BENCH AND BAIL OF OHIO - 125 daughter and two sons. Mr. Randall's preparation for practice at the outset was far superior to that of the average lawyer upon his admission to the Bar. His literary attainments were broad and high ; his judgment was mature ; his experience in affairs was large and varied ; he knew much of business and of men; he was familiar with the practical side of life through the intercourse of business and trade. This accumulation of experience was invaluable and gave him at once a standing at the Bar which young lawyers without such aids attain only after years of effort and struggle. He is a patient and thorough student of the problems of the law. His mind, trained to study and investigate, is satisfied with nothing less than a clear understanding of the principles and the philosophy of Constitutional and statute law. He is not a showy lawyer, but a very substantial one. Integrity of mind and character insures honesty of purpose and action in all matters, personal as well as professional. He is a polished orator. His vocabulary is ample, his diction pure, his delivery graceful. Having an abundance of ready wit, he is the best after dinner speaker at the Columbus Bar. He is as clever with the pen as with the tongue. The historical article which he contributes to this volume is in evidence. JAMES P. GOODWIN, Springfield. Mr. Goodwin's early career is a practical illustration of what a young man may do for himself who begins his lifework without any resources except those with which he is endowed by nature. His parents, James P. and Mary Goodwin, are of Scotch-Irish descent, natives of the North of Ireland, who came to the United States and settled in New York City, where James P. was born August 12, 1857. Acting on Horace Greeley's advice to go West, the family early in the sixties removed to Illinois, and settled on a farm. His early educational advantages were confined to the district school of a thinly settled community. He found greater opportunities in developing his muscle on his father's farm than he did in training his mind in a school room. Rural life was distasteful to him, and when seventeen years of age he left the parental roof to carve out for himself a place in the world. His first ambition was an education, but the means for getting it must first be earned. In 1874 he came to Springfield and obtained employment in one of the industrial establishments of the city. While working in the shop he seized every opportunity to improve his mind, and when he entered the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, a few years after coming to Springfield, he was able to take quite an advanced position in some of his classes. Of the years passed at Ann Arbor the last two were spent in the Law Department of the University. Returning to Springfield he read law in the office of W. A. Scott for almost three years, and was admitted to the Bar in 1883. He began practice the same year in Springfield, alone, and has not at any time since had a business associate. His natural abilities were of a high order ; he had been a hard student, and before he had been long at the Bar the public gained recognition of his merits, and he, early in his professional career, found him- 126 - BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO. self in possession of a lucrative practice. Possessing a talent for public speaking, and taking an active interest in the principles of the Republican party, of which he is an ardent supporter, without any efforts of his own or desire to become active in politics, he was made the candidate of his party for mayor of the city of Springfield in 1887, and at the ensuing election in the fall was elected by a handsome majority. He managed the affairs of the city in a manner to give satisfaction to his constituents and reflect credit on himself. The men who have made the Darke county Bar so famous for the past half century are rapidly being gathered to their fathers, and those who will fill their place in the next quarter century and maintain their high reputation are the rising young members of the profession to-day. Amongst those who will stand in the very front rank, James P. Goodwin is placed by unanimous consent. Speaking of his standing and future prospects one of the oldest and ablest of the Springfield Bar said: " James P. Goodwin is rated high as to ability, and is held in very high esteem by the profession. He is already a good lawyer, and being a hard student possessing a good legal mind, honest and conscientious in the discharge of his duties to his clients, he will rise in his profession until he goes to the top. He is not a politician, but stands ready to discharge his duties as a citizen, and when such a man possesses the attributes that fit him for a public position is called upon he cannot well decline. He is a good citizen, a credit to himself and to his profession." STEPHEN JOHNSTON, Piqua. Major Johnston is of Irish descent. his ancestors coming from the North of Ireland. The Johnston family are intimately associated with the pioneer history of Western Ohio. Colonel John Johns_ ton, for many years the Indian agent for Upper Piqua, was his uncle; and his father, Stephen Johnston, was factory agent for the government at Ft. Wayne in pioneer times. The latter was killed by the Indians in August., 1812, near Ft. Wayne. Major Johnston's mother was Mary Caldwell, who was born at Bryant Station, Kentucky, a frontier port near Lexington, in 1788, and was contemporary with Daniel Boon, Simon Kenton, Tecumseh, and other famous spirits of those times. Major Johnston's maternal grandfather came to Ohio in 1805 and entered two sections of land, on part of which is now located the city of Piqua. The subject of this sketch was born at Piqua, September 20, 1812, one month after the death of his father. The house in which he was born is still standing, though modernized by its present owners. His early education was limited to the rather meager advantages offered by the public schools of those days. He belonged to that class whose education was largely obtained at night by the light of the ruddy tire or tallow dip. When he was fourteen years of age he was put out to learn a trade, and his individual career began as a saddler's apprentice in the village of Urbana. He became an efficient workman and devoted fourteen years to the avocation of journeyman saddle-maker in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and Maryland. During these years of BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO - 127 work at his trade he had kept up a course of reading and study of law text books. In 1841 he was elected sheriff of Miami county and at the close of his first term was re-elected: In the fall of 1845 he was chosen to represent Miami county in the State legislature. During this session of the legislature the law establishing the ad valorem valuation of property was enacted. This at the time was a radical measure in Ohio, cutting loose as it did from a discriminating system in favor of actual settlers entering upon public lands and improving them. The construction of canals in Ohio by the State at great cost made this change necessary to meet the expenditures. In the debates on this measure Major Johnston took an active and influential part. He supported and voted for the bill, and the system it created still stands. After leaving the State legislature he determined to take up the practice of law and after reviewing his studies was admitted to the Bar in 1850, and has continued in the practice up to the present time, though he has not been actively engaged in recent years. Major Johnston has for over forty years been the central figure of the Piqua Bar. He was one of the principal organizers of the Columbus, Piqua & Indiana railroad, drew its charter and was for twenty-five years its chief attorney. That line now forms a part of the Panhandle system of roads. The major served one term as mayor of the town, was for several years city solicitor, has been a member of the city council, one of the board of trustees of the city water works, and various other places of trust have been filled by him with entire satisfaction to the public and with credit to himself. Major Johnston has always been a public spirited citizen and it is to his indefatigable energy that the city owes its splendid hydraulic and water system which has made it the manufacturing town that it now is. Steps were taken as early as 1854 to construct these works, but nothing practical was accomplished until 1868, when Major Johnston was placed at the head of the company that had undertaken the work of construction, and six years later they were completed, after overcoming financial difficulties and obstacles in the way of privileges that had proved insurmountable to his predecessors. Piqua's hydraulic and water works are an enduring monument to Stephen Johnston's public spirit, energy and integrity. In 1877 when the Ohio Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill No. 132 to abolish the Lewistown reservoir, Major Johnston's service and good judgment were instrumental in defeating the measure in the House. Piqua was vitally interested, because the destruction of the reservoir would have been about equivalent to destroying the Piqua hydraulic. Major Johnston immediately went to Columbus to meet the House committee on public works, to which the bill had been referred. He had fortified himself with canal statistics and was thoroughly conversant with canal history and the vested rights of the people in western Ohio and with the moral obligations of the State. He presented the case with such force and made so convincing an argument to the committee, that they unanimously reported the indefinite postponement of the bill. The statistics submitted by Major Johnston were embodied in the report of the committee, which is the strongest argument for the maintenance of the canals that has ever been formulated. The 128 - BENCH AND BAR OF' OHIO. Lewistown reservoir has never since been seriously menaced. Major Johnston is the oldest native born citizen of Piqua now living. He arrived at the age of manhood about the time the then little village began to try to better its condition, and from that day to the present has been associated with almost every public enterprise that promised to benefit the city. He has the esteem of the profession and respect and admiration of his fellow citizens. He was married in 1837 to Miss Uretta Garnsey, daughter of Chester Garnsey, one of the early citizens of the town. Seven children were born to them, four of whom are living. HIRAM L. SIBLEY, Marietta. Hiram