Stanton

by Benjamin P. Thomas

  Among the fruits Stanton enjoyed as a result of his handling of the Bridge case was an invitation to join with the country’s ablest patent attorneys, George Harding, of Philadelphia, and Peter H. Watson, of Washington, in arguing a case of national significance. Back in 1831, in Lexington, Virginia, young Cyrus H. McCormick had put together a mechanical reaping machine that was immediately successful. A few years later he and his brother opened a plant for the manufacture of reapers in Chicago. McCormick made improvements and took out patents from time to time, but reapers came into such demand that other companies began to manufacture very similar machines. One of the most aggressive of these competitors was the John H. Manny Company, of Rockford, Illinois.

  In 1854 McCormick brought suit for patent infringement against Manny and his associates in the federal district court at Chicago. With the demand for reapers swelling year by year, it would be a battle for high stakes. Both sides were prepared to spend money without stint, and they employed the best lawyers obtainable. That Stanton was chosen to assist Harding and Watson is the measure of his increasing prominence.

  The chief problem confronting the defense attorneys as the case came on to trial in September 1855 was to disprove McCormick’s right to the exclusive use of a divider device at the outer end of the cutter bar which separated the falling from the standing grain and kept the machine from choking up. To that end, Watson, who planned the strategy for the Manny side, used gross chicanery. He employed William P. Wood, a Washington modelmaker, to search the Virginia countryside for old reapers. Wood found one built in 1844, the year before McCormick obtained his patent. To make sure that it would appear to antedate McCormick’s patent, Wood took the divider to a blacksmith and had him alter it to resemble Manny’s, then “rusted over” the fresh marks by applying salt and vinegar, and even found witnesses who were willing to tell the court that this machine had been used as early as 1842 or 1843. But the witnesses broke down under cross-examination, whereupon Stanton’s colleagues tried to show that McCormick had failed to patent his divider for so long that it had passed into public use. But again McCormick’s lawyers refuted the adverse testimony.

  Years afterward, Wood and Albert E. H. Johnson, a clerk in Watson’s office at the time of the trial and later in Stanton’s employ, told of their part in these subterfuges. They stated that Watson alone, of Manny’s counsel, knew about the fraud. It is unlikely that Watson would or could have kept the secret from Harding, the senior man on Manny’s staff. But it is quite possible that Stanton, much the junior of the trio, and assigned only to a particular phase of legal research in the case, knew nothing of what Watson was up to.

  Most puzzling of all is why such deception was resorted to, when there would seem to have been no need of it. For Manny’s lawyers amassed facts as well as fictions on his side, and the verdict supported him in every particular. It seems most probable from the evidence that Wood, aged and penniless, sold Watson a bill of goods by alleging that McCormick’s patent rights were stronger than the facts warranted.29

  Whatever Stanton’s involvement in the assembling of untrue evidence, his role in the trial has been vastly overblown and distorted because of Abraham Lincoln’s connection with it. Supposing the case would be tried in Chicago, Harding, in keeping with common practice, had sent Watson there to employ some lawyer who was well known in local court circles and who enjoyed the confidence of the judge. Watson heard of “Abe” Lincoln, of Springfield, Illinois, and though wholly unimpressed by the gawky, drawling fellow, employed him with a retainer of $400. Before the case came to trial, however, it was transferred to Cincinnati, and none of Manny’s lawyers gave further thought to Lincoln.

  One day as Harding and Stanton were leaving their hotel in Cincinnati to go to court, they saw a man standing on the steps. Harding realized from Watson’s previous unflattering description that this was their now unwanted colleague, Lincoln. After an exchange of civilities, Lincoln proposed that they all go to the courthouse “in a gang.” Stanton and Harding thereupon snubbed the interloper and went on without him.

  Without question Stanton was rude, snobbish, and supercilious toward the unknown Lincoln. But so was everyone else connected with the case. Harding, for example, never opened the lengthy manuscript which Lincoln had prepared as his contribution. When one of the presiding jurists entertained the counsel on both sides, Lincoln was not invited. Although all the lawyers were staying at the same hotel, none asked Lincoln to share their table, to visit them in their rooms, or to join them on the daily walks to and from the court. Stanton never mentioned him in his letters to family and friends, though he carefully described other persons connected with this important case. Everyone assumed, it appears, that Lincoln was an intruder because the case was now in Ohio rather than in Illinois. His presence in Cincinnati was entirely his own business, although Watson later paid him the agreed upon retainer, which Lincoln accepted. Stanton was merely one among those who made Lincoln’s inferior position clear to him. Charles F. Benjamin, later a clerk in Stanton’s employ, in describing this combination of personalities, “including Stanton’s hauteur and Lincoln’s gaucherie,” correctly asserted that the Stanton-Lincoln relationship was but one among the many involved.

