ing of his vitals were seen, and the craunching of his bones heard, the solitary shriek of the victim's wife, as it arose upon the air, would instantly be drowned by the acclamations and thunders of applause bestowed upon the ferocious beast, prolonged by its renewed efforts to suck the blood, tear the flesh, and grind the bones of its prey. As we have no amphitheater, a hall of justice is made to answer for a miniature arena; and as we can not have tigers, nor men who will submit to be their victims, we have forensic gladiators, and witnesses whose private feelings and characters may be wounded, lacerated, and tortured to the infinite delight and encouraging shouts and plaudits of a fashionable auditory, while the victim is helpless and gloomy in his unmerited prostration. Yes, it is all for the amusement of enlightened minds, and it is intended, perhaps, for the edification of the rising generation. But, I protest, I can not perceive that it is any more for the honor of the applauders than it is necessary for the good of the country that these gentlemen should be honored and glorified for their dexterity in the use of the bowie-knife and dirk.

"In the time of public danger or foreign invasion, is it these bowieknife gentry, these pistol men in private life, that mount the breach and face the danger? Are they the brother Jonathans that face John Bull and eye him and his scarlet coats with defiance? Where are they, then? Why, like the gnats and mosquitoes, who glisten in the sunshine and calm, but, when the storm rages, and the thunder growls, and the lightning flashes, and the earth is rocked to its center, they are stowed away from the danger, though they are sure to emerge from their hiding-place to annoy with their stings when the succeeding calm and sunshine invite them out once more. Brave men may be voluptuous and effeminate in private life, but. in the hour of danger, they put on a new nature. But these fighters in time of peace clothe themselves in the skin of the lamb in time of war. Sardanapalus, who sat all the while with his women and eunuchs in times of peace, spinning and knitting, and telling long stories, no doubt, and sometimes wearing petticoats to make himself more effeminate, when conspired against by Belesis and Arsaces, gave up his voluptuousness, and, at the head of his army, gained three renowned battles, and, though beaten and besieged at last in the city of Ninus, to disappoint his enemies, burned himself, his eunuchs, and his concubines, with his palace and all his treasures. Alexander the Great, who was kind and courteous, familiar and confiding with his officers in private life, when leading the Macedonians, moved to battle like a pillar of fire, irresistible in his might. When the great Frederick led on his brave Prussians, they fought and fell and fought and fell, as long as any were left. And thus men imbibe the spirit of their chief. If led by a brave man, they are brave; but, if led by a coward, they are poltroons; and, if led by the bowie knife and pistol gentry, I make no doubt that they would be either assassins, or nothing better than mosquitoes, to be dispersed

by the first report of the cannon. Even at home, in our own rural districts, we see the influence of leading men on whole neighborhoods. Let a virtuous and enlightened man, whom all will look up to as a pattern, settle in your neighborhood, and every one will partake of his good influence.

"Why was it that Nelson, in his death, did more for the glory of his country than he ever did in his life? Because he ascended to heaven in the arms of victory, like Elijah, who tasted not of death.

"Let us never dream of selecting for our leaders or examples those who have so little moral courage as to trust to bowie-knives and pistols for the preservation of their manhood, instead of to their blameless conduct in peace and bravery in war.

“Gentlemen, I beg of you, in the name of Him who sits upon the cloud and rides upon the storm, mete out the measure of justice to these men and vindicate the honor of Mercer county. But do not stigmatize your county by doing, as Mr. Prentiss would have you to do, by shouting Glory! glory! go, ye righteous; go to your homes in honor and innocence.' Whatever you may do, I shall content myself with the conviction that, in my professional capacity, I, at least, have done my duty.

"I have been deputed by the widowed mother of the murdered Rothwell, and at the instance of his mourning sisters, to implore your justice. I have closed my mission. Between you and your country, between you and your God, I leave their cause."

The following interesting reference to the argument is from the pen of Dr. C. C. Graham, who witnessed the trial:

"Judge Rowan (who, by the way, read his speech to the jury from the manuscript) from age let down, and so did Colonel Robertson. Mr. Hardin, though of the same age, retained all the memory and vigor of mind for which he was so remarkable, and forced upon the jury all the convicting law that ever was written, and, like a bull-dog, clinching his fangs upon every vulnerable point, making all that any mortal man could out of the case. At the close of his powerful argument whispers were heard all around, 'The jury is bound to convict.""

Judge Rowan followed Mr. Hardin, and Mr. Bullock concluded the argument. The jury retired for the space of fifteen minutes, and at the end of that interval returned into court with a verdict acquitting all the defendants.

With the mass of those who heard the trial, the speech of Prentiss undoubtedly bore the palm. Yet the late Dr. John C. Young, the accomplished President of Centre College, was present, and not a few would prefer his discriminating judgment to the thoughtless plaudits of the multitude. He said that "Prentiss furnished the tinsel

while Hardin supplied the bullion of the argument." Shields, the biographer of Prentiss, characterized the speech as Hardin's "greatest effort." Rowan spoke of it as being "as remarkable for vigor of intellect as for vehemence and impassioned zeal.”

