Burton C. Cook, a graduate of the Collegiate Institute of Rochester, New York; John T. Stuart, a graduate of Centre College of Danville, Kentucky; Leonard Swett, a graduate of Waterville College, now Colby University. Many others possessed an academic education. Mr. Lincoln was intimately acquainted with all of these men, and it is therefore probable that if the statement attributed to him by Mr. Emerson was made, it was in a spirit of jest, or that it was uttered because of the attitude of superiority which Messrs. Stanton and Harding had displayed toward him.

Mr. Emerson in the pamphlet before mentioned has stated that William H. Seward, Stephen A. Douglas, and other prominent lawyers were engaged in the case of McCormick against Manny, but the record indicates that this is an error, as the only names which appear there, either in the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court of the United States, are those of Reverdy Johnson and E. N. Dickerson for the complainant and Edwin M. Stanton and George Harding for the defendants. This fact affords additional evidence that Mr. Emerson did not remember clearly the events of which he undertook to give an account after the lapse of so many years.1 The account given by Mr. Bigelow to the writer is

1 The pamphlet referred to was published in 1909.

substantially the same as that which Mr. Harding gave to Robert H. Parkinson, a leading patent attorney and member of the Chicago bar. Mr. Parkinson knew Mr. Harding during many years, and while the account given to him varies from that of Mr. Bigelow in some minor details, it does not differ greatly as to the material facts. According to the version given to Mr. Parkinson, the dinner mentioned was given by Justice McLean at his home, and Mr. Lincoln was not informed of the decision as to the arguments in advance of the hearing. All accounts agree that Mr. Lincoln submitted gracefully to the plan agreed upon between Messrs. Stanton and Harding and delivered his manuscript to Mr. Harding, who did not open it because he deemed it unworthy of examination. The evidence that Mr. Lincoln was badly treated by Mr. Stanton is abundant, and that he was named by President Lincoln as Secretary of War is but another evidence of the latter's unselfish patriotism.

There is no evidence that the Cincinnati incident was ever discussed between President Lincoln and his great Secretary of War, but that the latter became the stanch friend, admirer, and earnest supporter of the President is beyond question. He learned by personal contact with the great President to admire his great intellect, kindly disposition, his

almost superhuman wisdom, patience and courage so often displayed under the most trying circumstances. Whatever of discourtesy may be chargeable to the great Secretary of War in his treatment of Mr. Lincoln at Cincinnati was atoned for abundantly by the subsequent cordiality and earnest devotion which he manifested toward his chief throughout his great and disinterested service as Secretary of War. And it remained for him to immortalize the closing scene in the life of President Lincoln as he stood beside his prostrate form and bowed his head in grief as he uttered those memorable words, "Now he belongs to the ages." Mr. Harding also became a great admirer of Mr. Lincoln, and in relating the account of the Cincinnati incident he did so for the purpose of showing how both Stanton and himself had been led by Mr. Lincoln's external appearance to underestimate the man so greatly.

CHAPTER III

THE LAWYER-PRESIDENT

HE record of Mr. Lincoln while a practicing

TH

lawyer, as shown in the preceding chapter, reveals the sources of the greatness that was so manifest when he was called upon to deal with the affairs of the nation. In his work as a lawyer he had acquired a thorough knowledge of the common law and an understanding of its history and purposes. He had learned the important lesson that there are at least two sides to every controversy, that there is usually some merit on each side of every dispute. He had learned to take a comprehensive view of every question requiring his attention, to analyze every problem, to separate the true from the false, to detect and expose sophistry and present the real issue stripped of every immaterial consideration. He had acquired a knowledge of men by means of which he understood the motives which prompt and the impulses which control human action. He was familiar with the history of Anglo-Saxon liberty and the chronicles of that great struggle which gave to the English people the Great Charter and that system of jurisprudence which has been a shield against