Mr. Lincoln, and in it he says that in the trial of the reaper case the parties were limited "to two lawyers on a side"; but he fails to state who fixed this limit, and there is considerable evidence that his memory of the incidents of that distant day was defective when his pamphlet was written. He states that Mr. Lincoln informed him at the conclusion of the trial that he (Lincoln) was "going home to study law," and that when he replied that Mr. Lincoln then stood at the head of the Illinois bar, the latter answered, "Yes, yes, I do occupy a good position there, and I think I can get along with the way things are going there now. But these college-trained men who have devoted their whole lives to study are coming west, don't you see?" In the face of the fact that many of the lawyers who were then practicing law in central Illinois were college-bred men, it does not seem possible that Mr. Emerson's recollection is correct as to what Mr. Lincoln said to him.

Among the college-bred men with whom Mr. Lincoln came in contact at that time in Illinois may be mentioned Orville H. Browning, who received a classical education at Augusta College; Charles H. Constable, a graduate of the University of Virginia; Benjamin S. Edwards, a graduate of Yale; Jesse B. Thomas, a graduate of Transylvania University; Isaac G. Wilson, a graduate of Brown University;

Burton C. Cook, a graduate of the Collegiate Institute of Rochester, New York; John T. Stuart, a graduate of Centre College of Danville, Kentucky; Leonard Swett, a graduate of Waterville College, now Colby University. Many others possessed an academic education. Mr. Lincoln was intimately acquainted with all of these men, and it is therefore probable that if the statement attributed to him by Mr. Emerson was made, it was in a spirit of jest, or that it was uttered because of the attitude of superiority which Messrs. Stanton and Harding had displayed toward him.

Mr. Emerson in the pamphlet before mentioned has stated that William H. Seward, Stephen A. Douglas, and other prominent lawyers were engaged in the case of McCormick against Manny, but the record indicates that this is an error, as the only names which appear there, either in the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court of the United States, are those of Reverdy Johnson and E. N. Dickerson for the complainant and Edwin M. Stanton and George Harding for the defendants. This fact affords additional evidence that Mr. Emerson did not remember clearly the events of which he undertook to give an account after the lapse of so many years.1 The account given by Mr. Bigelow to the writer is

1 The pamphlet referred to was published in 1909.

substantially the same as that which Mr. Harding gave to Robert H. Parkinson, a leading patent attorney and member of the Chicago bar. Mr. Parkinson knew Mr. Harding during many years, and while the account given to him varies from that of Mr. Bigelow in some minor details, it does not differ greatly as to the material facts. According to the version given to Mr. Parkinson, the dinner mentioned was given by Justice McLean at his home, and Mr. Lincoln was not informed of the decision as to the arguments in advance of the hearing. All accounts agree that Mr. Lincoln submitted gracefully to the plan agreed upon between Messrs. Stanton and Harding and delivered his manuscript to Mr. Harding, who did not open it because he deemed it unworthy of examination. The evidence that Mr. Lincoln was badly treated by Mr. Stanton is abundant, and that he was named by President Lincoln as Secretary of War is but another evidence of the latter's unselfish patriotism.

There is no evidence that the Cincinnati incident was ever discussed between President Lincoln and his great Secretary of War, but that the latter became the stanch friend, admirer, and earnest supporter of the President is beyond question. He learned by personal contact with the great President to admire his great intellect, kindly disposition, his