Luther Sibley was born in Trumbull county, Ohio, May 4, 1836. His father was a minister, and in later life a member of the Ohio Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The ancestry is traced to John Sibley, who came from England in the Fleet, A D 1629 and settled at Salem, Massachusetts. He became a selectman of that town, and member of the general assmbly at Boston. On the mother's side the parentage was from Colebrook, Connecticut. The maternal grandmother and the late Mrs. Joshua R. Giddings were sisters. The grandfather, Luther Simons, was a school teacher, who at times did the work of a " pettifogger." He was gifted with a remarkable intellect. His brother-in-law, Mr. Giddings, a strong lawyer, once told him he was " the only man he ever feared to meet in a lawsuit." A partly dislocated spine made Mr. Simons a cripple, and he died in what otherwise would have been the prime of his powers. At thirteen Mr. Sibley went to the shoemaker's trade, not to leave it until three years after his majority. During this period he had two terms of six months each in select schools, working nights and mornings to pay board and tuition. April 22, 1858, Mr. Sibley was married to Miss Esther A. Ellis, of Racine, Ohio, by whom he has living three children. The same year he began the study of law, rising for that at 4 A. M., but doing his day's work in the shop. He was elected clerk of the courts for Meigs county in 1860. In 1862 he accepted a lieutenancy in Company B, 116th Ohio Volunteer Infantry, resigning his office to enter the Union army. He fell under the command of Major-General R. H. Milroy, who in April, 1863, recommended him for provost marshal of the fifteenth district of Ohio, saying : " I have known Lieutenant Sibley for the last six months, while with his regiment in my command, and have observed that he is an able, energetic, and efficient officer ; always prompt and attentive to duty ; a true gentleman of high moral character and excellent business talents and habits." June 15, 1863, in the valley of Virginia, with near half the command to which he belonged, he was captured by the advance of Lee's army, then moving North, and held a prisoner at Richmond, Virginia ; Macon and Savannah, Georgia; Charleston and "Camp Sorghum," near Columbia, South Carolina. December 10, 1864, he was exchanged, and January 11, 1865, honorably discharged, being too much enfeebled by his imprisonment for military duty. April 14, 1865, Mr. Sibley was admitted to BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO - 129 the Bar at Pomeroy, Ohio. The August following he went to Marietta and served as clerk one year in the United States assessor's office. September, 1866, by request of its senior member, he began practice as one of the law firm of Ewart, Shaw & Sibley, The next year he was nominated for prosecuting attorney, but, with the rest of his ticket, defeated. About that time he formed a partnership with Honorable R. L. Nye. Broken health drove him out of practice for a year, but in 1870 he became one of the firm of Paine & Sibley, at Pomeroy. Just before this he wrote some newspaper articles upon the constitutional law of Ohio, respecting religious liberty. Two short extracts are as follows: " I. What is a right of conscience,' in the sense of our Constitution ? We answer. (1.) The right to entertain any opinion, conviction or faith whatever, in regard to morality or religion, without question or molestation. (2.) The right, also, to act in accordance with the opinion, conviction or faith entertained, so long as the conduct is consistent with an equal right in all others, and is not palpably destructive of social order. II. As to the condition of the citizen with reference to these rights we affirm. (1.) That in matters of conscience all persons are equal before the law; and (2) are entitled to full and adequate protection therein. III. The power and duty of the State in the premises is. (1.) To extend to every citizen the protection to which he is entitled, in the exercise of his rights of conscience. (2.) Beyond that, to refrain from any interference whatever, in matters of conscience." Finally, in answer to a critic, was the following : " Your fallacy is in confounding every conviction of conscience with a right of conscience. These are not always convertible. Either may exist in the absence of the other. A right of conscience, in legal and constitutional sense, is the right to entertain any opinion whatever in regard to religion or morality, without question, and to act in accordance therewith, so long as the conduct is consistent with an equal right in all others, and not palpably destructive of social order. These rights the State obligates itself in the Constitution to protect. Hence, when the conviction of conscience coincides with the rights of conscience, the aegis of the Constitution is thrown around it, but not otherwise. This distinction will dissipate a thousand sophistries, grounded upon a tacit assumption of the necessary and unvarying identity of a conviction with a right of conscience." A little later, by request, Mr. Sibley addressed a Teachers' Institute in Meigs county, on the Nature and True End of Education. We give a paragraph : " In virtue of a law penetrating to the center of his being, for a man habitually to exert his powers for self alone, is moral debasement, spiritual defilement, and death. Selfishness is a malignant cancer in the best impulses and tenderest affections of the heart, a fatal blight upon the noblest desires and holiest aspirations of the soul. Like a darkness that can be felt, unless dispelled by the light and power of love, it settles down upon the spirit, enshrouding it from the healthful, life-giving influences of goodness, and shutting up the soul to die from moral and spiritual inanition. Under this general law of his Constitution, therefore, man is forbidden the use of the power of education of self alone. Hence, considered with exclusive reference to its subject, the true end of culture reaches beyond himself, and shrivelling moral and 130 - BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO. spiritual death confront him as the divinely ordained penalty for clipping the wings of education until its powers and ends are cooped in the narrow limits of his own soul. * * * Wherever Christian thought has penetrated, and the best results of philosophical inquiry are known, the oneness of our race in nature and general capability is recognized and believed. Out of the notion of common endowment, and the idea of unity in origin, arises the conception of the brotherhood and social nature of man, with all their sequences of mutual obligations and duties, in virtue of which, if we live in obedience to the law of our being, we necessarily become reciprocating co-workers for the common good. Alike, therefore, upon the principles of philosophy and Christianity, every one stands in correlated obligation with all his fellows to use his various abilities and powers for others as well as himself, so long as he remains a subject of social relations. * * * The educated man, as a member of society, by virtue of his moral Constitution, is imperatively bound to use his culture for the elevation of his kind. He is to raise up those bowed down in ignorance, to establish the weak in knowledge, to open the eyes of the blind to truth, to aid in breaking the power and dominion of passion, and keep in the work of dispelling the thick clouds of prejudice that every where overshadow the uneducated mind. In brief, he is to consecrate his culture to the doing of good, and exalt it thereby into an instrumentality of human progress. Here the true social and individual ends of education meet as brethren to dwell together' in unity." In a Decoration day address at Marietta, Ohio, in 1877, Mr. Sibley maintained that " rectitude is an inseparable element of true greatness." By force of " the laws of our moral being," he said, "we come to assign the honors of history, not merely tp great abilities or wondrous success in what men undertake, but more to the royal qualities found in intrepid uprightness of character—the genius for being right as well as able and- successful in the affairs of life." He concluded thus : " It is right here, however, in the application of the principle we have endeavored to present and illustrate, that we touch upon the real grounds of distinction in the honors which history will confer upon the brave men who fell on opposing sides in this terrible struggle. They were all Americans. Speaking in general terms, both armies were equally heroic in the field. Upon the whole, perhaps their leaders will not be found to differ largely in military genius and skill. Yet the proud record of those who fought for the American Union and human liberty will shine in ever increasing brightness and glory when compared with that of our equally gallant countrymen behind whose line of battle were the flag of disunion and the clanking chains of slavery. Those who followed the Nation's banner of beauty and glory' were allied by their cause to the most exalted aspirations and hopes of the future, and consequently were fighting a battle for the elevation and progress of the race. Government by the people, for the people, was inwrapped with their success. On the other side was the principle of civil disintegration, the fact of human bondage—iron links which bound our brave but erring fellow-citizens to the dead body of a barbaric past. In truth, the Lost Cause was lost before its fight with arms began. The thing itself—disruption and slavery—was an anachronism. Judged by the moral sense of mankind, as well as the law of the land, the attempt to sustain it by war was a crime. The spirit of the age, the conclusions of the best political thought, and the high demands, of the immediate future were all in league against this cause. It received no sympathy, and was entitled to none, from the toiling millions of civilization, but only the deceptive, baleful friendship of tottering despots, or aristocracies whose very foundations were crumbling under pressure of the great ideas of popular government. Hence, though we saw it not, if faithful to our duty, the success of this cause was from the begin- BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO - 131 ning impossible. No human genius or bravery could save it. And for the same reasons the heroism of those who fell, its devoted victims in the carnage of battle, cannot lift them to the position in history forever to be occupied by the soldiers of Liberty and Union,' who in the mighty conflict perished for the Right.'" At its