The citizens of Harrodsburg had been in warm sympathy with the Wilkinson party. That sympathy deprived Mr. Hardin during the trial of those courteous attentions which his age and reputation entitled him to expect. Prentiss was the hero of the hour.

He smarted

Hospitality turned her "cold shoulder" to Hardin. under the studied neglect with which he was treated. Mounting his old gray horse in front of the hotel to start home after the trial, he dropped an observation to an unsympathetic crowd standing by which was afterward remembered with bitterness of soul in that corporation. Mercer county (of which Harrodsburg was the seat of justice) then embraced the town of Danville, and the rich and fertile territory subsequently included in Boyle county. Danville had long sought to establish a new county, which Harrodsburg had vigorously opposed. It so happened at that time that Mr. Hardin had two influential sonsin-law in the Legislature.

"I will see," said he, reining up his horse, "I will see that John Helm and Dr. Palmer run a stake and ridered fence between here and Danville." In performance of that threat or fulfillment of that prophecy it so happened that in a year or so afterward the Legislature carved the county of Boyle from the very heart of Mercer.*

Judge Wilkinson died in 1860, and side by side in the Roman Catholic cemetery at Bardstown he and his wife sleep well" after life's fitful fever."

CHAPTER XXIII.

IN

SOME CELEBRATED CASES.

N the course of his long and busy career, Mr. Hardin was employed in many cases that might with propriety-on account of their character, the questions involved, the array of counsel, or the importance of their results-be set down in this chapter. These cases, taken together, involved well nigh every question usually litigated in tribunals removed from the seaboard, where maritime interests are in question.

Land law, commercial law, constitutional law, criminal law, etc., were some of the subjects daily investigated and expounded by him in the course of practice. The reports of decisions of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky not only show him to have been a regular practitioner before that tribunal, but many of the cases very entertainingly illustrate his skillful, diligent, and profound lawyership. But these cases can not be even enumerated here. As a specimen the curious. reader will find the case of Rust against Larue, etc., reported in 4 Littell's Kentucky Reports, page 411, interesting and instructive. In a petition for rehearing, Mr. Hardin examines and discusses very exhaustively, and forcibly combats that phase of the doctrine of champerty, which avoids contracts between client and attorney, by which the latter is to receive part of the matter in controversy for his compen

sation.

It is not intended, however, to even allude to the many noted cases in which he was engaged from time to time. Four of these, dissimilar in character, have been selected, in each of which he was leading counsel, and in all of which he distinguished himself for lawyership. A brief sketch of each will be given.

GREEN VS. Biddle.

SUPREME COURT OF UNITED STATES.

This action arose in Kentucky about 1820. Green sought to recover certain lands occupied by Biddle, and the latter, claiming for improvements, the constitutionality of two acts of the Legislature was drawn in question. The acts referred to were passed in 1797 and in 1812 respectively and were intended for the protection of occupy

ing claimants of lands under a title of record, when ousted by superior title. It was provided that in case of eviction the tenant should not only be entitled to recover the value of all improvements placed upon the land, but should only answer for rent from the time he had notice of the superior title. Mr. Hardin was of counsel for Green. He denied the constitutionality of the laws in question because in contravention of the "Compact with Virginia.”

This "compact" was part of the first, as it has been of the second and third Constitutions since adopted in Kentucky, and in effect provided that all the rights derived from Virginia prior to separation should continue valid and be governed by the laws then existing in that State."

Green derived his title from Virginia prior to 1792, and claimed that his rights-being secured by the "compact"-could not be taken away or diminished by the "occupying claimant" laws above alluded to. The case began in the federal circuit for Kentucky-the judges of which divided equally on the aforenamed constitutional questions; it was carried to the Supreme Court. It was first argued at the February term, 1821, by Mr. Talbott and Mr. Hardin for Green, no counsel appearing for Biddle. Justice Story delivered the opinion of the court holding the occupying claimant law unconstitutional. After this decision was pronounced, Mr. Clay, as amicus curia, moved a rehearing on the ground that but one side had been represented by counsel, and that the question involved was vital to many citizens of Kentucky. The motion was granted and the case continued until another term. Meantime, the Legislature of Kentucky, regarding the question of public interest, employed Mr. Clay and Judge Bibb to maintain the constitutionality of the disputed law.

In 1823 the case was again argued before the Supreme Court by Mr. Hardin and Mr. Montgomery for Green, and by Messrs. Clay and Bibb contra. The briefs of counsel are published with the report of the case, and are very elaborate.* Mr. Justice Washington delivered the opinion of the court, Mr. Justice Johnson delivering a separate opinion. Both concurred in the decision previously pronounced. The court, in reply to the point of Mr. Clay that the "compact" was not binding because not ratified by Congress, held otherwise, declaring that it was a contract between the two States and was valid as such.

Messrs. Clay and Bibb received a fee of four thousand dollars from the State treasury for their services. Mr. Hardin argued the case

*See 8 Wheaton, page 547.