It rupted in his Sophomore year by the occupation Obtaining his degree in 1781, he at once commenced the study of the law in the office of the distinguished Egbert Benson, at Poughkeepsie. He was admitted attorney in January, 1785, and commenced practice in his native village of Fredericks, but finding there too limited a field for his exertions, he returned to Poughkeepsie, where he opened an office in partnership with Gilbert Livingston. Here, in April, 1785, he married Miss Elizabeth Bayley. A conviction of the limited extent of his classical acquirements (the course at Yale College, in his day, extending only to the study of the New Testament in Greek, and of portions of Virgil, Horace, and Cicero in Latin) led to a plan of study which he immediately put into execution. By rising very early he was enabled to devote two hours to Greek and two to Latin before breakfast. The business hours of the day were occupied by his profession. Two hours after dinner were given to the French language, and the evening, when not engaged socially, to the study of the English classics, in verse as well as prose. He continued this division of the day until he became a Judge of the Supreme Court. In 1790 and 1792 he was elected a member of the State Assembly. He became a leader of the federal minority in this body, and distinguished himself by the ability with which, in 1793, he conducted the examination of witnesses relative to the destruction of the votes cast in Otsego county, in the election for Governor of the State, an act which had raised the candidate of the minority to the office. His course was warmly approved by John Jay, and remembered to his advantage, when the latter became Governor of the State. In April, 1793, he was nominated for Congress in Dutchess county, but his party being in the minority, lost his election. He removed during the same month to the city of New York. Here, as at his previous residence, his professional receipts were very small, and as neither himself nor his wife possessed private resources, they were much straitened in their circumstances. In December, he was appointed Professor of Law at Columbia College, and after diligent preparation entered upon its duties in the following November. His introductory lecture was published by the trustees, and in 1795 he issued a small volume containing three others preliminary to his course on the common law, devoted to a review of the various forms of government which have existed at various periods, a history of the union of the United States from their first conjoined action to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, and an examination of the law of nations as applied to the circumstances of peace, war, and neutrality. He delivered in the same year an address before the State Society for the promotion of agriculture, art, and manufactures, which is printed in the first volume of their Jamertul In 1798, he resigned his professorship, the attendance of students and provision for support being too slight to warrant further effort in its behalf. He was appointed the same year a Justice of the Supreme Court by Governor Jay, and accepted the office, although the salary was much less than what he at this time received, as he held the office of recorder, by appointment, in 1797, as well as Master in Chancery. He here, in his second term, introduced the practice of rendering written decisions, a course followed by his associates, and which in a short time raised the Bench to a far higher dignity than it had previously attained. In 1804, he became Chief-Justice, an office which he held until his appointment in 1814 as Chancellor. During his tenure of this office he effected, says Judge Duer, "a change in the system and administration of equity law, so extensive and entire, that with a single exception (that of Lord Nottingham) it has no parallel in the history of the law." He retained this office until 1823, when having attained the age of sixty, he became incapacitated by the law of the State for judicial duty. The same year, on occasion of a vacancy in the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States, Kent was talked of by his friends for the appointment, and the matter was warmly seconded by Wirt, then Attorney-General, who addressed a letter on the subject to President Monroe, in which he met the difficulty of Kent's political relations by urging the value of his character to the nation. Kent holds so lofty a stand," he wrote, "everywhere, for almost matchless intellect and learning, as well as for spotless purity and high-minded honor and patriotism, that I firmly believe the nation at large would approve and applaud the appointment." Of his personal character, Wirt held this appreciation. "His conversation and manners are indicative only of a simplicity almost infantile, and of the most perfect kindness and suavity of disposition; and such, I have understood, has always been his character. Judging by what I have seen of him, and by all that I have ever heard, he is as benignant and patriotic as he is admitted on all hands to be great and enlightened." The appointment was proposed, while Mr. Smith Thompson, to whom the post had been offered, hesitated in its acceptance. His entrance upon the office closed the matter.