Commencement, in 1878, Marietta College gave him the honorary degree of Master of Arts. In the presidential canvass of 1880, at Pomeroy, Mr. Sibley delivered a speech, published by request of those hearing it, on State Rights. After showing that these doctrines, or " more properly State supremacy, as against the power and authority of the National government under the Constitution," had " been in contest ever since that instrument was before the people for ratification," he said : " But it is to the administration of Washington that the country is most deeply indebted for the assertion and practical establishment of the powers and authority of the general government upon the National principles embodied in the Constitution. The laws enacted by Congress during that period provided for a National judiciary invested with the power of final authoritative decision, in all cases at law or in equity, arising under the Constitution itself, the laws of Congress and treaties made by the Nation. They also armed the President with the authority and means of performing his sworn duty to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,' and of taking `care that the laws be faithfully executed.' Moreover, as a matter of wise policy, Washington, against the bitter opposition of the State Rights school of his time, made the National Constitution and laws supreme in fact as they were in legal theory, by crushing, with military force, in 1794, armed resistance to them in what is familiarly known as the Whiskey Insurrection of Western Pennsylvania. Before his retirement from the Presidency, therefore, the true theory of the Constitution and of National power had become essentially settled, not only in the letter of the law, but in the vastly higher efficiency of its actual enforcement by the combined civil and military power of the people acting in National capacity. The result was a second and most signal defeat of the advocates of State Rights or State supremacy, the first having been in the adoption of the Constitution by the people. At a later period the same principles respecting the National authority and power were emphatically asserted and acted upon by the Supreme Court of the United States, through the great Chief Justices Jay and Marshall; were sanctioned and carried into execution with patriotic vigor by the prompt, decisive action of Jackson in his conflict with State rights as nullification, and were made clear and intelligible, and thus immensely strengthened in the popular mind through the masterly expositions of Webster. Thus vitalized, they from time to time overcame the political heresy' of State supremacy even when supported by the name and fame of Jefferson, the acute and subtle argument of Calhoun, the influence of a great party organization, and finally by an armed rebellion of unprecedented magnitude and power." While in practice his firm was engaged in a number of cases which went to the Supreme Court. In all but one Mr. Sibley framed the arguments and wrote the briefs, and in that he put in a brief of his own. Most of the cases were won. He also wrote an extended and able argument in a case in the United States District and Circuit Courts, involving the question of whether or not an assignee in bankruptcy takes title to assets subject to equitable liens 132 - BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO. good between a creditor and the bankrupt. The decision was against him, but later the Supreme Court of the United States held the doctrine for which he contended in a precisely similar case, putting its decision on the ground also asserted in his brief. (Stewart v. Platt, 101 U. S., 731.) In 1882 Mr. Sibley was elected Common Pleas judge, in the Seventh District, and re-elected in 1887 and 1892. He was each time nominated by acclamation, and for his third term elected without opposition. During more than twelve years on the Bench he has been reversed but twice by the Supreme Court. A number of his decisions, however, have been affirmed by that body. Judge Sibley first of all the Bench of Ohio, announced the law, under the Code, as to the limitation of suits to foreclose mortgages. For more than a generation the uniform practice had been to apply the rule of twenty-one years. Upon careful investigation of the whole subject he set this aside and held that such actions were barred in fifteen years. His opinion in the Ohio Law Journal (v. 23, 246) is one of examinationsrough and able examimations of the question to be found in the reports of the State. The Circuit Court overruled him. But the case was taken up and the Supreme Court reversed the Circuit ruling, holding the law to be as Judge Sibley had declared it. (31 Ohio L J., 290.) Another case tried by him was taken to the Circuit Court by appeal. On the same facts he in effect was reversed. The case turned upon the application of the statute of limitations where part of a public road had been fenced in. It was taken to the Supreme Court. The decision of the Circuit Bench was overruled, and the same judgment as that by Judge Sibley in the Common Pleas entered. (33 Ohio L. J., 220.) Two other important cases wherein he was affirmed throughout, and the doctrine of which had not before been declared in any reported Ohio decision, are Brundred vs. Rice, 49 O. S. 640, and Pride vs. Andrew, 32 Ohio L. J. 248. On request of members of the Bar, several other of his opinions have been reported. In one of them he was called on to define an action, right, cause, and the place of an action. This he did with such clearness and force that a judge of the Supreme Court wrote him in these words : " The able manner in which you have applied elementary principles, and your analytical distinction of an action, right of action, and cause of action will make the opinion of permanent value to the profession." The syllabus is as follows : " An action is a judicial proceeding for the prevention or redress of acts in violation of legal duty or right, the threat of which in some cases, and the doing of in all, is in law a wrong. A right of action is the right which, upon commission of a wrong ipso facto arises from the law of remedy, to the injured party, of prevention or redress, by suit, against the wrong doer. A cause of action, in personam, is the wrong which, under the remedial law, gives to the party injured a right of action. Generally, the locus of a cause of action is the place where the wrong which constitutes it is done." In 1896 Mr. Sibley was nominated and elected circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit of Ohio, and began his duties as such in February, 1897. To accept this added honor he was compelled to resign from the Common Pleas Bench, which, however, he occupied longer than any other BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO - 133 judge in the district which elected him had ever done. Since 1856 Mr. Sibley has been a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church. In 1884 he was a lay delegate to the general conference. That body, in 1888, provided for a constitutional commission of three bishops, seven ministers and seven laymen. Of the latter, he was one. In 1896 another commission was authorized, on which he has been appointed. The judge won recognition as an able and useful member of both bodies. To the second Ecumenical Methodist Conference, held at Washington, D. C., in October, 1891, he was appointed a delegate and given a place on the program. He delivered an address upon " Marriage and Divorce Laws," which is published in the report of its proceedings. This attracted much attention, both on account of the principles maintained and the ability shown in their advocacy. He was at once engaged to write an article for the Methodist Review, on " The Grounds of Divorce." In this, after showing that Paul makes desertion a cause, he says : "Christ, then, named one ground, St. Paul another, wholly different Consequently neither stated the moral law of divorce. Each, however, gave a case within, and which illustrates it. The law itself, evidently, must be broad enough to cover both cases, in which event it may, and as shown, does include others. Thence follows that it is not embodied in what is said on the subject by Paul and Christ. Hence the Scriptures nowhere declare this law. Therefore it is to be deduced from the nature, right to, and obligations of the marriage union, the two cases given justifying its severance, in connection with the consequences of these or like misdeeds, to a faithful mate, if divorce were denied. I state it thus: Adultery, desertion, and other acts which, like the first, destroy the sexual purity of marriage, or like the second, operate to deny to an innocent partner and to society the substantial benefits of, and so what is essential in the right to marriage, if its bonds be held indissoluble, are in morals, as on sociological grounds, valid causes for annulling it. The gist of this obviously is in the principle, resting equally upon reason and Scripture, that the right to marriage, in what it implies, becomes paramount to the rule relating to its permanence, in cases of wrong to an innocent partner, whereby a primal law of the relation is abnegated, and one or more of the fundamental objects of the union is defeated. This view of the subject makes the great ends of marriage, moral and social, more important than its naked bond, as manifestly they are. It looks on the union, also, in its real character of a means designed to work noble results for those within it, and not a chain to fetter the good after the bad break and repudiate it. Moreover., it leaves to the innocent escape from propagation with the moral rot of adultery, or kindred vices, and from celibacy forced upon them otherwise, by the wickedness of desertion, or like crimes. Finally, we profoundly believe it accords perfectly with the Scriptures, so read as to give the life of their teaching on the whole law of marriage." For a decade the judge has been writing upon questions of church law. In 1894 he published a small volume on " The Organic Law of the Methodist Episcopal Church," which has been highly commended in critical notices. At its commencement in 1895, Claflin University, of Orangeburg, South Carolina, conferred upon him the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws. This, like the earlier one from Marietta College, came without solicitation on his part, or so much as a hint of it, until done. In the Methodist Review for July, 1895, 134 - BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO. the judge published an able article entitled " A Doctrine of Civil Liberty." He analyzed the conception of government and found its essential elements. Only his final summary can be given here. " Our discussion," he says, " has conducted to the conclusion that a sound doctrine of civil liberty may briefly be stated in three general propositions : 1. The true source of governing power is the properly expressed will of the men of a nation. 