

After this success he had a good run of office business, and was employed both in the defense and prosecution of criminals. In April, 1846, he entered into a law-partnership with Ralph P. Buckland, an older practitioner in good practice. Mr. Buckland subsequently became a conspicuous member of the Ohio Senate, and a gallant officer of the rank of brigadier-general in the war. He became a member also of the Thirty-ninth Congress.

One of the most important cases tried by Hayes while a member of this firm was an action to prevent or enjoin the building of a railway bridge across the Bay of Sandusky, on the ground of its obstructing navigation. The cause was tried before Judge McLean, in the United States District Court at Cincinnati. Thomas Ewing, who was one of the opposing counsel in the case, continued to compliment Hayes during life for this maiden effort in a United States Court.

In November, 1848, in consequence of bleeding at the lungs and other alarming admonitions of failing health, Mr. Hayes left Fremont to pass a winter with his friend, Guy M. Bryan, in Texas. A half year of boating, fishing, hunting, and scouring the prairies brought about a physical revolution. He came back as sound as a dollar—that is, a coin dollar—and has so remained ever since.

In December, 1849, he put in execution a design for some time contemplated, and on Christmas eve arrived in Cincinnati. He had consulted professional friends in Cincinnati about seeking the stimulus of a wider field for permanent occupation, and was doubtless influenced somewhat by the advice received. One who had been with him at Harvard wrote: "I have not flattered the face of man or woman for years, but I think honestly that the R. B. Hayes whom I knew four years ago would be sure to succeed at this bar, if he can afford to live and wait." Another professional brother, on terms of intimacy, wrote: "With your energies, talents, education, and address, you are green—verdant as grass—to stay in a country village." On the 8th of January, 1850, the new candidate for public and professional favor took possession of an office on the south side of Third street, between Main and Sycamore, opposite the Henrie House. His office companion was John W. Herron, with whose appearance and manners the new comer seems to have been well pleased. The first year in Cincinnati brought little professional business, but no day was passed in idleness. His studies were systematic, and his reading comprehensive in both law and literature. Shakespeare, Burke, Webster, and Emerson were his inseparable companions. He sought to widen the circle of his acquaintances, and add daily to the number of his friends. Having been a member of the order of Odd-Fellows and Sons of Temperance in Fremont, he united again with those organizations in Cincinnati. The addresses he was invited to deliver at Odd-Fellow's lodges and at many more public places were very numerous. In this way he made reputation as a public speaker, if not money. He was not only becoming known, but becoming favorably known.

The widely renowned literary club of Cincinnati, which he joined in 1850, and of which he remained an active member for eleven years, awakened his social sympathies and ardent interest. To the reading of essays, and to the discussions on political, social, and moral questions, he always listened, and in the latter often took part. In debate, he was strong, eager, clear, and logical. He had an aptitude at seeing principles and getting at the kernel of questions. Among those who during these years participated in the social or literary entertainments of the club-room were Chief Justice Chase, Thomas Corwin, Thomas Ewing, father and son, General Pope, General Edward F. Noyes, Stanley Matthews, M. D. Conway, Manning F. Force, W. K. Rogers, John W. Herron, D. Thew Wright, Isaac Collins, Charles P. James, R. D. Mussey, and many others of ability and distinction. In January, 1852, the opportunity for "getting a start" in his professional career came. While making a sensible, energetic little speech in behalf of a criminal indicted for grand larceny, named Cunningham, he attracted the attention and won the commendation of Judge R. B. Warden, then president judge of the criminal court, who thereupon appointed the modest young attorney counsel for Nancy Farrer, whose case became the great criminal case of the term, if not of the times.

Nancy Farrer had poisoned all the members of two families. She had a bad countenance, a sinister, revolting look. It is not strange that she should have been considered by the court and jury that tried her, and by the entire public, a qualified candidate for the gallows. Hayes, in defending his client, had to contend against the passions, the indignation of the public, and the predispositions and prejudices of judge and jury. The judge who tried the case was not the one who appointed the comparatively unknown attorney as counsel. Hayes saw instinctively the immense importance of the case, and knew intuitively that a crisis had come in his career. He set laboriously to work to establish an impregnable line of defense.

He found on examination of the proofs that the supposed murderess was totally irresponsible, because of hereditary idiocy and insanity. Her father had died of drunkenness in a Cincinnati hospital, and her mother went about under the insane hallucination that she was a prophetess. Nancy's conduct and conversations while employed in the wholesale poisoning business showed that she had no moral comprehension of what she was about. But the plea of insanity had been so often and so vehemently pressed in defense of prisoners who were sane that it seemed to be of no avail in defense of one who was not. The cry of insanity, like that of "wolf," had been so repeatedly raised when there was no insanity, that it was not heeded when there was. Notwithstanding an argument which for legal learning and forensic eloquence attracted the attention of the press and bar, and established the counsel's reputation, the poor, insane idiot was convicted of murder in the first degree. Hayes at once obtained a writ of error, which the district court reserved for decision in the Supreme Court of the State. The case was argued and determined in that court at the December term, 1858, and reported in 2 Ohio St. Reports. R. B. Hayes appeared for plaintiff in error, and George E. Pugh, attorney-general for the State. The earnest and determined advocate of Nancy Farrer carried his points, obtained a new trial, and greatly enhanced his professional reputation. The then official reporter of the Supreme Court of Ohio, who heard this argument, says: "It was a truly admirable effort, and the peroration was indescribably pathetic. But on this occasion, as on all others, Mr. Hayes was singularly modest." Although a new trial was granted, through the concurring opinions of Justices Corwin, Thurman, and Ranney, Nancy Farrer was never again tried. She was sent to a lunatic asylum.

