Part 23

Mr. Dodge, through all his offices of trust as well as private business, has maintained a character for integrity and honor. He is unassuming and affable, and well calculated to enjoy the handsome competency accruing from the rise of his early real estate purchases, and being of a remarkably kind and benevolent disposition, one of his chief pleasures arises from the consciousness of doing good, by assisting those who are in need, to the extent of his ability. During the war he was most active in the country's cause, and spent his time and means freely in furnishing substitutes and rendering comfort to the families of our brave defenders, and we think, more than anything else, this desire to promote the prosperity and happiness of mankind, gives character to him.

Mr. Dodge has resided on Euclid avenue over thirty years, having built the residence now owned by General Oviatt, adjoining the present residence of Mr. D. P. Eells, in 1838, the site at that time being outside the city limits. After a few years he sold this to Thomas Bolton, and in 1840, built a brick cottage opposite Brownell street, which he occupied about fifteen years, when it gave place to the present edifice, the land having been in the family since the year 1800.

James M. Coffinberry.

Judge Coffinberry is a native of Mansfield, Ohio, having been born in that town in 1818. He studied law with his father, Andrew Coffinberry, Esq., then located at Perrysburg, in the western part of the State, and upon his admission to the Bar in 1841, opened a law office in connection with his father in Maumee City. He very early obtained the public confidence, being appreciated for his high personal and professional integrity, and giving evidence of fine abilities as a lawyer and advocate, he was elected and served as prosecuting attorney for Lucas county for several years. About the year 1845, he removed to Hancock county, and purchased and edited the Findlay Herald, a Whig paper of that day, and for about ten years practiced his profession with credit and success in the large circuit of Hancock, Allen, Putnam, Van Wert, and Wood counties.

In 1855, he removed to Cleveland, where he entered very readily into a good practice, and for six years confirmed the good reputation which he brought with him, and took high rank at a Bar which numbers among its members sortie of the best lawyers in the State.

In 1861, he was elected judge of the Court of Common Pleas, and performed the duties of the office for his full term of five years, with credit to himself and to the eminent satisfaction of the public, and an appreciative Bar. The kind and genial traits are characteristics of Judge Coffinberry's mind, and his quiet manners upon the Bench made it always agreeable for both lawyers and suitors doing business in his court. His charges to the jury were always plain, clear, and forcible, and in the course of his judicial service, he delivered some very able opinions, verbal and written, which elicited the favorable consideration of the profession, and it is understood that no judicial opinion pronounced by him has ever been reversed on review of a higher court. The charge to the jury on the trial of Dr. John W. Hughes, for the murder of Tamzen Parsons, of Bedford, which took place in December, 1865, was acknowledged by the Cleveland Bar to be one of the ablest ever delivered from the Cuyahoga Bench.

Judge Coffinberry is remarkable for an apparently intuitive perception of legal truth, which gives to his argument at the Bar, and as a lawyer and judge, to his opinions, a tone of originality. He has a fine appreciation of the learning of the profession, but though not, strictly speaking, technical in his administration of the law, he is never unmindful of its nicest distinctions, but makes them subservient to his broad and liberal views of the case. He has now returned to the practice of his profession, and is regarded as among the best advocates of the Cleveland Bar.

While Mr. Coffinberry has won distinction as a lawyer, the following record will show that he is amongst our most enterprising and energetic business men, outside of his profession: He is president of the Midas Insurance Company; a director in the Willow Bank Coal Company; a director of the Tuscarawas Iron and Coal Company; was one of the projectors of the People's Gas and Coke Company, of the West Side; has been a director of the Mahoning Railroad Company; director and attorney for the Fremont and Indiana Railroad Company; took an active interest in the construction of the West Side street railroad, and also the Rocky River Railroad; he was a member of the City Council for two years, and president of that body.

In politics, he was formerly a Whig, but now acts with the Democrats. He was principal Secretary of the Great Union Convention that nominated the late David Tod for Governor.

Judge Coffinberry has been successful in almost every undertaking, and has richly deserved it.

James Mason.