2. The relative rights of the subjects of government are determined by the rule of equality before the law. 3. Government is limited in its power to such action as may be necessary to preserve social order, and to affairs of a public nature which it can better manage than could private persons. The first gives to government its popular character and presents the true antithesis to monarchic, oligarchic, and aristocratic systems. The second prevents the rule of the governing class from degenerating into tyranny, and so conserves justice, the great end of government. The third adjusts the balance between the freedom of the individual, as such, and the control over him, as an integral part of the social organism, which the governing body may exercise." The judge is a great lover of music, especially that of the violin. He wrote a lecture on this instrument, which has been delivered at Mount Lake Park, Maryland ; De Funiak Springs, Florida; Chautauqua, New York, and elsewhere. Critics declare it to be a very finished production, of great interest to those who care for the king of instruments. He also recently has lectured on "how Civil Laws Come to Be," and is often called upon for speeches and addresses. His intellectual tastes and sympathies are broad and varied. Theology, history, philosophy, sociology, political economy, and particularly what relates to improving the condition and opportunities of the laboring classes excite his interest and attention. His opinions accord with those of Professor Ely, and others of the new school of economic thinkers, with respect to " socializing" or putting into government ownership " natural monopolies." He is a Knight Templar and belongs to the G. A. R. and Loyal Legion. A Republican in politics, his personal qualities and demeanor on the Bench are such that many of his warmest friends and supporters are Democrats. He belongs to the progressive party rather than the conservative, whether in church or State. Yet he does not break with the old until the superior worth of the new is clearly seen. Working with the exhaustion of a long " prison life " upon him and struggling more for knowledge than wealth, his means are limited. But his library, private and professional, is one of the best in the city where he lives. WILLIAM BUTLER LOOMIS, Marietta. The same energy and determination to succeed that made the name of Loomis prominent in the industrial development of Connecticut for two hundred years, placed the subject of our sketch high up in his chosen profession at the Bar of Ohio. It is not ease, but effort; not luck, but labor, that brings success in the profession of law are maxims that Judge Loomis realized and acted on early in his career. His ancestors came from Essex in England and settled in Connecticut in 1638. BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO - 135 For generations the family of Loomis have been engaged in the production of fabrics, and in commercial pursuits the name is a familiar one. Both Christopher and Joel Loomis, the father and grandfather of Judge Loomis, were large manufacturers of cotton and woolen goods. William Butler Loomis was born at New London, Connecticut, February 1, 1837. When he was three years of age—rilis ather, Christopher C. Loomis, came West and located at Marietta, Ohio, and engaged in merchandising. Our subject attended the public schools of this town, and at the age of sixteen was graduated from the high school. The president of the board of education in charge of the school at that time was Dr. Israel Ward Andrews, who afterwards became president of Marietta College After leaving school he took a course in history, philosophy and letters, under private tutors. Ile then took up the study of law in the office of Clark & Ewart, remaining with them for about three years, when, in 1857, he was admitted to the Bar, at the age of twenty ; but did not immediately commence the practice of his profession. About this time his father and family removed to Logansport, Indiana, where they remained for four years, when they returned to Connecticut, where Mr. Loomis re-embarked in the manufacturing business. He is still living, at the age of eighty-two, at Little Rock, Arkansas. In 1858 William entered into partnership at Marietta with Mr. Thomas W. Ewart, continuing in this relation until 1859. After the dissolution of this partnership he spent six months with his father's family at Logansport, returning to Marietta in 1860 and entered into a partnership with Mr. Melvin Clark, which continued until the death of Mr. Clark, who was killed while in command of his regiment at the battle of Antietam. He remained in practice for one year alone at Marietta, when he associated himself with Judge Nash, of Gallipolis, one of the most distinguished lawyers at the Southern Ohio Bar. The firm thus formed continued in business until 1865, when it was dissolved. Two months later Mr. Loomis entered into partnership with Samuel S. Knowles, of Washington county, an arrangement that was continued until he was, in 1868, elected judge of the Common Pleas Court of the Third Subdivision in the Seventh Judicial District of Ohio, embracing four counties, but he held court as circuit judge all over the district. He retired from the Bench in 1873, and has been ever since engaged in the practice of his profession. Judge Loomis has the reputation of being one of the most careful and painstaking attorneys in preparing his cases for trial in the district. In presenting his cases he depends more upon their merits to win than he does in pyrotechnical oratory. His standing as a lawyer and a citizen is best represented by the language of his colleagues in the profession. Said a prominent attorney : "I think the general estimate among his associates and those who have practiced before him as a judge, or associated with him or on the opposite side in the trial of cases, that he is just and fair to all parties interested and possesses in an eminent degree a judicial mind. He is very studious and thoughtful, and possibly a little slow in his methods; but the lawyer or client who has obtained his opinion on any subject that he has investigated has something of as great or greater value than he would have coming from any other attorney 136 - BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO. at the Bar. He is essentially adapted for the Bench, more so perhaps than for practice at the Bar. He was a hard student in his youth and while he was pursuing his legal studies, and the fruits are shown in his well ripened mind. He is accurate, careful and analytical in all his work is highly respected as a lawyer wherever he is known, and in this respect nothing too high can be said of him. He is not brilliant, but safe. As a citizen he stands very high in the community." In political principles Judge Loomis is a Republican and, while not a politician, takes an active interest in the success of the party. He was married in 1865 to Harriet Frances Wheeler, daughter of Frederick A. Wheeler, of Marietta, Ohio. To them were born four children. The eldest of these, Francis Butler, held until very recently the position of editor-in-chief of the Cincinnati Tribune. Charles Wheeler died May 22,1893. Frederick Kent is now on the editorial staff of the Cincinnati Tribune. Harriet Francis Loomis died in March, 1879, and in June, 1880, Judge Loomis was married to Mrs. N. C. Holdkinson, of Marietta. They have one child, William Dwight.' The judge and his family are attendants and members of the Episcopal Church of Marietta. JAMES A. GILMORE, Eaton. Honorable James A. Gilmore was born on a farm in Israel township, Preble county, Ohio, on the 11th day of July, 1834. His father, Dr. Eli Gilmore, was a native of Virginia, and removed to Ohio in 1825, and for thirty years was in the active practice of his profession. The Gilmores are of Scotch-Irish descent. They settled originally in Virginia, where they became prominent in State and National affairs. His mother, Clarissa M. Clayton, also a native of Virginia, was related to the Mosbys. Tier brother was one of the judges of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, and afterwards a member of the Confederate Congress. While Mr. Gilmore's education was confined to the common schools of his county, he had careful training at home, his mother and father both being highly educated and persons of strong character and high moral principles. At eighteen he entered the law office of his brother, the Honorable W. J. Gilmore, who afterwards served five years on the Supreme Bench of Ohio, where he commenced the study of law. In the winter of 1853-4 he entered the Law School of the Cincinnati College, and received his degree of Bachelor of Laws in 1854. He was at once admitted to practice by the District Court of Butler county, on the day after he attained his majority. Returning to Eaton he commenced the practice of law in his brother's office, where he remained until 1858, when he removed to Greencastle, Putnam county, Indiana, where he remained about one year. Before his return to Eaton he married Miss Lizzie Applegate. In 1860 he again opened an office at Greencastle. In the fall of 1861 he enlisted in the Forty-third Regiment Indiana Volunteer Infantry. Shortly after his regiment was mustered into service he was detailed in the quartermaster's department, where he served three years, during the term of his enlistment. He was honorably discharged in the fall of 1864. During his service Mrs. Gilmore died, and shortly BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO - 137 after his discharge he enlisted in the Ninety-first Indiana Volunteer Infantry, one of the regiments forming the Twenty-third army corps. With his company he went to North Carolina and was again detailed, this time with the Jude Advocate's department. A part of the time he was clerk under Captain Phineas R. Minor in the commissary department. After his discharge in 1865, at the close of the war, he spent a year in the West and then returned to his native State and located at Eaton. Here he formed a copartnership with Judge J. V. Campbell. On the 12th of November, 1869, he was married to Ada M., daughter of General George D. Hendricks. Some time afterwards he removed to Hamilton and opened an office