OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY Vol. XLIII OCTOBER, 1934 No. 4 |
|
COLUMBUS. OHIO THE F. J. HEER PRINTING CO 1934 |
PREFACE
Charles Hammond as a lawyer, politician,
and editor was a
commanding figure in the life of the
pioneer West. Under his
direction the Cincinnati Gazette was
one of the most influential
newspapers in the country. An able
journalist of a later period
asserted that "among all the
editors of Ohio--indeed, of the Great
West--he is the chief object of interest
to thinking men, because
he was fearless, far-sighted, vigorous
and uncorrupted." Such a
distinguished critic as john Marshall
recognized his "remarkable
acuteness and accuracy of mind." A
century after his life and
work, however, his name is practically
unknown except to well-
informed journalists and historical
specialists; and to most of
these his personality and achievements
may seem blurred and in-
definite. Fifty years ago a small volume
dealing with certain
phases of his life was issued -- William
Henry Smith, Charles
Hammond and His Relations to Henry
Clay and John Quincy
Adams (published for the Chicago Historical Society, 1885);
Professor Reginald C. McGrane has
briefly summarized his career
in the Dictionary of American
Biography, VIII, 202-203; but no
biographical sketch or memoir has been
produced, which gives
adequate recognition to this able and
distinguished man. The
following monograph is an attempt to
reconstruct his personality
and attainments against the background
of his time. Newspaper
collections in the Library of Congress,
the Western Reserve His-
torical Society Library and the Ohio
Archaeological and His-
torical Society Library have been
extensively used. Manuscript
collections in the Library of Congress
have yielded the contents
of some of his letters, but a collection
of Hammond correspond-
ence on deposit in the Ohio
Archaeological and Historical Society
Library has been the most fruitful
source of information. To
Dr. Harlow Lindley, Secretary of the
Ohio Archaeological and
Historical Society, and his assistants,
who have rendered every
possible courtesy, and to Professor Carl
Wittke and E. H. Rose-
boom of the Ohio State University who have made
valuable
suggestions, the author wishes to
acknowledge his sincere thanks.
FRANCIS P. WEISENBURGER.
(338)
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
PAGE
1. Early
Years.................................................... 340
2. Federalist Editor and Legislator................................. 346
3. A Leader in
the Struggle Against the U. S. Bank ................ 352
4. Clay's
Political M anager in
1824 ................................ 364
5. An
Administration Editor Under the Second Adams .............. 372
6. An
Opposition Editor During the Jackson Period ................ 393
7. The Man:
His Personality and Influence......................... 413
>T ' '.
CHARLES HAMMOND
THE FIRST GREAT JOURNALIST OF THE OLD
NORTHWEST
I. EARLY YEARS
Late in September, 1779, John Paul
Jones, in com-
mand of his flagship, the Bon Homme
Richard, was
terrorizing the coast of Britain and
bringing laurels to
himself by his capture of the British
man-of-war, the
Serapis.1 During the same month,2 on the opposite
side
of the Atlantic, in Baltimore County,
Maryland, a son
was born to George and Elizabeth
(Wells) Hammond.
News of an American victory, however,
was not par-
ticularly gratifying to the parents of
the babe, for the
father was a Loyalist, who, although he
did not take
up arms for the Mother Country, refused
assistance to
the Continental Congress.
George Hammond, at the time of the
birth of the
son, who was named Charles, was a young
man of thirty-
one years. "Tall and spare,"
with a carriage "erect and
imposing," he was a thoughtful
reader and a good
talker. He was imbued with
uncompromising preju-
dices, and his membership in the
Episcopal church may
have confirmed him in his attachment to
the country
where the king was the head of the
Anglican faith.
1 C. H. Van Tyne, The American
Revolution (The American Nation:
A History, IX), 317.
2 On
the nineteenth.
(340)
A Life of Charles Hammond 341
In the days following the close of the
American
struggle for independence, two of
George's brothers
found that their connection with the
unpopular side of
the conflict made it expedient for them
to return to
England.3 George himself was
a farmer of some means,
who in the uncertain economic
conditions of the "criti-
cal period of American history,"
felt lured to the region
beyond the mountains. Accordingly, in
1785 the family
with its slaves moved to the vicinity
of Wellsburg,
Brooke County, in western Virginia.4
The building of
a log cabin and the clearing of the
backwoods farm
compelled the family's attention for a
time, but at length
the father, who was well educated,
sought to teach the
children to read and write. Charles, it
appears, was an
unusually apt pupil, for when very
young he could amuse
and edify the neighbors by repeating
the first chapter
of Isaiah "with great ease."5
As he grew older he
worked steadily at the farm tasks, often
feeling the pinch
of poverty, wearing a tow shirt and
trousers in fairly
cold weather and sometimes lacking
shoes at the coming
of the frost.6 Even then, however, in
the evenings after
supper, there was the enjoyment of
listening to grave
political discussions and literary
recitations or in study-
ing under the direction of the father,
who could recite
3 W. T. Coggeshall, "The Character
and Influence of Charles Ham-
mond." Transactions of the Ohio
Editorial Association, 1857 (Columbus,
1857), 73-74.
4 In the pan-handle district that became
the most northerly part of
West Virginia.
5 Harry Hammond to W. D. Gallagher
[McCullough's, Ohio], Sep-
tember 12, 1840. Unless otherwise
specified, the MSS. used in the prepara-
tion of this article are in a private
collection on deposit with the Ohio
Archaeological and Historical Society.
6 David
Chambers to William D. Gallagher, Oak Grove [Ohio], July
18, 1840.
342 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
whole plays of Shakespeare and had
committed to mem-
ory Edward Young's Night Thoughts. George
Ham-
mond impressed his passions and
prejudices upon all of
his sons and daughters, and especially
upon Charles.7
The latter composed pointed but rude
verses about the
neighbors of the family, receiving as a
result several
sound whippings. He was thoroughly
imbued with his
father's Federalist convictions,
however, and these
spurred him to write poetry ridiculing
Chief Justice
M'Kean of Pennsylvania, later the
Republican governor
of the same state (1799-1808). Under
the nom de
plume, "The Plough Boy," he contributed to the col-
umns of the Washington, Pennsylvania, Telegraph,
which at about the same time was
carrying the poems
of David Bruce, the Federalist poet of
Western Penn-
sylvania.8 In the spring of
1798 he set out to learn the
printing business in that
establishment, but friction de-
veloped and he remained but two days.9
He thereafter attended a Latin school
taught by
a Mr. Johnson at Wellsburg, and about
1799 commenced
the study of law under Philip
Doddridge, a prominent
attorney of western Virginia, who
instructed him in
political economy and the philosophy of
history as well.
By April, 1801, he was off on a journey
to "old Vir-
ginia" to secure a license to
practice his profession.
Armed with his credentials, he
undertook the building
7 W. T. Coggeshall, op. cit., 74.
8 See Harry R. Warfel, "David
Bruce, Federalist Poet of Western
Pennsylvania," Western
Pennsylvania Historical Magazine (Pittsburgh,
1918-
), VIII, 215-234.
9 It has sometimes been erroneously
assumed that this occurred at Wash-
ington, D. C., as e. g., in R. C.
McGrane, "Charles Hammond," Dictionary
of American Biography, VIII, 202-203. But, see A. Armstrong to W. D.
Gallagher, Wheeling, July 5, 1840.
A Life of Charles Hammond 343
of a practice, boarding at the time in
the home of an
Oliver Brown and associating in the
community with
Doddridge, Alexander Caldwell (later U.
S. judge),
Calvin Pease (later judge of the
Supreme Court of
Ohio) and others of more than average
ability. Clients
came to him slowly, hence he had much
leisure for read-
ing, and at times eked out a living by
posting books and
settling accounts for merchants. The
first (or at least
one of the first) of his cases was as
an attorney for the
defendant in an action brought for
slander in charging
a woman with being a witch. Doddridge
and Caldwell
were counsel for the plaintiffs, but
Hammond argued
so well that the damages granted were
of such a meagre
amount that the case was carried to the
Superior Court.
Hammond early showed himself to be a
fearless and
able, though opinionated partisan. He continued to
write satirical poetry until his
Federalist politics and the
verses which proclaimed his views became
so obnoxious
to some of his fellow-citizens that he
was publicly show-
ered with a volley of eggs.10 His
capabilities far ex-
ceeded his discretion, and his dislike
of pretense did not
always add to his popularity. On one
occasion, meeting
a young married man (who had trifled
away a fortune),
dressed with a fine large ruffle
protruding from his
bosom, Hammond took hold of the bit of
finery and
plucked it contemptuously, observing,
"My good fellow,
this does not suit your circumstances.
You had better
rip it off."11
10 David Chambers to William D.
Gallagher, Oak Grove, August 24,
1840.
11 Id. to id., Oak Grove, July 18, 1840.
344 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
All of Hammond's poems, however, were
not of a
satirical nature. One entitled
"Boyhood" may be given
in part:
"How oft, amid the sordid strife
Of worldly wisdom, have I turned
To memory's scenes of early life
And o'er my joyous boyhood mourned;
How oft have wished, 'mid care and pain,
To be that buoyant boy again!
To sleep beneath the slanting roof,
And hear the pattering rain-drops fall,
Or listen to the lively proof
Of vagrants round my airy hall;
Yet rise at morn with wonted glee
To wade the brook, or climb the
tree."12
Hammond soon established a residence on
the Ohio
side of the river and journeyed to
Marietta to secure a
license to practice law in the
Northwest Territory. In
November, 1801, he was appointed
prosecuting attorney
for Belmont County by the territorial
court and soon
thereafter by Governor St. Clair.13 The latter became
somewhat indebted to him during this
period, for Ham-
mond, although unacquainted with the
Federalist gover-
nor, braved the wrath of the Republican
opposition by
contributing a series of articles to
the Chillicothe Scioto
Gazette in his defense. The antagonism to St. Clair was
especially strong because of his
disagreements with the
Legislature, and Hammond's contributions were the
most spirited attempts in support of
his cause.14
12 W. T. Coggeshall, The Poets and
Poetry of the West (Columbus,
1860), 70. There are nine other stanzas.
13 Charles Hammond to Arthur St. Clair,
Steubenville, Northwest Ter-
ritory, November 10, 1801; J. A.
Caldwell, History of Belmont and Jeffer-
son Counties, (Wheeling, 1880), 229.
14 Jacob Burnet, Notes on the Early
Settlement of the Northwestern
Territory, (Cincinnati, 1847), 380-381.
A Life of Charles Hammond 345
On October 23, 1803, the young lawyer
was united
in marriage to Sarah (Sally)
Tillinghast of Wellsburg.15
During this period he was employed in a
legal case in-
volving the federal excise law, and his
argument was so
able that it was published during the
summer of 1804 in
the United States Gazette. He expressed, however, at
that time Federalist views of the
position of the United
States judiciary, which he was not at
all "delighted at
finding" when he later supported
the rights of the State
of Ohio before the federal courts.16
In 1804 he relinquished his position as
prosecutor for
Belmont County, and established himself
in Wheeling,
where he lived and worked for five
years.17 During this
time he contributed miscellaneous
essays to a Wheeling
paper, the Repository, the
articles being designated "The
Junket, by Richard Rummager, Esq."18
In 1809 he re-
turned to Belmont County, where he
attracted attention
as the author of "Letters to J.
Sloane" on the judiciary,
which discussion was published and
widely discussed in
relation to the struggle between the
legislative and judi-
cial branches of the state government.
Hammond's de-
cided views aroused intense animosity,
and soon he was
being assailed, as in the Chillicothe Independent
Repub-
lican as "a drivelling menial," "a young
adventurer,"
15 She was a daughter of Nicholas P.
Tillinghast, born in Newport,
Rhode Island, in 1742, and Sarah (Almy)
Tillinghast. American Ancestry
(Albany, N. Y.), X (1895), 97.
16 C. Hammond to J. C.
Wright, Belmont, May 6, 1821; W. H. Smith,
Charles Hammond and His Relations to
Henry Clay and John Quincy Ad-
ams, (Pub. for Chicago Historical Soc., 1885), 14.
17 Harry
Hammond to W. D. Gallagher [McCullough's, Ohio], Sep-
tember 12, 1840.
18 A. M. Bolton to W. D. Gallagher,
Dayton, July 27, 1840. Bolton for
a time assisted with these
contributions.
346 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
and a "toothache
politician."19 During the next year,
over the signature,
"Calpurnius," he made vitriolic at-
tacks upon leading Republican
politicians through the
columns of the Supporter, a
Federalist paper at Chilli-
cothe. Before this fray was concluded,
Lewis Cass, ex-
Governor Edward Tiffin and others had
discharged
verbal weapons in the fight.20
2. EXPERIENCE AS A FEDERALIST EDITOR
AND OHIO LEGISLATOR
Hammond's inherited qualities and his
early environ-
ment forged a personality of marked
individuality. His
announced intention of establishing a
newspaper at St.
Clairsville in the spring of 1813 was a
promise, there-
fore, of an avenue of expression, which
at least would
never be dull. There were then eighteen
papers pub-
lished in the youthful state, and one
of them greeted this
new rival, the Ohio Federalist, with
the following com-
ment:
"Modern federalism, like modern
warfare, frequently mili-
tates against the most essential
interests of the country. Mr.
Hammond, however, possesses talents of
the first grade; and we
trust he will not misapply them."1
The spirited manner in which the editor
meant to
conduct the new venture is shown in a
part of the ad-
vance announcement:
"It is common for the author of a
prospectus to give assur-
ances that all 'low scurrility' and all personalities
shall be excluded
19 Letter of Charles Hammond, February
1, 1810, in Chillicothe Sup-
porter, February 24, 1810.
20 Chillicothe Supporter, June 8,
15, July 13, August 3, 1811; David
Chambers to William D. Gallagher, Oak
Grove, July 18, 1840.
1 Franklinton (now part of Columbus) Freeman's
Chronicle, March
19, 1813.
A Life of Charles Hammond 347
from his columns. I make no promise of
the kind. There are
men of such vitiated taste, that they can perceive
nothing but 'low
scurrility' in the eloquent and classic
speeches of John Randolph
and Josiah Quincy.
"By such men the coarse and clumsy
ribaldry of David R.
Williams and Richard M. Johnson is
received as the most finished
specimens of chastened elegance. I shall
be studious to hold no
language which would disgrace the lips
of a gentleman; but in
exposing the mean and contemptible
artifices of worthless men,
I shall assuredly apply to their conduct
such epithets as it may
deserve.
"Instead of excluding all
personalities from the Ohio Fed-
eralist, it is my determined purpose to drag into public view,
and
expose in all its deformity the true
character of every false and
hollow-hearted demagogue that attempts
to delude the people.
The vocabulary of sophisticated jargon
does not contain a more
impudent falsehood than the proposition
that a knave in private
life may be safely trusted in public
life. . . . The follies and vices
of men who take no share in politics are
not objects of public
scrutiny. They shall be left to the
vengeance of the law and the
contempt of their neighbors. The Ohio
Federalist will never med-
dle with them."2
The motto of the paper was a quotation
from Cow-
per, selected in the same spirit:
"In freedom's field advancing firm
his foot,
He plants it on the line that Justice
draws,
And will prevail, or perish in her
cause."3
As editor he pursued a policy of
uncompromising
hostility to those who had engaged the
nation in the War
of 1812. In one of his early numbers he
declared:
"I shall resist this Administration
in a spirit of desperation,
as a man bereft of all hope and reckless
of what may befall
him."4
2 MS.
in Hammond's Handwriting, "Part of Prospectus to Ohio Fed-
eralist."
3 W. T. Coggeshall, The Poets and Poetry of the West (Columbus,
1860), 68.
4 W. T. Coggeshall in Transactions of
the Ohio Editorial Convention--
1857, (Columbus, 1857), 75.
348
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
At the same time he indulged in
merciless satires or
in such biting sarcasm as suited his
fancy. Without
provocation, for example, he verbally
pounced upon a
fellow editor, demanding of him
"what wag" furnished
him with the scraps of Latin which he
employed.5 The
paper lasted till 1817, when it was
abandoned, since the
Federalist party had practically
disappeared from the
State.
In the same year in which he undertook
the publica-
tion of the Ohio Federalist, he
presented himself to the
people of Belmont County as a candidate
for the Ohio
Senate in an address which a
contemporary considered
to be "among the most
extraordinary of his produc-
tions."6 In it he gave
candid expression to his political
creed and to his views of the
Administration at Wash-
ington. He was elected and served the
regular two-year
term (1813-1815). While in the Senate
he was chair-
man of a joint committee of the
Legislature to frame the
first criminal code of the State so as
to permit the carry-
ing into effect of the new penitentiary
system. Peter
Hitchcock (later judge of the Supreme
Court of Ohio)
from the Senate and Jacob Burnet (later
United States
senator) from the House were among the
other mem-
bers of the committee, but a large
portion of the work
was done by Hammond.7
In the fabric of Hammond's personality
there was an
exuberance of spirit which, interwoven
with an intense
individualism, was apt to express
itself in an almost
boyish mischievousness. During
Hammond's first ses-
5 Zanesville
Express and Republican Standard, May 26, 1813.
6 David Chambers to W. D. Gallagher, Oak
Grove, July 18, 1840.
7 Zanesville Express and Republican
Standard, December 21, 1814.
A Life of Charles Hammond 349
sion in the Legislature Samuel Dunlap
of Jefferson
County introduced resolutions
expressing approval of
the conduct of the government by the
Administration
and pledging the support of Ohio in
carrying on the war.
Hammond at once endeavored to ridicule
the procedure
by composing a doggerel poem, which
greatly irritated
the members of the Legislature, who
required him to
make a retraction.9
Some Federalists were not well pleased
with Ham-
mond's efforts. One asserted that his efforts "in the
federal vineyard" had savoured
"more of political zeal
than sound discretion, serving more to
irritate and con-
firm in political error, than to
convince and convert,"
and that his versification of the
Dunlap Resolutions
manifested a lack of dignity. Particular chagrin, how-
ever, was expressed that in the end he
had crouched "to
men he despised,--making concessions
which truth and
justice did not require," rather
than lose his seat, before
making recantation, as a true Federalist
would have
done.10
At the present day many may be
surprised, on the
other hand, that Hammond was permitted
to go to the
lengths that he did in criticizing the
conduct of the War.
