THE

CHAPTER X.

WASHINGTON IN 1827, 1828, 1829, AND 1830.

HE diary I have so often quoted gives, as we have partly seen already, quite an interesting view of life at Washington. in 1827, 1828, 1829, and 1830.

Here is a suggestive entry:

"Jan. 1,[1829]. This levee differed in nothing from the one which 1 described elsewhere, excepting that I was somewhat more conspicuous in the crowd. The lady who leaned upon my arm was one of the most brilliant in the room, and I shone a little by reflected light. She was elegantly attired in a Scottish dress of the most tasteful description, and well did her accomplished manner become her graceful array. The time, however, passed rather heavily off, as I was in charge of one who attracted too many to allow me opportunity for conversation."

Harriet Martineau has written :

"One of the most remarkable sights in the country is the President's levee. Nothing is easier than to laugh at it. There is probably no mode in which a number of human beings can assemble which may not be laughable from one point of view or another. The President's levee presents many facilities for ridicule. Men go there in plaid cloaks and leather belts, with all manner of wigs, and offer a large variety of obeisance to the chief magistrate. Women go in bonnets and shawls; talk about the company; stand upon chairs to look over people's heads, and stare at the large rooms. There was a story of two girls, thus dressed, being lifted up by their escorting gentlemen, and seated on the two ends of the mantel-piece like lustres, where they could obtain a view of the company as they entered. To see such people mixed in with foreign ambassadors and their suites, to observe the small mutual knowledge of classes and persons who thus meet on terms of equality, is amusing enough. But amidst much that was laughable, I certainly felt that I was seeing a fine spectacle. If the gentry at Washington desire to do away with the custom, they must be unaware of the dignity which resides in it, and which is apparent to the eye of a stranger, through any inconveniences which it may have. I am sorry that its recurrence is no longer annual. I am sorry that the practice of distributing re

freshments is relinquished; thought this a matter of less importance and of more inconvenience."

Here is another extract from the same work of Harriet Martineau :1

"Our party went out at eight o'clock. As we alighted from the carriage, I saw a number of women, well attended, going up the steps in the commonest morning walking dress. In the hall were parties of young men, exhibiting their graces in a walk from end to end; and ladies throwing off their shawls, and displaying the most splendid dresses. The President [Jackson] and some members of his cabinet on either hand, stood in the middle of the first room, ready to bow to all the ladies, and shake hands with all the gentlemen who presented themselves. The company then passed on to the fire-place, where stood the ladies of the President's family, attended by the Vice-President and the Secretary of the Treasury. From this point, the visitors dispersed themselves through the rooms, chatting in groups in the Blue Room, or joining the immense promenade in the great East Room. After two circuits there, I went back to the reception room, by far the most interesting to an observer. I saw one embassador after another enter with his suite; the Judges of the Supreme Court; the majority of the members of both Houses of Congress; and intermingled with these, the plainest farmers, store-keepers, and mechanics, with their primitive wives and simple daughters. Some looked merry, some looked busy; but none bashful. I believe there were three thousand persons present. There was one deficiency-one draw back, as I felt at the time. There were no persons of color."

1

That was written, if I remember rightly, in 1835 or in 1836. How did Chase feel on that subject, in 1827, 1828, 1829, and part of 1830, while at Washington? I can not answer. But I know that he lived to congratulate his friend, Thomas Marshall Key, on the passage of a bill, drafted by that strange character-the bill abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia.

Key, while a bachelor, was distinguished as the author of the Married Woman's Law in Ohio. He was one of my most intimate acquaintances. I knew him well, and loved him well, although I knew his faults and foibles almost as well as I knew his face and figure. We shall see much of him hereafter.

To return to Chase: it is with some reluctance, after much consideration, that the following extract, from the diary so often quoted, is presented to the readers of this work. But the scandal to which it refers has been variously related in books and other forms of published matter. The responsibility of suppression seemed to me

1 Society in America, III, 96.

greater than the risk of censure in presenting the account that follows:

It must be remembered that our hero took a northward journey, expecting to deliver his master's oration at Dartmouth. Having given of that journey the account we have already seen, he goes on as follows..