No member of the Cleveland legal fraternity stands higher in the respect of his colleagues and the general public, both for legal abilities and personal qualities, than James Mason. As a lawyer he stands in the front rank of the profession, his extensive reading, well balanced judgment, and logical reasoning, making him one of the most reliable counsellors and successful practitioners, whether before a court or a jury, whilst no more valuable or respected citizen is found among the list of residents of Cleveland.

Mr. Mason was born in the Autumn of 1816, in Canton, Ohio, of Vermont stock, his parents having early emigrated to this State. He was carefully educated at a good school in Trumbull county, and spent two years in Western Reserve College. In 1835, he entered the senior class in Jefferson College and graduated with the class of 1836.

On leaving College he studied law with Hon. A. W. Loomis, in New Lisbon, Ohio, and was admitted to the Bar in 1839, when he practiced in partnership with his preceptor until 1845. With the close of this partnership he went abroad and spent some time in foreign travel, returning in 1851, when he removed to Cleveland and opened a law office. His abilities and assiduous attention to business soon brought him a large and remunerative practice. Among other business he became the legal adviser of the Cleveland & Toledo Railroad Company, and also one of its directors. The value of his connection with the company was speedily recognized and acknowledged. Business of the highest class came to him until he has come to find his time fully occupied by the best class of practice.

The duties of his profession, though laborious, are not allowed to engross the whole of his time to the exclusion of domestic pleasures and social enjoyments. The general culture of Mr. Mason's mind, in addition to his legal attainments, and his affable manner, make him an agreeable companion for social intercourse, and together with his sterling qualities as a man, and his patriotism as a citizen, have won for him a host of friends warmly attached to him, and loyally resolved to do him honor.

Mr. Mason was married in 1853, to Miss Caroline Robinson, of Willoughby. Of this marriage there are five children.

Daniel R. Tilden.

The name of Daniel R. Tilden has long been familiar in Cleveland and its vicinity. For fifteen years he has held the office of Probate Judge of Cuyahoga county, and from the nature of his office, has been brought into connection with a large proportion of the citizens, and become intimately acquainted with their personal and family affairs. Many of these business acquaintances became warm personal friends, and it is believed that neither by his official, nor by his private life, has Judge Tilden made one real enemy.

Mr. Tilden was born in Lebanon, Connecticut, November 5th, 1806, He received a fair common school education, and on reaching his eighteenth year, left his native State for the South, residing four years in North Carolina and Virginia. But the South was not a congenial soil for the son of the genuine Yankee State, so he turned his steps westward, and set out for Ohio. At Garrettsville, Portage county, he halted awhile, and then went to study law with Mr. Pierson, at Ravenna. To complete his legal education, he entered the office of R. P. Spalding, and studied with him for some time.

In 1831, a movement was on foot to agitate the question of abolishing slavery. The movement was exceedingly unpopular, and it required considerable nerve to profess abolition sentiments. Now, when no other principle is avowed, it scarcely seems possible that men, now among us in the prime of life, had to endure obloquy, ridicule, and even danger, for expressing sentiments that no one now dreams of dissenting from. Among the first to espouse the abolition doctrines was Judge Tilden. With Robert F. Paine he commenced the work of organizing an Abolition Society in Garrettsville, the first of the kind in Portage county. In this work he labored with unwearied zeal, and became extensively known as one of the most prominent and active of anti-slavery leaders.

In 1832, Mr. Tilden was elected justice of the peace, and continued in that office four years; soon after the conclusion of the term, he formed a law partnership with Judge Spalding, at Ravenna. This arrangement continued about four years, when he formed a partnership with W. S. G. Otis, which lasted about three years, and was terminated by Judge Tilden becoming prosecuting attorney, an office he held four years.

In 1842, Judge Tilden was elected to Congress as a Whig, from the district composed of Summit, Portage, and Trumbull counties, and was in the House of Representatives during the exciting debates relative to the annexation of Texas and the Mexican war. He, with twelve others, took a bold stand against the war, making several speeches of very marked ability. He and his associates, among whom were Gov. Vance, Columbus Delano, and Joseph Root, refused to vote for the bill furnishing means to carry on the war, because of the preamble to the bill, which said: "Whereas, we are, by the act of Mexico, become engaged in war," &c., &c. This, Judge Tilden and his associates considered false, they would not vote for the bill until it was stricken out, and the names of these thirteen were sent throughout the country surrounded with a funeral border.

