As Chairman of the State Central Committee, Douglas had no perfunctory position. The Whigs were displaying unusual aggressiveness. Their leaders were adroit politicians and had taken a leaf from Democratic experience in the matter of party organization. The processions, the torch-light parades, the barbecues and other noisy demonstrations of the Whigs, were very disconcerting. Such performances could not be lightly dismissed as "Whig Humbuggery," for they were alarmingly effective in winning votes. In self-defense, the Democratic managers were obliged to set on foot counter-demonstrations. On the whole, the Democrats were less successful in manufacturing enthusiasm. When one convention of young Democrats failed, for want of support, Douglas saved the situation only by explaining that hard-working Democrats could not leave their employment to go gadding. They preferred to leave noise and sham to their opponents, knowing that in the end "the quiet but certain influence of truth and correct principles" would prevail.1 And when the Whigs unwittingly held a great demonstration for "Tippecanoe and Tyler too," on the birthday of King George III, Douglas saw to it that an address was issued to voters, warning them against the chicane of unpatriotic demagogues. As a counter-blast, "All Good Democrats" were summoned to hold mass-meetings in the several counties on the Fourth of July. "We select the Fourth of July," read this pronunciamento, "not to desecrate it with unhallowed shouts but in cool and calm devotion to our country, to renew upon the altars of its liberties, a sacred oath of fidelity to its principles.

992

'Illinois State Register, May 15, 1840. 'Ibid., June 12, 1840.

Secretary of State, assuming that the office had been vacated and that a new Governor might choose his advisers.1 Precedent, it is true, militated against this theory, for Secretary Field had held office under three successive governors; but now that parties had become more sharply defined, it was deemed important that the Secretary of State should be of the same political persuasion as the Governor, and Field was a Whig. The Senate refused to indorse this new theory. Whereupon the Governor waited until the legislature adjourned, and renewed his appointment of McClernand, who promptly brought action against the tenacious Field to obtain possession of the office. The case was argued in the Circuit Court before Judge Breese, who gave a decision in favor of McClernand. The case was then appealed. Among the legal talent arrayed on the side of the claimant, when the case appeared on the docket of the Supreme Court, was Douglas-as a matter of course. Everyone knew that this was not so much a case at law as an issue in politics. The decision of the Supreme Court reversing the judgment of the lower court was received, therefore, as a partisan move to protect a Whig office-holder.2

For a time the Democrats, in control elsewhere, found themselves obliged to tolerate a dissident in their political family; but the Democratic majority in the new legislature came promptly to the aid of the Governor's household. Measures were set on foot to terminate Secretary Field's tenure of office by legislative enactment. Just at this juncture that gentleman prudently resigned; and Stephen A. Douglas was ap1 Ford, History of Illinois, pp. 213-214.

1

'Davidson and Stuvé, History of Illinois, pp. 454-455.

pointed to the office which he had done his best to vacate.1

This appointment was a boon to the impecunious young attorney. He could now count on a salary which would free him from any concern about his financial liabilities,-if indeed they ever gave him more than momentary concern. Besides, as custodian of the State Library, he had access to the best collection of law books in the State. The duties of his office were not so exacting but that he could still carry on his law studies, and manage such incidental business as came his way. These were the obvious and tangible advantages which Douglas emphasized in the mellow light of recollection.2 Yet there were other, less obvious, advantages which he omitted to mention.

The current newspapers of this date make frequent mention of an institution popularly dubbed "the Third House," or "Lord Coke's Assembly."" The archives of state do not explain this unique institution. Its location was in the lobby of the State House. Like many another extra-legal body it kept no records of its proceedings; yet it wielded a potent influence. It was attended regularly by those officials who made the lobby a rendezvous; irregularly, by politicians who came to the Capitol on business; and on pressing occasions, by members of the legislature who wished to catch the undertone of party opinion. The debates in this Third House often surpassed in interest the formal proceedings behind closed doors across the

'Why McClernand was passed over is not clear. Douglas entered upon the duties of his office November 30, 1840.

'Wheeler, Biographical History of Congress, p. 74. 'Sheahan, Douglas, p. 43.

corridor. Members of this house were not held to rigid account for what they said. Many a political coup was plotted in the lobby. The grist which came out of the legislative mill was often ground by irresponsible politicians out of hearing of the Speaker of the House. The chance comer was quite as likely to find the Secretary of State in the lobby as in his office among his books.

The lobby was a busy place in this winter session of 1840-41. It was well known that Democratic leaders had planned an aggressive reorganization of the Supreme Court, in anticipation of an adverse decision in the famous Galena alien case. The Democratic programme was embodied in a bill which proposed to abolish the existing Circuit Courts, and to enlarge the Supreme Court by the addition of five judges. Circuit Courts were to be held by the nine judges of the Supreme Court.1 Subsequent explanations did not, and could not, disguise the real purpose of this chaste reform.2

While this revolutionary measure was under fire in the legislature and in the Third House, the Supi me Court rendered its opinion in the alien case. To the amazement of the reformers, the decision did not touch the broad, constitutional question of the right of aliens to vote, but simply the concrete, particular question arising under the Election Law of 1829.3 Judge Smith alone dissented and argued the larger issue. The admirable self-restraint of the Court, so far from stopping the mouths of detractors, only excited more unfavorable comment. The suspicion 2 Ibid., pp. 212-222. 'Davidson and Stuvé, History of Illinois, p. 456.

1

1 Ford, History of Illinois, p. 217.

of partisanship, sedulously fed by angry Democrats, could not be easily eradicated. The Court was now condemned for its contemptible evasion of the real question at issue.

2

Douglas made an impassioned speech to the lobby, charging the Court with having deliberately suppressed its decision on the paramount issue, in order to disarm criticism and to avert the impending reorganization of the bench.1 He called loudly for the passage of the bill before the legislature; and the lobby echoed his sentiments. McClernand in the House corroborated this charge by stating, "under authorization," that the judges had withdrawn the opinion which they had prepared in June. Thereupon four of the five judges made an unqualified denial of the charge.3 McClernand fell back helplessly upon the word of Douglas. Pushed into a corner, Douglas then stated publicly, that he had made his charges against the Court on the explicit information given to him privately by Judge Smith. Six others testified that they had been similarly informed, or misinformed, by the same high authority. At all events, the mischief had been done. Under the party whip the bill to reorganize the Supreme Court was driven through both houses of the legislature, and unofficially ratified by Lord Coke's Assembly in the lobby.

1Illinois State Register, January 29, 1841; Ford, History of Illinois, p. 220.

8

"Davidson and Stuvé, History of Illinois, pp. 457-458.

Ibid., pp. 457-458.

*Illinois State Register, February 5, 1841. Judge Smith is put in an unenviable light by contemporary historians. There seems to be no reason to doubt that he misinformed Douglas and others. See Davidson and Stuvé, History of Illinois, pp. 458-459.