boat, and that at the time the accident occurred, she was as well managed as could be.

The trial of this case was not concluded until September 24. The charge to the jury by Mr. Justice McLean was published in full in the issue of the Chicago Daily Press of September 25, and occupied nearly four columns of that paper. The same issue contained also the announcement that the jury had disagreed, and the following editorial comment with reference to the case:

The trial, lasting as it did for weeks, seemed to be occupying an unnecessary amount of time; but it must be remembered that grave interests were at stake, not to be treated in a hasty manner, and worthy of the most patient and searching investigation. It was fitting that a case of such magnitude should be heard before such a court John McLean, a man of whom not only the Supreme Court, but the nation, may be proud. The counsel employed on both sides were among the most distinguished members of the bar in the country, and in conducting the case and arguing it before the jury they fully sustained themselves. Mr. Judd, who managed the case on the part of the defense, and Mr. Lincoln of Cincinnati, on the part of the plaintiff, displayed untiring industry and great ingenuity. Mr. A. Lincoln, in his address to the jury, was very successful, so far as clear statement and close logic was concerned.

The Cincinnati Gazette also contained reports, from time to time, of the progress of the case, and finally, on September 29, published copious ex

tracts from the charge of Judge McLean and the announcement of the disagreement and discharge of the jury, while the Cincinnati Enquirer of September 30, after giving the important points in the judge's charge, stated editorially: "The charge is clear and explicit, and how an intelligent jury could have failed to agree is a matter of mystery." The Cincinnati newspapers mentioned gave a summary of the testimony favorable to the river-men, and their opposition to the railroads was quite as apparent as the fact that the Chicago press was opposed to the contentions of the river-men.

The intense feeling which had been excited between the contending interests is revealed by the Chicago Daily Press of September 26, 1857, which contained an extended editorial comment upon the case, in the course of which it said:

The combination initiated by the St. Louis Chamber of Commerce at its meeting on the 16th of December last, one object of which was the rigorous prosecution of the Effie Afton suit, was represented by three of the committee at this trial, who carefully supervised the proceeding during its progress and gave to the lookeron the impression that Captain Hurd and other plaintiffs were mere spectators of the fight. The declaration on our streets by two members of the committee that half a million of dollars had been subscribed under lead of the St. Louis Chamber of Commerce by the river interests between Pittsburgh and St. Paul to

prosecute this suit to the bitter end, to institute another proceeding against the bridge company in the name of one of the company, and to resist the attempt to construct any more bridges across the Mississippi River, shows such a fanatical intent to accomplish an object regardless of right or justice that we deem it our duty thus specifically to direct public attention to it. The iron bands that connect the East with the West are to be severed at the Mississippi-every ton of freight that passes in either direction must have an additional dollar added to its cost to be paid by the consumer, and all at the dictation of the St. Louis Chamber of Commerce. That additional dollar added to its cost might send the ton of freight to St. Louis instead of Chicago. Shall it be added? Will the great east and west lines of transportation and commerce stand idly by and see that result produced? Shall Iowa, Minnesota, and Northern Missouri be taxed for all time to come for the benefit of a single town on the banks of the Mississippi? The first grapple with that monopolizing spirit had taken place, and nine men upon the jury stood for the great principle that rail transportation and traffic are to be as much protected as in the past up and down the river and that the rights of commerce must be carefully guarded in each instance.

The Missouri Republican, then the leading newspaper of St. Louis, published daily reports of the testimony and other proceedings in the case, and on September 26, 1857, published, in full, Judge McLean's charge to the jury.

As stated in the editorial already quoted from the Chicago Daily Press, the St. Louis Chamber of

Commerce was active in the prosecution of the Effie Afton case. That body had called meetings of the citizens of St. Louis, which were held at the Merchants' Exchange in that city, the purpose of which, as shown in the local newspapers, was to take action "in relation to the bridge at Rock Island and the obstruction formed by it to the navigation of the upper Mississippi." "Merchants, river-men and all others interested in its removal" were requested to attend. The first meeting was held December 15, 1856, and on the following day resolutions were adopted at an adjourned meeting, declaring in favor of the removal of the bridge as an obstruction to navigation, and appointing a committee to raise funds, etc. These resolutions were published in the St. Louis newspapers on the 18th of the same month.

The address of Abraham Lincoln to the jury, the principal parts of which were published in the Chicago Daily Press, also shows how intense was the opposition of the river-men. They foresaw in the bridging of the Mississippi River the death-knell of the steamboat transportation monopoly which they had so long enjoyed.

The city of St. Louis was jealous of the young giant which was destined to become the greatest railroad center in the world. That city-Chicago - had then a population of about 100,000, while

St. Louis contained a population of approximately 150,000. The rivalry for position as "the metropolis of the West" had excited the people of the respective communities, and continued until Chicago had so far outstripped the Missouri city that the rivalry ceased, and each has since been content within its sphere. But at the time of the pendency of the "Effie Afton case" feeling ran so high that it is not conceivable that the Rock Island Bridge Company would have been so unwise as to employ any but the best legal talent to defend that case.

The record of that trial shows that Abraham Lincoln was accorded the most important position among counsel for the defendant. He made the closing argument to the jury on behalf of the defendant, and was otherwise active during the trial. Had he been other than a high-class lawyer, he would not have been employed as the leading counsel for the defendant, or employed in connection with that case. His address to the jury was a forceful presentation of the contentions of the defendant. His careful analysis of the plaintiff's claims and of the evidence introduced at the trial shows also a thorough familiarity with the questions involved.

At the time of this trial Mr. Lincoln had not the wide reputation which he afterwards acquired, for it was not until the following year that he met