* With a view to the establishment of a law school, Kent removed from Albany, where he resided during his judicial career, to the city of New York, and a second time accepted the professorship of law in Columbia College. He delivered a course of lectures in 1824, which he repeated the next year, when the increase of his practice as counsel, his intention of preparing his lectures for publication, and as before the inadequate pecuniary support of the professorship, rendered his further discharge of its duties merely nominal. In 1826 he published the first volume of his Commentaries,f at the earnest solicitation of his friends, he himself having little expectation of a favorable reception by the public. He originally contemplated but two volumes, but these expanded as he proceeded into four, the last of which appeared in 1830. They at once took the high place they have since held in legal literature, and as the universally received text-books of the science throughout the country, as by the plan of stating first the common law on each topic, and afterwards the changes introduced by decisions or statute in each State, it is adapted to the use of every portion of the Union. copyright of this work was held by the author exclusively in his own hands, the copies printed stored in his own residence, and disposed of as ordered by the booksellers. The Humor is hardly to be looked for in a volume of Commentaries on the law, but Kent, after having conducted the student through the intricate theme in his text, coolly informs him in a note that the rule in Shelley's case is entirely superseded. The juridical scholar, on whom his great master, Coke, has bestowed some portion of the "gladsome light of jurisprudence," will scarcely be able to withhold an involuntary sigh, as he casts a retrospective glance over the piles of learning, devoted to destruction by an edict as sweeping and unrelenting as the torch of Omar. He must bid adieu for ever to the renowned discussions in Shelley's case, which were so vehement and so protracted as to arouse the sceptre of the haughty Elizabeth. He may equally take leave of the multiplied specimens of profound logic, skilful criticism, and refined distinctions, which pervade the varied cases in law and equity, from those of Shelley and Archer, down to the direct collision between the courts of law and equity, in the time of Lord Hardwicke He will have no more concern with the powerful and animated discussions in Perrin v. Blake, which awakened all that was noble and illustrious in talent and endowment, through every precinct of Westminster Kennedy's Memoirs of Wirt, ii. 153, 155. + Commentaries on American Law, by James Kent. hall. He will have occasion no longer, in pursuit of the learning of that case, to tread the clear and bright paths illuminated by Sir William Blackstone's illustrations, or to study and admire the spirited and ingenious dissertation of Hargrave, the comprehensive and profound disquisition of Fearne, the acute and analytical essay of Preston, the neat and orderly abridgment of Cruise, and the severe and piercing criticisms of Reeve. What I have, therefore, written on this subject, may be considered, so far as my native state is concerned, as an humble monument to the memory of departed learning. The reports of his opinions as Chief-Justice and Chancellor bear testimony with his Commentaries to his clearness of style and ability as a writer. As an evidence of their excellence, it may be stated that one quoted in an argument by Webster is cited in an article on that great orator in the North American Review as from his pen. In 1828, Kent delivered an Anniversary Discourse before the New York Historical Society; in 1831, an address before the Phi Beta Kappa at Yale College; and in 1836 one before the Law Association of New York, in which he has given spirited reminiscences of the leading members of the bar at the commencement of his career. In 1840 he prepared, at the request of the Mercantile Library Association, a Course of Reading for the guidance of its members, composed exclusively of merchants' clerks of this city. It contains an unusual preponderance of books of travel, a class of writings in which the compiler took interest. His friends were amused by the ample field of geographical study thus marked out for youthful readers engaged in unscholastic pursuits, but the preference was one not ill adapted to the purpose of aiding to interest, and at the same time instruct, while its bearing on the mercantile career is obvious. The incentive these perpetually novel and adventu. ou narratives afforded to the exercise of the imagination, with the engrossing but not exhausting employment to the mind of minute geographical study, supplied an inexhaustible fund of the purest gratification to a sympathetic and intellectual old age. Chancellor Kent continued the practice of his profession as chamber counsel, until within a short period of his death, which occurred on the 12th Dec., 1847. The temperate and constant use of his faculties through life preserved their energy to a remarkable extent in his old age. His amiability and purity of character were as remarkable as his judicial acquirements. His son, William Kent, is engaged upon a biography, which will hardly fail, by increasing our knowledge, to increase still more our respect for its eminent subject. The materials for our own article have been mainly derived from the excellent discourse