The pioneers of Ohio were, however,
deeply jealous of
their individual freedom of expression
and tolerated a
rather liberal variety of
opinions. The people of the
State, moreover, were probably not so
keenly enthusiastic
about the War as has sometimes been
supposed. Sena-
tor Thomas Worthington voted against
the declaration
8 Chillicothe Supporter, January
5, 1814.
9 David Chambers to W. D. Gallagher, Oak
Grove, July 18, 1840.
10 Letter of "An Ohio
Federalist," Zanesville Express and Republican
Standard, February 16, 1814.
350 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
of hostilities, yet before the conflict
had come to an end
was chosen governor.11 In
1813, in some places the re-
cruiting of one-year men was so slow
that an Ohio paper
concluded that the patriotism of young
men was at low
ebb.
"God only knows," lamented the editor, "how
soon we may be aroused from our present
lethargy by
the terrible yells of savages, and the
piercing cries of
women and children."12 Desertions were frequent in
spite of the execution of those who
were captured,13 and
when peace finally came, the pastor of
the most promi-
nent church in Franklinton petitioned
the Governor to
set aside a day of Thanksgiving
"for the return of
peace."14
Hammond's lack of respect for
personalities more
than once got him into
difficulties. In the same session
in which he had poked fun at the Dunlap
Resolutions, he
vented his sarcasm upon Duncan McArthur
of Chilli-
cothe, a commander in the War of 1812,
who later was to
be a congressman and governor of the
State (1830-
1832). McArthur found revenge by
striking Hammond
with a cane, but the latter proved the
pen to be mightier
than the cane by wielding the final
blows through the
columns of the Ohio Federalist.15
After his retirement from the State
Senate, Ham-
mond continued to assist in drafting
legislation, as for
11 Alfred B. Sears, Thomas
Worthington. MS. dissertation, Ohio State
University Library.
12 Zanesville Express and Republican
Standard, April 21, 1813.
13 Ibid., July 27,
1814.
14 Rev. James Hoge in behalf of the
Presbyterian congregation at
Franklinton, to Gov. Thomas Worthington,
February 25, 1815. MS. in
Ohio State Library.
15 W. T. Coggeshall in Transactions of the Ohio Editorial Association,
1857, 76.
A Life of Charles Hammond 351
example, the well-known law of
February, 1816, which
required the state banks which might be
incorporated
under its provisions to turn over a
portion of their stock
to the State.16 In the fall of
that year he was elected
to the Lower House and was re-elected
in 1817, in 1818,
and again in 1820. James Wilson, a
Steubenville pub-
lisher (and grandfather of Woodrow
Wilson), who as
an editor had had such editorial
controversies with Ham-
mond that the latter wrote of him as
one possessing "no
character to be injured and no friends
to be mortified at
his exposure" was a fellow-member
for a part of Ham-
mond's term of service.18 Wilson
later paid generous
tribute to the work of his colleague. .
. . "Although
calling himself a Federalist I soon
discovered that he
was a better Democrat than many of
those who bawled
democracy the loudest. As a legislator I never knew
a member more fair, honorable and
upright. He was
above any kind of trick or
double-dealing. His tongue
or his pen were almost continuously at
work, in aiding
inexperienced or incompetent members in
preparing for
the action of the Assembly, the
business with which they
were entrusted by their constituents--and
I never knew
a man who had a superior faculty of
calming and bring-
ing to reason a turbulent or excited
public body. In this
particular I can compare him with no
person so well as
Dr. Franklin. His powerful intellect, deep research,
and the natural goodness of his heart,
secured to him
great influence among his
fellow-members--which was
checked in no other way but by his
consenting to be
16 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Belmont,
January 19, 1816.
17 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati
Gazette, November 4, 1816.
18 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Belmont,
August 27, 1816.
352
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
called a Federalist whilst, in reality,
his manners, opin-
ions, and principles, were strictly
democratic."19
Much of the business before the
Legislature during
this time, Hammond found to be of
merely local interest
and importance. He discovered also that
he was hardly
of the inner circle of leaders and, at
the beginning of his
service in the House wrote rather
wistfully: "I find
myself a very unimportant member. When the wise
ones have agreed upon a measure, they
are quite willing
to give me the honor of licking
the cub into shape. I am
well respected as a committee clerk;
beyond this, I stand
perhaps as high as Sam Williams."20 Hammond's name,
"for mere sport," had been
mentioned for speaker, and
this caused the successful candidate to
treat him with
studied indifference.21
3. A LEADER IN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST
THE U. S. BANK
With the development of the controversy
between
Ohio and the Bank of the United States,
however, he be-
came a potent figure and the
acknowledged leader of
the Legislature. The long story of the rising jealousy
of local bankers toward the
"Mammoth Institution" of
the East, which had established branches
at Cincinnati
and Chillicothe, need not be rehearsed
in detail. In De-
cember, 1817, the Legislature adopted a
resolution pro-
viding for a committee to report on the
expediency of
taxing the branches of the United
States Bank within
19 James Wilson to W. D. Gallagher,
Steubenville, October 1, 1840.
20 An unimportant member from Richland
County who served a single
term.
21 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Columbus,
December 27, 1816.
A Life of Charles Hammond 353
the State. An unfavorable report was given, but the
House proceeded to give formal
expression to the right
and expediency of taxing the
institution. Proposed
legislation for levying the tax,
however, was deferred
for consideration until December,
1818. In February,
1819, the tax was passed, fifty
thousand dollars to be
assessed against each branch within
Ohio. The auditor
of the State was required to demand
this sum from the
banks and to empower an agent to collect
the tax. In
performing this commission the latter
might go into
"every closet, box or drawer in
such banking-house to
open and search."
A few weeks after the passage of this
"Crowbar
Law," as it was called, the United
States Supreme Court
rendered its judgment in a parallel
case, McCulloch vs.
Maryland. The
decision asserted the constitutionality
of the Bank and denied the right of a
state to tax the
branches within its borders. Hammond at
once asserted
that he had never "seen or heard
an argument advanced
in support of the principle of the
decision" that seemed
"worthy of refutation" and
expressed the hope that if
the reasoning of the court should fail
to give general
satisfaction, Ohio would "feel
enough of the spirit of
independence to afford the Judges an
opportunity of re-
viewing their opinions. It is time enough to succumb,
when the western states have been
heard, and when their
rights have been decided upon in a case
where they are
themselves parties."1
In September, 1819, the United States
Bank secured
a subpoena in chancery, restraining
Ralph Osborn, the
1 Letter of C. Hammond, Belmont, March
19, 1819, in Belmont Journal,
reprinted in Chillicothe Supporter, May
31, 1819.
Vol. XLIII--23
354
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
auditor of Ohio, from collecting the
tax. The papers
served upon him, however, were not such
as to consti-
tute, in his opinion, a formal
injunction, and he called
upon John L. Harper to collect the tax.
The latter ac-
cordingly entered the vault of the Bank
and carried
away $100,000 to the Bank of
Chillicothe. The Circuit
Court, thereupon, issued another writ,
restraining Os-
born and Harper from paying over the
money to the
State or making a report of its
collection to the Legis-
lature. The legal process, which was
served upon Har-
per while en route to Columbus with the
money, was dis-
regarded by him, as he turned over the
specie and bank
notes, which he had obtained, to the
State treasurer.
Harper and Thomas Orr, his assistant,
were then
arrested for trespass in removing the
money. Judge
Byrd of the Circuit Court required bail
to the amount
of $240,000, hence the men were advised
by friends to
go to prison. Hammond, however, wrote
to them urg-
ing them to secure bail. His reactions to the case were
expressed in a letter to his friend,
John C. Wright:
". . . I suppose the folks will
begin to see that there is no
rebellion in the case, and that the
Mammoth must seek legal re-
dress like other folks. The
imprisonment of Harper and Orr is
very well--it will be considered when
the jury are assessing dam-
ages. You comprehend these
matters."2
Hammond thought that Harper and Orr did
not give
bail partly because they wished
"to be looked upon as
persecuted patriots." The
prisoners were removed to
Lancaster, supposedly for safe-keeping,3
but were re-
leased by the Circuit Court at
Chillicothe in January,
1820, due to illegalities in the manner
of their arrest.
2 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Belmont,
October 27, 1819.
3 Id. to id., Belmont, December 3, 1819.
A Life of Charles Hammond 355
Hammond was busy during this time in
developing
sentiment in favor of the State's
position. In the fall
of 1820, in regard to the opinion of
the Federal Circuit
Court delivered at Columbus on
September 9,4 which had
declared Osborn guilty of contempt, he
formulated a
communication which occupied four
columns in the Na-
tional Intelligencer.5 One prominent Ohio paper com-
mented:
"We always considered the reasoning
of the court in this case
as very weak, and we are now fully confirmed in that
opinion by
the able argument of Mr. Hammond, who
has refuted the whole
of it in a manner that must be satisfactory to every
reader."
The issue then was whether the
Legislature would
"permit their auditor to suffer
imprisonment for a faith-
ful discharge of his official
duties."6
When the Legislature met in December,
1820, Os-
born's report of the proceedings that
had been made
against him, was sent to a special
committee, of which
Hammond was a member.7 There
was not a unanimity
of opinion among them, but at length
Hammond pro-
duced a report,8 which
McMaster considers as extending
some remarkable advice."9
The committee declared that "the
people" constitute
4 National Intelligencer, October 7, 1820.
5 October 11, 1820.
6 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, October 28, 1820.
7 The
other members were Senators William H. Harrison, John
Thompson, Robert Lucas; Representatives
Harper, Hubbard, and Johnson.
8 Harrison and
Thompson especially had views of their own. C. Ham-
mond to J. C. Wright, Columbus, December
12, 1820.
9 J. B. McMaster, History of the
People Of the United States, IV,
500. The reaction of the press in Ohio
may be sensed from the comment
of a leading editor: The report "is
well written. It takes a bold stand
and maintains it with considerable
ability." Liberty Hall and Cincinnati
Gazette, February 10, 1821.
356
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
the final arbiter as to whether the
Federal courts are the
sole expositors of the Constitution or
share that power
with the states themselves, and that in
the political con-
test of 1800 the popular voice had
endorsed the state
rights doctrines of the Virginia and
Kentucky Resolu-
tions.
Hence, "so long as one single constitutional ef-
fort can be made to save them, she
[Ohio] ought not to
surrender her rights to the encroaching
pretensions of
the Circuit Court."10 The cases of
Marbury vs. Madi-
son, and Fletcher vs. Peck were cited as
instances where
the opinion of the Supreme Court had
not been carried
out, and the committee therefore
advised the State to
defy the decision of the Court and see
whether the judi-
cial department would be sustained by
the executive and
legislative branches. To make the test, it was recom-
mended that state legislation should be
passed, proclaim-
ing the Bank of the United States and
its branches to be
outlawed within the State, with a
denial to it of protec-
tion by the police and judicial
authorities. The commit-
tee further recommended the adoption by
the Legisla-
ture of resolutions endorsing the
principles asserted by
Kentucky and Virginia in 1798 and
denying the right
of the Supreme Court to act in cases
between individuals
where no state was a direct party.11
Hammond's influence as the leader of
his colleagues
at this time was later analyzed by
Elisha Whittlesey, one
of the members. The latter, who was to
serve for many
years as a congressman and later as
comptroller of the
treasury, asserted that Hammond
"was industrious, and
no proposition was presented that was
not critically
10 McMaster, op. cit., IV, 501.
11 The report is in Ohio House Journal
(1821), 99-132.
A Life of Charles Hammond 357
examined by him. His influence with the
members was
very considerable and it was dependent
on his integrity
and intelligence solely, as there
existed no party organi-
zation at that time in the
Legislature."12 The
resolu-
tions advocated by Hammond's committee
were adopted,
and on January 29, 1821, the law was
passed withdraw-
ing from the Bank of the United States
the protection of
Ohio's laws.13
A reaction to Hammond's work as a
legislator and
lawyer, differing somewhat from that of
Whittlesey, was
expressed by Francis P. Blair, the
well-known Ken-
tuckian, who was then an observer of
developments at
Columbus:
"He [Clay] is a good deal chagrined
at the measures taken
here against the Bank of the U. S. I will endeavor to
forward
to you a report of both houses of the Legislature which
will fur-
nish a clue to their purposes. It is written by Chas.
Hammond,
a leading man here. He possesses a great genius but not
a great
mind. He wants honesty, and dignity and
has too much cunning.
The attachment case vs. the Treasurer
here was continued. The
trespass case vs. the same came on to be
tried and excited great
anxiety and curiosity among the people
here. The lawyers from
every part of Ohio came to hear Clay
speak, but the judges dif-
fered about the admission of certain
evidence to the jury."14
Thomas Ewing, later United States
senator (1831-
1837), secretary of the treasury under
Harrison and
first secretary of the interior (under
Taylor), was at the
time a young lawyer who was thrilled at
the excitement
12 To W. D. Gallagher, Canfield, Ohio,
July 23, 1840.
13 Laws of Ohio XIX (1821), 108; Revised Statutes of Ohio (Chase),
1185. Hammond's report was called, in 1853,
"the ablest state paper prob-
ably to be found in our legislative
records." Quoted by C. C. Huntington,
"A History of Banking and Currency
in Ohio Before the Civil War," in
Ohio Archaeological and Historical
Society Publications, XXIV, 322.
14 F.
P. Blair to J. J. Crittenden, Columbus, Ohio, January 6, 1821.
Crittenden MSS., Library of Congress.
358
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
of the clash of intellects between
Hammond, the legal
champion of Osborn, and Clay, the
representative of the
Bank. The action of trespass for
breaking "the close"
of the institution and carrying off its
property was the
basis of the argument. The Bank claimed
title as lessee,
but Hammond contended that since it was
an artificial
person and could act only as authorized
by its charter, it
was not authorized to take or hold
title in this way. At
this point, according to Ewing,
"Mr. Clay felt that he
was floored--he took snuff with both
hands for a while
and asked leave to withdraw a juror and
amend. Mr.
Hammond said that he did not desire
postponement. Mr.
Clay might amend instanter and proceed
with the cause.
We were all proud of the victory of our
Ohio Hero and
the magnanimity with which it was
waived and Mr.
Hammond was thereafter our great Apollo
at the
Bar."15
The principal points in the Bank case
were passed
upon by the Federal Circuit Court at
its September term,
1821. At that time a decree was issued
for the return
to the Bank of one hundred thousand
dollars with inter-
est on nineteen thousand eight hundred
and thirty dol-
lars, the amount of specie collected. This order was
not complied with, hence an attachment
was awarded
against the Treasurer (who in the
September 1820
term of the Court had been made a party
to the suit).
This officer was placed in confinement
by the U. S. mar-
shal, and ninety-eight thousand dollars
was taken from
the Treasury and delivered by the Court
to the Bank.
An appeal was arranged to the United
States Supreme
15 T. Ewing to Wm. Henry Smith,
Washington, November 13, 1867.
A Life of Charles Hammond 359
Court, and the Treasurer was then
released from cus-
tody.16
In the meantime Hammond journeyed to
Washing-
ton, whence he wrote that he was given
"credit for great
ingenuity for presenting a new case, a
new view and
all that," but that Ohio was
believed to be in the wrong.17
Two years later Hammond made plans to
meet John C.
Wright at Washington, Pennsylvania, to
proceed with
him by stage or horseback to the
national capital to argue
the case, which was then coming before
the Supreme
Court for consideration. Hammond, in the course of
his arguments, which were presented in
March, 1823,
made a decided impression upon
Marshall, for during
the next year the latter made inquiries
concerning the
Ohio lawyer on a trip down the Potomac
with William
Greene of Cincinnati.18 The
Chief Justice spoke of Ham-
mond's remarkable acuteness and
accuracy of mind, and
referred with emphatic admiration to his
argument be-
fore the Supreme Court in the Bank
case. He said
that he had met "no judicial
record of equal intellectual
power since Lord Hardwicke's
time."19
After the case had been heard, the
Supreme Court
expressed a wish to have it reargued in
connection with
a Georgia case, in which some similar
constitutional
16 9 Wheaton, 740-744; Huntington, in Ohio
Archaeological and His-
torical Society Publications, XXIV, 320.
17 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Washington, February 26, 1821.
18 Greene came to Cincinnati from
Rhode Island. A graduate of Brown
University, he became president of the
Cincinnati school board and dean
of the Law College. Later he returned to
Rhode Island and became
lieutenant-governor of the
state.--Grete, Centennial History of Cincinnati,
(Chicago, 1904), 1, 629.
19 W. H. Smith, Charles Hammond, 28.
360 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society
Publications
questions were raised.20
When the second argument
was heard, Hammond was
not personally present. Ham-
mond's beloved wife,
whose tubercular affliction, as early
as 1819, had required
"bleeding, blistering and cathar-
tics" to secure
relief,21 at the beginning of 1824 was in
such precarious health
that he could think "little of any-
thing else."22 His arguments,
however, had been sent
to Marshall,23 the
other judges and counsel, and to Mr.
Webster, one of the
attorneys for the Bank.24
In the decision of the
Court, rendered March 19,
1824, four essential
questions were decided: "the right
of the Bank to
maintain suit against the officials of a
State; the right of
the Bank to sue in Federal Circuit
Courts; the power of
Congress to charter the Bank; and
the power of the State
of Ohio to tax the Bank."25. The
last two questions
were, as was generally expected, de-
cided in favor of the
Bank, an affirmation of the McCul-
loch vs. Maryland decision of 1819. The other rulings,
however, marked new
departures in constitutional law.
Hammond had argued
that Osborn acted in an official
capacity, hence the
State of Ohio was really a party to
the suit. He had maintained, moreover, that since the
State was involved,
the case was one of original jurisdic-
tion in which the
Federal Supreme Court alone had au-
thority to act; and
that the Circuit Court had therefore
20 Charles Warren, The
Supreme Court in U. S. History (3 vols., Bos-
ton, 1922), II, 90. The
other case was that of Bank of United States vs.
Planters' Bank of
Georgia (1824), 9 Wheaton 904.
21 Hammond to Wright,
Belmont, October 27, 1819.
22 Id. to id.,
Cincinnati, March 19, 1824.
23 John Marshall to C.
Hammond, Richmond, December 28, 1823, in
W. H. Smith, Charles
Hammond, 18-20.
24 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Columbus,
December 11, 1823.