for the practice of law. Here he remained two years, then returned to Eaton, where he has since resided and become prominent in his profession. His partnership with Judge Campbell was dissolved in 1879, when he was elected an additional judge of the Court of Common Pleas, serving until 1884, and until the special term created by act of the legislature had expired. Returning to his practice he took first rank at the Bar. Judge Gilmore is a lawyer of recognized ability, and is well and favorably known throughout the southern part of the State. His practice is of a general character, and there are few important cases tried in his county in which he is not engaged. He is an orator of force, and has delivered many political speeches and addresses. In politics he is a Democrat, always taking an active interest in local, State and National affairs. Judge Gilmore takes a great interest in educational matters. He has for a number of years been a member of the school board, and is now president of that body. By his first marriage there was one son, who is now in the employ of the C., H. & D. R. R. Company and by the second union there are seven children, four sons and three daughters. WILLIAM A. WHITTLESEY, Marietta. This distinguished lawyer, faithful public servant and esteemed citizen was born at Danbury, Connecticut, in 1796, died in Brooklyn, New York, and was buried at Marietta, Ohio, in 1866. He had a classical education; was graduated from Yale College in 1816, and remained at the college for some time as a tutor. In 1818 he came to Ohio and entered the office of his uncle, the Honorable Elisha Whittlesey, at Canfield, as a law student. Later he studied with Joshua R. Giddings, and in 1820 was admitted to the Bar. He settled in Marietta in 1821, and began the practice of his profession alone. Four years later he was elected to the position of auditor of Washington county, and held the office for two successive terms. In this, his first place of public trust, he discharged the duties of the office with such fidelity and conscientious regard for the interests of the public as to raise himself very high in public esteem. After retiring from office he devoted his attention entirely to his law practice, until 1839, when he was elected on the Democratic ticket to represent Washington county in the State legislature, serving for two years. In 1841 he formed a partnership with General Charles B. Goddard, of Zanesville, for the practice of law in Washington county, a 138 - BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO. relation that continued for several years. In 1848 he was made the nominee of the Democratic party to represent the district composed of the counties of Washington, Morgan and Perry, in the thirty-first Congress, and was elected ; and so faithful was he in the discharge of his duties to his constituents that he was offered the nomination to be his own successor, but declined to serve another term. While he was willing to perform his full duty as a citizen, he was not ambitious for political honors. The various positions of trust and honor that he held in his eventful life came to him unsought, and the duties were . discharged with fidelity and regard for the public welfare, rather than for personal or partisan ends. In 1858 he was elected mayor of the city of Marietta, and his administration of the office was endorsed by re-election in 1860 and in 1862, so that he served the city six years as chief magistrate. During these latter years he had been afflicted with severe bodily infirmities though he continued to discharge his duties to the public and to his clients, bearing his pains with remarkable fortitude. In 1866 he went East for the purpose of receiving treatment from celebrated specialists, but he found no relief until the silent Boatman carried him to the other shore. He died at Brooklyn, New York, November 6, 1866. His remains were brought to Marietta for interment, and laid beside those of his son, Captain W. B. Whittlesey, a brave and deserving officer, who was killed at the battle of Mission Ridge, in November, 1863. Judge Whittlesey's wife and daughter survived him. He was honored in life, and in death was deeply mourned. The quotation below is an extract from resolutions passed by the Bar Association of Washington county, and is given as an index of public sentiment : "It is with feelings of deepest sorrow and regret that we--the members of the Washington county Bar—have heard of the death of our late associate, the Honorable William A. Whittlesey. During the whole period of our connection with the profession in this county, we have been witnesses of the estimable qualities of the deceased. As a lawyer his discriminating mind, his legal acquirements, the friendliness and honesty of his counsel, his urbanity in the court, and his uniform courtesy and kindness toward the junior members of the profession have elicited our esteem and of him to our recollections. As a citizen and a neighbor, the kindness of his disposition, his liberality, his cheerfulness, and his remarkable freedom from all feelings of envy, resentment and ill will, won for him the respect and friendship of all who knew him." Said a prominent judge on the Bench of this district : " Mr. Whittlesey was never a very active man in court-room practice ; he was a good lawyer, a man .of extremely good judgment, an excellent adviser. He was a cultivated gentleman, a man of fine feelings and wonderfully interesting socially. He had, without exception, the finest fund of anecdotes of any man I ever knew, and they were always applicable to illustrate his points. He was an exceedingly kind man, and in his old age liked the companionship of young men. One of his characteristics worthy of mention was his great willingness to help young men in getting an education. He paid all of the expenses of two nephews while at college and took them into his own home, besides assisting many others to complete their education." The following is contributed by a prominent practitioner of the Marietta Bar : BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO - 139 "Judge Whittlesey was an unusual man. There were not many men like him. He was a true friend ; one who could not be tempted to take advantage of another's necessity, however great the pecuniary benefit might be to himself. There was no room for meanness in his nature. As a lawyer he was upright and honest. He told a story well to illustrate an argument. All his stories had pith and point, and high, pure tone. He was true and just in his dealings with all men. As a companion he was one of the most genial of men ; correct in all his habits. His popularity arose from his courtesy and affability, his generous disposition and exalted character. He gave legal advice to the twenty magistrates of the country free of charge." Mr. Whittlesey was married to Miss Jane Hobby, October 25, 1838. Of this union four children were born, but only one is now living—Emily, the wife of W. B. Mitchell, of St. Cloud, Minnesota, a gentleman of ability and prominence who was for many years the editor and publisher of the St. Cloud Journal-Press. Mrs. Whittlesey died February 10, 1896, at the home of her daughter in St. Cloud, Minnesota, after a very brief illness, in the eighty-fourth year of her age. EMMET M. WICKHAM, Delaware. Honorable Emmet M. Wickham, judge of the Court of Common Pleas, is a native of Delaware county. He was born in Genoa township, near the border of Franklin county, October 29, 1859. He is of English-German extraction and a lineal descendant of Joseph Wickham, who carried on mercantile business at Sag Harbor, Long Island, more than two hundred years ago. His great-great-grandfather, Jonathan Wickham, born in the State of New York three years after the birth of Washington, was among the heroes and patriots of the Revolution ; and his grandfather, Wickham's mother's father, Joseph Welsh was captain of a company of New York infantry during the evolutionary War. Judge Wickham's grandfather Asa Wickham, emigrated from Essex county, New York, to the State of Ohio in 1834, and settled in Delaware county in 1850. His father, Kitridge H. Wickham, a native of New York, is a stone cutter by occupation, a man of industry, integrity and very moderate means. His mother, whose family name was Sebring, was born in Ohio, of German parents, her grandfather, Francis Sebring, having emigrated to the State from Pennsylvania in 1808. He was the eldest of three children, and in early boyhood learned the lesson of self-dependence. He attended the district schools as soon as he attained the lawful age, and bought his clothing with money paid him by neighboring farmers for all kinds of farm work. The vigorous physical organism with which he is favored doubtless derived much of its vigor and healthfulness from the open air employment of the farm, much of which was laborious and some of which was recreative. During these boyhood years of toil, privation and preparation, his imagination was actively painting brighter pictures of the future, and all unconsciously he was weaving into the web of life by pluck and persistence, in work and study, the realistic picture of his imagination. His aspiration was continually leading him out of his environment, but honest per- 140 - BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO. formance of his daily tasks in the humble sphere was the only road to the higher goal. He was a student while he was a typical boy on the farm—not a farmer's boy. He pursued his studies to the farthest limit of the district school and thus qualified himself to teach others. It was in his twenty-first year that he rode on horseback twenty miles to Delaware, to attend the exam-nation for teachers in the public schools. He passed creditably, obtained his certificate, and in April, 1880, opened school in the home district, governing and teaching boys and girls who had been his fellow pupils. This is one of the severe tests of a young man's strength of character and self-control. Judge Wickham possessed the essential and practical knowledge of branches taught, the self-confidence that springs from such knowledge, and the natural dignity of character to make success immediate and continuous. For twelve years he engaged in teaching, while the intervals between terms were employed with farm work. His inclination was toward the law, and in 1889 he took up the study of legal text books under the instruction of Honorable F. M. Marriott. Applying himself with the diligence and earnestness characteristic of all his undertakings, he was qualified for admission to the Bar in two years, and passed