delivered at the request of the Judiciary and bar of the city and state, by the Hon. John Duer, in 1848. THE NEW YORK CONVENTION FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDE RAL CONSTITUTION-FROM AN ADDRESS BEFORE THE LAW ASSOCIATION. I allude to the convention which assembled at Poughkeepsie in the summer of 1788, to deliberate and decide on the adoption of the federal constitution. The intense interest with which the meeting of the convention was anticipated and regarded, can hardly be conceived at this day, and much less adequately described. I then resided in that village, and was enabled and induced to attend the convention as a spectator, daily and steadily during the entire six weeks of its session, and I was of course an eye and ear witness to everything of a public nature that was said or done. The convention was composed of sixty-five members, and not one of them remains a survivor at this day. That bright and golden age of the republic may now be numbered "with the years beyond the flood," and I am left in comparative solitude to recall and enjoy the enchanting vision. The convention combined the talents, experience, and weight of character, of some of the most distinguished men in the state. Most of them had been tutored in the discussions, services, and perils of the revolution. The principal speakers in favor of the adoption of the constitution were, Mr. Jay (then (Secretary for Foreign Affairs), Chancellor Livingston, Mr. Duane (then mayor of this city), Mr. Harison, and Colonel Hamilton. On the other side, and against the adoption without previous amendments, were George Clinton (then Governor of the state), Mr. Lansing (afterwards Chancellor), Mr. Jones (afterwards Recorder of this city), John Williams of Washington county, and Gilbert Livingston and Melancton Smith, delegates from Dutchess. There was no difficulty in deciding at once on which side of the house the superiority in debate existed. Yet in the ordinary range of the discussions, it was found that the dignity, candor, and strength of Jay, the polished address and elegant erudition of Chancellor Livingston, and the sagacity and exhaustless researches of Hamilton, were met with equal pretensions by their opponents, supported by the simplicity and unpretending good sense of Clinton, the sound judgment of Jones, the plausible deductions of Lansing, and the metaphysical mind and embarrassing subtleties of Smith. But Colonel Hamilton maintained the ascendancy on every question; and being the only member present who had signed the constitution, he felt and sustained most intrepidly the weight of the responsibility which belonged to him as the leader on the federal side of the question. All seemed, as by common consent, to concede to him the burden and the honors of the debate. Mr. Smith was also the most prominent and responsible speaker on the part of the anti-federal majority. There was no person on that side to be compared to him in acute and logical discussion. He was Hamilton's most persevering and formidable antagonist. But even Smith was routed in every contest, and as Mr. Hamilton had been a most active member of the national convention, and the principal author of the Federalist, his mind had grown familiar with the principles and history of federal governments, and with every topic of debate. He was prompt, ardent, energetic, and overflowing, with an exhaustless store of argument and illustration. The three principal topics of debate, in which Mr. Hamilton was most distinguished and most masterly, were (1), on the importance of the union, the defects of the confederation, and the just principles of representation. (2.) On the requisite tenure and stability of the senate. (3.) On the power of taxation and the residuary rights of the states. each of those subjects he bestowed several speeches, some of which were employed in refutation and reply. On He generally spoke with great earnestness and energy, and with considerable, and sometimes vehement gesture. His language was clear, nervous, and classical. He went to the foundation and rea son of every doctrine which he examined, and he brought to the debate a mind richly adorned with all the learning that was applicable. He never omitted to meet fairly the discussion, and he was sure to discover the strength and weakness, the ingredients of truth and error, in every proposition he had to contend with. His candor was magnanimous, and rose to a level with his talents. His temper was spirited, but courteous, amiable, and generous; and he frequently made pathetic and powerful appeals to the good sense and patriotism of the assembly, and painted vividly the difficulties and dangers of the crisis, in order to prepare their minds for a favorable reception of the constitution. The style and manner of Smith's speeches was plain, dry, and syllogistic; and it behooved his adversary to understand well the ground on which he stood, and the principles he advanced, or he might find it somewhat embarrassing to extricate himself from a subtle web of specious reasoning, unless indeed it was met by Hamilton's skill and strength, which nothing could resist. Smith was a speaker of remarkable simplicity, and his disposition was gentle and liberal. Though I had strong political prejudices against Governor Clinton, as the leader of the party opposed to the constitution, yet