25 Warren, The Supreme Court in U. S.
History, II, 88, 91.
A Life of Charles Hammond 361
erred in passing judgment on the
matter. Marshall's
opinion, however, denied the validity
of these arguments
and held that a state officer who had
observed an uncon-
stitutional statute might be sued in
spite of his official
station; that the contention that the
suit against Osborn
was a case in which a state was a
party, and therefore
was barred by the Eleventh Amendment,
was untenable;
and that the decree of the Circuit
Court as to the return
of the tax money taken from the Bank
must be affirmed,
except as to the payment of interest on
the specie col-
lected.26
Hammond had believed that the
re-argument of the
case was, in itself, a bad sign for the
cause of Ohio,
though he considered that Clay, as the
Bank's attorney,
could not have been very confident of
his positions or "he
would have thought extraneous
declamations" against
the conduct of Ohio unnecessary.27 When the decision
of the Court was definitely announced,
Hammond con-
fessed that he was "disappointed
much worse" than he
had expected to be and that he was more
than ever con-
firmed in the opinion "that it is
a great folly for a man
to confide in the force of
argument." The extension of
jurisdiction which was settled by the
decision, he consid-
ered to be "the most untenable and
the most danger-
ous."28 The case, if we
may believe Chief Justice Mar-
26 9 Wheaton, 871. The case is
imperfectly reported by Wheaton. See
D. H. Chamberlain, "Osborn vs.
The Bank of the U. S.," Harvard Law
Review, I (1887), 223-225. For the significance of the case,
see also Ibid.,
XXXI (1917-1918), 1036-1037.
27 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, February 23, 1824; id. to
id., March 5, 1824.
28 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, March 26, 1824.
362 Ohio Arch. and, Hist. Society Publications
shall, had indeed been "argued
with equal zest and talent
and decided on great
deliberation."29
Hammond during this period had a lively
interest in
constitutional questions. He was in
Washington at the
time of the arguments in the famous
case of Cohens vs.
Virginia before the United States Supreme Court. The
suit was on appeal from a Virginia
court and involved
the important consideration as to
whether the high fed-
eral court had jurisdiction in reviewing
the decisions of
state courts in cases in which a state
was a party. Wil-
liam Pinkney of Maryland, one of the
attorneys for
Cohens, presented an argument which one
authority has
deemed "masterly,"30 but
which Hammond considered to
be "scum, slang,
ostentation." The Ohio lawyer was
clearly prejudiced in favor of the
state rights position
and viewed the reply of Philip P.
Barbour, an attorney
for Virginia, as "close,
logical," even "unanswerable."31
Hammond was so much concerned with the
implications
of the case that he wrote a series of
articles, discussing
its aspects, for the Washington Gazette.32
Under the
name of "Hampden," a
pseudonym employed earlier by
Judge Spencer Roane of Virginia in
discussing the
McCulloch vs. Maryland case,33 Hammond wrote
eight
numbers, which were reprinted in other
papers and
aroused national attention.34 Oddly
enough, Charles
29 Ex parte Madrazo (1833), 7 Peters 627, quoted by Warren, op. cit.,
II, 90.
30 Charles Warren, op. cit., II,
9.
31 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Washington, February 26, 1821.
32 Id. to id., St.
Clairsville, July 1, 1821; id. to id., September 30, 1821.
33. H. Ambler, Thomas Ritchie (Richmond,
Va., 1913), 80.
34 They were
reprinted in pamphlet form as Review of the Opinion of
the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case of Cohens vs. Virginia
originally published in the
Washington (city) Gazette (Steubenville,
Ohio,
1821).
A Life of Charles Hammond 363
Warren in his The Supreme Court in
United States
History has attributed this series also to Judge Roane.35
In 1821 Hammond had refused to run
again for the
Legislature because, he declared, he
had found the meas-
ures passed "so puerile and
inefficacious" and the
finances "so completely
deranged" that he was ashamed
of the record.36 The next
year he ran for Congress in
the St. Clairsville district, but his
Federalist professions
proved too heavy a weight for him to
carry, and he was
beaten by John Patterson, after a
fairly close contest.37
Wright and Hammond continued to be
intimately
associated in the conduct of legal
business. Hammond
would not have been averse, however, to
the acceptance
of a public office, such as that of
district attorney, but
he wished to solicit the place neither
personally nor
through friends. He might have been
elected to the
State Supreme Court, it seems, but he
had "very little
stomach" for the office because he
felt that political con-
ditions were against him. He, moreover,
asserted that
he hated to have his name "hawked
about in a doubtful
contest" and was conscious of a
fundamental impulsive-
ness in his nature related to a desire
to enjoy himself in
"free and easy" fashion,
characteristics which he
thought might discredit a station that
required dignity
and restraint.38
Hammond's agricultural interests in the
vicinity of
St. Clairsville had not turned out so
favorably as he had
expected, his political opportunities
also seemed less
35 Vol. II, 15, 16, and note.
36 C.
Hammond to J. C. Wright, St. Clairsville, July 1, 1821.
37 Id. to id., October
10, 1822.
38 David Chambers to William D.
Gallagher, Oak Grove, August 24,
1840.
364 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
promising, hence about the first of
January, 1823, he
removed to Cincinnati. There he
undertook the practice
of law, participating in cases before
the state and fed-
eral courts, and serving at the same
time as editorial
writer for the Liberty Hall and
Cincinnati Gazette.39
4. CLAY'S POLITICAL MANAGER IN 1824
In the presidential campaign of 1824,
in which the
names of Clinton and Calhoun were for a
time sug-
gested and in which Adams, Clay,
Crawford, and Jack-
son became active candidates, Hammond
played a lead-
ing role in advocating the claims of
Henry Clay. In
December, 1822, when an attempt was
made to bring the
Kentuckian before the voters by means
of a nomination
by the Ohio Legislature, Hammond
composed a pam-
phlet in his favor. Opposition,
however, asserted itself,
and Hammond wrote regretfully:
"Clay I suppose is
blown up. The Legislature or rather the
members re-
fused to proceed to a nomination. My
poor pamphlet
is quite out of season, unless it
should have an effect
which cannot be expected, of getting up
a second cau-
cus."1 A few weeks later, however,
on January 3, 1823,
Clay's name was endorsed by a majority
of those pres-
ent at a legislative caucus in Columbus.2
Hammond's
39 Duff Green, in an open letter to
"Charles Hammond, Esq.," asserted
that Clay, following his resignation as
speaker of the national House had
met Hammond at Chillicothe and converted
the latter's "enmity to him
and to the Bank into a subserviency to
the one and a blind devotion to the
other," and that Hammond's talents
had then been "transferred from St.
Clairsville to Cincinnati and at one
time were on the verge of being trans-
ferred to Washington City."--Cincinnati
National Republican, September
19, 1825.
1 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Belmont, December 20, 1822.
2 Elijah Hayward to E. A. Brown,
Cincinnati, January 12, 1823. MS.
in Ohio State Library; Cincinnati National
Republican, January 14, 1823.
A Life of Charles Hammond 365
views at the end of the same year were
expressed in a
letter to his faithful correspondent,
J. C. Wright: "In
respect to the presidential election
there is much ma-
neuvering and some shuffling. Clinton is still spoken
of as a candidate, and many are, or
affect to be, un-
willing to commit themselves to any
other candidate
because they prefer him. The
Steubenville nomination
[Clinton for president and Jackson for
vice president]
reached here this evening and has made
some impression.
To me it appears like a very singularly
inconsistent
movement that those who could not
support Clay be-
cause of his being friendly to slavery,
and the resident
of a slave state should nominate
Jackson. I do not see
how your quakers . . . can swallow war
and slavery both
in Jackson, and at the same time
nauseate so at slavery in
Clay."3
Unlike many Ohioans who felt that
Senator Benja-
min Ruggles of St. Clairsville had
materially injured his
political standing by presiding over
what proved to be
the last congressional caucus (which
endorsed Craw-
ford),4 Hammond doubted that
the Senator had im-
paired his influence. The
lawyer-journalist expressed
the belief that government, as it
existed in the days of
Jefferson and Madison was better than
that which was
likely to be introduced by those who
had just discovered
a caucus was
"anti-republican."5
The rising enthusiasm for Jackson was
the chief
development of the campaign in Ohio
during the early
months of 1824. Hammond at first did
not think that
3 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Columbus,
December 11, 1823.
4 Columbus Gazette, February 26,
1824; Chillicothe
Friend of Freedom,
March 1, 1824; Cincinnati National
Republican, February 27, 1824.
5 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, February 23, 1824.
366 Ohio
Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
his nomination in Pennsylvania would
affect the situa-
tion in Ohio, but if it did, it would
serve only to silence
those who declaimed against Clay's
slave-holding affilia-
tions.6 A few weeks later,
although he found that the
Clay electoral ticket was coldly
received and that the
military officers were "all taken
by the military mania"
and ranted for Jackson, he felt that
the Kentuckian was
gaining strength in the Miami country.7
Hammond,
although moderate in his published
utterances in regard
to Jackson, in his private
correspondence abandoned re-
straint in venting his dislike of the
military candidate.
"How is it," he wrote to
Henry Clay, "that no one speaks
freely of this man? Instead of being a
frank, open,
fearless, honest man, is he not the
victim of strong
prejudices, violent when irresponsible,
cautious when
differently situated, vain and hasty, a
fit instrument for
others to work upon, subject to be
governed by flatterers,
and still inclined to hate every man of
talents who has
the firmness to look through him and
speak of him as he
deserves? I think he is strongly
endowed with those
traits of character, and that if
classed as a mere animal,
he would be a kind of monkey tiger. I
do not know but
that it would be well for such a
monster to be placed in
the presidential chair for the next
term; King Snake
succeeding King Log, and the citizen
frogs made to
scamper. I am almost sure that if I had
been this winter
at Washington, I should have contrived
to quarrel with
him. I dislike him for cause, I hate
him peremptorily,
and I could wish that his supporters
for the presidency,
one and all, were snugly by themselves
in some island of
6 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, March 5, 1824; id. to id.,
March 19, 1824.
7 Id. to id., Cincinnati, April 16, 1824.
A Life of Charles Hammond 367
Barrataria, and he be their king,
provided that they
constituted the entire population. They
would make a
glorious terrestrial pandemonium, and
as fast as they
could cut each other's throats would be
rid of very
troublesome politicians, and in
general, right worthless
citizens."8
Although J. C. Wright, congressman from
the Steu-
benville district and a close personal
and professional
friend of Hammond, himself believed
Jackson to be a
mere military chieftain, who had
frequently been "too
violent" to be restrained by law,9 he warned Hammond
against being "too rash as to old
Hickory."10 The Cin-
cinnatian, however, would not retract a
single word. He
did find some consolation in the
General's nomination
because of a belief that Jackson's vote
for the tariff of
1824, dear to the hearts of Ohioans,
was due solely to
his desire for northern votes for the
presidency.11 Yet
he felt that Jackson's failure to
express clear-cut con-
victions on the tariff issue showed him
to be "a poor
time-serving popularity-hunting
scamp," who as presi-
dent would be "as poor a tool as
Monroe, governed
wholly by military Jockies of every
sort."12
As the months went by, the enthusiasm
for Jackson
increased until in Cincinnati he became
"all the rage,"
making inroads, as Hammond felt, almost
entirely upon
the strength of the other western
candidate, Clay.13
8 W. H. Smith, Charles
Hammond, 35.
9 John C. Wright to E. Cutler,
Washington, February 23, 1824, in
Julia Perkins Cutler, Life and Times
of Ephraim Cutler, (Cincinnati,
1890), 185.
10 J. C. Wright to C. Hammond, House of
Reps., April 21, 1824.
11 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, May 3, 1824.
12 Id. to id., Cincinnati, May 7, 1824.
13 Id. to id., Cincinnati, June 7, 1824.
368 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Hammond supported Clay at every
turn--arranging the
candidacy of Nathan Sandford as his
running-mate in
Ohio--making preparations for a
respectable number at
the Clay meeting in
Cincinnati--composing a pamphlet
comprising extracts from his
speeches--dispatching cir-
culars to be distributed in eastern
Ohio, and writing
articles for the newspapers. Yet, by
August he pri-
vately admitted a lack of reasonable
hope:
"I confess I think his chance
rather desperate. Were I a
principal among
his advocates--one of his keepers in the proper
sense of the term--I should say
withdraw. . . . As it is, should
I say so above my breath, it would be
Crawfordism."14
The last-mentioned charge was a most
sensitive dart
when directed against the Clay
supporters, and publicly
Hammond did all in his power to repel
it. Crawford
was definitely unpopular in Ohio and
supposedly held
views contrary to the interests of the
State.15 His
strength was largely in the South and
East, while that
of Clay was in the West. In the nation
as a whole,
however, Clay's chances of success were
weaker than
those of Crawford, so the enemies of
the former charged
that his strength would ultimately be
diverted to the
latter. When the Clay electoral ticket
in Ohio had first
been presented, the Cincinnati National
Republican had
declared that the list bore the marks
of a Crawford
slate, and that Ohio must be on guard
against the selling
out of the State by a withdrawal of
Clay.16 Hammond
had at once issued a reply, asserting
that the Clay ticket
was thoroughly committed to the
Kentuckian and that
14 Id. to id., Cincinnati, August 30, 1824.
15 Chillicothe Supporter and Scioto
Gazette, July 8, 1824; Miami Re-
publican quoted in Chillicothe Times, September 8, 1824.
16 Cincinnati National Republican, March
30, 1824.
A Life of Charles Hammond 369
so far as was known, Adams was the next
choice of the
electors. Hammond, candid as usual,
admitted his own
second preference for Crawford, and the
charge was
persistently continued.17 One
Jackson editor, Moses
Dawson, the Irish-born editor of the
Cincinnati Adver-
tiser, urged a union of the Jackson and Clay forces as
a means of securing a western
president. Hammond
saw fit to reply, expressing a belief
that Clay's with-
drawal would give Ohio, as well as
several other states,
to Adams rather than Jackson, since
Clay's followers
honestly believed that the Tennessean
did not possess the
qualifications necessary for a
president. Hence, if the
election should go to the House, the
chances of Clay
would clearly be superior to those of
Jackson.18 The
Crawford men hoped that they might
achieve such a
coalition as the enemies of Clay had
charged was con-
templated. Accordingly, late in the
campaign, Ham-
mond was urged by Senator Benjamin
Ruggles to assist
in uniting the Clay and Crawford
forces.19 The Ken-
tuckian supposedly would receive the
vice presidency.
Hammond refused to be associated with
the proposal,
and was commended for his decision by
Clay, who had
no desire to enter into such an
arrangement.20
A rising enthusiasm for Jackson became
increas-
ingly apparent as the election drew
near. This, Ham-
mond noted, commanded particular
attention on the days
of militia training, when "The
Jackson fever rose al-
most to blood heat." The ill-feeling created by Clay's
17 Cincinnati
National Republican, April 2, 1824, August 13, 1824.
18 Cincinnati Advertiser, September
11, 1824.
19 H. Clay to C. Hammond,
Frankfort, October 25, 1824, cited in C.
Hammond to Gales and Seaton, Cincinnati,
April 25, 1825.
20 National Intelligencer, September 14, 1824.
Vol. XLIII--24
370 Ohio
Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
connection with the United States Bank
was a distinct
advantage to Jackson in the vicinity of
Cincinnati, where
many felt that they had suffered
severely as a result of
the policies of the branch in that
city. Hence, even
Hammond was willing to admit, before
the election, that
the group of counties in that vicinity
would go for the
Warrior of New Orleans. The claims
asserted by Elijah
Hayward, Jacksonian editor of the Cincinnati
National
Republican, however, stirred Hammond to anger. The
former, in a letter to the secretary of
the Jackson com-
mittee in Virginia announced that the
abuse of Jackson
by the followers of Clay had produced a
reaction against
Clay and that it was seriously believed
in Cincinnati
that Clay would be withdrawn. Hammond
and seven
other prominent citizens of Cincinnati
thereupon issued
"a flat contradiction of his
statement," and Hammond
then proceeded to denounce the personal
ambitions of
Hayward.21
The voters of Ohio, as the campaign
came to an end,
gave 19,255 votes to Clay to 18,489 for
Jackson and
12,280 for Adams.22 In the
country as a whole the elec-
toral vote was ninety-nine for Jackson
to eighty-four for
Adams, forty-one for Crawford, and thirty-seven
for
Clay. Since the federal constitution
provides that when
no candidate receives a majority in the
electoral college,
the House of Representatives shall
choose from among
those having the three highest numbers
of votes, Clay
was automatically eliminated. With
Crawford in im-
paired health, Adams or Jackson then
loomed as the
next president.
21 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, September 28, 1824;
October
5, 1824. C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, October 1, 1824.
22 Delaware Patron, November 18,
1824.
A Life of Charles Hammond 371
The congressional delegation from Ohio
then faced
the problem of choosing between a
Northern and a
Western president, with some
considerations pulling
them in either direction and with no
way of determining
how the people might have voted in a
direct choice be-
tween Adams and Jackson. As to
sentiment in the State,
Hammond expressed himself that if the
vote were taken
in January to choose between the two,
the former would
succeed, for he scarcely knew a single
supporter of Clay
who did not prefer Adams to Jackson. In
the meantime
speculation was rife in Ohio as to what
course the state
delegation would take, and although
Hammond chafed
somewhat under the taciturnity of his
Washington cor-
respondents, he expressed his approval
of their attitude:
"I cannot but admire the dignified
reserve of our members
of Congress in this present 'eventful
crisis.' Like circumspect
jurymen let out to eat and sleep they
forbear all conversation
upon the subject under trial before
them."23
When ten of the fourteen
representatives of the State
voted for Adams, thus giving the vote
of Ohio for that
candidate, Hammond, of course,
expressed his entire
approval of that procedure.24
A similar decision was
reached in the delegations from other
states, whose
popular vote had been given for Clay,
and it became
apparent that Adams would be the next
President.
Almost at once, however, the charge was
produced
that the result had been accomplished
by means of a
"corrupt bargain" between
Adams and Clay, by which
the latter was to receive the portfolio
of secretary of
state. When Clay first read this
assertion in the Colum-
23 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Columbus,
January 10, 1825.