the examination conducted by the Supreme Court Commission in the first three days of December, 1891. His teaching was continued until May following, as per contract, and in September, 1892, he entered into the practice of law, in the office of his former preceptor, Mr. Marriott. His mind was mature, well disciplined by study and teaching, and having the instinct of a lawyer he came to the front rapidly. The principles of the law had been grasped by previous study and now it was easy for him to apprehend its complications, as they arise .in practice. His abilities were speedily recognized by fellow practitioners and his brilliant parts made him a leader at the Bar. After less than four years of practice he was nominated in July, 1896, as the Democratic candidate for Judge of the first Subdivision of the Sixth Common Pleas District, and was elected in November. He has occupied the Bench since February, 1897, with ability and a conscientious endeavor to measure up to the standard of an upright judge. His moral character and genial disposition contributed to his personal popularity among the best citizens. His application to study and capacity to think for himself on the problems which the law presents are high qualifications for a judge. He is clear in his understanding, in his rulings and opinions. Judge Wickham is a Democrat by inheritance, choice and life long affiliation. The only office held by him before the judgeship was that of school director in his home district, where he served for three years, an office in which his practical views of education were of much advantage. He was the candidate of his party several times for city solicitor when there was no shadow of hope in the election. The canvass each time was made in conformity to a sense of party fealty rather than expectation of reward. BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO - 141 DANIEL J. RYAN, Columbus. Daniel J. Ryan was born at Cincinnati, January 1, 1855. His father, John Ryan, and his mother, Honora Ryan, were born in Ireland and came to this country about 1850 and settled in Cincinnati. They afterwards removed to Portsmouth, Ohio, where young Ryan received his education in the public schools, passing through all the grades. He was graduated from the high school in 1875. For a year before leaving school he was entered as a law student in the office of Judge James W. Bannon, where he continued his studies after graduating. In February, 1877, he was admitted to the Bar by the Supreme Court at Columbus. He at once commenced practice alone at Portsmouth, and in the following April was elected city solicitor ; was re-elected in 1879, serving until the spring of 1881. In 1883 he was elected a member of the Ohio House of Representatives, and was re-elected in 1885. During this service he was speaker pro tem. and chairman of the committee on public works. At the expiration of his legislative duties he resumed practice. In 1888 he was elected secretary of State of Ohio, and in 1890 was re-elected for a second term. He resigned this office, however, in 1891 to accept the appointment of commissioner in chief for Ohio of the World's Columbian Exposition, the duties of which required his services until May, 1894. While secretary of State he assisted in the compilation of Smith & Benedict's edition of the Revised Statutes of Ohio. He has since been engaged in the practice of law at Columbus. He has always been a Republican ; was the first president of the Ohio Republican League, and presided at New York over the first convention of the National League of Republican Clubs which met in 1887. For ten years Mr. Ryan has been one of the trustees of the Ohio Historical Society. He was appointed by the Exhibitors' Association at the World's Fair as one of the commissioners to the Antwerp Exposition in 1894. He was appointed by Governor McKinley as delegate to the National Water Ways Convention which met at Vicksburg in 1894. At the present time he is president of the Ohio Canal Association. Mr. Ryan is well and favorably known throughout the State as a man of high character and a lawyer of ability. He has been identified with many important cases in Ohio which have attracted general attention both in and out of the State, among which might be mentioned the case touching the constitutionality of the abandonment of the Hocking canal, and litigation relating to the food department of the State. On the 10th day of January, 1884, Mr. Ryan was married to Myra L. Kerr, of Portsmouth, and by this union five children were born, two of whom are living, Julia E. and Elinor. WILLIAM T. MOONEY, St. Marys. Judge Mooney is of Irish descent. He was born at St. Marys, Ohio, November 14, 1862. His parents are Michael J. and Catherine Mooney, the former a native of Indiana, the latter of Ohio. His father is department manager of one of the great American life insurance companies. Judge Mooney's advantages for obtaining an education were  142 - BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO. good, and he improved them from his earliest school years. He was graduated from the St. Marys high school May 23, 1880, at the age of eighteen years. He then entered the Ohio Normal University at Ada, and was prepared to enter the junior class. Two years later he was graduated from the institution with the degree of A. B. He read law privately for a period at home, and in October, 1886, he entered the Law Department of the Cincinnati College, from which he was graduated May 24, 1888, with the degree of LL. B. He received the Dexter prize for highest proficiency in both the junior and senior examinations. He was immediately admitted to the Bar and began the practice of his profession alone at St. Marys, June 1, 1888. He did not have a tedious wait for clients. Being well known and personally very popular he soon built up a good business, which continued to grow so long as he was in practice. In 1890 he formed a partnership with J. II. Goeke, under the firm name of Mooney & Goeke, which remained in effect until he was elected to the Bench of the Common Pleas Court. He held the office of city solicitor of St. Marys for two terms. In the fall of 1892 he was elected to fill a vacancy on the Common Pleas Bench of the first subdivision, third judicial district, to fill the unexpired term of Judge John Day, who had resigned to accept a seat on the Bench of the Circuit Court. He was re-elected in 1894 for a full term. In 1895 he was the candidate of his party for judge of the Supreme Court, but was defeated with the ticket in the landslide of that year. In his own district where he was best known he ran far ahead of his ticket. He has gained a reputation for legal acumen that is remarkable for a man of his years. The public is apt to estimate a man at about his true worth where they have opportunities of observation, as with a man on the Bench of a nisi pries court, and no truer estimate of a judge's ability is obtainable than is made up from the opinions of the men who practice in the court over which he presides. Referring to Judge Mooney's career at the Bar and on the Bench, one of the prominent practitioners of the district says : “I have known Judge Mooney all his life, as a boy, as a student, as a lawyer and as a judge, and I can truthfully say I have always known him as a leader. At school he was a leader in his classes, as he also was out of school in making life miserable for residents of the town. He was always fond of athletic sports, and he is a well developed man both physically and mentally. Anything he undertakes he does thoroughly. He has the quick intuition of his race, a strong, well balanced mind, and industry and will-power to accomplish his purposes. He is a warm-hearted man, and there is no counterfeit in the cordiality with which he meets his acquaintances. He possesses in a degree that quality which is commonly defined as magnetism, but a better definition of the term would be a just appreciation of what is due others. He is unassuming in his manners, and is personally one of the most popular men in the district. As a lawyer he leaped into the front rank at the Auglaize county Bar at a single bound. As a judge he is recognized as one of the ablest jurists on the Common Pleas Bench in this section of the State. Attorneys in the district have absolute confidence in him in every respect, and feel that when he has passed on a case they pretty nearly know the law that will govern it. He is fair and impartial, and is respected by the public just as highly as he is by the profession." BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO - 143 A judge of one of the higher courts of the State adds : "Judge Mooney's opinions are very highly respected by the members of the higher courts. It is very rare that any of his cases are carried up. He has a profound knowledge of the law, and his judgment is very accurate. He seems to have a natural affinity for the law, and his work on the Bench evinces hard and conscientious study of the law books. He has a strong mind, trained carefully and methodically." Judge Mooney is not a society man. His time is devoted to his profession, his family and his books. In politics he is a Democrat, and manifests due interest in all political questions, although he has never accepted any office not related to his profession. He was married August 31, 1892, to Miss Mary E. Spellacy. They have two daughters, Catherine and Eleanor. JOHN J. MOORE, Ottawa. Judge John J. Moore, for six years on the Common Pleas Bench, and late Judge of the Circuit Court, is a native of Ohio. He is of Scotch-Irish extraction on both sides. The ancestors of his father emigrated from the North of Ireland in the seventeenth century and settled in Pennsylvania, and the ancestors of his mother came from the same locality to Pennsylvania about the middle of the eighteenth century. His paternal grandfather, James Moore, served under General Anthony Wayne in some of the expeditions against the Indians, and his maternal grandfather, then a resident of Ohio, served in the War of 1812. Both parents were born in Pennsylvania, the father in 1800 and the mother two years later. His father, James Moore, came to Ohio in his twenty-fourth year and settled in the wilderness of Trumbull county, which was then inhabited largely by Indians and wild animals. Here he cleared and cultivated a farm, and here married Margaret Johnson, who as a child of nine years had come from her native State of Pennsylvania in 1811 and settled in the primeval forest of Trumbull county. His father carried on the business of a tannery in addition to his farming, was a prosperous business