during the course of the session, I became forcibly struck with the diguity with which he presided, and with his unassuming and modest pretensions as a speaker. It was impossible not to have respect for such a character, or for a young man not to be somewhat overawed in his presence, when it became apparent from all his conduct, that he possessed great decision of character, and a stern inflexibility of purpose. The arguments urged by Col. Hamilton in the debates, were substantially the same which he had before employed in the Federalist. They could not have been different, for he had already urged all the leading considerations which led to the plan, and had guided the judgment and skill of the artists. In his opening speech, Mr. Hamilton preliminarily observed, that it was of the utmost importance that the convention should be strongly impressed with a conviction of the necessity of the union of the states. If they could be entirely satisfied of that great truth, their minds would then be prepared to admit the necessity of a government of similar organization and powers with the scheme of the one before them, to uphold and preserve that union. It was like the case of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and doubts on that subject were one great cause, he said, of modern infidelity, for if men could be thoroughly convinced that they had within them immaterial and immortal spirits, their minds would be prepared for the ready reception of Christian truth. After pointing out the radical defects of the articles of confederation, and vindicating the popular basis of the proposed system, he declared his most serious conviction, that the latter was a wise and genuine specimen of a representative republic; and he hoped and trusted that we should find in it au effectual cure for our actual distresses, and that it would prove an eminent blessing to us and our posterity. He concluded his first great speech with the patriot's prayer: "Oh! save my country, heaven!" in allusion to the brave Cobham, who felt "his ruling passion strong in death.” His two speeches on the organization, powers, and stability of the senate, were regarded at the time, by the best judges, as the noblest specimens which the debates in that, or in any other assembly, ever afforded of the talents and wisdom of the statesman. They were delivered with a strong desire to put down a most mischievous and pernicious propo sition to amend the constitution, and which was, that "no person should be eligible as a senator for more than six years in any term of twelve years, and that they should at all times within the period of six years be subject to recall by the state legislatures, and to the substitution of others." Mr Hanulton, on that occasion, took broad views of the nature of man, his passions, pursuits, interests, prejudices, duties; and he drew his deductions from the design and necessity of government, the settled principles of policy, and the history and melancholy infirmities of all free, and especially of all federal governments, ancient and modern. Instability, a fluctuating policy, and corrupt and vindictive factions, were prominent features and practical consequences in the history of most republican systems, and their necessary tendency was to weaken the sanctity of contracts, lessen the security of property, destroy a proud and just sense of national honour, and finally to forfeit the respect and confidence of the rest of mankind. He contended, therefore, that in all just policy, we ought not to hesitate to infuse a principle of stability into the structure of our national government, by the creation of a senate, to be comparatively small in the number of its members, and to have them chosen for considerable periods of time, so as to inspire them with a feeling of independence, and a lively sense of character, in the due discharge of their trust. Upon no other plan, could the Senate, either in its legislative or executive character, be able to perform its functions as the balance-wheel of the machine. In no other way would that body be able to become the requisite check to the mischiefs of misguided zeal and factious policy in the more popular branch, or to the abuses and misrule of the president, in the exercise of the treaty and the appointing powers. During the sitting of the convention, information was received that New Hampshire had adopted the constitution, and she made the ninth state that had ratified it. That great event wrought at once a momentous change in the condition of the United States; inasmuch as the confederation became thereby ipso facto dissolved, and the new constitution had become, or would be when organized, the existing national government of the nine states which had ratified the same. But that fact, solemn and weighty as it was, did not seem to disturb the tranquillity, or shake the purpose, of a majority of the convention. Mr. Smith and Mr. Lansing both declared that the event had no influence on their deliberations. The convention continued its sharp debates for three weeks longer, and apparently regardless of that information, until all hopes of an auspicious issue to the business seemed to be lost. It was in the midst of that gloomy period, and just before the clouds began to disperse, and serene skies to appear and gladden the moral atmosphere of the place, that