24 Id. to id., Cincinnati, February 2, 1825.
372 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications
bian Observer of January 28, he dispatched a card to the
National Intelligencer, challenging the author to settle
the affair of honor. The development
that the person
involved was George Kremer, an
undistinguished and
eccentric congressman from
Pennsylvania, however,
turned the episode from one of dramatic
to one of farci-
cal possibilities.25 Under
these circumstances Hammond
was not pleased at Clay's lack of
restraint:
"I am concerned at Clay's card. He
is out of temper. He
calls hard names. He lets himself down
to the level of Printers'
Devils, which things ought not to be.
But we are not all wise at
all times. There are some poor devils in
the Pennsylvania dele-
gation who are beneath his level. . . .
I regret the publication and
have no more to say."26
5. AN ADMINISTRATION EDITOR UNDER THE
SECOND ADAMS
Hammond at this time was serving as
official re-
porter for the Ohio State Supreme
Court, a position
which he occupied from 1823 till his
retirement from the
bar in 1838.1 His law practice was
continued, though
at times he grew restive because
"their honors of the
Supreme Court" were not lawyers of
similar "habits of
thinking or reasoning" to his own,
hence whenever he
argued a case at Washington or
Columbus, "when there
was a difference of opinion," he
was always beaten.2 He
was not interested particularly in his
own pecuniary
advantage, and in 1825, as an outlet
for his strong po-
litical convictions he succeeded
Benjamin F. Powers as
editor of the semi-weekly Cincinnati Gazette,
apparently
25 National Intelligencer, February 3, 1825.
26 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, February 10, 1825.
1 William T. Coggeshall, The Poets and
Poetry of the West, 68.
2 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, March 16,
1835.
A Life of Charles Hammond 373
receiving no compensation for his
services.3 Although
he had determined to bid adieu to
political writing fol-
lowing the presidential election of
1824, the unusual de-
velopments of that election and the
urgings of his friend
J. C. Wright that he could do more than
anyone else "to
keep public sentiment correct" had
caused him to aban-
don that intention. He considered the
inaugural ad-
dress of Adams "not a very elegant
piece of composi-
tion," but "a good practical
paper" and was pleased by
the apparent complete harmony of the
new President
and his secretary of state.4 Soon
he was "again plunged
in up to the ears" and was
pointing with pride to the
wide circulation given to his writings.
His review of
Jackson's letter to Samuel Swartwout,5
in which he de-
clared that Jackson had offered his
congratulations to
Adams, hence the letter was that of a
"consummate
hypocrite" or of one careless of
his veracity, had been
written "in haste and never
revised." Yet it received
such wide attention that copies of it
returned "by every
mail from every direction," and it
elicited from Clay a
letter of special thanks.6
After the new Adams administration had
been well
launched on its career, political
excitement died down to
some extent in Ohio for the greater
part of two years.
Hammond continued to devote
considerable time to his
law business. Early in 1826 he went to
Washington in
the interest of the cases of Perkins
vs. Hart and Hinde's
3 W. T.
Coggeshall, op. cit., 69.
4 C.
Hammond to J. C. Wright, March 16, 1825.
5 Andrew Jackson to Samuel Swartwout, Washington,
February 23,
1825, in Liberty Hall and Cincinnati
Gazette, March 22, 1825.
6 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, April 2, 1825; id. to id.,
April 20, 1825.
374 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Lessee vs. Longworth then before the court. Elisha
Whittlesey, a congressman from Ohio,
argued for Per-
kins, and Hammond and Daniel Webster
for the plain-
tiff in the former case. In the latter
case Thomas Scott
of Chillicothe, a former judge of the
Ohio Supreme
Court, argued for the lessee of Hinde,
while Daniel
Webster, John Sargeant, and Hammond
were the attor-
neys for Longworth.7 At that
time there was much
discussion of a new judiciary bill then
before Congress,
which would give better judicial
facilities to the West
and increase the membership of the
Supreme Court.
Hammond apparently felt that his
services to Clay in
the preceding campaign gave him some
claim to a fed-
eral judgeship and that he should
receive consideration,
along with Thomas Scott, Jacob Burnet
of Cincinnati,
and John McLean, United States
postmaster-general
(from Lebanon, Ohio), who had rival
pretensions.
Hammond was particularly bitter against
the claims of
McLean, for he felt that the latter's
appointment would
be not as a reward for faithful service
to the Adminis-
tration but as a cowardly means of
"conciliating open
or covert hostility," an attempt
"at bribing him from
opposition" in the position which
he then occupied.8
McLean's steady, industrious habits of
attention to
business and his suave, tactful, even
hypocritical man-
ners in promoting his political
advancement were strik-
ingly in contrast to the impulsive,
erratically brilliant
efforts of Hammond, who,
individualistic to his very
marrow, scorned flattery as an
instrument of effeminate
weaklings and spared none who brooked
his dislike from
7 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati
Gazette, March 3, 1826; C. Hammond
to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, January 28,
1826.
8 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, March 27, 1826.
A Life of Charles Hammond 375
the lashes of his biting sarcasm.
Hammond could say
with truth that the two were
"antipodes," though his
own motives were probably not so
self-effacing as when
he declared: "I am a politician
labouring to promote
what I deem a common good, having no
eye to myself;
never for one instant permitting a
claim of my own to
interfere with the common cause."
At any rate, he was
rather bitterly disappointed that his
claims were not
given more consideration in Washington,
and the
thought of practicing in a federal
court, presided over
by McLean, maddened him to the point of
declaring that
he "would rather saw wood or drive
a dray than be
subject to the dominion of such a
man."9 With these
considerations in view, it is not
remarkable that, at
length Hammond expressed himself as
indifferent to the
passage of the bill.10 Nor
need we be surprised that
shortly thereafter, when Robert Trimble
of Kentucky
was appointed by Adams to fill an
existing vacancy in
the Federal Supreme Court, Hammond
editorially ex-
pressed his belief that Trimble was
"a very ardent and
opinionative man" whose opinions
were "altogether at
variance, on many subjects, with those
of the best law-
yers in Ohio."11
Hammond's moody irritation in this
connection was
probably due in part to the loss of his
cherished wife.
For seven years her health had been a
source of deep
concern to him, and his letters display
feelings of hope,
despair, hope revived, and finally
resignation to the in-
evitable. Two passages from his private
correspondence
9 Id. to id.,
April 12, 1826.
10 Id. to ?, Cincinnati, April 18, 1826; Liberty Hall and
Cincinnati
Gazette, May 30, 1826.
11 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati
Gazette, April 25, 1826.
376 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
will serve to demonstrate the strain
through which he
had been passing for several years. In
April, 1824, he
wrote:
"My dear wife has had a very sudden
and unexpected ill turn
or rather a succession of them since
Sunday last. She is now
much lower than ever. Tho' perfectly
sensible and able to con-
verse, she is too feeble to get up. . .
. I am daily fortifying my
mind for the worst, and for taking upon
me all the duties which
the afflicting charge must impose upon me. Her
fortitude and
resignation are surprising."12
About a month later he again wrote:
"My dear wife is still alive: but
now all hope of her surviving
is gone . . . subsisting with very
little motion or action, most of
the time dozing as if in stupor, yet for
that period sensible and
perfectly aware of her approaching end.
Her resignation and
firmness continue. . . . The approach of
death has been so gradual,
and notwithstanding some hopes that
could not be wholly sup-
pressed, so certain that the whole
family are prepared for it. Ex-
cept in her sufferings which are not
acute or very severe the bit-
terness is measurably past. She leaves
to me and to her children
both in her life and in her death an
example to be remembered,
admired and imitated--and I hope it is
an example by which we
may all profit."13
Yet she lived until July 31, 1826,14 so
that the family
had further time to be prepared for her
passing. Indi-
vidualist though the bereaved husband
was, he evinced
a fundamental conservatism as to
domestic relations,
and when rumors of a prospective second
marriage were
abroad some months after his wife's
death, his letter to
a friend is vocal as to certain traits
of his character and
incidentally of the social milieu in
which he moved:
"There is no foundation whatever
for the 'report' you notice.
It has nevertheless provoked me a good
deal. . . . It has ever been
12 C.
Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, April 16, 1824.
13 Id. to id., Cincinnati, May 7, 1824.
14 Cincinnati National Republican, August
1, 1826; Liberty Hall and
Cincinnati Gazette, August 1, 1826.
A Life of Charles Hammond 377
my opinion that a decent respect was due
to the opinion of the
world in cases of this nature, and were
I ever so anxious to marry
I should feel it a duty to refrain for
at least the year and day not
merely from consummation but from
preparation also. I was
mortified that my acquaintances thought
so cheaply of me. . . .
My present impression is that I shall
not marry. I am poor and
condemned to remain so. This will
prevent me from multiplying
my wants. Were I rich, I would marry
could I find an accom-
plished young woman to accept me.
As I am, prudence, necessity
forbid it. The lady in question is a
kind of Magdalene. Some
ten years ago or more her husband, an
officer in the army, died
here and left her young, beautiful,
accomplished, with one infant
child and no relative. She fell into the
hands of a . . . married
man. Their fooleries were extraordinary
and ridiculous. Still
she retained a half-forbidden station in
society. After a time her
mother, with other daughters came here
to reside. The intrigue
. . . has long since been given up and
the lady devotes herself with
unwearied zeal to the performance of all
the charities of life. She
is nurse and drudge for all her
acquaintances when sick. She is
at everybody's command to aid at
funerals and is teacher of a
Sunday School and organist for our
church when no one else can
be had. But evidently broken in spirit
and in health. During our
residence here, I have generally spoken
well of her and scouted
the story of her frailty. She has two
young single sisters, with
whom I used to to stop and chat. . . .
And its only consequence has
been to vex me on the score of the
impropriety imputed, and to
prevent me from calling to see the
girls, the eldest of whom, about
22, were I rich enough, I might be
tempted to play the fool with.
You have the whole case."15
During this time Hammond of course was
main-
taining a lively interest in political
and social develop-
ments and expressing himself through
private letters
and the editorial columns of the Gazette.
During 1825,
one of the memorable events in Ohio was
the visit of
De Witt Clinton, the father of the New
York canal
system, who came to assist in breaking
ground for the
beginnings of the State's canals.16
There was doubtless
a political significance to this
western trip of New
15 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, April 15, 1827.
16 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati
Gazette, July 12, 15, 1825.
378 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
York's governor, and privately Hammond
stated his
belief that Clinton had "not
appeared to great advan-
tage," having failed to
"equal public expectation."17
Hammond gave a most valuable support to
the
Adams administration. When the New
Englander's
first annual message was sent to
Congress he privately
expressed his admiration for its
"statesmanlike bold-
ness"18 and lauded it
editorially as embracing "every
prominent subject of interest to the
nation" and as ex-
pressing all that the most ardent
friends of internal im-
provements could wish.19 He
urged the sending of rep-
resentatives to the Panama congress,
brushing aside ob-
jections as similar to those that might
be voiced against
every embassy of our government.20
John Randolph's
attacks upon the Administration
particularly aroused
Hammond's ire, and the latter denounced
the Virginian
as a "political Goliath," a
madman sent to the Senate to
give scope to his talent for mischief,
and indulge his
propensity to snarl at everything and
everybody."21 The
opponents of the Administration were
"chiefly the dis-
appointed men of all
parties--Jacksonians, Crawford-
ites, Calhounites and
Clintonians," connected by no bond
of union except an agreement to overthrow
the leader-
ship of Adams and Clay.22
Hammond's zealous support of the
Administration
led to bitter attacks upon opposition
editors through the
editorial columns of the Gazette. These
assaults natu-
rally brought replies in kind. His most
frequent alter-
17 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, July 27, 1825.
18 Id. to id., Cincinnati, December 14, 1825.
19 Liberty
Hall and Cincinnati Gazette, December
23, 1825.
20 Ibid., Feb. 17, 1826; March 14, 1826; March 24, 1826.
21 Ibid., March 17, 21, 28, April 7, 14, 18, 21, 1826.
A Life of Charles Hammond 379
cations were with Moses Dawson, the
editor of the Cin-
cinnati National Republican. The
two editors were on
courteous terms personally and would
often meet in a
noted coffee-house on Front Street in
Cincinnati. There
they would banter each other over their
toddy, Dawson
teasingly remarking, "I'll beat
you, Charley," and Ham-
mond replying, "I'll give it to
you in the morning."
Hammond's editorial weapons were like
rifles, whose
balls invariably hit the mark, while
Dawson's reply
would be a veritable blunderbuss,
heavily charged, but
making more noise than execution.23
At one time Daw-
son denounced Hammond as a traitor.
Elijah Hay-
ward, another Jacksonian editor and
politician, served
as Dawson's counsel and borrowed Hammond's
file of
the Ohio Federalist, which
included his editorials issued
during the War of 1812. When Hayward
proposed to
read from the file in open court,
Hammond promptly
withdrew the suit for libel.24
Earlier, in December, 1825,
upon the resignation of Jackson from
the Senate, Ham-
mond expressed amusement at the
occurrence and com-
mented at length on the General's
conduct, under the
title, "Warren." This enraged
Elijah Hayward, the
editor of the Cincinnati National
Republican, to such an
extent that, in view of Hammond's
unsympathetic atti-
tude toward the War of 1812, he charged
him "in direct
terms with taking part with the British
and Indians
against the country" at that time.25
Hammond struck
22 Liberty Hall and Cincinnati
Gazette, May 26, 1826.
23 E. D. Mansfield, Personal
Memories, 1803-1843, (Cincinnati, 1879),
175; Liberty Hall and Cincinnati
Gazette, June 23, 1826.
24 W. T. Coggeshall in Transactions
of Ohio Editorial Association,
1857, 82.
25 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, December 14, 1825.
380 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
back and eventually a suit for libel
was instigated in the
Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton
County. The case
was withdrawn upon the signing of a
retraction by the
Jacksonian publisher.26
Duff Green was another editor who
frequently
crossed swords with Hammond through the
editorial
column. The former had called Hammond a
"supporter
of the Alien and Sedition laws, and the
'Black cockade'
administration, a blue-light Hartford
Conventionist in
principle, who rejoiced in our losses
and mourned over
our victories . . . who denounced Mr.
Adams, and Mr.
Clay as a ranting demagogue."27
Hammond replied that,
although his juvenile impressions were
favorable to the
John Adams administration and he had served
as editor
of the Ohio Federalist, the
charges were generally "a
tissue of shameful
falsehoods." The purchase of a
billiard-table for the White House had
been roundly
denounced by the opposition press and
stoutly defended
by Hammond. This gave a cue to the
Cincinnati editor
for lashing his professional brother in
Washington.
"There is nothing," he
asserted, "that excites in my
mind stronger sensations of contempt,
than the pratings
of men like Mr. Green, upon the
immorality and irre-
ligion of a billiard-table. It is like
listening to Satan
rebuking sin. We all know, that as a
moral man, Mr.
Adams, during his whole life, has been
exemplary and
irreproachable. And those whose
candidate has lived a
life of directly opposite character,
have the hardihood
to denounce the purchase of a
billiard-table as a most
unpardonable offence in Mr. Adams. What
then should
26 MS. Dated September 15, 1826.
27 United States Telegraph, March 27, 1826.
A Life of Charles Hammond 381
be thought of him [Jackson], who is an
adept at bil-
liards, cards, dice, horse-racing,
cock-fighting, and tav-
ern brawls?"28 A few months later
Duff Green paid a
personal visit to Cincinnati and
addressed a letter to
Hammond as the "Editor of the Gazette,
the mouthpiece
and conscience-keeper of Mr. Clay in
Ohio." Hammond
replied that this must be excused as
coming from "one
of the most obtrusive and incessant
praters in the land."29
Thomas Ritchie, the noted editor of the
Richmond
Enquirer, also was an editorial antagonist of Hammond.
In 1826, Hammond appealed for the
election of an Ad-
ministration member of Congress who
was, he said, en-
titled to the vote of all who were not
prepared "to fall
down and worship the slave-drivers of
the South."
Ritchie then took occasion to assert
that Hammond was
"one of the most unblushing and
devoted instruments of
Mr. Clay, also a slave-driver,"
but Hammond denied
that he could be called an instrument
of any man.30
That Hammond maintained a spirit of
independence
and was no mere satellite of Clay is
evident from the
former's refusal to procure in the Ohio
Legislature a
political move which Clay desired but
which Hammond
thought inadvisable.31 In
the summer of 1826 Ham-
mond visited Clay at his home near
Lexington, found
him in very poor health, and secured
from him a promise
that he would not permit himself to be
kept in office, as
Crawford had been, "after disease
disabled him from
performing its duties." He found,
however, that Clay
was reluctant to leave the office and
feared bad conse-
28 Cincinnati Gazette, June 27,
1826.
29 Ibid., September 22, 1826.
30 Cincinnati Gazette, September
22, 1826.
31 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, January 20, 1826.
382
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
quences from such a move.32 Hammond
thought that
his political services to the
Administration merited some
consideration and wrote to Clay as to a
debt which he
had contracted with the Bank of
Steubenville and which
he was unable to meet at the time.33
The Treasury had
been "very indulgent" with
the local institution, and
Hammond trusted that further delay in
meeting its obli-
gations might be permitted. Secretary
of the Treasury
Rush, however, believed that such a
policy might lead to
"the charge of favoritism, or make
a precedent which
could not be followed without public
inconvenience and
mischief." Clay, nevertheless, had
in mind another
means of relieving the pressure of
Hammond's embar-
rassment, which the latter thought
would doubtless be
acceptable to his creditors.34
The fall elections of 1826 turned out
most favorably
to the Administration forces, and
although at that time
Hammond was absent from his editorial
duties for a
period of seven weeks, he rejoiced that
the Ohio Legis-
lature was "as sure and decided as
ever for the Adminis-
tration."35 This
insured the selection of a United States
senator favorable to the Adams-Clay
policies. Some
doubt had arisen as to whether Senator
Benjamin Rug-
gles of St. Clairsville should be
extended the support of
Administration leaders. He had been the
leading parti-
san of Crawford in Ohio in 1824 but
later had served
the Administration well, and Hammond,
who had known
him in the St. Clairsville days used
the influence of his
32 Id. to id., Cincinnati, August 28, 1826.
33 Id. to [H.
Clay], Steubenville, October 26 [1826].
34 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, November 26, 1826.
35 Cincinnati Gazette, November
14, 1826; C. Hammond to H. Clay,
October 26 [1826].
