had not had many cases; possibly this was his first in the Supreme Court. The lawyer opposed to him was one of the ablest in IllinoisStephen T. Logan, who later became his law partner, and subsequently a judge.

"May it please the Court," said Lincoln, in his argument, "the Ordinance of 1787, which prohibited slavery in the North-west Territory, would give Nancy her freedom. The Constitution of the State prohibits the holding of slaves. She cannot, therefore, be held as a slave; she cannot be sold as a slave. A note given for the sale of a slave in a free State can have no value. Neither Crowell nor Bailey can hold Nancy; she is entitled to her freedom, and Crowell is not entitled to the money which Bailey promised to pay."

The argument was so plain that the Court decided in his favor. The decision put an end to the holding of slaves in Illinois.

The court-house, when the court was in session, was an attractive place. It might not be much better than a barn, but it was where people reverenced the majesty of law; where the brightest men in the county might be seen and heard. The judge sat on a platform behind a desk, with the clerk in front of him upon a lower platform. The members of the bar usually were tipped back in chairs, with their feet on other chairs, chewing tobacco and spitting at a box filled with sawdust. Abraham Lincoln did not chew nor smoke tobacco. In presenting a case he often admitted so much that was favorable to his opponent, the lawyers were accustomed to say he had given himself away; but he believed one lost nothing by being fair.

He was employed in a very interesting case. Two farmers went to law about a young colt. One brought thirty-four witnesses, who testified that they had known the colt from the day of its birth; that it belonged to him. Thirty other men swore they also had known it from its birth; that it belonged to the other man. There had been two colts, but one was missing. Everybody said they were so nearly alike in size and color it was not possible to say which was which. "Let the mares be brought into the case as witnesses," said the judge. He leaves the bench, and goes with all the lawyers and a great crowd of people to see and hear what the animals will say. The two mares are brought into the public square, and the colt let loose. It whinneys for its mother. There is an answering whinney from one of the mares, and the colt runs to her side and will not leave her. What ought the jury to do? side, and thirty on the other.

Thirty-four men have testified on one They all say they have known the colt

from its birth, and that they cannot be deceived. Shall the actions of the animals be accepted as evidence? "May it please your honor," said Lincoln, "I submit that the voice of Nature in the colt and its mother is of far more importance than the testimony of man. This is a case in which the argument is as to the weight of evidence. It is a civil suit, and we want to find out who owns the colt. It is a case in which the jury must decide according to the weight of evidence. Now, gentlemen of the jury, if you were going to bet as to which of the mares is the mother, on which would you risk your money-even if it was not more than a picayune? On which is the preponderance of evidence? Possibly you might not be right, but that is not the question. It is whether you will accept the testimony of thirty men and the silence of one of the mares on the one side, or the testimony of thirty-four men, the other mare, and the colt on the other side?"

The case was so plain that the jury had no difficulty in deciding as to which farmer was the rightful owner of the colt. They decided just as they would have bet their money.

Another case was that of a poor woman, nearly eighty years old, who came with a pitiful story. Her husband had been a soldier in the Revolutionary War, under Washington. He was dead, and she was entitled to a pension amounting to $400. A rascally fellow, pretending

great friendship for her, had obtained the money, but had put half of it into his own pocket.

The poor woman was the only witness. The jury heard her story. Abraham Lincoln the while was making the following notes on a slip of paper:

"No contract.

"Not professional services.

"Unreasonable charges.

Money retained by defendant not given to plaintiff.

"Revolutionary War.

"Describe Valley Forge.

"Ice. Soldiers' bleeding feet.

"Husband leaving home for the army.

"Skin defendant."

He rises and turns to the judge. Of the lawyers sitting around the table perhaps not one of them can say just what there is about him which hushes the room in an instant. "May it please your honor "-the words are spoken slowly, as if he were not quite ready to go on with what he has to say-gentlemen of the jury: this is a very simple case -so simple that a child can understand it. You have heard that there has been no contract-no agreement by the parties. You will observe that there has been no professional service by contract." Slowly, clearly, one by one the points were taken up. Who was the man to whom the Government of the United States owed the money? He had been with Washington at Valley Forge, barefooted in midwinter, marching with bleeding feet, with only rags to protect him from the cold-staring for his country. The speaker's lips were tremulous, and his eyes filled with tears as he told how the soldiers of the Revolution marched amid the snows, shivered in the wintry winds. starved, fought, died that those who came after them might have a country. Judge, jurymen. lawyers, and the people who listen wipe the tears from their eyes as he tells the story of the soldier parting from friends, from the wife, then in the bloom and beauty of youth, but now friendless and alone, oid and poor. The man who professed to be her friend had robbed her of what was her due. His spirit is greatly stirred. The jury right the wrong, and compel the fellow to hand over the money. And then the people see the lawyer who has won the case tenderly accompanying the grateful woman to the railroad station. He pays her bill at the hotel, her fare in the cars, and charges nothing for what he has done!(")

