days a week for five months, they were still unable to visit every place. The excitement produced by the contest was very great. The Democrats at first had but little hope of electing their candidate, but as account followed account of the wonderful effect produced by Douglas's speeches, their expectations took a different turn. As the day of election approached the anxiety became intense. It required great powers of endurance to go through the contest, and thousands who had firmly. believed that the slight frame of Douglas would fail under the protracted effort were astounded to hear that he continued as fresh to all appearances as his large and finely-formed opponent. In August the election took place; the excitement was only increased by the imperfect returns received. There was no telegraph nor railroads at that time, and returns were slow in reaching county seats, and still slower in reaching the seat of government. For weeks the state was in suspense. It was soon ascertained that the aggregate vote exceeded 36,000, and that the majority either way would not exceed twenty. Returns came imperfectly made up, and were sent back for correction. Errors and mistakes were discovered, and friends on both sides were industriously engaged for weeks in having these corrected. Hundreds of votes were cast for "Stephen Douglas," and for Douglas with various other and misplaced initials. Votes were in a like manner given for Mr. Stuart with his initials and given names transposed or misstated. The majority, however, of these errors were on the Douglas tickets. At one precinct on the canal Douglas lost a large vote by a trick of one of the bosses, who had tickets prepared with the name of S. A. Douglas printed in large type, but placed as a candidate for the Legislature. At last the state officers announced the official canvass, and by it Stuart was declared to have a majority of five votes.

On the 4th of March following (1839) Mr. Douglas addressed a letter to Mr. Stuart, setting forth the difficulties existing in ascertaining the true wishes of the majority of the people of the district, and proposing that they should sign an agreement to the following effect:

1. That the state officers should again canvass the vote according to the returns, and give to Stephen A. Douglas and John T. Stuart respectively all the votes polled for them, without reference to the spelling of their names; or, that the

state canvassers should throw out all the misspelled names, and count only those where the votes were recorded for John T. Stuart or Stephen A. Douglas.

2. That, in case the state officers declined, the recount be made by friends chosen by the parties.

3. That three persons be chosen to visit each county and examine the original poll-books, and report the number given for Stuart and Douglas respectively, by whatever initial; or report the number given for John T. Stuart and Stephen A. Douglas.

4. That both resign all claim to the election, and run the race over again.

These propositions, he said, he made to "avoid the trouble, excitement, delay, and expense of a contested election."

Mr. Stuart, on the 13th of March, answered by respectfully yet firmly declining each and every of the propositions, as he had no doubt as to the fact of his election. That ended the matter so far as Mr. Douglas was concerned. He had resigned his office to enter the canvass in 1838, and had, during the whole year, neglected his professional pursuits. He had neither the time nor the means to expend in prosecuting a contest for the seat.

The Democratic State Convention, which met in December, 1837, nominated James W. Stephenson for governor, and John S. Hacker for lieutenant governor. In April, 1838, Mr. Hacker withdrew from the contest, and Mr. Stephenson, who was charged with being a defaulter, also withdrew. Being a public defaulter had not, at that time, become such a political virtue as to entitle an individual guilty of it with the exclusive management and control of the party. It remained for a president in 1858 to make official crime the badge of executive approbation in Illinois. The state convention was recalled to assemble June 5th, 1838, and Thomas Carlin was nominated for governor, and S. H. Anderson for lieutenant governor. These gentlemen were subsequently elected, and entered upon the duties of their office in January, 1839.

The renown achieved by Douglas in his campaign with Mr. Stuart was most extensive. He was not considered as defeated; his election was claimed by the Democratic party; and the state officers, all of them belonging to the Opposition, were charged with having patched up the returns in order to give

the certificate to his opponent. This charge, however, was untrue as far as the state canvassers were concerned, though, doubtless, it was justly made against some of the county of ficials. On the 9th of October, 1838, there was a great banquet given at the city of Quincy to Governor Carlin and Mr. Douglas, at which the latter was the great object of interest. One of the active men at that demonstration was the Hon. I. N. MORRIS, who now represents that district in Congress. The Opposition were not indifferent to the result. On the 29th of September a grand barbacue was given at Springfield, in celebration of the great victory gained in the defeat of Douglas. It was attended by all the leading Whigs of the state, and so important was the result considered that one of the judges of the Supreme Court left the bench and presided on the occasion.