A Life of Charles Hammond 383
editorial pen to secure his
re-election.36 Ruggles was
again successful, thus being permitted
to round out an
eighteen-year period of service in the
Upper House.
With the beginning of the new year,
political activity
increased in intensity and soon Hammond
was com-
plaining:
"I had thought that in political
affairs I could be surprised at
nothing. But the events of the last
four months have filled me
with both surprise and sorrow. The
combination which has been
formed against the Administration, the
parties that compose it,
its principles of action, and the men
who seem prepared to unite
with it, taken all together, present an
extraordinary spectacle,
and one well calculated to excite alarm
for our future destiny
as a people."37
Hammond apparently had little reason to
complain
of "the principles of action"
employed, as he himself had
been busy for some time in collecting
information and
documents relevant to the marriage of
General and Mrs.
Jackson, whose matrimonial arrangements
had been
made with some disregard of legal
technicalities. In the
fall of 1826 while visiting in
Steubenville, Hammond
had spoken in the public reading room
"quite freely and
plainly of both General Jackson and the
woman whom
he and others call 'Mrs.
Jackson,'" and when the Jack-
sonian press protested he accused them
of "hyper-irrita-
bility" on the subject.38 Hammond
had previously in-
quired of Clay at Columbus as to his
knowledge of the
matter, but the latter disclaimed any
information except
that of common report and expressed the
opinion that
36 Cincinnati Gazette, November
17, 1826; C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, November 30, 1826.
37 Hammond to H. Clay, Cincinnati March
28, 1827. Clay MSS.,
Library of Congress.
38 Cincinnati Gazette, November
14, 1826; November 21, 1826.
384 Ohio Arch. and, Hist. Society Publications
the question ought not to be brought
before the public.
Hammond, however, had been for some
time of the
"opinion that the matter should be
investigated" and
had obtained the references to various
documents con-
nected with the case from Mr. Edward
Day, a travel-
ling collector for merchants in
Baltimore. Hammond
denied any plan to attack the character
of Mrs. Jackson,
but stated that he merely proposed to
give full elucida-
tion to the personality of the General.
"In a spirit of
frankness, to prevent any
misconception" of his inten-
tion, Hammond even wrote to the
General's friend, J. H.
Eaton, stating his plans.39 There
was, at the same time,
some feeling among the editor's friends
that the testi-
mony secured was much less complete
than had been
expected and that a possibility existed
that the original
documents dealing with the matter might
have been de-
stroyed or secreted at Richmond.40
The publication in the Gazette of
his conclusions,
Hammond insisted, was done "after
due deliberation,"
but he was disappointed that this
effort received little
countenance from the friends of the
Administration.
The restraint of the press of his own
political faith he
soon found to be a "bad
augury" for pressing the matter
further. The Jacksonians were enraged,
denouncing
"the infamy of the attack upon a
lady" as "a base, wan-
ton and malignant falsehood," and
since the Ohio State
Journal at Columbus and other Administration papers
were "too dignified to touch"
the discussion, Hammond
39 C.
Hammond to J. H. Eaton, Cincinnati, January 3, 1827; id. to id.,
Cincinnati, January 27, 1827. Clay MSS.
40 J. Sloane to C. Hammond, Washington, January 14, 1827.
A Life of Charles Hammond 385
found himself left "to bear the
whole reproach."41 But,
for some time there continued much
"spluttering" in the
Jackson papers throughout Ohio,
Kentucky, and Ten-
nessee in regard to the affair with
involved disputation
as to the validity and significance of
the various docu-
ments.42
Hammond also joined other
Administration editors
in an attempt to discredit Jackson on
the grounds of
alleged connection with the Burr
Conspiracy. "Direct
proof," he declared, "is
elicited and multiplied upon the
very theatre where the transactions
took place." The
opposition press maintained that after
Burr's plans had
become suspicious, Jackson abandoned
them, but Ham-
mond again marshalled evidence to
attempt to prove the
contrary. There was "irrefragable
proof," he insisted,
"to show that Jackson had been
made the coadjutor or
dupe" of Burr.43 Other
charges eagerly seized upon by
Hammond included the assertion that
Jackson had exe-
cuted six militiamen without authority
in 1814. Column
after column was devoted to the
discussion,44 and other
administration papers in Ohio followed
suit.45 At length,
John Sloane, a congressman from Ohio,
introduced in
the House of Representatives a resolution,
which was
41 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, April 15, 1827; id. to id.,
Cincinnati, April 18, [1827]. Cincinnati
Gazette, March 30, April 3, April
20, 24, 1827.
42 Francis Johnson to C. Hammond,
Bowling Green, Kentucky, April
24, 1827; C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, April 24, 1827.
43 St. Clairsville National
Historian, May 17, 1828; Cincinnati Gazette,
August 15, 16, 20, 22, 25, 28, September
23, October 11, 1828.
44 Cincinnati Gazette, June 12,
July 7, August 8, 15, September 5,
October 15, 22, 24, November 6, 1827,
July 4, 1828.
45 Cleveland Herald, April 18,
25, May 2, 1828; Ohio State Journal,
April 3, June 5, 1828; St. Clairsville National
Historian, May 3, 1828.
Vol. XLIII--25
386 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
adopted, calling for copies of various
documents in the
War department respecting the drafting,
desertion, and
execution of the six militiamen. These
official papers
and the review of the case, which
Sloane subsequently
drew up, were widely copied, and in
pamphlet form were
extensively circulated.46
Other allegations also were employed.
Jackson's
duel with Charles Dickinson, in which
the latter was
killed, was not forgotten.47 Religious
and economic
prejudices were appealed to in
asserting that in the Ten-
nessee Constitutional Convention in
1796 Jackson had
voted to admit to office-holding those
who "publicly de-
nied the divine authority of the Old
and New Testa-
ments" and had favored the
exclusion from the Leg-
islature of such men as were not
property-holders.48
Charges were also brought that he was a
candidate of
the slave politicians and had himself
sold negro slaves.49
At length, as a means of giving further
circulation
to the various criticisms that he was
urging against
Jackson, Hammond undertook the issuing
of one of the
most scurrilous publications in the
history of American
journalism. Christened more or less
ineptly Truth's
Advocate, the pamphlet in its first number, contained
the expose of Jackson's marital
beginnings. Hammond
declared that he was motivated in the
new enterprise by
a desire to send it "into the
byways, as well as the high-
ways of the land to circulate it
amongst those who might
yet be influenced to champion the
Administration cause
46 St. Clairsville Gazette, January
26, 1828, May 31, 1828; Cincinnati
Gazette, May 20, 1828; Ohio State Journal, June 5, 1828.
47 Cincinnati Gazette, August 18,
1827.
48 Ibid., June
15, 22, 1827.
49 Ibid., September
26, 1826; August 22, September 24, 1828.
A Life of Charles Hammond 387
in the presidential contest."50 The publication imme-
diately attained considerable
popularity. Within a week
two thousand copies had been turned out
and a second
edition of the same number had been put
to press.51
Later the contents of at least the
first issue were re-
printed in Washington.52
On the other hand "the corrupt
bargain" charge was
merely one of many allegations
preferred by the Jack-
sonians against the Administration
leaders, and Ham-
mond was again eager and able in the
defense of the
side which he espoused.53
The bargain charge was
brought forth in somewhat different
form in 1827, when
Mr. Carter Beverly asserted that while
at Jackson's
home, he had heard the General state
that Clay's friends
had made a proposition to his
followers. The alleged
proposal was that if Jackson's friends
would promise
in his behalf not to put Mr. Adams into
the seat of sec-
retary of state, Clay and his friends
would, in an hour,
make Jackson president. The Jackson papers
in Cin-
cinnati called upon Clay to deny the
charge and when he
did so, Hammond countered by demanding
that Jackson
then reveal the name of the gentleman
who made the
communication to him.54 When James Buchanan was
indicated as the person concerned,
Hammond asserted
that the former had never been on
intimate terms with
Clay and contended that Buchanan must
be required to
"name his employers. He must show
the authority upon
50 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, November 6,
1827.
51 Id. to id., Cincinnati,
January 14, 1828.
52 C. Hammond, View of General Jackson's Domestic
Relations in
Reference to his Fitness for the
Presidency (Washington, 1828).
53 Cincinnati Gazette, June 9,
23, 27, 1826; September 26, 1828.
54 Cincinnati Gazette, February
27, 1827.
388 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
which he acted. It is a comfortless
dilemma to choose
between the character of a political
pimp and that of a
fabricator of a corrupt proposal of
political bargain and
arrangement. But if Mr. Buchanan
remains silent, he
is exposed to the double imputation,
either of which is
enough for any man to bear."55
Later Buchanan issued a flat denial
that he had been
the instrument of any such proposal,
and Hammond,
considering Clay entirely vindicated,
dismissed the mat-
ter as merely "another dish of
surmises, suspicions, and
innuendoes."56
Hammond was ever a man of independent
judgment,
not to be coerced into any line of
action. Although he
confessed that he loved Clay and in
spite of earlier opin-
ions had come to respect Adams, he felt
that the only
practical course for the administration
forces to take
was to bring about the retirement in
1829 of each from
the position he then held. Toward the
end of 1826 Clay
had sought Hammond's opinion as to
whether he should
seek the vice presidency in 1828,
informing the latter
that his own view was against such a
course. Ham-
mond was somewhat embarrassed in making
reply, but
at length he answered Clay, maintaining
that the suc-
cession from the state department to
the presidency
should be broken up, and that he should
run for the vice
presidency.57 Hammond and
his friend Wright at
length encountered some difficulties
because of their in-
dependence in this matter. Edward King
of Chillicothe,
55 Ibid., July 31, 1827.
56 Ibid., July 25,
August 4, 10, 21, 1827.
57 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, February 2,
1827, C. Ham-
mond to H. Clay, Cincinnati, March 28,
1827; id. to id., January 3, 1827,
Clay MSS.
A Life of Charles Hammond 389
a son of Rufus King, the noted New York
statesman,
and son-in-law of Thomas Worthington,
one-time gov-
ernor and senator from Ohio, had
received letters from
Wright professing doubts as to the
feasibility of further
support of Clay for public office. King
gave publicity
to this expression of opinion, and an
angry warfare
developed within Administration circles
in Ohio. Ham-
mond, of course, defended the point of
view of Wright,
a position which as we have seen, he
himself shared.58
When Hammond was in Columbus during the
sessions
of the Legislature some months later,
King was not on
speaking terms with him, and three
other prominent
politicians, for one reason or another,
were scarcely
more friendly. For the time being
Hammond was
rather weary of his editorship and
relinquished it for
the winter during his absence in
Columbus. In his
moodiness he even considered
surrendering it entirely.
"At the mature age of
forty-eight," he lamented, "have
I made to myself four most potent
enemies by meddling
with strife that did not belong to me.
. . . I find myself
as one that taketh a dog by the ears
which being inter-
preted meaneth that in such case, the
yelping of the
aggrieved can bring out the whole
kennel." He declared
that he had learned much in three years
and that he was
"tired of labouring like a brisk
young negro, doing all
sorts of dirty work to catch a little
praise from one side,
and much reprobation from the
other." Hammond was
clearly peeved at President Adams and
asserted that the
58 Jas. Wilson to C. Hammond,
Zanesville, May 25, 1827; C. Ham-
mond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati, May
31, 1827; J. C. Wright to C.
Hammond, Steubenville, June 15, 1827; C.
Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Columbus, July 25, 1827.
390 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
latter's omission of the tariff from
the annual message
of 1827 rendered "his reelection
out of the question."
The Ohio editor planned the preparation
of an address
for the Ohio Administration convention
to meet Decem-
ber 28. He would attempt to secure the
nomination of
Monroe for the vice presidency and then
would "ground
his arms."59
Early in February, 1828, Hammond
planned to be
in Washington to participate in the
argument of legal
cases before the United States Supreme
Court.60 A
year later, however, when similar
duties pressed upon
him, he decided not to go in person to
the "vast and
desolate city" but instead he sent
the documents relating
to the cases in which he had an
interest. Hammond's
comments at this time upon the incoming
president and
his associates were especially tart.
Through the col-
umns of the Gazette he asserted
that Jackson, stopping
in Cincinnati en route to
Washington gave the appear-
ance "of a very feeble old man,
and that his strength
was scarcely equal to the fatigues of
travel."61 The new
cabinet appointments were such that
public expectation
was "much disappointed." The
inaugural message
deserved little approval except on the
basis of brevity,
since neither the strict
constructionist nor the latitudina-
rian could say that the President
inclined to his doc-
trines and the public was left to await
the policies of the
Administration.62 In his
private correspondence Ham-
mond expressed regret at the death of
Mrs. Jackson,
59 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Columbus,
December 7, 1827; id. to
id., Columbus, December 16, 1827; id. to id., Columbus,
December 29, 1827.
60 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, January 14, 1828.
61 Cincinnati Gazette, January
27, 1829.
62 Ibid., March 12, 1829.
A Life of Charles Hammond 391
since he would have been pleased to
have seen her pre-
side at the White House "over the
mighty shes of the
South." He
surmised that in view of Mrs. Jackson's
passing, Peggy Eaton would take command
of the
Palace since J. H. Eaton had "made
an honest woman
of his mistress."63
It has been stated by various writers
that late in
Adams' Administration Hammond was
offered a place
upon the Federal Supreme Bench, and it
has been conjec-
tured that one reason for his refusal
was a matter of
pride because the position had first
been offered to Clay.64
However that may be, Hammond seems to
have been fre-
quently piqued that he did not receive
some appointment
at the hands of the President. His
earlier dissatisfaction
with the way his qualifications for a
federal judgeship
were viewed at the Capital has already
been discussed.
When the first appointment to a
diplomatic position ever
given to a citizen of Ohio--that of charge
des affaires to
Peru--was tendered to James Cooley of
Urbana, Ham-
mond asserted in the Gazette that
some expressed "sur-
prise, none commendation."65 At
that time the report
was widely circulated that Hammond was
peeved because
he had not received the appointment,
but he quoted a
letter from his friend Wright,
congressman from the
Steubenville district, in his defense:
"We could have
gotten the berth for you, if you would
have had it. I
asked you if you would take such a
place, and you per-
emptorily refused."66
63 C. Hammond to J. C.
Wright, Steubenville, January 10, 1829; id.
to David Chambers, Cincinnati, January
21, 1829.
64 W. H. Smith, Charles Hammond, 56.
65 Cincinnati Gazette, April 25,
1826.
66 Miami Republican quoted in Cincinnati Gazette, May 16, 1826; Cin-
cinnati National Republican, May
19, 1826; Cincinnati Gazette, May 23,
1826.
392 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
In 1827, he wrote to Clay discussing at
length the
desirability of the removal of the
postmaster at Cincin-
nati. His language may imply a thinly
veiled desire to
secure the office for himself:
". . . Any stir or commotion about
a removal would be bad.
We should have forty candidates. The
quiet substitution of Wil-
liam Ruffin or Benj. F. Powers would do us much
service. I am
poor enough to want such an office for
myself. But I do not.
And I speak only what I know is for the public
good."67
In 1829 he was again writing with a
note of com-
plaint in his letters. "I mean to
keep aloof," he an-
nounced to Wright, "as to the next
campaign. The
specimen Clay has given us of his
opinion of men fit for
office, holds out little inducement to
enlist again under
his banners. It is little worth our
while to fight at the
front of the battle, that when the
battle is over we may
occupy the station of livery-men for
Kentucky or obtain
the honor of a family dinner in company
with some Dr.
Floyd or other from the South."68 A month later
he
wrote, with scarcely concealed jealousy
of the proposal
in the Ohio Legislature to send Thomas
Ewing to a con-
ference with an Indiana canal
commissioner:
"Ewing is a good enough lawyer and
a clever man--rather
ambitious, as I think, of distinction
over the heads of those who
have at least elder pretension, and
somewhat spoiled by the puf-
fings of the Supreme Court and his own
particular friends. The
nomination gave me no offense for
myself. I long since learned
to appreciate my own standing with may
party."69
Administration leaders did appreciate
the services
67 C. Hammond to [H. Clay], Cincinnati,
October 18, 1827.
68 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Steubenville, January 10,
1829.
69 Id. to id., Cincinnati, February 3, 1829. The Ohio
Senate wanted
Ewing; the House, their speaker, Edward
King. Cincinnati Gazette, Feb-
ruary 4, 1829.
A Life of Charles Hammond 393
rendered by Hammond to their cause.
Daniel Webster
wrote to Clay in 1827:
"I am willing to make an effort to
do something for Ham-
mond. His paper is certainly ably and vigorously conducted.
It
is not a little difficult to excite an
interest for objects so distant,
yet there are a few gentlemen here who would be willing
to bear
a part. A tolerable set of types, I
learn, could be furnished at
the foundry here for 5 or 6 hundred
Dollars."70
But this proposal seems to have been
made in utter
ignorance of the fact that Hammond
received no pay
for his services to the Gazette until
1830, when he de-
manded and received a thousand dollars
a year.71
6. AN OPPOSITION EDITOR DURING THE
JACKSON
PERIOD
With the removals from office which followed the
accession to power of the Jackson
Administration, the
General's friends naturally sought the
available political
plums. Moses Dawson, Hammond's rival
and editor of
the Cincinnati Advertiser, was
one of those who jour-
neyed to Washington "for his share
of the plunder."1
Jackson appointed him Receiver of
Public Monies at the
Land Office in Cincinnati,2 but
Hammond gathered evi-
dence which purported to show that
Dawson had re-
ceived his naturalization papers in a
fraudulent man-
70 D. Webster to H. Clay, Boston,
September 28, 1827. Clay MSS.
71 This was paid for a few years. Then
he received one-third of the
profits until his death. W. T.
Coggeshall, The Poets and Poetry of the
West, 69. Beginning in about 1823 the Gazette had
secured a contract to
print post office blanks for offices in
Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. It still
was working under contract at the time
of Jackson's inauguration. Cin-
cinnati Gazette, May 5, 1829.
1 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, May 26 [1829].
2 Hamilton (Ohio) Intelligencer, June
9, 1829.