man and lived until 1879. His mother lived for about seventy years in the neighborhood where she settled in 1811, and assisted also in transforming the wilderness into a garden of fertility and beauty. She died in 1880. Judge Moore was born August 3, 1835, on the farm situated in Milton township, Trumbull county, as it was then, which has since become a part of Mahoning county. Until eighteen years of age he worked on the farm steadily except during the winter, when he attended the district schools in the township of his birth. At eighteen he entered upon an independent career for himself, teaching school in the winter and attending schools of higher rank in the summer, in order to enlarge and perfect his own education. In this manner he supported himself and paid his expenses for five years, at Mount Union College, near Alliance, Stark county. By alternate teaching and study—managing a district school in winter and attending college in summer—he acquired a liberal education. In 1861 he commenced the study of law in the office of Honorable S. W. Gilson, at Canfield, and continued his reading there under 144 - BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO. instruction until the spring of 1863, when he was admitted to the Bar. He was fortunate at the beginning of his practice in being associated as a partner with his preceptor, Mr. Gilson, who was not only a very able practitioner, but a gentleman of literary culture and distinction in his section of the State. The partnership was, continued until the fall of 1866, when Judge Moore removed to Putnam county and settled in Ottawa. This place has been his home continuously for more than thirty years and during all that time his abilities and energies have been devoted to his profession. When not engaged in practice at the Bar he has been occupied with service on the Bench. He formed a partnership at Ottawa with C. J. Swan, in the firm of Swan & Moore, which was maintained until he was elected judge of the Court of Common Pleas in the fall of 1878. In 1883 he was re-elected and entered upon the duties for a second term. A year later, however, he was nominated and elected judge of the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, comprising nineteen counties in the northwestern corner of the State. In 1889 he was re-elected for a term which expired in 1895, so that his judicial service covered a period of sixteen years—six on the Common Pleas and ten on the Circuit Bench. He was not a candidate for a third term as Circuit Judge, but resumed practice in the various courts upon retiring from the Bench. He has been engaged in all the important litigation and in some of the criminal cases in Putnam county. Among the latter was the case of John Goodman, indicted for the murder of Hay wood and his wife, in which he was retained for the defendant. It was a case exciting deep interest in the community and the evidence against the accused was so clear and overwhelming that he was convicted and hung, despite them. able defense put up for him. During the six years Judge Moore occupied the Bench of Common Pleas he tried seven murder cases, a record unequalled in that part of the State by any other judge. Five of these cases were tried in Henry county. Among them was the State of Ohio vs. R. K. Scott, who was a general of volunteers in the Union army during the Rebellion and subsequently was Governor of South Carolina. He was charged with the murder of a young man named Drury, but was acquitted on proof that the shooting was accidental, the pistol having been discharged by catching the hammer on the margin of a pocket from which it was being removed. Judge Moore was first elected to the Legislature in 1869 and again in 1871, taking an active part in the legislative proceedings during the sessions of 1870 and '72-3. He has always been a Democrat, but too much of a lawyer to enjoy a life of political office holding. Before his election to the Bench it was his custom to support his party by an active campaign on the stump. He was a delegate to the National Democratic Convention which was held at Indanapolis in 1896, and supported the ticket there nominated. He has been a member of the State Bar Association of Ohio from the date of its organization, and was chosen president of it in 1889. He is also a member of the National Bar Association, and of the American Bar Association. His social and benevolent traits find expression to a degree by membership in the Masonic Lodge. Judge Moore has travelled extensively in BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO - 145 the United States, visiting every section of the country and gathering valuable information concerning physical characteristics of different sections. He was married in 1859 to Miss E. C. Patterson, of Mahoning county, whose father, Hugh Patterson was of Scotch descent, and whose mother, Anna Van Etten, was of Dutch descent, her ancestors being among the Hollanders who first settled New Amsterdam (New York). They have one son, Gilson Moore, who is engaged in mercantile business in Ottawa. JOHN M. HENDERSON, Cleveland. John M. Henderson, who is entitled to be classed as one of the representative lawyers of the State, was born April 14, 1840, at Newville, Richland county, Ohio. His father, Dr. James P. Henderson, an eminent physician who continued in the practice of his profession until 1885, was one of the pioneers, coming to the State from Pennsylvania in 1823, where his ancestors had settled. Dr. Henderson, as early as 1838, was elected to the State legislature and in 1850 was a member of the convention which prepared the present Constitution of Ohio. The Hendersons were of Scotch-Presbyterian stock, the first of the family having been sent to this country as a missionary by the Scotland Presbytery of Fife, about the year 1753. His mother was Ann Moreland, whose family ancestors came originally from the North of Ireland and settled in Pennsylvania. The subject of this sketch was one of four children, the others having died in childhood or early youth. Young Henderson's education commenced in the district schools and at an academy near home. Upon leaving the academy he entered the preparatory department of Kenyon College, where he remained three years and until the end of his freshman year. From there he entered Miami University at Oxford, Ohio, where he was graduated in 1862. This latter college was one of two universities of this State founded upon grants from the general government, the other being the Ohio University at Athens. He was allowed to select his own profession. Law being his choice he entered the office of Judge Darius Dirlam, of Mansfield, who became his preceptor in the preliminary study of the profession he had chosen. Later he went to Cleveland, and entered the Cleveland Law School, from which he received his degree of LL. B. in 1864. He immediately commenced the practice of law, not limiting his practice to any particular branch of the profession. There have been no breaks or interruptions in his practice, and to-day it has grown to large proportions, and he now enjoys as select a clientage as any lawyer in Cleveland. Several times efforts have been made to induce him to accept the nomination for a judgeship. His high character as a man and his strong judicial mind eminently fit him for the Bench. However, he has invariably declined the honor, preferring to continue in active practice, for which he is so well qualified. One of the leading judges of Cleveland, speaking of Mr. Henderson, says: " He is, without doubt, one of the best lawyers at this Bar, always careful, painstaking and considerate in his work, and if I wanted an opinion 146 - BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO. upon an intricate legal proposition there is not a lawyer in the State better qualified to give it and to whom I would give preference." He has one of the best law libraries in the city and possesses the rare quality in a lawyer of knowing how to use it. He cannot be called a great jury lawyer, but as a safe counsellor he excels, and in the trial of equity cases and argument before the court he is excellent. Quick to see the finer points in a case, he presents them with a force of logic which is remarkable. He possesses a high sense of honor, is faithful and just in the discharge of every duty. These are the virtues, coupled with the man's gentleness of character, which have gathered about him so many close friends. He not only has the respect and confidence of the Bar, but of all who know him.. His first partner was John C. Grannis, with whom he was associated from 1865 to 1874. Afterwards he was associated with Virgil P. Kline, from July, 1875, until October, 1882, under the firm name of Henderson & Kline. The latter year S. H. Tolles was admitted to the partnership and the style of the firm became Henderson, Kline & Tolles, which continued until 1895, when Mr. Henderson withdrew and formed a partnership with F. A. Quail, the firm now being Henderson & Quail. Mr. Henderson has been engaged in many important cases, of which the following are noted : Talcott vs. Henderson, as fixing for the State of Ohio the rule as to the duty of purchaser in insolvent circumstances to disclose his condition in making purchases of property on credit Ohio vs. Lake Erie Iron Company. This was a case involving the constitutionality of an act of the Ohio legislature requiring corporations to make bi-monthly payments to their employes, being one of several acts passed about the same time attempting to restrict the right of employers in dealing with employes. Another important case was that of Laubeck vs. Andrews, defining the rights of owners of land covered by non-navigable lakes throughout the State, as against the public and owners of marginal lands. In politics Mr. Henderson is a Republican, always taking an active interest in political questions which affect his party or country, but never a seeker of public office; and with the exceptions of a few minor positions he has never held office. He is not a member of any society or club that might tend to divide his time with his family. In 1872 he married Anna Carey, and they have a most interesting family of seven children, six daughters and one son, all living. FRANKLIN J. DICKMAN, Cleveland. Honorable Franklin Jackson Dickman, LL. D., ex-Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, was born in Petersburg, Virginia, August 22, 1828. His parents were Joseph Dickman and Mary Foster Bartlett. His mother, Mary Foster, born in Dudley, Massachusetts, was a great-granddaughter of Timothy Foster of Dudley, who, with his twelve sons, served