Mr. Douglas, after the election was over, entered into partnership with a Mr. Urquhart, and announced his intention to devote himself exclusively to the law. But it was idle for him to attempt to withdraw from politics. Already he had become the acknowledged champion of democracy, and the ablest debater on the stump. Nor was the acknowledgment of his ability confined to his efforts on the stump; he already was distinguished at the bar, and in all important cases he was found on one side or the other; yet, whenever the party demanded a defense, whenever Democratic principles required an advocate, he was called from his office, and put forward to meet the array of the opposition. At that time some controversy arose about the famous "resolutions of '98," which had been assailed or ridiculed by the Whig orators of that vicinity, and on the 9th of March, 1839, an immense meeting was held at Springfield, and Mr. Douglas addressed it in a learned and able explanation and defense of those resolutions. The speech is represented by the newspapers of the time as having silenced the Opposition in their derisive assaults upon those venerable landmarks of Democratic truth.

The Legislature met in the winter of 1838-39, and, on the 9th of January, Governor Carlin appointed the Hon. John A. M'Clernand secretary of state, and communicated the nomination to the Senate. The Senate, instead of confirming or rejecting the nomination, adopted a resolution declaring that, as there was no vacancy in the office of secretary of state, the

governor could not appoint any person to the office. The effect of this action of the Senate was to keep Mr. Alexander P. Field, the then secretary of state, in his office, and to deny to the governor the power of removal. The feeling growing out of this action was very great. After repeated efforts to obtain the office, after the adjournment of the Legislature, a bill was filed before the Circuit Court, and the case of the People, ex relatione John A. M‘Clernand vs. A. P. Field, came up in the Circuit Court before Judge Breese, and was argued elaborately. Judge Breese delivered a very able opinion, confirming the power of the governor to remove the secretary of state. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court. In July, 1839, the Supreme Court met at Springfield, and the appeal was taken up. The array of counsel was brilliant: Levi Davis, Cyrus Walker, Colonel Field, and Justin Butterfield represented Mr. Field, and Wickliffe Kitchell (attorney general), Jesse B. Thomas, S. A. Douglas, J. A. M'Clernand, and James Shields appeared for the relator. The argument occupied four entire days, and is represented by contemporaneous writers as having been of the very highest character. Mr. Douglas's argument was regarded as so conclusive by the parties agreeing with him that it was published in extenso in the papers of that day.

The court consisted of four judges. Judge Brown set up the plea of being a relative of one of the parties, and refused to sit in the cause; Judges Lockwood and Wilson overruled the decision of Judge Breese, thus confirming the right of Mr. Field to retain the office in defiance of the governor. Judge Smith dissented from this opinion.

For some considerable time previous to this decision, a party had been gradually forming, and daily growing more numerous, having for their purpose a constitutional reorganization of the Supreme Court. This decision confirmed many in the impression that the court had become a mere political instrument, which, through the exercise of judicial functions, was to be used to promote party ends. The court, invested as it was, together with the governor, with the veto power, was a formidable auxiliary of the Whig party. Its members, as the Council of Revision, could hold governor and Legislature in check, and accomplish indirectly all the ends sought by the minority. A new issue was from the date of this decision

formally presented to the people, and that issue was a reorganization of the Supreme Court, and in favor of that proposition the entire Democratic party in the state soon found itself arrayed.

On the 19th of November, 1839, the Whig candidates for presidential electors having already been nominated, the great presidential campaign of 1840 was opened at Springfield. Cyrus Walker, the Whig candidate, opened the debate, and Douglas was summoned to reply. The effect of that reply, though perfectly satisfactory to the Democracy, was not so to the Whigs. Mr. Lincoln was sent for, and, in the evening, made a long speech, to which Douglas again replied. The debate became an animated one, and was continued till midnight, Douglas replying to Lincoln and Walker as they successively relieved each other in the discussion. On the next day he addressed a Democratic mass convention, and made a very elaborate speech on the subject of the United States Bank. On the 9th of December the second Democratic state convention assembled at Springfield, and among the delegates were Judge Breese, who had by that time avowedly united with the Democracy, Willis Allen, J. A. M'Clernand, W. A. Richardson, Lyman Trumbull, James Shields, J. D. Caton, now of the Supreme Court, S. A. Douglas, Murray M'Connell, and others well known in the history of the state. In March, General Harrison having been nominated for the presidency by the Harrisburg Convention, the political fires were blazing extensively. A political discussion, continuing a whole week, took place at Jacksonville, in which Colonel Hardin and Colonel Baker, now of California, took the Whig side, and Mr. Lamborne and Mr. Douglas the Democratic side. On the last day of the discussion Mr. Douglas was announced to make the closing speech, and a newspaper now before us containing the account of the meeting states that the people came even from adjoining counties on horseback and in every description of vehicle to hear him. In April he was nominated for the Legislature in Sangamon County, but declined.

On the 6th of January the House of Representatives investigated certain charges preferred against the Hon. John Pearson, one of the circuit judges. Mr. Douglas, together with Messrs. Lamborn, Shields, Turney, and M'Connell, undertook the defense, and the result was a complete vindication of the