394 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
ner.3 This material was presented to the Senate, other
factors entered into the situation, and
the nomination
was rejected.4
In the fall elections of 1830 an
anti-Jacksonian gover-
nor was chosen in Ohio. At the same
time the same op-
position group secured a majority of
the members of the
Legislature (insuring the choice of an
anti-Jacksonian
senator), and a majority of the Ohio
delegation in Con-
gress. Hammond felt that in Cincinnati
his friends had
"succeeded reasonably well,"5
and when the results in
the State as a whole were known, he
declared "that the
current of public opinion, which in
1827 set so strongly
in favor of General Jackson, has
reached its flood, and
has begun to subside." The
selection of an inferior
cabinet, occupied with squabbles as to
a suspected
woman [Peggy Eaton]; the granting of
offices to hun-
gry politicians; the recall of an
Ohioan [W. H. Har-
rison as minister to Colombia] for
Thomas P. Moore;
the driving of the Indians from their
homes for the
benefit of land speculators; the
discouragement of inter-
nal improvements [The Maysville Veto];
he asserted
had reaped their rewards.6
Even before the accession of Jackson to
the presi-
dency, speculation arose as to the
prospects four years
later. Early in 1829, Hammond's old
friend, John
Sloane, who was just completing ten
years of continuous
service in the National House of
Representatives wrote
3 Moses Dawson to W. B. Lewis,
Cincinnati, December 20, 1829. Jack-
son MSS., Library of Congress.
4 Senate Journal, 21 Congress, 1 Sess., 432.
5 C. Hammond to Thomas Ewing,
Cincinnati, October 18, 1830. Ewing
MSS., Library of Congress.
6 Cincinnati Gazette, November
11, 1830; Ohio State Bulletin, Novem-
ber 24, 1820.
A Life of Charles Hammond 395
to Hammond that he felt calm as to the
next presidential
election; that he still had a
partiality for Clay, but that
it would be of no avail to bring him
forward unless a
change in public sentiment developed
west of the moun-
tains. He noted that John McLean was
beginning to
assert presidential aspirations and
stated his opinion
that it would be folly to oppose him,
if Clay proved not
to be available.7 As has
already been shown, Hammond
was at this time feeling somewhat
chagrined at his fail-
ure to receive political preferment
when his own party
was in power. But he could not abstain
from the politi-
cal fight and wrote Wright that they
must not give up
the ship nor commit themselves
"for or against any of
the new pretenders." "I
mean," he announced, "to have
an eye to the most popular side of
future questions if
they involve no political or personal
immorality."8
Editorially Hammond declared that it
was far too early
to speculate about candidates for 1832;
that it might not
be expedient for the West to present a
candidate; and
that even if it were expedient, some
other than Clay
might be the proper choice.9 Yet,
a little later, he ven-
tured to assert that the constant
"vindictive abuse of this
distinguished individual" by the
Jacksonians was un-
questionable evidence of how much they
feared the
hunted, though unsubdued, Lion of the
West."10 About
this time the Cincinnati editor deemed
it the better part
of wisdom to turn popular attention, at
least tempo-
rarily, from the late secretary of
state. Accordingly,
with the avowed intention of letting
his readers "become
7 J. Sloane to C. Hammond, Washington,
February 13, 1829.
8 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, Cincinnati,
February 26, 1829.
9 Cincinnati Gazette, April 3,
1829.
10 Cincinnati Gazette, July 24,
1829.
396
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
acquainted with opinions expressed
abroad," on August
21 he published under the heading,
"Next President,"
a long article from the Essex
Gazette, Haverhill, Massa-
chusetts, advocating John McLean for
the presidency.
This bit of political strategy aroused
considerable com-
ment from Kentucky to Massachusetts. In
the former
state the Kentucky Gazette, September
11, said that
Hammond had "abandoned Mr. Clay
and fixed his hopes
upon Judge McLean."11 This the
Cincinnati editor had
already denied.12 McLean
wrote to Duff Green that he
believed Hammond's real object was to
draw forth
abuse for him both from the
Administration and anti-
Administration papers, and thus cause his
supporters
to turn from him and "rally under
the Clay Stand-
ard."13 At any rate, it brought McLean's name very
prominently into view and caused public
sentiment in
his regard to be thoroughly tested. For
various reasons
the McLean movement was not destined to
succeed; in
fact it was to be "shelved"
almost as soon as it came to
public notice.14
Hammond continued, however, for some
time to di-
vert attention from Clay. During 1830
he opposed the
holding of a state convention in Ohio
to nominate an
anti-Administration presidential
candidate.15 With the
coming of the next year he employed his
most strenuous
efforts in trying to prevent the
sending of delegates
11 Ibid., September 16, 1829.
12 Ibid., September 8, 1829.
13 McLean
to Duff Green, Cincinnati, September 16, 1829. McLean
MSS., Library of Congress.
14 E. Whittlesey to H. Clay,
Canfield, Ohio, July 21, 1829. Clay MSS.
15 Cincinnati Advertiser, September
25, 1830; Ohio State Bulletin,
September 29, 1830.
A Life of Charles Hammond 397
from Ohio to the National Republican
Convention at
Baltimore in December, but he was
unsuccessful.16
With the August elections in Kentucky,
which re-
sulted in the election of a majority of
Jackson men to
Congress, Hammond declared that there
was no increase
in the Clay strength in Kentucky to be
noted. Accord-
ingly, he said that the situation ought
to be frankly
faced:
"In my opinion the services of Mr.
Clay have been lost to the
country for many years, by an unavailing
effort to make him
president. I do not wish to deprive the
country of them forever,
by continuing this unavailing effort. I fear that Mr.
Clay's pros-
pects of election to the presidency are
not such as some too san-
guine friends attempt to represent
them."17
Before the month was over, however, he
was inclined
to think that it was no longer an open
question whether
Clay ought to be a candidate but that
the conclusion was
not necessarily that public opinion had
been rightly
directed.18
When Hammond found that the proposition
to post-
pone the Baltimore Convention was
received with no en-
thusiasm he again expressed regret that
the public mind
was thoroughly set upon Clay but felt
that it might be
possible for the Convention to adjourn
upon its assem-
bling.19 Hammond's attitude
was responsible for the ap-
pearance in the National Journal of
a letter dated Cin-
cinnati, October 30, 1831, contending
that the National
Republican party in the West was
determined to sup-
port Clay at all hazards, and that
Hammond's attitude
was such as to cause him to be
considered a neutral, ex-
16 Cincinnati Gazette, July 21,
August 4, 1831.
17 Ibid., September 15, 1831.
18 Ibid., September 29, 1831.
19 Cincinnati Gazette, November
10, 1831.
398 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
cept in his uncompromising hostility to
Jackson. But
Hammond retorted:
"To press Mr. Clay a candidate for
the presidency, upon a
forlorn hope, or with a determined
resolution not first to see that
his election is morally certain, is to
do him no service and the
country much injury."20
Clay, of course, was nominated and
Jackson, seeking
reelection became his opponent, with
Wirt of the Anti-
Masonic Party a minor contender. The
question of the
recharter of the United States Bank had
been a matter
of some interest since Jackson's first
annual message
and became a question of primary
importance as it was
injected as a direct issue in this
campaign. Hammond,
whose position was a trifle awkward in
view of his
service as an attorney against the bank
in the case of
Osborn vs. Bank of the U. S., stated in 1830 that for-
merly he had denied the right of the
bank to exemption
from state taxation and that he had
felt that the bank
had failed to realize expectation. He
now, however, be-
lieved it to be "essential to the
public good that the char-
ter should be renewed, upon proper
terms." Neverthe-
less he considered the time not yet
ripe for going fully
into the question.21 Toward
the end of 1831, when Jack-
son again commented upon the bank in
his annual mes-
sage, Hammond remarked that a fair
inference was that
the President would not refuse his
signature to the bank,
if its charter were renewed by
Congress.22 But, seven
months later, when Jackson proceeded to
do the exact
opposite, Hammond declared that the
veto message was
"so full of error, so fraught with
such execrable bad
20 Ibid., November 17, 1831.
21 Cincinnati Gazette, May 31,
1830.
22 Ibid., December 22, 1831.
A Life of Charles Hammond 399
taste, containing so much that ought
not to be found in
it, nothing that it should
contain," that its circulation
ought not to be aided.23 As
to Jackson's contention that
the bank charter would add to the value
of the stock at
the expense of the public, Hammond
queried, "Is it a sin
that the rich should, through the
medium of the bank,
lend money to the enterprising and the
industrious?"24
Dire prophecies as to the result were
at once forthcom-
ing and soon there was bemoaning that
the country did
not show the prosperity of a year
previous.25
With the nomination of Clay, Hammond
found that
his true course lay in giving it full
support and he at
length wrote a full expression of his
sentiments to the
presidential candidate:
"It is two years ago, in April
last, since I addressed you a
letter. I am well aware that, in this
lapse of time your kind and
confidential feelings toward me have
undergone some change. . . .
I have never wished or sought public
employ, either for the
pecuniary reward, or that of
distinction. Though always an
ardent actor, I felt myself a
disinterested one, and have therefore
(not very modestly perhaps), claimed to
be a more impartial judge
of surrounding prospects than others of
equal experience. . . .
The result was a clear conviction that
no rival candidate [to Jack-
son, and yourself especially] should be
brought into the field
until the affairs of the country should
have been understood as
they would exist in the spring of 1832.
. . . I made some publi-
cations in the Gazette, in August
and September, 1829. This
gave great offence to some of your most devoted
friends. When,
in 1830, movements were made in Kentucky
which finally led to
the Baltimore Convention, I again ventured to express
my disap-
probation and was again rebuked in no
very measured terms.
The result of the Kentucky elections of
1831, as I thought, fur-
nished another proper occasion to press
my views. . . . The as-
saults made upon me at Louisville and
Lexington, by new papers
established under the auspices of your
particular friends provoked
23 Ibid., July 18, 1832.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid., July 19, 1832, August 16, 1832.
400 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
some retorts, of an unpleasant
character, and . . . my wounded
feelings found no balm in the perusal of
a letter from you to Mr.
Conover, in which my 'fidelity' was
greatly discussed, as if I could
owe any fidelity distinct from my own
conscientious opinions re-
specting what was the true interests of
the country. . . . I did not,
however, permit myself to change my
course. I enlisted under no
banner, for I could not brook the terms
of fealty which claimed
to control my judgment and silence my
voice, at the same time,
unless I would consent to join a chorus
to be set for me. . . .
At this time I was formally denounced in
the National Journal,
and from thence I have been under the
ban. . . .
"A large body of your original
friends in Ohio have united
in the views I have entertained. . . .
We have preserved our Judi-
ciary and Executive and have sent Ewing
and Corwin to Congress,
at the least. We think that the most
effectual mode of subversing
the general cause is to take care of
affairs in our own State, and
that our brethren in other states
instead of reading lectures to us,
would do better to manage successfully
affairs at home.
"Before you receive this, you will
probably hear from Co-
lumbus of some matters now in agitation
there. . . . 'Coalition'. . .
with the Anti-Masons . . . One principal
object of this letter is to
request you to assure our common friends
that we are . . . doing
the best we can to sustain the December nomination at
Balti-
more. . . ."26
As to Anti-Masonry, Hammond considered
it "a
monstrous affectation" which had
no reason to make
"the extirpation of Masonry a
primary and paramount
national concern."27 Yet he realized that practically
the third party held the key to the
only possible hope
of success for the National
Republicans. By the spring
of 1832 he could readily see that the
only hope for his
political friends to carry Ohio was by
some union with
the Anti-Masons. This admission was a
difficult one for
Hammond, since he had previously
expressed a doubt as
to whether Wirt were preferable to
Jackson.28 But now
26 C. Hammond to [Henry Clay],
Cincinnati, June 13, 1832.
27 Cincinnati Gazette, October
13, 1831.
28 Ibid., October 13, November 3, 1831.
A Life of Charles Hammond 401
he viewed the defeat of Jackson as the
great desideratum
and indicated that all anti-Jacksonians
might well unite
on Wirt, "incomparably the
superior of President Jack-
son and little, if anything, behind Mr.
Clay or Mr. Cal-
houn."29 In Ohio, at
length, a list of electors supposedly
agreeable to both the Anti-Masons and
the National Re-
publicans, was drawn up, but it went
down to defeat
before those who sought the reelection
of Andrew Jack-
son.
Almost as soon as the election results
were definitely
known, the focus of attention was
transferred to South
Carolina, where the nullification of
the tariff of 1832
was being decided upon by a convention
in that State.
From Hammond, such a movement received
no sym-
pathy. He at once denounced the address
of the Con-
vention of South Carolina as "a
labored effort to mis-
represent the objects and effects of
the system of protec-
tion" and insisted that the issue
involved was not "jus-
tice or dissolution of the union, but
submission peaceably
to the will of the majority, or
submission by compul-
sion."30 For once Moses
Dawson of the Cincinnati
Advertiser (Jacksonian) and Hammond of the Gazette
were in agreement, and when the former
suggested a
town meeting to denounce nullification,
it was heartily
endorsed by the latter.31 Hammond
ridiculed the pro-
posal of the Richmond Whig that
protection be aban-
doned to conciliate the South:
"Now our friend of the Whig proposes
that six millions of the
same family shall consent to the
depreciation of the value of their
own labor, to propitiate three million
of their brethren, whose
29 Ibid., May 3, 1832; Ibid., June 7, 14, 1832.
30 Cincinnati Gazette, December
13, 1832.
31 Ibid., December 15, 1832.
Vol. XLIII--26
402 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
great object is to enhance their profit
upon the labor of others,
whom they control as their property."
The editor of the Whig expressed
profound grief
that "Hammond, a Virginian by
birth, a profound
thinker, and influential
politician" would take the
Northern point of view. A yielding of
this involved a
sacrifice of merely dollars and cents,
he declared, while
with the South's position was involved
its liberty. Ham-
mond, however, political realist that
he was, scoffed at
the matter being anything but an
economic one on either
side.32 With the passage of
the Compromise Tariff, full
support was given it by the Cincinnati
editor, who pro-
claimed its author (Clay) "of more
distinction--of ten-
fold more usefulness than the
President." 33 Likewise,
the Force Bill received his
approbation, though he re-
gretted the popular designation of it
as "the Bloody
Bill" as a poor "artifice to
exasperate vulgar preju-
dice." 34
In the fall of the same year, when the
government's
removal of deposits from the U. S. Bank
was begun,
Hammond asserted that the chief
objection to the re-
moval was "the precedent of a
President of the United
States usurping the powers confided by
law, to the head
of an independent department." 35
When the resulting
contraction of credit created serious
hardships in many
places, he asserted that the only
solution was the grant-
ing of a recharter.36 Yet he
realized well the unpopular-
ity of the institution, and early the
next year wrote de-
32 Cincinnati Gazette, January 4,
1833, February 6, 1833.
33 Ibid., March 14, 1833.
34 Ibid., March 20, 1833.
35 Ibid., August
19, 1833; October 5, 1833,
36 Ibid., November 5, 1833.
A Life of Charles Hammond 403
spairingly to Senator Thomas Ewing: The
Bank "is a
heavy weight to carry and keep with it
popular senti-
ment. The right of the matter is one
thing. But we
know right has no peculiar
claims or recommendation to
public regard."37
In the fall of the following year the
Democrats in
Ohio were highly successful in the
state elections. Ham-
mond, as usual, went to Columbus to
report proceedings
in that city. "The political
surface is as smooth as an
unruffled sheet of water," he
wrote. "The majority is
decisive; the antagonist party is
powerless. But the
undercurrents are crossing one another
a little roughly
at the bottom."38 One of the
reasons for dissension
within the Democratic party of the
State was a lack of
unity on the subject of the Ohio Life
Insurance and
Trust Company, a corporation chartered
in February,
1834, by a Jackson Legislature, with
one-half of its
capital devoted to the banking
business. Some Cin-
cinnati Democrats were personally
interested in the
institution, but others looked upon it
as monopolistic
in character, and a bill for the repeal
of its char-
ter was introduced in the Ohio
Legislature.39 Ham-
mond entered the lists in his editorial
capacity, declaring
that the repeal proposal struck
"fundamentally at the
security of all property" and was
"utterly impotent" to
obtain its object."40
Other questions of moment upon which
Hammond
37 C. Hammond to T. Ewing, Cincinnati,
March 27, 1834. Ewing
Papers, Library of Congress.
38 Cincinnati Gazette, December
11, 1835.
39 Huntington in Ohio Archaeological
and Historical Society Publica-
tions, XXIV, 140, 143.
40 Cincinnati Gazette, February
18, 1836.
404
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
naturally took a stand during the next
few years in-
cluded the Ohio-Michigan boundary
dispute, the Can-
adian Rebellion of 1837, and the
annexation of Texas.
The first of these problems, involving
several hundred
square miles of territory westward from
Maumee Bay
(near what is now the site of Toledo)
reached a climax
during 1835 and 1836. Robert Lucas,
Ohio's Chief
Executive at the time, took a decided
position in defense
of Ohio's claims. Hammond thought his
attitude to be
too hasty and warlike and urged a
reference of the whole
matter to the Supreme Court.
"Nothing can be more
ridiculous," he wrote editorially,
"than this parade of
arms and munitions of war. It is truly
'a tempest in a
tea pot.' Force cannot possibly settle
it; and a resort to
force is not only unlawful, criminal,
according to cir-
cumstances, in one or in both
parties."41 Later he em-
phasized the same point of view,
expressing a belief in
the essential justice of Ohio's
position, but advising a
careful weighing of possible courses of
action that the
ultimate good of the whole might be
secured. For-
tunately for all, the matter was
settled without blood-
shed by a Congressional act that sought
to adjust the
matter with fairness to both Michigan
and Ohio.