Mr. Hamilton made one of his most pathetic and impassioned addresses. He urged every motive and consideration that ought to sway the human mind in such a crisis. He touched with exquisite skill every cord of sympathy that could be made to vibrate in the human breast. Our country, our honor, our liberties, our firesides, our posterity, were placed in vivid colors before us. He alluded to the distresses and national degradation which dictated the call for a general convention, and he portrayed in matchless style the characters in that illustrious assembly, composed of the wisest and brightest of our American statesmen. To discriminate largely might be invidious; but it could not be so, he said, to select Franklin, revered by the wise men of Europe, and Washington, crowned with laurels, and refulgent with glory. Intelligence was shortly afterwards received, that Virginia had also adopted the constitution. Mr. Hamilton read with much sensibility a letter to that effect, communicated by express from Mr. Madison. It produced at once a visible change in the disposition of the house, and led it to think of adopting the constitution upon certain terms. A resolution to that effect was before the house, when Mr. Smith moved that the constitution be ratified upon condi tion, that certain powers contained in the instru ment should not be exercised until a general convention of the states had been called to propose amendments. This proposition was discussed for several days, and under the impression in one part of the house, that the adoption of the constitution with that qualification annexed, would readily be received by the existing Congress. Mr. Hamilton was strenuous and peremptory in his opinion, that such a conditional ratification would not and could not possibly be accepted. He assured the house that all expectations from such a source would prove delusive. This opinion gained ground, and the members generally and gradually assumed a more conciliatory tone; and all vehemence in debate seemed to cease as by common consent. Convictions once beginning to operate, were borne along with increasing force against the stream of preju dice. "We did not come here," said Mr. Jay, to carry points, or gain party triumphs. We ought not to expect it, or wish it. We were without a national government, and on the eve of an untried era. Everything demanded moderation and concession. The laurels of mere party victory, might be bedewed with the tears, or stained with the blood of our fellow-citizens." Mr. Hamilton disclaimed all intention of wounding the feelings of any individual, though he had expressed himself in the course of the debates in strong language, dietated by strong emotions, for on no subject had his mind been agitated with more painful concern. The spirit of the house became liberal and cheering; and at last Mr Jones moved to substitute the words in full confidence, in lieu of the words, upon condition, in the form of the ratification. He was supported by Mr. Smith, who had so eminently distinguished himself, and by Mr. Platt, then first judge of the county of Dutchess, who made a few plain observations in a direct and downright manner, of his sense of duty, and of his determination to follow it. Twelve members came over from the antifederal side of the house, and they were sufficient to constitute the majority which unconditionally ratified the constitution. I have always considered the members who made this memorable and unbought sacrifice of error, prejudice, and party discipline, on the altar of patriotism and their country's welfare, as entitled to the highest commendation. It was quite an heroic effort, to quit such a leader as Governor Clinton, though it was to follow their own convictions. It was understood that several other members were inclined to follow the same course, but they could not be brought to desert the governor, who remained inflexible. Had he consented to vote for the constitution, the ratification of it would probably have been unanimous. As it was, the spirit of conciliation which closed the labors of that illustrious assembly, was deemed most auspicious, and as affording a new and instructive example of wisdom and moderation to mankind. ABIEL HOLMES. ABIEL HOLMES, the author of the American Annals, one of the pioneer works of American History, was born in Woodstock, Conn., a town formerly under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, December 24, 1763. His father, Dr. David Holmes, had served as captain with the provincial forces in the old French war in Canada. Abiel graduated at Yale in 1783, and soon after accepted the appointment of Tutor in the college, having first preached a short time to a society in Midway, Georgia. In 1788 he was settled over the congregation in Midway, where he had formerly preached, and maintained a happy relation with then until 1791, when the state of his health compelled him to remove to the north. In 1790, he married Mary, daughter of Dr. Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale College. She died in 1795, leaving no children. In 1792, Mr. Holmes was installed as pastor of the First Congregational Church in Cambridge, Mass., and occupied this position until 1832, a long period of forty years, when the increase of new theological opinions caused a division of the society. He retained his connexion with the "orthodox" portion of the parish, a colleague having been settled with him, to whom he soon resigned his share of the duties, and passed the remainder of his life peacefully and happily in Cambridge. His religious and ecclesiastical faith was that of the Puritans. His position at Cambridge was, therefore, peculiarly difficult and delicate, surrounded as he was with cominunities of different faith, and in the immediate vicinity of an institution at that time almost exclusively under Unitarian influence. But he was charitable by nature, and disposed to live peaceably with those whose faith differed from his own. long course of years he was in the habit of exchanging pulpits with the Unitarian clergy of the neighborhood, and never ceased to be on the most friendly terms of intercourse with many among them. For a In the year 1800 he married Sarah, daughter of the Hon. Oliver Wendell, of Boston.* In 1817 Dr. Holmes delivered a course of Lectures on Ecclesiastical History in Harvard College. He published in the Massachusetts Historical Collections a Memoir of the French Protestants; and a History of the Town of Cambridge. Besides the works thus enumerated he published various sermons. Occasionally, like many of his clerical contemporaries, he indulged in verse, not, however, in any more serious efforts than a slight translation or an occasional hymn. His fondness for history and antiquarian research was no doubt favored and fostered by his early relations with his revered father-in-law, President Stiles. But the author of "The History of the Judges" joined to his learning a love of theory leading him at times towards credulity, which his son-in-law did not inherit. The master was fond of wide speculations; the pupil was content with the humble task of collecting, sifting, verifying, and classifying the facts of history. To the same master is to be traced the love of the Hebrew language, which he always retained. He often referred to his first lessons received from the lips of the President himself. He had Greek and Latin enough for the reading of sacred and classical books, and so much of French and Spanish as was necessary for the consultation of historical authority. He had too a scholar's taste in books. Without being a book collector in the strict sense, he had a fondness for good editions, and there were few happier moments than when he brought home an Elzevir, or a Stephanus, or a Frobenius, and introduced the venerable new comer to his somewhat crowded shelves. In his personal character he was of a kindly and genial disposition, and the somewhat severe forms of belief in which he was bred, and to which he was faithful through life, never chilled his social nature. In the general love and confidence of his parish and supported by the Christianity which he had served, he died at Cambridge, June 4, 1837.* ST. JOHN HONEYWOOD. In his literary career Dr. Holmes, in 1798, wrote the life of his father-in-law, President Stiles, a work of genuine worth and character. In 1805 he published his American Annals, a work in two volumes octavo, containing the outlines of American History from 1492 to the period of its publication, a work of careful collection and research; and in 1829 he published a second edition of the work, enlarged with a continuation of the record. The American Annals employed him some ten years in composition, and much labor was expended on its revision. This was a labor of love. To verify a doubtful legend; to disprove a questionable tradition by new testimony; to get at the absolute fact and let this tell its own story: such labor as this was his highest literary pleasure. Like a famous observer in science he might have adopted the saying of Rousseau as his motto, "I know that truth is in things, and not in my mind that judges of them, and that the less of myself I mingle with them the nearer I shall come to the truth." He ob-ington Co., where he practised his profession served the remark, however, very differently from the famous egotist who originated it. The children of this second marriage were, 1. Mary Jack-¦ son, married to Usher Parsons, M.D.; 2. Ann Susan, married to the Hon. Charles Wentworth Upham; 8. Sarah Lathrop, who died in childhood; 4. Oliver Wendell, the poet and physician; 5. John Holmes of Cambridge. VOL. 1.-33 ST. JOHN HONEYWOOD was born in 1764, the son: of an English physician who had settled in Leicester, Mass. In 1766 the father, then a surgeon in the American army, lost his life at Ticonderoga,, leaving his son an orphan and destitute. He was educated at the expense of a few friends at the school of Mr. Tisdale, in Lebanon, Conn., and continued his studies at Yale College, where he became domesticated in the house of the Presi-dent, the Rev. Dr. Stiles, who always maintained a high regard for his pupil. He took his degree in 1782, and passed the two following years as a teacher in an academy at Schenectady, New York. He then removed to Albany and studied law in the office of Peter W. Yates. After having been admitted to the bar, he removed to Salem, Wash during the remainder of his life. He was one of the Presidential electors by whom John Adams was chosen the successor of Washington. He * Mass. Hist. Collections, vol. vii. We are indebted for the personal reminiscences to a communication from the pen of Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes. |