in the American Revolutionary War, all at the same time. For her first husband she married Nathaniel Bartlett, a relative of Josiah Bartlett, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Upon removal to Petersburg, Virginia, her husband there died, and she married Joseph Dick- BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO - 147 man, who was born in New England and came of distinguished ancestry, (Joseph Dickman and his wife are buried in the Blandford Cemetery, in the suburbs of Petersburg.) The subject of this biographical notice was fitted for college at the Petersburg Classical Institute, under the instruction of the Rev. Dr. E. D. Sanders, late of Philadelphia, and in the same class with General Roger A. Pryor, who was an officer in the Confederate service and afterwards became one of the Supreme Court judges of the State of New York. At the age of sixteen he entered the junior class of Brown University, at Providence, Rhode Island, and was graduated at the age of eighteen, with the salutatory honors of his class. During his college course the Rev. Dr. Francis Wayland, author of " Moral Science," was president of that institution, and among Mr. Dickman's classmates were Chief Justice Thomas Durfee, of Rhode Island, the Honorable Francis Wayland, ex-lieutenant governor of Connecticut, and now at the head of Yale College Law School, and the Honorable Samuel S. Cox, who long bore the pseudonym of Sunset Cox." After graduation Mr. Dickman spent a year at the university, during which time he availed himself of the ample facilities there offered for literary and scientific study. Leaving the university he entered the law office in Providence of the Honorable Charles F. Tillinghast and Honorable Charles S. Bradley, and at the end of two years was admitted to the Rhode Island Bar. He opened an office in Providence and there remained in the practice of his profession until his removal to Cleveland, Ohio. In 1857 he was the candidate of the Democratic party of Rhode Island for the office of attorney-general of the State, running on the same ticket with General A. E. Burnside, who was the Democratic candidate for Congress for the Eastern District of Rhode Island. In 1858 Mr. Dickman was appointed a member of the board of visitors to the West Point Military Academy, and was made secretary of the board. While a member of the board and under inducements held out by several of its members, he determined to change his residence, and in November, 1858, left Providence for the purpose of locating in the West. Having finally concluded to settle in Ohio, he spent a few weeks in his native place, Petersburg, Virginia, and then went to Cleveland, where he has ever since resided. On the breaking out of the war between the States he ardently espoused the cause of the Union, and in 1861 was nominated as a War-Democrat by the Union party of Cuyahoga county for member of the Ohio House of Representatives, and was elected by a large majority. In that body he was made chairman of the committee on railroads and was a member of the judiciary committee, and of the committee on municipal corporations. On the 24th of December, 1862, he was married to Miss Anne Eliza Neil, only daughter of Robert Neil, Esq., of Columbus, Ohio, and granddaughter of the Rev. Dr. James Hoge, a son of Dr. Moses Hoge, president of Hampden-Sidney College, Virginia, who was pronounced by John Randolph the most eloquent man he ever heard in the pulpit or out of it. Mr. Dickman has three children now living, a son, Robert Neil Dickman, and two daughters, Edith Hoge Dickman and Mabel Elkin Dickman. At the close of his legislative term he formed a law partnership with the Honorable Rufus P. Spaulding, who had just been 148 - BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO. elected to Congress from the Cleveland District, which partnership was continued until May, 1875. In March, 1867, he was appointed by President Johnson, United States attorney for the northern district of Ohio, which office he resigned in March, 1869. In April, 1883, he was appointed by Governor Charles Foster a member of the Ohio Supreme Court Commsssion, and served two years, until the commission terminated by the operation of law. In November, 1885, he was appointed by Governor J. B. Foraker a judge of the Supreme Court of Ohio. In July, 1887, he was nominated by the Republican State Convention assembled at Toledo for judge of the Supreme Court of Ohio, to fill the unexpired term of Judge W. W. Johnson, then deceased, and was duly elected at the following November State election. In June, 1889, he was renominated by acclamation by the Republican State Convention, at Columbus, for judge of the Supreme Court, for the full term of five Years, beginning February 9, 1890. Under the judicial system of the State he became Chief Justice of the court in February, 1894. The written opinions of Mr. Dickman while judge and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may be found in volumes XL to LII of the Ohio State Reports, and cover a wide range of legal questions. Among his decisions are many involving important constitutional questions, and in cases which are now leading authorities. From the many we may cite the following : Anderson vs. Brewster, 44 Ohio St. Rep., 576, settled that the act known as the Dow Law, which provided for an assessment or tax upon the business of trafficking in intoxicating liquors was not in effect a license law, was not within the inhibition of the 18th section of the schedule of the Constitution of Ohio, and in no respect violated the Constitution. State vs. City of Hamilton, 47th Ohio St. Rep. 52, quo warranto, involved the constitutional right of the municipality to erect its own gas works at the expiration of its contract, with an incorporated gas company which had erected works and supplied gas for streets and public and private buildings. The company contended that it had been deprived of vested rights by the municipality. In State vs. City of Toledo, 48th Ohio St. Rep., 112, quo warranto, was considered the constitutional power of the defendant to issue its bonds and exercise the taxing power to pay the principal and interest thereon, for the purpose of erecting natural gas works to supply gas for public and private uses. In Railway Company vs. Telegraph Association, 48th Ohio St. Rep., 390, there was a full examination of the respective rights of telephone companies and electric railway companies. It was held as a fundamental rule that the dominant purpose for which streets in a municipality are dedicated and opened is to facilitate public travel and transportation, and in that view new and improved modes of conveyance by street railways are by law authorized to be constructed ; and a franchise granted to a telephone company for constructing and operating its lines along and upon such streets is subordinate to the rights of the public in the streets for the purpose of travel and transportation. The doctrines announced in this opinion were favorably commented upon and approved by Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, of the Queen's Bench in an important jury cause. In State ex rel vs. Jones, Auditor, 51st Ohio . BENCH AND BAR OF OHIO - 149 St. Rep., 592, mandamus, the statute known as the Nichols Law, for the taxation of express, telegraph and telephone companies, came under review, and it was contended with great ability that the statute was in conflict with the State and Federal Constitutions. The case was taken on error to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the opinion of Chief Justice Dickman was carefully considered in argument and the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed. On June 22nd, 1892, the honorary degree of Learned Doctor of Laws was conferred upon Judge Dickman by his Alma Mater, Brown University. While engaged in the practice of his profession he did not forget the liberal studies of earlier years and found time to prepare many orations and addresses for literary and patriotic occasions. During the existence of the New York Knickerbocker Magazine he published in its pages a series of articles requiring much research, on Butler's "florae Juridicae," and was the author of several elaborate contributions to other periodicals on historical subjects. There is a curiosity of literature connected with Mr. Dickman's student life in Rhode Island, which may he of interest to some readers. Mr. Rufus Choate, in his noted letter to the Maine W.hig committee, in 1856, refers to the " glittering generalities of natural right which make up the Declaration of Independence." Bartlett, in his " Familiar Quotations," 9th edition, 1896, in a note to the quotation from the Maine Letter, says : "Although Mr. Choate has usually been credited with the original utterance of the words 'glittering generalities,' the following quotation will show that he was anticipated therein by several years : We fear that the glittering generalities of the speaker have left an impression more delightful than permanent' "—Franklin J. Dickman, review of a lecture by Rufus Choate, Providence Journal, December 14, 1849. Judge Dickman is a most charming and companionable man. Notwithstanding he has lived away from the South since his boyhood days, he retains all of the characteristics of the true southern gentleman of the old school. Gentle, considerate and thoughtful of others, he has a host of friends and admirers, not only in his adopted city, but throughout, the State of Ohio and the country. The lives of such men make the world better by their living. While Judge Dickman is an able lawyer, and while he spent many of the best years of his life in active practice, it must be from the standpoint of a jurist that he will be judged in the future. A most important service was rendered to the public of this State when Judge Dickman was appointed a member of the Supreme Court Commission, as it directed the public to his eminent fitness for the Supreme Court, a position to which he was subsequently twice elected. No member of our Supreme Court has brought to the discharge of its duties higher qualifications for the position than he. During the ten years he was on the Bench he never forgot the responsibilities of, or the requirements necessary to the position he so ably filled. His opinions are not only profound expositions of the law upon the questions involved in the case, hut they are the best statement of the reasons for the existence of the law as adjudged. No one can read them without recognizing the mind of a great master. In his breadth of scholarship, in his legal learning, in his lucidity of