With the development of a rebellion in
Canada in
1837, Hammond announced himself as
"a careful and
attentive observer" of Canadian
difficulties and griev-
ances. He considered the circumstances
to be such as
not to warrant revolution. The
agitators, especially
Papineau, he believed to be "low
and vulgar, character-
ized by none of that dignity of
thought, that elevation
of conduct that marked the patriots who
took the lead in
41 Ibid., April 14, 1835, March 27, 1835,
A Life of Charles Hammond 405
the American revolution."42 In spite of
opposite politi-
cal views on other matters, Hammond
voiced approval of
Van Buren's declaration of neutrality
in the face of "a
loud-mouthed cry of liberty and
universal freedom" pro-
ceeding from those who, in his opinion,
were ignorant
of the true principles of American
institutions.43 Later
he denounced the attack of the British
authorities upon
the Caroline, an American vessel
which was assisting
the revolutionists, as "cowardly
murderous"; but he con-
sidered the American forces to be
"a daring congrega-
tion of outlaws, destitute of every
feature of national
character," and he compared the
Canadian seizure of
the Caroline to Jackson's taking
of Pensacola from the
Spanish in 1818.44 The
boundary dispute with Great
Britain over territory along the border
of Maine he
deemed too unimportant for warlike
gestures, since it
involved but "a few acres of pine
hills, good for nothing
but the timber that grows on
them." At the same time
he warned against a too violent
expression of patriotic
fervor:
"When open desperadoes and rash
politicians engage in vio-
lent conflicts, calling for national
interference, it is forthwith
assumed that we, our nation, must be right. And this
must be
maintained without inquiry, and even
against a clear contrary
conviction."45
Earlier, when enthusiasm for the Texas
Revolution
had run strong in Cincinnati, Hammond
took an equally
pacific tone, declining to sound
"the notes of glory and
chivalry" for the Texas heroes
"in the highest key,"
42 Cincinnati Gazette, December
20, 1837, February 20, 1838.
43 Ibid., December
28, 1837.
44 Ibid., January 11, 1838, January 16, 1838.
45 Cincinnati Gazette, March 15, 1839.
406
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
since he had no "appetite for
war" and believed it his
duty to maintain a strict neutrality.46
After the secur-
ing of independence, he, however,
favored the recognition
of Texas.47 Proposals to go
further and to annex Texas
he believed to be merely schemes of
southern politicians
who had persuaded the Administration to
wink at the
violation of national and international
law and to trump
up "a parcel of State
controversies" with a manifest de-
sire of waging war over them.48 When
Texas withdrew
her application for admission to the
Union he expressed
genuine satisfaction and commented that
her territory
was large enough for an independent
state and was "so
situated as to engender no collision of
local geographical
interests."49
During the period of the
eighteen-thirties Hammond
continued a lively interest in
presidential campaigns.
Even before the second inauguration of
Jackson, Ohio-
ans had been looking forward to the
campaign of 1836.
The friends of Justice John McLean of
the United
States Supreme Court were eager to
secure adequate
newspaper support in the State, and
some headway was
made in the enlistment of suitable
newspaper support.
Late in 1833, in commenting upon the
circumspec-
tion of some newspapers as to an
indorsement of Mc-
Lean, Hammond asserted that such an
attitude was jus-
tifiable. But he scouted the suggestion
that the Justice's
principles were unknown as to the bank,
the tariff, and
internal improvements, all of which he
declared the lat-
46 Ibid., June 3, 1836.
47 Ibid., December 20, 1836.
48 Ibid., Oct. 19, December 12, 1837, January 3, 1838.
49 Ibid., May 5, 1838.
A Life of Charles Hammond 407
ter supported in a moderate way.50
Hammond seems to
have thought it worth while to test the
strength of this
candidate and urged the launching of
the movement
among the Jacksonians of Butler County,
whence it
might spread throughout the State of
Ohio.51 McLean
himself wished that the first
demonstration should be
made in his home county of Warren and
his wishes were
complied with, by the organization of a
meeting at
Lebanon on December 14.
Other meetings followed. Hammond
indicated that
if a considerable group of former
Jacksonians should
indorse McLean, he would be in favor of
the Whigs
coming forth to give him additional
support,52 but only
if success was certain enough to avoid
a House elec-
tion.53 Within a short time,
however, Hammond was
observing that those who had come out
for McLean in
December were "hauling off"
in Cincinnati and else-
where and that there was evidence that
McLean was
aligning himself with the
Anti-Administration Anti-
Bank forces.54
The candidacy of General James Findlay
(who like
McLean had abandoned an earlier
enthusiasm for
Jackson) for the governorship of Ohio
in 1834 against
the Democratic incumbent, Robert Lucas,
was looked
upon as a test of McLean's strength.55
Findlay was de-
feated, but Lucas's majority was
materially reduced
from that of two years earlier and the
anti-Jacksonians
50 Cincinnati Gazette, November
15, 1833.
51 J. Taylor to J. McLean,
Cincinnati, November 4, 1833.
52 Ibid.; Geo.
Graham to J. McLean, Cincinnati, November 14, 1834.
53 Cincinnati Gazette, March 4, 1833.
54 C. Hammond to T. Ewing, Cincinnati,
March 27, 1834.
55 J. Sloane to John McLean, Ravenna,
September 1, 1834; Geo.
Graham, Jr., to John McLean, October 15,
1834.
408 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
secured control of the next
Legislature.56 This fur-
nished hope that Van Buren's influence
in the State was
not in the ascendency,57 and
efforts were then directed
toward the State Legislature. It was
anticipated that a
declaration for McLean might be made in
that body.
The plan was to secure an endorsement
of McLean by a
majority of the members of the
Legislature, if possible,
and by other friends who were in attendance
at the
Federal Court. It was hoped, of course,
that this would
be the stimulus for similar action in
other states.58 Some
of the anti-Van Buren members of the
Legislature
wished to hold out a little longer on
the proposal,59 but a
paper was placed in circulation, at
first more or less
secretly looking forward to the end in
view.60 For a
time only fifty signatures of members
of the Assembly
could be obtained, and it was deemed
wise not to present
the endorsement to McLean unless
fifty-five members
would sign (a majority of the 108
legislators in both
houses). Viewing the situation as a
whole, the Whig
members, meeting on the night of
December 19, deemed
it expedient to defer the matter until
the first Monday
in January.61 Hammond,
observing developments in the
Ohio capital, then wrote to Senator
Ewing that the
legislative caucus had been a failure.
He suggested that
the Ohio Whigs, nevertheless, should
express their ap-
56 Niles' Register, XLVII, 138; Cleveland Herald, November 19, 1834;
Hamilton Intelligencer, October
30, 1834.
57 E. Whittlesey to John McLean,
Washington, November 1, 1834.
58 Cincinnati Gazette, December
22, 29, 1834.
59 Letter of Hammond from Columbus in Ibid.,
December 23, 1834.
60 David T. Disney to M. Van Buren,
December 18, 1834, Van Buren
MSS., Library of Congress.
61 John
M. Creed to T. Ewing, Columbus, December 20, 1834. Id. to
id., December 22, 1834. Ewing MSS.
A Life of Charles Hammond 409
proval of McLean and their confidence
that he would
carry the State. To minimize antagonism
in other
states, they should declare their
ultimate intention of
supporting the candidate who generally
received the
favor of the party.62
This proposal was followed, and before
the end of
the month, an Address of the
"Democratic Republican"
members of the Legislature and others
in attendance at
the Circuit Court in Columbus,
recommended McLean
for the presidency.63 The movement
failed to gain
the momentum that was desired, and
Hammond, analyz-
ing the secret springs of the
opposition, sensed the im-
portance of the ambitions of Clay and
Webster in pro-
ducing that result.64 At
length McLean wrote under
date of August 31, withdrawing from the
contest.65
Hammond asserted that McLean's
retirement from the
race was ill-timed and calculated to
have a bad effect
upon the fortunes of the Whigs at the
fall elections. It
would "deploy the Judge's friends
in favor of Van
Buren." The Cincinnati editor
maintained that this
charge was borne out by an article in
the Western Star
(Lebanon) October 2, in which a group
of former Mc-
Lean supporters had come out for Van
Buren.66 The
suggestion that an intention of
producing such a result
was the purpose of McLean can receive
no credence, and
62 C. Hammond to T. Ewing, December 22,
1834. Ewing MSS.
63 Ohio State Journal, December 31, 1834; Cleveland Advertiser, Jan-
uary 8, 1835.
64 T.
Ewing to C. Hammond, Washington City, February 8, 1835.
Ewing agreed as to the potency of this
opposition.
65 Ohio State Journal, September 18, 1835; Cleveland Whig, September
22, 1835.
66 E. P. Langdon to J. McLean,
Cincinnati, September 30, 1835, Mc-
Lean MSS.; Ohio State Journal, October
9, 1835.
410 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
the Justice at once emphatically denied
the assertion.67
One of the writers of the article in
the Western Star also
wrote to Hammond declaring that McLean
had never
directly or indirectly attempted to
influence any of the
local committee to support any other
individual for the
presidency.68
Besides Clay and McLean, another Whig
aspirant to
the presidency was Daniel Webster. He
had little fol-
lowing in the West, however, and
Hammond regretted
that the ambitions of the Massachusetts
senator were
such as to hinder the union of the
party upon some other
individual. In the Southwest, Judge
Hugh L. White
appeared as another contender for Whig
support. Ham-
mond described White as "a sound
lawyer, possessing
a high private and professional
character, and as a man
not likely to be moved by impulse to
adopt and push to
dangerous extent, doctrines hostile to
the true spirit of
the constitution." As a
presidential possibility, how-
ever, the Cincinnati editor found him
only more desir-
able than the wholly objectionable Van
Buren.69
Hammond's trusted friend, John C.
Wright, was one
of the earliest advocates in Ohio of
William Henry Har-
rison for the presidential nomination,
and in January,
1835, Wright was chosen by a Harrison
meeting in Cin-
cinnati to draft an address to bring
him to the attention
of the people of the United States.70
A year later Ham-
mond himself actively participated in a
meeting at Co-
67 J. McLean to C. Hammond, Richland,
Ohio, October 7, 1835, Mc-
Lean MSS.
68 Ohio State Journal, October 16, 1835. From Cincinnati Gazette.
69 Cincinnati Gazette, December
27, 1834.
70 Ibid., February 21, 1835.
A Life of Charles Hammond 411
lumbus, at which he used his influence
to attempt to
secure an indorsement of Harrison.71
The matter was
delayed until Washington's Birthday, a
favorite occa-
sion for Whig state conventions in
Ohio. At that time
Harrison was formally nominated, and
Hammond pro-
claimed his thorough approval:
"Ground is now taken.
Let us not look back, but put our hands
to the plough in
a faithful and determined spirit. We must
rescue Ohio
from the thraldom with which she is
surrounded."72
Subsequently Hammond used his talents
both as an edi-
tor and as a citizen to promote
Harrison's advancement
to the presidency.73 The
latter did receive the electoral
vote of Ohio, but Van Buren was
successful in the na-
tion as a whole.
Almost at once some of Harrison's
admirers began
to bring forth his name in the hope of
better success in
1840. Hammond, however, felt that
political strife
should not be renewed at so early a
date.74 With the
passing of another year the Cincinnati
editor saw no
reason to delay a national convention
of the Whig party
to decide upon a presidential nominee.
"Individually,"
he asserted, "my first preference
would be Mr. Clay, my
second Mr. Webster. But I feel no right
to press my
individual predilections upon the
country. As an ob-
server of times and things, I am
satisfied that General
Harrison continues to be the most
available candi-
date."75 In mid-January, 1838, a
Hamilton County
meeting again brought forth Harrison as
a candidate,
71 Cincinnati Gazette, February 5, 1836.
72 Cincinnati Gazette, February
27, 1836.
73 Ibid., March 29, 1836.
74 Ibid., December
31, 1836.
75 Ibid., November 15, December 18, 1837.
412 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
and this action received immediate
support from other
sections of the State. Hammond believed
that caution
should be exercised, however, by the
followers of Har-
rison, who were, he thought, tinged
with a brow-beating
tendency that was
"reprehensible."76 He felt that with
prudent management either Clay or
Harrison might be
elected in 1840 but that both might be
defeated by "an
indiscreet struggle for the preference."
Unity within
the party was the great desideratum and
must be sedu-
lously nurtured.77 Rivalry
between the two Ohio Valley
Whigs continued, however, until Hammond
suggested
that it was "fast festering into
an incurable ulcer."78
As the time for the national Whig
Convention drew
near, he contended that the occasion
had come for the
Whig press to make a definite choice.
All recognized,
he admitted, the eminent fitness of
Clay, but the fact
remained that the Kentuckian had been
twice defeated
and plainly lacked the necessary
popularity with the peo-
ple. Harrison, on the other hand, was a
military hero,
a plain man of the farm and would
probably be accept-
able to the "conservatives,"
the Anti-Masons, and the
Abolitionists within the Whig party.79
When Harrison
received the nomination at Harrisburg,
Hammond
greeted the news with genuine
enthusiasm.80 But the
latter was not to see the former attain
the honor of being
the first Whig president, for in the
spring of 1840 the
Cincinnati editor breathed his last.
76 Ibid., January 15, 27, March 8, 1838.
77 Cincinnati Gazette, April
16, May 26, 1838.
78 Ibid., May 14, 1839.
79 Ibid., October 4, 1839.
80 Ibid., December
14, 1839.
A Life of Charles Hammond 413
7. THE MAN: HIS PERSONALITY AND
INFLUENCE
Charles Hammond was personally "a
sinewy, solid
man." Like another Cincinnatian of
the time, John S.
Gano, he wore his hair in a long queue.
During his lat-
ter years his face was deeply furrowed
with the lines
which indicated the strain of many a
passing season.1
His inheritance was not only an active
intelligence but
an imperious will and a vigorous
constitution. These
were factors in the impress Hammond left
upon the
State of his adoption as a court
reporter, a lawyer, a
political leader, an editor, and a
disinterested citizen.
His reports of the Ohio Supreme Court
were the first
printed records of that body. They
cover the years
from 1823 to 1839, and thereafter no
similar volumes
were issued for over a decade. In
addition to his salary
as official reporter, Hammond received
one hundred and
seventy-five dollars for each annual
number of the re-
ports, a sum paid to him by Isaac N.
Whiting, the pub-
lisher of the volumes.2
As a lawyer he was, as Thomas Ewing
later re-
counted, a professional model for
younger members of
the calling.3 He never
undertook suits merely because
large fees were offered. On one
occasion an insurance
company wanted a legal opinion in a
case involving the
non-observance of a technicality by a
policy-holder.
Hammond brusquely advised the officials
to be honest
1 W. T. Coggeshall, in Transactions
of the Ohio Editorial Association,
(1857), p. 73.
2 MS. Agreement between Hammond and
Whiting, Columbus, De-
cember 27, 1836.
3 T. Ewing to William H. Smith,
Washington, November 13, 1867.
414 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
with the man, as the latter had been
with them, and he
turned his fee over to a local charity.4
Jacob Burnet,
one-time United States Senator, wrote
that "as a con-
stitutional lawyer, he had no superior
in the State, and
but few, if any equals. His review of
Chief Justice
Marshall, in the case of the Bank of
the United States,
against the State Auditor of Ohio, was
perhaps never
excelled even by the great constitutional
lawyer of Bos-
ton."5
As a political leader he was able and
active. His in-
fluence in that field, however, was
diminished by an im-
petuosity which freqently prevented him
from following
a wholly consistent course. It was
further impaired by
his loyalty to the name of Federalist,
after the term
had become merely one of opprobrium.
His violent in-
dividualism prevented him at times from
extending
the modicum of cooperation without
which successful
political organization is impossible.
His own recogni-
tion of this quality is indicated in a
letter to Senator
Thomas Ewing:
"I have stood up all my life for the
right, and where am I?
A vituperated politician exposed to the
assaults of everyone who
does not agree with me in opinion--left
by those, in whose course
I have provoked anger, to defend my life
and my reputation as
best I may--Beat to death tomorrow, my
political coadjutors
would scarcely say more than this--'We
are sorry, poor fellow!
he had no prudence and was most
unmanageable. It is likely he
was of more injury than service to
the cause.'"6
When Hammond felt that a principle was
at stake,
he spared no pains in attempting to
secure the triumph
of the right. Thus, as a member of the
Ohio Legisla-
4 Coggeshall, op. cit., 78-79.
5 Cincinnati Gazette, April 8,
1840.
6 C. Hammond to T. Ewing, Cincinnati,
March 27, 1834. Ewing MSS.
A Life of Charles Hammond 415
ture, he registered his individual
protest on the journal
of the Ohio House of Representatives
against an act
which he thought might deprive certain
citizens of their
lawful property.7
As a journalist, according to the
well-considered
opinion of an official of the
Associated Press, Hammond
was "the most distinguished
American editor of his
day." In one respect, according to
this expert testimony,
he had never been equalled--"in a
consistent adherence
to principle through a long series of
years of profes-
sional labor."8 He sought to
discuss rather than to
avoid the liveliest subjects of the
day. On such occa-
sions, "he always had a mark, and
his editorial revolver,
carefully loaded, was leveled steadily;
the aim was sure,
and the charges were lodged in the
precise spot for
which they were designed."
Hammond's anti-slavery
attitude caused particular difficulties
for the proprietors
of the paper. On one occasion, S. S.
L'Hommedieu,
Hammond's son-in-law and one of the
publishers of the
Gazette, came to him with a letter announcing the with-
drawal of subscriptions by the entire
membership of a
club in Portsmouth. Hammond told
L'Hommedieu
that he would start a paper of his own;
but Hammond's
leadership made the Gazette in
those days, and he re-
mained.9
Whenever considerable responsibility
rested on an
opinion he employed the pronoun I,
instead of the
editorial we.10 The unravelling of the
tangled web of
7 Chillicothe Supporter, March 4,
1817.
8 W. H. Smith, Charles Hammond, 29.
9 Obituary notice of S. S. L'Hommedieu,
Cincinnati Daily Gazette,
May 27, 1875.
10 Coggeshall, op. cit., 80-84.
416 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
human motives is at best a difficult
task, and it may be
that Hammond's thoroughly independent
course was
due in part to an egoistic demand for
intellectual ex-
hibitionism. Fellow-editors of his own
party accused
him of being "vain of his talents
as a critic" and of be-
ing ambitious for applause "for
independence of charac-
ter as an editor," regardless of
the best interests of their
political organization.11 However
that may be, Ham-
mond's superior talents need not be
minimized. As
Noah H. Swayne, later Associate Justice
of the United
States Supreme Court, once said:
"It was Mr. Hammond's habit to
argue great questions of
constitutional law in the editorial
columns of the Gazette. The
depth, the fine discrimination, the
iron-linked logic of these dis-
quisitions, were surpassed by nothing I
heard from the first law-
yers of the land while on the Supreme
Bench." 12
In general his course was, moreover, a
thoroughly
consistent one. Although his views and
policy as to the
United States Bank altered as
circumstances changed
within the State, he was at all times a
steadfast sup-
porter of internal improvements and a
protective tariff.