  Stanton’s role in the case itself has been greatly overstated. The major source of information has been a letter from one of Manny’s partners to Stanton’s biographer Flower, in which almost charismatic qualities are attributed to Stanton’s legal and oratorical abilities. A far more accurate description of Stanton’s modest role emerges from his own letters, only now available.

  “Last evening I was very anxious,” Stanton wrote the day after the case opened, “for Mr. Harding had been unwell several days, and I was apprehensive that he would not be able to be in the Court.” Stanton feared that certain technical aspects of the case, which by agreement with Harding he had ignored, would become his responsibility. Characteristically, he stayed awake all night to inform himself on the technicalities of machine functions. Morning brought improvement to Harding, and Stanton was vastly relieved. “The case is the most important Patent cause that has ever been tried,” he wrote, “and more money and brains have been expended in getting it ready for argument, than any other … ever has had bestowed upon it.” Stanton confessed that Harding was a far abler lawyer than he at arguing intricate points of patent law: “His manner and style is admirably well adapted for scientific discussion and illustration, and that is precisely the duty required on the present occasion.”

  As the junior of the lawyers on Manny’s side, Stanton performed ably as the diligent researcher in points of general law and in summing up the case for the court. Lincoln, who stayed on despite the rebuffs, and who admired the professional techniques of the counsel, learned important lessons in legal practice. But the rapturous reaction of judges and onlookers to Stanton’s skill which Flower accepted is at least questionable.

  Equally dubious is the account that Piatt, Stanton’s journalist friend, gave of Stanton’s reaction to Lincoln. Piatt has Stanton describing Lincoln as “the long, lank creature from Illinois, wearing a dirty linen duster coat, on the back of which the perspiration had splotched two wide stains that … resembled the dirty map of the continent.” According to Piatt, Stanton had declared: “If that giraffe appeared in the case I would throw up my brief and leave.”

  Stanton’s acidulous description of Lincoln is believable, even though the precise language may not be accurate. But a decision to abandon the case if Lincoln participated is completely out of character. Lincoln was never in the case once it was moved from Chicago. There was no need for Stanton to make such a dire professional choice. And it should be remembered that Piatt, according to a contemporary, was widely known in Washington as two of the three greatest liars in the town.30

  The strains of his demanding professional schedule, the effects of his injuries and his family tragedies, and the unnervement caused by a series of illnesses his son suffered, had combined to change Stanton.
Piatt, who had known him in Columbus as a hearty, cheerful young man, encountered him in Washington and was amazed at his appearance, and Piatt’s description in this instance is verified by other evidence. A beard now covered Stanton’s once smooth chin and cheeks. “For a second,” Piatt recalled, “the old, well-loved gleam of pleasure lit his face, and then faded out and a gloomy, sad expression took its place.… His manner, so cold, reserved, and formal, embarrassed me.” Piatt later had occasion to call on Stanton in his hotel room. Leaving and then returning unexpectedly for a final word, he found Stanton sobbing.

  Clearly, the substantial successes Stanton had achieved in the law and the comfortable income this was bringing him, failed to lift his spirits. He began to question his decision to dedicate all his effort to self-advancement, and even the desirability of life as a lawyer. Success as an attorney, he warned William Stanton, whose education he was overseeing, “depends upon many contingencies that cannot be foreseen, and even successful practice brings much smaller remuneration than is generally supposed by outsiders.… I would not advise a son or friend of mine to choose the law; indeed I would rather my son did not. But on the other hand I would not dissuade any one who feels a clear call to the profession.… This only I can assure you; that you will have any aid and direction in the study that I may be able to give you.”

  Stanton came to realize that part of his need was for female companionship. In a rare moment of frankness, he admitted to Reuben Walworth, the Supreme Court’s commissioner in the Bridge case, with whom he had established a close friendship, that “for myself I have been too much occupied with other engagements to think of what would probably much more contribute to my happiness.”

  He would never forget Mary. But his nature required someone to love as he had loved her. Without this, success lacked meaning.31

  1 Stanton to Chase, Nov. 30, 1846, Jan. 5, Nov. 11, Dec. 2, 1847, Chase Papers, HSP; Jan. 15, 16, Feb. 27, 1847, McCook ms diary, owned by Mrs. McCook Knox.

  2 Jan. 16, Feb. 28, April 24, 1847, and undated, ca. March 1847, Letterbooks, Chase Papers, LC; Stanton to Chase, March 3, May 1, 1847, Chase Papers, HSP. See also 5 Howard 215–32; Leo Alilunas, “Fugitive Slave Cases in Ohio Prior to 1850,” OSAHQ, XLIX, 160–84.

