followed resulted in the election of a General Assembly which passed laws relating to the business traffic of railroads, which came near bankrupting every railroad company in the State; and an attempt was made to dictate the election of the Judiciary. Judge C. B. Lawrence was defeated in his candidacy for re-election to the supreme bench in the Fifth district, by A. M. Craig, through the influence of the Patrons of Husbandry, and a vigorous effort was made in the Second district to defeat the reelection of Judge John Scholfield, but it signally failed. In reply to a general letter addressed to all the candidates for Judge, by the Patrons of Husbandry, requiring them to define their position upon questions relating to the control of corporations, Mr. Scholfield closed a manly letter in these words: "I will never be a Judge to record the pre-determined decrees of either corporations or individuals." But fortunately the sober second thought came over the people, and these mischievous and unjust laws were so modified by legislation, and the courts, as not to operate injuriously upon our railroad system; and the Patrons of Husbandry is remembered only as one of the follies of the age.

CHAPTER LXI.

TEMPERANCE LEGISLATION.

The control of the traffic of spirituous liquors has ever been a source of great concern to a very large portion of our law-abiding citizens, and the question has been presented to our law-makers in many ways; sometimes in

the form of an application for a prohibitory law; sometimes for a low-license law; sometimes for a high-license law; sometimes for an amendment to the constitution, allowing women the right to vote upon the question of license, and sometimes for an amendment to the constitution prohibiting the manufacture and sale of spirituous or malt liquors as a beverage; and hence there has been, from first to last, much legislation upon the subject.

In 1851, the General Assembly passed what is known as the "quart law," the purpose of which was to do away with what were termed "dram shops." This did not meet the demands of the people, and in 1855 the General Assembly passed a prohibitory act. It was submitted to a vote of the people of the State, and rejected. Since then we have had the license system and local option; but all the while there has been more or less agitation in favor of prohibition; but no General Assembly has seemed willing to allow the people to vote upon an amendment to the constitution giving women the right to vote upon the question of license or of amendment to the constitution, so as to prohibit the manufacture and sale of spirituous liquors as a beverage.

In March, 1879, a committee of ladies, representing the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, waited upon the General Assembly with the view of securing the passage of a law allowing women to vote in matters relating to the sale of spirituous or malt liquors as a beverage. The following persons composed that committee:

Miss Francis E. Willard, president of W. C. T. U. of Illinois; Mrs. T. B. Corse, president of Chicago W. C. T. U.; Mrs. L. A. Hagans, Mrs. Willis A. Barnes, Mrs. C. H. Case, Mrs. D. J. True, Chicago; Mrs. Prof. Fry and Mrs. A. R. Riggs, of Bloomington; Mrs. C. H. St. John, of Eureka; Mrs. M. H. Villars, of Pana; Miss Mary A. West, of Galesburg; Mrs. E. W. Kirkpatrick, of Monmouth;

Mrs. H. A. Calkins and Mrs. E. G. Hibben, of Peoria; Mrs. M. L. Wells, Mrs. R. Beach and Mrs. H. A. Allyn, of Springfield; Mrs. R. Greenlee, Mrs. M. A. Cummings, Mrs. J. B. Hobbs and Miss Lucia Kimball, of Chicago; Mrs. G. H. Read, of Bloomington; Mrs. H. W. Harwood and Mrs. H. C. Cullom, of Joliet; Mrs. S. B. Mooney, of Pana; Mrs. S. M. I. Henry, of Rockford; and Mrs. M. A. Taliafero, of Keithsburg.

The committee was armed with a petition which contained the signatures of 80,000 voters and 100,000 women. On the 6th of March, on behalf of the ladies, the petition was presented to the House of Representatives by Andrew Hinds, of Stephenson, in an address of some length, and on motion of Solomon P. Hopkins, of Cook, Miss Willard and Mrs. Foster, a lawyer, of Clinton, Iowa, were invited to address the House. This was the first time a woman was ever permitted to speak in an Illinois legislative body.

Subsequently, a bill was prepared and introduced into the House, providing an amendment to the constitution to allow women over 21 years to be registered the same as voters, and further providing that before a saloonkeeper could open a saloon he should be able to prove to the municipal authorities that he had secured the signatures of a majority of both men and women, over 21 years of age, in the community in which he proposed to do business. Mr. Hinds presented the bill, and was manfully supported by many of the members. On the 30th of May it reached a third reading, when it was lost, by a vote of 53 yeas to 55 nays.

On the 10th of April, the same petition was presented to the Senate by the same committee, through Mr. Taliafero. An objection being made to allowing the ladies to speak while the Senate was in session, on motion, a recess was taken for thirty minutes, 24 Senators voting

for, and 19 against. The time was occupied by Miss Willard in an address of much earnestness, and here the question rested for that session.

At the first session of the General Assembly of 1881, the same bill was introduced, with a similar fate. But although the Woman's Christian Temperance Union met with two signal defeats, their labors bore good fruit. They stirred the people all over the State to action, and when the General Assembly of 1883 came together, one of the very first bills introduced was that of Representative Harper, fixing a uniform system of license at $500. It became a party measure, the Republicans favoring its passage, and the Democrats opposing. It continued the subject of earnest discussion during the entire session, and on the 8th of June, passed the House by a bare constitutional majority. The journals of the House show that 70 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted for the bill, and that 51 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted against it.

The bill passed the Senate June 15, by a vote of 30 ayes to 20 noes-29 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted for it, and 19 Democrats and 1 Republican against it. An hour after the passage of the bill it received the approval of Gov. Hamilton, who had heartily co-operated with the friends of the measure, in securing its passage, from the first.

The validity of the law has been passed upon by the Supreme Court of the State, which body pronounced it constitutional, which has removed all doubts as to its enforcement.

CHAPTER LXII.

INCIDENTS AND ANECDOTES.

Owen Lovejoy Egged in Bloomington-"Will the Sheriff Call Mr. Pffrimmer"-Wentworth and Browning-" Till He was Conscripted"-U. F. Linder and the "Little Doctor"-" Celestial Meridian of 36° 30′ "-"Not According to Jefferson, but the Gentleman from Jefferson "-"I thought I would Let You Make a Water-Dog of Him"-How Col. Reuben Loomis was killed-How Pinkney H. Walker became a Justice of the Supreme Court-An Exciting Political Episode-"He Knew Him before the Flood" -"There is no Use of this Investigation"-"I was Born a Barefooted Boy" -"Tom Needles and John Bunn Know to D-n Much to Play Governor""Wonderful Moral Reformation"-"Tell Old Hilliard to Come and See Me Devilish Quick"-"If they will Let Me Out with as Good Character as I Had."

OWEN LOVEJOY EGGED IN BLOOMINGTON.

In 1840, and while the pro-slavery mob at Alton was still fresh in the minds of the people, Owen Lovejoy had an appointment at Bloomington to deliver an anti-slavery address. Abolitionists were not very popular then in any portion of Illinois, but it was thought he would have no trouble in being heard at Bloomington; but when he reached the Court House, from which place he was announced to speak, it was found that the doors had been locked against him, by order of the County Commissioners. He had been accompanied thither by George Dietrich, Job Cusey and his son John, then a youth of some fifteen years. Mr. Dietrich was a Democrat, but being a member of the same church in which Mr. Lovejoy was a preacher, he felt that Mr. Lovejoy was entitled to some attention, and hence was found in his company, but it is said that Dietrich never voted the Democratic ticket after that day. On their return from the court house they were assaulted with eggs, which was highly enjoyed by the