He was, moreover, adamant in the
anti-slavery prin-
ciples which he had acquired from his
father.
He early induced the Ohio Legislature
to adopt his
views in declaring slavery to be at all
times a great moral
and political evil;13 but constitutional
lawyer that he
was, he realized that the Federal
Government could not
disturb the "peculiar
institution" in the states where it
existed. By 1826 he had abandoned his former hope
that the slaveholders would themselves
unite to abolish
11 Ohio State Journal, March 29, 1839.
12 W. H. Smith, Charles Hammond, 13.
13 18 Ohio Laws, 147. Hammond's
father had freed his own slaves.
A Life of Charles Hammond 417
the evil, as he noted their resentful
touchiness at every
hint of emancipation.14 His
views as to the basis of
such economic difficulties as arose in
the South were well
expressed in an editorial of 1831:
"Whilst the cotton planters, their
sons and daughters exist,
a privileged class, upon the labor of others, they
cannot success-
fully compete with the farmer, who
subsists himself and his fam-
ily upon their own joint labour, applied
in a manner best adapted
to the strength and intelligence of
each. The South may rest
assured that this law of nature cannot be nullified,
although those
of the union may be. It is to this law,
and not to the tariff laws,
they should attribute their present condition." 15
By 1835-1836 definite efforts were
being made in
Cincinnati (largely dependent upon
Southern trade) to
suppress discussion of the slavery
controversy. The
immediate reason for a crystallization
of opinion on the
question was the arrival of James G.
Birney in the city
in 1835 with the intention of
establishing an anti-slavery
newspaper. While the Post, the Whig,
and the Republi-
can in Cincinnati denounced Birney, Hammond of the
Gazette defended the principle of a free press and the
right of Birney to issue a paper of
anti-slavery convic-
tions. The protests and unfriendly
feeling in Cincin-
nati, however, caused Birney to begin
the publication of
the paper, the Philanthropist, at
New Richmond, some
miles up the Ohio River.
The activities of an abolition society
in Cincinnati,
in the meantime were arousing
opposition, and on Janu-
ary 22, 1836, the Cincinnati Republican
appealed to
merchants and others in the city to aid
in the suppres-
sion of the organization. Hammond,
although he per-
14 Cincinnati Gazette, April 7, 11, September 26, December 5, 1826.
15 Ibid., June 30, 1831.
Vol. XLIII-27
418 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
sonally disapproved of abolition
societies, felt that they
had a right to air their opinions; but
as an editor he
found himself "placed between
Scylla and Charybdis,"
as a portion of his fellow-citizens
demanded to be heard
upon a question that others considered
to be "of incen-
diary and murderous character." 16 A meeting of the
anti-abolitionists was held at the
Hamilton County
court-house, but Birney with
considerable courage at-
tended in person and asked the right to
be heard. He
was permitted the opportunity and
defended his cause
so well that the crowd did not resort
to any violence, as
may have been the previous intention.
The Gazette
gave a short report of the meeting. For
several months
thereafter all was quiet in
Cincinnati.17
During the year anti-slavery
discussions continued
to command attention in Ohio. Agitators
of the subject
met a most unwelcome reception at
Granville, in Licking
County, and a speaker who delivered a
discourse at the
United States Court House in Columbus
was refused
the use of the building a second time.
On July 12, 1836, a mob broke into the Philan-
thropist establishment (which had been moved to Cin-
cinnati in March), destroyed much
property, and dis-
mantled the press. Handbills were
issued, warning
against the re-establishment of the
paper. Later a com-
mittee waited upon Birney and demanded
that he cease
publication. He refused, and on the
night of July 30
a crowd again broke into the printing
shop and tore
down the presses. Shortly thereafter
Hammond was
16 Cincinnati Gazette, January
22, 1836.
17 William Birney, James G. Birney
and his Times (New York, 1890),
204-219.
A Life of Charles Hammond 419
one of a group who issued a call for a
meeting of friends
of law and order to take a stand
against the operation of
mob rule.18 Following the
death of Hammond four
years later, the Philanthropist, then
edited by a succes-
sor of Birney, paid tribute to the
"highly appreciated"
even "sublime" position taken
by Hammond during this
"stormy period" when the
strong points in his character
had stood out "in bold
relief."19
Yet Hammond frowned sternly upon
Abolitionists
whose "combinations to render
odious" the owners of
slaves, he considered to be "as
little allowable, in just
morals, as combinations to bring into
disrepute the in-
stitution of marriage, or to produce an
equal distribu-
tion of all property."20 On the
other hand, he con-
tinued to insist that always there
should be free discus-
sion of the slavery question. When John
Quincy Adams
made his determined stand in the
national House of
Representatives against the suppression
of all anti-
slavery petitions presented to that
body, Hammond
warmly denounced the South's assumption
of "an un-
constitutional attitude," and he
commended Adams' de-
fense of the right of petition,
"one of the great funda-
mental rights of freemen."21 On the same day
Hammond penned a letter of praise to
Adams, voicing
approval of his stand. The latter
acknowledged the re-
ceipt of the letter and mentioned the
cheer and encour-
agement which he had received during
his "severe trial"
from Hammond's friendly course.22
18 William Birney, op. cit., 240-248.
19 April 7, 1840.
20 Cincinnati Gazette, March 21,
1837.
21 Ibid., February 16, 1837, December 23, 1837, January 5, 1838,
March
19, 1839.
22 J. Q. Adams to C. Hammond, Washington, March 31, 1837,
in W.
H. Smith, Charles Hammond, 67-70.
420
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
Henry Clay's noted speech of February
7, 1839, in
the Senate, in which he scored the
Abolitionists for de-
manding the abolition of the domestic
slave-trade and
of slavery and the slave-trade in the
District of Colum-
bia, brought forth sharp comments from
Hammond.
The latter declared that he was much
disappointed in
the sentiments "unworthy the place
where spoken, and
him whose voice gave them
utterance,"23 and affirmed
his own belief in the right of Congress
to deal with
slavery in the federal district and to
prohibit traffic in
slave persons between the states.24
The great Ken-
tuckian whose voice once
"reverberated through the
land in tones to stir the souls of men
to deeds of daring,"
he found to be intimidated by the
$1,200,000,000 in-
vested in human beings.25
Other Cincinnati papers often joined in
a chorus
which asserted that Hammond's attitude
was not helpful
to the trade of Cincinnati from the
South. The editor
maintained, however, that the southern
subscription to
the paper had steadily increased over
the period of three
years and emphatically denied that the
commerce of the
city had been affected unfavorably.26
Hammond's attitude on religious matters
is worthy
of attention. His early home training
(in an Episco-
palian household) imbued him not only
with fixed politi-
cal opinions but with a strong
religious feeling. While
a resident of St. Clairsville he was
much interested in
the erection of the Episcopal Church
and served for a
23 Cincinnati Gazette, February
22, 23, 1839.
24 Ibid., February 25, 27, March 7, 1839.
25 Ibid., March 27, 1839.
26 Ibid., March 4,
May 2, 6, 9, 1839.
A Life of Charles Hammond 421
time as a lay delegate of that
communion.27 Later, when
Bishop Philander Chase was making plans
to journey
abroad to seek aid for a school west of
the Alleghanies
to prepare men for the ministry,
Hammond took an
active part in the project. He wrote to
Rufus King of
New York, on "very slight
acquaintance" to ask letters
of recommendation to bishops and other
clergymen in
England for Chase.28 King,
however, declined to give
the Ohio bishop the desired letters, a
refusal which was
a source of much chagrin to Hammond.29
Leaders of
the Episcopal Church in the East were
in fact somewhat
cold to the proposed new institution,
and Bishop Hobart
of that faith published his point of
view in England in
an attempt to defeat the prospect. This
infuriated Ham-
mond who committed to writing "six
sheets full of in-
dignation and bitterness," but
after sleeping over the
matter for several nights he decided to
"soften, moder-
ate, and curtail it" for
publication in a religious period-
ical conducted by the Rev. Mr. Hawley,
pastor of St.
John's Episcopal Church in Washington.30
Hammond's
review of Hobart's statements was
accordingly pub-
lished, but its tartness caused at
least one clergyman to
protest against it as offensive.
Hammond held no high
opinion of the clergy and replied to
this gentlemen of the
cloth with twelve pages of discussion
prefaced by an ex-
planation of his own purpose:
"My review was not prepared for the
purpose of ministering
to the complacency and self-applause of
church dignitaries. Its
27 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright, St. Clairsville, July 1, 1821.
28 C. Hammond to Rufus King, Cincinnati,
August 4, 1823.
29 C. Hammond to C. F. Mercer, Columbus, Ohio, January 1,
1825.
30 C. Hammond to J.
C. Wright, Cincinnati, March 19, 1824; id. to id.,
February 9, 1824.
422 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
object was to convict them of
incorrectness of conduct; of un-
seemly assumption of one, and unadvised
acquiescence in others.
An exposition of such matters could not
be made in the soft and
honied accents always so acceptable to
men clothed with office, in
church as well as state." 31
Fortunately for Chase's purposes, letters from
Henry Clay to Lord Gambier and Sir
Alexander Baring
were distinctly helpful, and sufficient
aid was secured for
the beginning of the institution at
Gambier near Mt.
Vernon, Ohio.
Early in 1826 Hammond published a
letter written
by Robert Owen, the Scotch reformer who
was later to
establish a Utopian settlement at New
Harmony, In-
diana. The document dealt with religion,
and although
Hammond disclaimed any prejudice for or
against
Owen, he expressed the view that the
real principles of
Owen should be fully understood so that
any error in
them might be fully combated.32 His
Protestant and
Catholic readers became involved in a
discussion of re-
ligious ideas. At length Hammond
himself entered the
lists to defend the Lutherans against
such Catholics as
considered the German religious leader
"as the most
infamous and depraved of mankind."33
He also per-
mitted himself to indulge in a lengthy
discussion of the
Waldensians and Albigensians. He
thereupon was
drawn into a heated controversy with
the Catholic clergy
of Cincinnati, but the independent
editor showed no fear
of retaliation from infuriated
communicant subscribers.
At length he announced to a friend the
end of the skir-
mish: "My Catholic priest
antagonist became furious
31 C. Hammond to Rev. J. M. [?],
Cincinnati, May 26, 1824.
32 Cincinnati Gazette, January
17, 1826.
33 Ibid., January 24, 1826.
A Life of Charles Hammond 423
with rage, called me hard names,--mean,
coward, no
gentleman,--and declined the contest .
. . quite a feather
in my cap."34
Hammond was ever a champion of
religious toler-
ance. Thus, when another Cincinnati
editor copied from
the New York Observer an article
which denounced
"popery" and the "Romish
Church," Hammond ur-
banely suggested that "reproaches
never make converts,
but always discredit those who use
them, in the estima-
tion of considerate and impartial
observers."35 A few
years later he took a similar position
when in October,
1836, Alexander Campbell, a founder of
the Christian
(Campbellite) Church, agreed to present
in a public dis-
cussion in Cincinnati the
"exposure and illustrations of
the absurd claims and usages of the
Roman Catholic
Church." The Catholic Bishop
Purcell agreed to defend
the position of his church, and four
hours on each of
eight days were devoted to the
arguments. Hammond
held the whole discussion (which had
developed out of
the question of the use of the Bible in
the public schools),
as a type of "war against the
Catholics," and regretted,
moreover, the intrusting of the
Protestant position to
one whom he called "the greatest
heresiarch of the Great
Mississippi Valley." This position
aroused the ire of
Campbell and of James G. Birney, each
of whom wrote
to the Gazette in protest. But
after the conclusion of
the debates Hammond insisted that the
attempt to manu-
facture opinion "on a wholesale
scale" had not succeeded
in aiding the cause of Protestantism
and quoted a re-
34 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, January 20, 1826; id. to
id., January 28, 1826.
35 Cincinnati Gazette, March 5,
1833.
424
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
port that Campbell had declared that he
had had ten
times more trouble in his venture than
in any previous
controversy of his career.36
Another matter of religious
implications on which
Hammond expressed himself arose out of
the attempt on
the part of certain zealous persons to
prevent the trans-
portation of mail on Sunday.37 Richard
M. Johnson of
Kentucky attracted attention by a
report which he sub-
mitted to the Senate, disapproving of
the practice. Ham-
mond was moved to sarcastic language on
the mistaken
enthusiasm of "Sabbath
observances, Sabbath schools,
Bible societies," and the like,
and at least one subscriber
threatened to withdraw his subscription
as a result.
Hammond, nevertheless, stood his
ground, observing
that the Sabbath was intended for
social intercourse as
well as religious ceremonies, that an
ill-advised zeal was
of all the enemies of vital religion
the most dangerous,
and that every effort to sustain
religion by legal enact-
ments must be doomed to failure.38
During his residence in Cincinnati,
Hammond was
not a full communicant of the Episcopal
Church, but he
spoke of that organization with the
possessive pronoun,
and intimates of the family noted that
he was accus-
tomed to the practice of family
prayers.39
Hammond was genuinely devoted to his
family. His
daughter, Almer, who was born in St.
Clairsville, Octo-
ber 12, 1813, was married to S. S.
L'Hommedieu of
Cincinnati, who later became a
well-known railroad
36 Cincinnati Gazette, January
24, 28, February 2, 4, 7, 1837.
37 Ibid., February 5, 1829.
38 Cincinnati Gazette, June
22, 24, July 29, 1833.
39 A. M. Bolton to W. D. Gallagher,
Dayton, July 27, 1840; Cincinnati
Gazette, January 28, 1837.
A Life of Charles Hammond 425
capitalist.40 Hammond's son,
Henry, in 1827 had de-
veloped some discouraging symptoms of
disease which
affected his respiration "and the
circulation of the ex-
tremities" and caused the father
to despair of his grow-
ing to manhood.41 Some years
after the death of his
first wife, Hammond was married to a
sister of Thomas
and Moses Moorehead of Zanesville.42
Hammond, like
many of his contemporaries, was
excessively addicted to
the use of intoxicants, and an
over-indulgence was a
contributing factor to his death. The
last two or three
years were marked by a distressing
illness. His final
efforts as a lawyer were in 1838 when
he made an argu-
ment before the Federal Circuit Court
which called forth
the admiration of Supreme Court Justice
John McLean,
who pronounced it to be one of the
ablest he had ever
heard.43 At about the same
time Edward Mansfield,
later editor of the Cincinnati Chronicle
and a literary
man of ability, was secured to assist
Hammond in his
editorial work. Late in 1839 Mansfield
was succeeded
by William D. Gallagher, also a man of
talents, who had
gained distinction as the proprietor of
the Hesperian, a
monthly miscellany published at Columbus
and then at
Cincinnati during 1838 and 1839.44
Hammond's name
as editor remained on the front page of
the paper until
after his death.
In about December, 1839, Hammond became
so de-
crepit that he was thereafter confined
to his home. In
40 American Ancestry (Albany, N. Y.), X (1895), 97.
41 C. Hammond to J. C. Wright,
Cincinnati, May 31, 1827.
42 R. C. McGrane in Dictionary of
American Biography, VIII, 202-203.
43 Cincinnati Gazette, April 8,
1840.
44 C. Hammond to William D. Gallagher,
Cincinnati, May 5, 1838;
W. H. Venable, Beginnings of Literary
Culture in the Ohio Valley, (Cin-
cinnati, 1891) 451,
426 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications
his feebleness his mind turned to old
memories, and he
wrote to Clay that he thought the
latter should be thank-
ful that the presidential canvass,
always full of degra-
dation and of late increasingly
humiliating, was not his
responsibility.45 Clay
replied to this friendly missive,
and the communication greatly cheered
the rapidly fail-
ing man. It was "better to him
than the doctor's pre-
scription."46 On April
3, 1840, at his residence at the
corner of Western Row and George
Street, Cincinnati,
the weary political leader died.47
He was buried in that
city, and following the establishment
of Spring Grove
Cemetery in 1845 the body was
re-interred there in the
family plot of his son-in-law, S. S.
L'Hommedieu.48
The Intelligencer, an ably
conducted paper at Hamil-
ton, Ohio, was bordered in black in the
issue following
receipt of the news of his demise. The
editor disclaimed
any personal acquaintance with Hammond
but asserted
that his own highest ambition would be
gratified in oc-
cupying Hammond's exalted place, for
the latter's jour-
nalistic abilities, he believed, were
not equalled in Ohio
or surpassed in the nation.49
One who had served Hammond as assistant
editor
wrote in commemoration:
"That he was singular in his
manners--abrupt in his address
--and severe in his hostility, will be forgotten, when
it is remem-
bered that he was benevolent in
disposition, upright in conduct,
45 C. Hammond to H. Clay, Cincinnati,
January 21, 1840. Clay MSS.
46 S. S. L'Hommedieu to H. Clay,
Cincinnati, April 20, 1840. Ibid.
47 Columbus Ohio Statesman, April 7, 1840;
Cincinnati Gazette, April
8, 1840.
48 The Cincinnati Cemetery of Spring
Grove: Report for 1857 (Cin-
cinnati, 1857) 7, 20.
49 April 9, 1840.
A Life of Charles Hammond 427
honest in his opinions, intrepid in
their expression; of noble
intellect, useful as a citizen, admired
as a writer, and respected as
a jurist."50
William D. Gallagher, who was serving
as Ham-
mond's assistant at the time of the
editor's death, penned
a poem, "Charles Hammond,"
seven stanzas in length,
two of which (the second and third
stanzas) may serve
to focus attention upon the great and
the lesser attrib-
utes of his character:
"Strong passions, spurning at
control,
Debasing appetites that gave
A galling fetter to his soul,
Made him their slave:
But 'neath a firm, unbending will,
High reason, and a heart of strength
That baffled oft, could struggle still,
They fell, at length.
"A keen perception of the Right,
A lasting hatred of the Wrong,
An arm that fail'd not in the fight,
A spirit strong
Arrayed him with the weak and low,
No matter what th' opposing pow'r,
And gave a terror to his blow
In battle's hour."51
50 Cincinnati Chronicle, April 4,
1840, copied in the Philanthropist,
April 7, 1840.
51 MS.
in collection in Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society
Library.
OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY Vol. XLIII OCTOBER, 1934 No. 4 |
|
COLUMBUS. OHIO THE F. J. HEER PRINTING CO 1934 |