  3 Nov. 30, 1946, March 11, May 1, 1847, Chase Papers, HSP.

  4 Steubenville American Union, March 25, June 17, 24, July 8, 1847; Steubenville Herald, April 8, Dec. 8, 1847; Stanton to Margaret Dick Beatty, undated, McCook Family Papers, LC; McCook ms diary, July 11, 17, Aug. 2, 25, 26, and McCook to “My Dear Mother,” July 22, 1847, owned by Mrs. McCook Knox.

  5 Chase letterbook notation, Nov. 27, 1847, Chase Papers, LC; Stanton to Chase, Dec. 2, 1847, Chase Papers, HSP; Pittsburgh Daily Morning Post, Oct. 29, 1847.

  6 Wolcott MS, 116; letters by Pamphila in New York Sun, March 14, 1892.

  7 Chase to Stanton, Jan. 9, 1848, Stanton MSS; Stanton to Chase, Feb. 16, 1848, Chase Papers, HSP; Wolcott MS, 161.

  8 Wolcott MS, 163. Flower, Stanton, 53–4, states that Stanton spoke enthusiastically for Van Buren at a Steubenville rally. However, this seems doubtful and lacks any supporting evidence. William G. Keener, of Columbus, carefully searched the Steubenville, Columbus, and New Lisbon newspapers for 1848 and found no reports of any speech. On the Free-Soil convention, see E. H. Price, “The Election of 1848 in Ohio,” OSAHQ, XXXVI, 206–37, 247–311.

  9 Stanton to Chase, Feb. 24, 1849, Chase Papers, LC; William H. Smith to Jeremiah S. Black, Jan. 20, 1870, Black Papers, LC.

  10 Chase to Stanton, July 2, Stanton to Maj. J. Sanders, July 17, 1849, Stanton MSS; Stanton to Chase, May 27, July 10, 1849, Chase Papers, HSP.

  11 Gazette, April 9, 15, 1850; Pittsburgh Daily Commercial Journal, March 8, April 1, 6, 1850; Chase to Stanton, March 13, and Stanton to R. H. Walworth, July 29, Aug. 21, 1850, Ac. 6204-A, Stanton MSS; Stanton to Chase, March 27, 1850, Chase Papers, LC.

  12 Stanton to Chase, June 28, Sept. 7, 1851, Chase Papers, HSP; Chase to Stanton, July 16, 1851, Stanton MSS.

  13 To Tappan, Feb. 9, 1852, Wright Collection, LC; Gorham, Stanton, I, 74.

  14 Stanton to Ellen Hutchison, Dec. 6, 1854, owned by Mrs. Van Swearingen; Wilson, “Jeremiah S. Black and Edwin M. Stanton,” loc. cit., 466; J.A.S. No. 130, pp. 45–6, No. 169, pp. 183–4, Recorder of Deeds, District of Columbia, on the loan. See also David Donald, Charles Sumner and the Coming of the Civil War (New York, 1960).

  15 Wolcott MS, 130–1; Flower, Stanton, 49–51.

  16 Catherine E. Reiser, “Pittsburgh, the Hub of Western Commerce,” WPhM, XXV, 121–34; Neville B. Craig, The History of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh, 1851), 299–312.

  17 Carnegie, “Stanton, the Patriot,” OSAHQ, XV, 293–4; to Chase, May 27, 1849, Chase Papers, HSP.

  18 Supreme Court, Eulogies, 7; Gorham, Stanton, I, 45; Pratt, Stanton, 54–5.

  19 William Stanton to Mrs. O. S. Picher, Oct. 12, 1907, owned by William Stanton Picher.

  20 In fact, when Stanton’s sister Oella had another falling out with her husband, Dr. Tappan, and decided to sue him for divorce, Stanton employed Moody as her attorney, serving as associate counsel himself. Moody won a divorce decree, with generous alimony, for Oella, but Dr. Tappan had previously disposed of most of his property and evaded the judgment. Stanton was obliged to provide a home for Oella and her five children, and his relations with the Tappans, which had been worsening for years, in 1853 reached the breaking point. Wolcott MS, 131; Flower, Stanton, 61–2; Stanton to E. L. Tappan, March 25, 1856, copy owned by the estate of Benjamin P. Thomas; Jefferson County Appearance Record K, 449, and Common Pleas Journal, XVI, 379–80.

  21 William Stanton to Mrs. O. S. Picher, Oct. 12, 1907, and Edwin to William Stanton, Oct. 20, 1854, owned by William Stanton Picher; John P. Usher, President Lincoln’s Cabinet (Omaha, 1925), 23.

  22 Wolcott MS, 55; Howe, op. cit., I, 896, 976, II, 177; Shotwell, op. cit., 72–7; Hunter, “Pathfinders of Jefferson County,” loc. cit., 219.