66

Sept. 5. A singular chain of occurrences had commenced in my absence. Mr. Campbell, a Presbyterian clergyman in Washington, had stated in confidence to Dr. Ely, of Philadelphia, with a view to prevent the appointment of Maj. Eaton to the Cabinet, that Mrs. E. had been delivered of a child when she was Mrs. Timberlake, supposed to be by Maj. E., and that various other reports, greatly prejudicial to the character of both, had been for some time in circulation. Dr. Ely had made no use of the information then but some time afterward wrote to the President, informing him of the circumstances, and giving Mr. Campbell's name as the author of the report. The President immediately sent for Mr. C., who confessed that he had made the statement to Dr. E., explained his motives, and showed his authority. The President was apparently contented. But, the next day, he had changed his mind, and called upon Mr. C. to deny his belief in the charge. Mr. C. replied that he could not-when the President became angry, and talked of a suit for slander. Mr. C. now thought it expedient to prepare for the worst, and with that view requested me to call with him at Mrs. Williams' to-day. I went and the old lady told us that she was a neighbor to Mrs. Timberlake, and that Mrs. O'Neale, the mother of Mrs. T., had told her that she had had twins in the absence of Mr. T. This was the amount of her statement, but from other sources Mr. C. collected a mass of evidence sufficient, and more than sufficient, to establish every allegation he had made, not as of his own knowledge, but as resting upon the credit of a particular individual and upon the strength of common report. A few days afterward a conclave was held at the palace, for the extraordinary purpose of taking this affair into consideration. "Nearly the whole Cabinet was present, and some extra counselors summoned for the special occasion. These last were Dr. Ely and Mr. Auditor Lewis. Mr. C. was summoned to appear and answer for himself. I can not state the particulars as they transpired. I have now no note of the transaction, and the minutiæ have faded from my memory. However, the President became hignly exasperated, and attributed the whole affair to the agency of Mr. Clay, and Mr. C. left the room indignant at the treatment he had received, and determined to publish the whole affair to the world. Dr. Ely followed him and entreated him to change his resolution. At last he consented. Many other incidents grew out of this. The ladies of Washington excluded Mrs. E. from their society, and so the matter still rests. Eaton has threatened personal violence to Mr. C., but will not probably execute his threat; and Mrs. E. called herself on Mr. C., and after alternate abuse and entreaty, screaming and fainting, finding the whole ineffectual, declared that his blood should be spilt for his audacity."

Whoever has examined Parton's version of this matter1 must allow that the evidence of Mrs. Eaton's guilt was not by any means conclusive. I know Washingtonians of great respectability who hold her guiltless. The extract just made from the diary of Mr. Chase, by no means makes the case conclusive. Mr. Chase, no doubt, believed, as did Dr. Campbell, what Mrs. Williams said that Mrs. O'Neale said that Mrs. Timberlake, her daughter, "should have confessed," (as common parlance might express itself,) on this occasion. After all, however, we have nothing here but very doubtful hearsay, on the one hand, and, on the other, the presumption in favor of a woman's chastity.

One of the most interesting indications of the quotation just made is that of Jackson's making a cabinet matter of the guilt or innocence of Mrs. Eaton.

How our hero then regarded Jackson is thus indicated in his diary under date Jan. 7, 1830:

"This evening I went with my friend Swann to the President's drawing-room. The East Room, now furnished splendidly, but not gorgeously, was open for the reception of guests. Near the south center stood General Jackson, with whom I now shook hands for the first time in my life. He is rather above the ordinary stature, and has a graceful figure. His countenance would not inspire a disciple of Lavater with an opinion of lofty talent or vigorous intellect. True it is that age and hardship had done their work upon him; but the characters of mind are not to be effaced by causes whose influence reaches not beyond this diurnal sphere. General Jackson is not a man of mind. In his manners he is graceful and agreeable, and much excels his predecessor in the art of winning golden opinions from all sorts of men. General Jackson's career should be attentively observed by the political student, who is endeavoring from the book of human affairs to glean the lessons of political experience. If his popularity continues it will be strange, for I have read of no instance in the history of nations where popular favor has for a long time followed an unworthy object."

Chase was then not quite two-and-twenty years of age. Was he at that time" a disciple of Lavater?" Had he studied physiognomy as that enthusiastic Swiss defines the same? If so, he found some true cognitions and some quite unscientific fancies in association. Only part of physiognomy can be considered truly scientific.

Chase was, at least for some time, not without personal vanity. In his character, as in so many others, one could see how a man may be, at once, very proud and not a little vain.

1 Life of Jackson.

And he was evidently vain of his fine person-vain and proud of his commanding port and presence, as, indeed, most men who have those fine possessions are.

I think just here of three distinguished men of Ohio, with whom I find myself comparing Chase with reference to person, port, and presence. Each of them was long ago distinguished for high stature. Two of them still live; one has departed. Thomas Ewing is the vanished figure. Henry Stanbery and William S. Groesbeck, still surviving, are the other type-figures here referred to. It is the more proper to refer to them because the fame of each is national. Their types were very different. Three tall, fine-looking men less like each other I do not remember. Ewing was a massive man in body and in mind. Neither Stanbery nor Groesbeck is so heavy. Well! but I have perceived in each of them the pride and vanity of person here in question.

Under date February 22, 1830, Chase, at Washington, made in his diary an entry which contains these words:

"Judge Burnett, of the Senate, is a small man, of a not unpleasing countenance. The indications of intellect are slight, but, by untiring industry, he has acquired a high professional reputation. He converses with some appearance of effort, and has been, as yet, a silent member of the Senate."

It would seem that Chase had really considerable faith at judgments of the physiognomic order. His ability to read character, however, has been more than questioned. Mr. Whitelaw Reid, ascribing to him deeper knowledge of mankind than I, for one, discerned in him, attributes to him, on the other hand, profound ignorance of men.' He was not so profoundly ignorant of men, I think, nor was he so profound in knowledge of mankind. Profundity, indeed, has never seemed to me a marked characteristic of his knowledge. It was very various and rich; but very deep it never seemed to me. We shall find him writing to Mr. Mellen that he was not fond of political metaphysics. Metaphysics, as every body knows, is a term of fearful sound and sense to most hearers. Chase was not so metaphysical, in any sense, as Ewing, for example. Depth, in all respects, marked Ewing more than Chase. It does not follow that the former was the greater man. If depth is necessary to true greatness, Washington was very far from great; and

1 Ohio in the War.