Hayes next gained reputation through his connection with the notorious James Summons murder case. He was employed by the older counsel in the case to take notes of the testimony and record the rulings of the court. The trial occupying many days and many differences arising between counsel with respect to the rulings of the court, it was found that the accuracy of the notes of the junior attorney was in every instance confirmed by the court itself. When the time came for the final arguments to begin, the leading counsel asked each a day for each side. Judge Thurman, then presiding, on consultation with Judge Piatt, announced that the court could only give the leading counsel two hours each, but that they would allow Mr. Hayes one hour additional. Notwithstanding the court was assured that Mr. Hayes was not strictly employed in the case, Judges Thurman, Matthews, and Piatt insisted upon hearing him, and he was accordingly heard. His unpremeditated argument was clear, convincing, impassioned, and impressive. It was one of the best speeches of his life. The case went up to the Supreme Court with the junior as the leading counsel.

We now reach an event in the course of this narrative, which, controlling as is the influence it has upon all lives, has been immeasurably potent in its influence upon the life and fortunes of Governor Hayes.

On the 30th of December, 1852, he was married to Miss Lucy W. Webb, by Prof. L. D. McCabe, of the Ohio Wesleyan University. The marriage took place at No. 141 Sixth street, Cincinnati, the bride's home, in the presence of about forty friends. Lucy Ware Webb was the daughter of Dr. James Webb and Maria Cook Webb. Dr. Webb was a popular gentleman and successful practicing physician in Chillicothe, Ohio. In 1833, he died of cholera in Lexington, Kentucky, where he had gone to complete arrangements for sending to Liberia slaves set free by himself and his father. The grandfather of Mrs. Dr. Webb was Lieutenant-Colonel Cook, who in 1777 was serving in a regiment commanded by Colonel Andrew Ward, in the army of the Revolution. Both Governor and Mrs. Hayes are, therefore, descendants of soldiers of the Revolution, most worthily uniting in their lineage jointly the dawn of the second century with the dawn of the first. The six years following 1852 were years of full practice and exacting labors, in which disappointments were few and successes many. These were years in which solid foundations were laid for as solid a reputation as it was possible for the men among whom he moved to build up.

In January, 1854, he formed a law-partnership with R. M. Corwine and W. K. Rogers, under the firm name of Corwine, Hayes & Rogers. This proved a partnership of friendship as well as business, being in every way satisfactory and agreeable. Mr. Rogers is now the close companion of his old partner in these later and more eventful years. Mr. Corwine died a resident of Washington City, a year or two since.

In April, 1859, he was, without solicitation, chosen city solicitor by the city council of Cincinnati, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Judge Hart, and on the 9th of that month entered upon the discharge of his official duties. His chief competitor for this office was Caleb B. Smith, since a member of Mr. Lincoln's cabinet. The vote in the city council on the first ballot was: Mr. Smith, 13; Mr. Disney, 12; Mr. Hayes, 3. On the seventh ballot, Mr. Hayes had 17; Mr. Ware, 12; and Mr. Disney, 3. On the thirteenth ballot, Mr. Hayes was declared elected, having received 18 votes to Mr. Ware's 14. His election was due to the vote of Mr. Toohey, a Democratic councilman of the Thirteenth Ward. The election of Hayes to his first office was most favorably received.

The Cincinnati Commercial, of December 9, 1858, said: "R. B. Hayes, Esq., one of the most honest and capable young lawyers of the city, was elected city solicitor last night by the city council to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of Judge Hart. It would have been very difficult to have made any other selection of a solicitor equally excellent and as generally satisfactory."

The Cincinnati Enquirer, of the same date, said: "Mr. Hayes, the city solicitor elect, is a lawyer of good acquirements and reputation, and is well qualified for the position."

Charles Reemelin, in a letter to the New York Evening Post, wrote: "I know of no young man in our city of higher promise than Mr. Hayes, and we hope for him a bright future."

The estimate of the people seemed to correspond with that of the press, for in the following spring he was elected to the office to which he had been appointed by a majority of two thousand five hundred and thirty-six on the popular vote. His Democratic opponent was W. T. Forrest.

He filled the office of corporation counsel for three years, during which time, as legal adviser of the municipal government of a great city, he passed judgment upon questions involving large interests, and discharged with high fidelity the duties of an important trust. As city solicitor, the opinion which perhaps aroused the most general attention and interest, was one delivered in February, 1859, denying the right of the city council to contract debts for waterworks purposes, without additional authority from the General Assembly. He was opposed to the increase of taxation and creation of new debts, on principle. In April, 1861, in common with the entire Republican ticket, he was defeated for re-election as city solicitor. His vote, however, was larger than that of any candidate on his ticket. He had suffered a similar defeat in the fall of 1856, when a candidate for Common Pleas Judge, his party being in a decided minority in Hamilton county. Had the election of 1861 occurred two weeks later, when the great uprising came with the fall of Sumter, the Republican war ticket, not the Democratic compromise ticket, would have carried the day.