  23 Flower, Stanton, 42–4; Howe, op. cit., I, 972; Charles W. Batchelor, Incidents in My Life (Pittsburgh, 1887), 252–3; undated memo, ca. 1855, on cases described, in Stanton’s hand, owned by the estate of Benjamin P. Thomas.

  24 Sickles, “Address on the Centennial of Jefferson County,” OAHS Publications, VI, 330; Hunter, “Pathfinders of Jefferson County,” loc. cit., 219–21; Wolcott MS, 115, 127–30, 148.

  25 Agnes L. Starrett, Through One Hundred and Fifty Years (Pittsburgh, 1937), 113; Abraham Lincoln: Tributes from His Associates (New York, 1895), 110; to Chase, May 27, 1849, Chase Papers, HSP; Hiram Schock, “Edwin M. Stanton, Pittsburgh Lawyer,” Pittsburgh Legal Journal, LXX, 3.

  26 To Walworth, Jan. 5, 1851, Ac. 6204-A, Stanton MSS; Henry K. Seibeneck, “Pittsburgh’s Civil War Fortification Claims,” WPHM, XXVII, 5–6; “The Factory Riots in Allegheny City, ibid., V, 203–11; Leland Baldwin, Pittsburgh, the Story of a City (Pittsburgh, 1938), 227.

  27 Wolcott MS, 140–2; Office of the Clerk, U. S. Supreme Court, Attorneys Roll (1850); Stanton to Robert Walker, Nov. 20, 1849, HL; James M. Callahan, “The Pittsburgh-Wheeling Rivalry for Commercial Headship on the Ohio,” OAHSQ, XXII, 40–6; Chase to Stanton, Dec. 14, 1849, and Stanton to Maj. John Sanders, undated, Stanton MSS. The case is in 9 Howard 647–59.

  28 Stanton’s part in the Bridge case is best derived from ACS. 6204 and 6204-A, Stanton MSS, and the Simon Gratz Collection, HSP, and 11 Howard 528–9; 13 Howard 518–628. Congress bypassed the Court’s decision by declaring the bridge part of a post road, but this did no harm to Stanton’s reputation. See also Mary I. Ellet, “Memoirs,” Bucks County Historical Society Papers, VIII, 319–20n.; Stanton to William Johnston, July 18, 1855, WPHM, XII, 266; Stanton, Argument … in Florida Contested Election Case (Washington, 1852).

  29 Wood’s and Johnson’s affidavits in Frank A. Flower’s ms, “McCormick vs. Manny, History of Discovering the Trick by Which the U. S. Supreme Court Was Defeated and Defrauded (with Sworn Affidavits),” McCormick Collection, WSHS; Flower, Stanton, 64; W
illiam T. Hutchison, Cyrus Hall McCormick (New York, 1931), I, 431–52; 6 McLean’s Reports 539–57.

  30 On Stanton’s role, new evidence in his letter to Ellen Hutchison, Sept. 25, 1855, owned by Mrs. Van Swearingen. See also Flower, Stanton, 62–3; Emerson Hinschliff, “Lincoln and the ‘Patent Case,’ ” ISHS Journal, XXXIII, 361–5; Donn Piatt, op. cit., 56; S. P. Pillsbury to Horace White, Oct. 14, 1913, and Charles F. Benjamin to same, June 1, 1914, White Papers, ISHL. An analysis of the evidence is available in Hyman, “A Man Out of Manuscripts: Edwin M. Stanton at the McCormick Reaper Trial,” Manuscripts, XII, 35–9.

  31 Dorm Piatt, op. cit., 54–5; to Walworth, Jan. 5, 1851, Ac. 6204-A, Stanton MSS; to William Stanton, Oct. 24, 1854, owned by William Stanton Picher.

  CHAPTER IV

  AT THE HEIGHTS OF THE LAW

  TIME and professional preoccupation dulled the ache in Stanton’s heart caused by Mary’s death, and by the mid-1850’s he was mingling more often in society. His renewed interest in social life had gained impetus from his acquaintance with Ellen Hutchison, a tall, well-poised girl, sixteen years his junior, with deep blue eyes and luxurious blond hair. Her father, Lewis Hutchison, was a descendant of the explorer Meriwether Lewis and had accumulated substantial wealth as a shipper, warehouseman, and wholesale foodseller. His family was socially prominent in Pittsburgh and owned the church pew directly in front of Stanton’s. It was here, as the minister of the church later recalled to Ellen, “he experienced his first feeling of interest in you.”

  When Stanton met Ellen she was recovering from an unhappy love affair, and he afforded the young woman gentle sympathy. “The trouble of early love fell like a killing frost,” he wrote, but assured her that happiness could again return. He sent her long letters from the varied places to which his cases took him, and warned Ellen that if he were to write her each time she was in his thoughts, his letters would become burdens.