A negro woman came to Mr. Lincoln with a pitiful story. She

and her children had been slaves in Kentucky, but their master had brought them to Illinois and given them their freedom. Her son was a cabin-boy on a steamboat. When the boat reached New Orleans the boy went on shore, and, not having a pass, was arrested. He was in jail, and would soon be sold into slavery because he had no money to pay the fees due the jailor. He was a citizen of Illinois. can you do for the boy, legally and constitutionally" wrote Lincoln to the Governor of the State.

"I am powerless; I have no authority," was the reply.

Mr. Lincoln saw as never before the aggressiveness of slavery; how it was laying its iron hands upon citizens of Illinois. He walked the floor with rising indignation. "I'll have that negro back, or I'll have an agitation in this State that shall last twenty years, if need be, to give the Governor authority to act in such a case!" he exclaims. He obtained $200, and secured the return of the boy.

It was a pleasure for him to help others. He loved justice and right. He would not undertake to conduct a case in court unless he had right on his side. It was a very strange announcement which he made when a case was called in which he appeared as counsel: "May it please your honor, I have examined this case with great care; the only question at issue is one of authority. I have not been able to find any authority to sustain my side, but I have found several cases in point on the other side. I will give them, and submit the case to the Court." Instead of presenting his own side, or instead of sitting in silence, he had given the argument and authority on the side of his opponent.

A lawyer in Beardstown received a call from Lincoln. "I learn," said the latter, "that you are suing some of my clients, and I have come to see about it."

"Yes, I have brought suit against a man in order to make him carry out a contract. Here is the agreement between the parties. Read it, and see if I have not justice on my side," the reply.

"You are right. Your client is justly entitled to what he claims, and I shall so represent it to the Court. It is against my principle to contest what is clearly a matter of right." (")

Right first, justice always, chicanery never-those were the principles of Abraham Lincoln.

A man wanted him to undertake a case, told his story, and was astonished to hear Lincoln reply: "Yes, I can doubtless obtain your case for you. I can set the whole neighborhood at loggerheads. I can distress a widowed mother and her six fatherless children, and

thereby get you $600, to which you seem to have a legal claim, but which rightfully, as it appears to me, belong quite as much to the woman and her children as to you. You must remember that some things are legally right which are not morally right. I will not undertake your case, but will give you a little advice, for which I shall charge nothing. You seem to be an energetic man, and I advise you to make $600 some other way."

At Clinton there was so interesting a case that men and women from all the surrounding country crowded the court-room. Fifteen women were arraigned. A liquor seller persisted in selling whiskey to their husbands after the wives begged him not to do so. He cared nothing for their protestations, but laughed in their faces. The tears upon their cheeks did not move him. What should they do? There was no law to stop him. They marched to the groggery, smashed in the heads of the barrels with axes, and broke the demijohns and bottles. The fellow had them arrested. No lawyer volunteered to defend them. Abraham Lincoln, from Springfield, entered the room. There was something about him which emboldened them to speak to him. "We have no one to defend us. Would it be asking too much to inquire if you can say a kind word in our behalf?" the request.

The lawyer from Springfield rises. All eyes are upon him. “May it please the Court, I will say a few words in behalf of the women who are arraigned before your honor and the jury. I would suggest, first, that there be a change in the indictment, so as to have it read, 'The State against Mr. Whiskey,' instead of 'The State against the Women.' It would be far more appropriate. Touching this question, there are three laws: First, the law of self-protection; second, the law of the statute; third, the law of God. The law of self-protection is the law of necessity, as shown when our fathers threw the tea into Boston harbor, and in asserting their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is the defence of these women. The man who has persisted in selling whiskey has had no regard for their well-being or the welfare of their husbands and sons. He has had no fear of God or regard for man; neither has he had any regard for the laws of the statute. No jury can fix any damages or punishment for any violation of the moral law. The course pursued by this liquor dealer has been for the demoralization of society. His groggery has been a nuisance. These women, finding all moral suasion of no avail with this fellow, oblivious to all tender appeal, alike regardless of their prayers and tears, in order to protect their households and promote the welfare of the community, united to suppress the nuisance.