At the Baltimore Convention that nominated General Scott, Judge Tilden represented Lake and Summit counties; and at the Philadelphia Convention that nominated Taylor, he represented Summit, Trumbull, and Portage.

In 1852, Judge Tilden removed to Cleveland and formed a law partnership with Hon. H. B. Payne. Two years afterwards he was elected Probate Judge, of Cuyahoga county, and filled the position with such marked satisfaction to his constituents that he was re-elected at the close of every term, and still holds the office he has filled for fifteen consecutive years.

When practicing law, Judge Tilden was distinguished for his abilities as an advocate, and his qualifications for the judicial office he fills is attested by his repeated re-elections to it. His officiai conduct has been marked by uniform kindness, attention to the duties of his office, and the interests of those having business with it, and a constant endeavor to do right by all, whether rich or poor, learned or ignorant. If he has committed any errors--and no Judge, from the Supreme Court down, but must plead guilty to some--they have been errors of judgment only, and not of interest. No one can deny to Judge Tilden unimpeached honesty of purpose, warmth of heart, and an earnest endeavor to deal justly with all men.

Charles W. Palmer.

Prominent among the young men of the profession who promise to take and worthily fill the places of the old leaders of the Cleveland Bar now partly superannuated and soon to retire from active life, is Charles W. Palmer.

Mr. Palmer was born in Norwich, New London county, Connecticut, September 8, 1826. Nine years after, his father, Joseph B. Palmer removed to Cleveland with his family, and was for a time engaged in the storage business on the river. He is now in the employ of the Cleveland & Pittsburgh Railroad Company. Charles had only the advantages of the common schools until he was sixteen, but before he reached that age he had manifested an industry at his books which promised well for his future. He taught school on "the ridge" West of Cleveland, walking out to the school house and back before and after school hours, and at the same time prosecuting his own studies. He prepared for College under Rev. S. B. Canfield and W. D. Beattie, of Cleveland, and when nearly eighteen was admitted to Western Reserve College at Hudson. He graduated in 1848, with the highest honors of his class. For two years after graduation he was principal of the High School in Akron, and the next year a tutor in Western Reserve College. Coming to Cleveland again after this, he studied law in the office of Judge Foote, and was admitted to the Bar in the Fall of 1853. In the Spring of the following year he made his first success in political life, being elected to the City Council. In the Spring of 1859, he was elected city attorney. The duties of this office he discharged satisfactorily to all, and found the practice it brought a material help in his profession. In the Fall of 1863, Mr. Palmer was elected prosecuting attorney for the county. Here he was brought very prominently into notice by the successful prosecution of several important cases.

In his profession, Mr. Palmer has been a constantly rising man, until now he is on one or the other side of most of the important cases in our courts. His reputation as a criminal lawyer is especially high. In 1865, he prosecuted the celebrated Hughes murder case successfully. Two years afterwards he defended McConnell, the murderer, and in 1868, defended Mrs. Victor, in one of the most remarkable poisoning cases ever brought into court. His argument in the latter case was a masterpiece of legal acumen, forcible exposition, and polished speech. Mr. Palmer began the practice of law in Cleveland in the firm of Palmer & Austin. Afterwards he was associated with R. B. Dennis, Esq., and at present he is senior in the firm of Palmer & De Wolf.

In July, 1819, Mr. Palmer married Miss Sabrina Parks, of Hudson, Ohio. This estimable lady died in little more than a year after the marriage, leaving a son but a few weeks old. The son still survives. In 1855, Mr. Palmer married Miss Minerva Stone, a sister of Mr. S. S. Stone, of Cleveland. This second wife died in childbed eleven months after marriage, and in 1858, Mr. Palmer married his present wife. She was Miss Lucy Hubbell, a daughter of Calvin Hubbell, Esq., of New York. By this marriage there is a son now about ten years old.

In politics, Mr. Palmer has been a member of the Republican party since its organization. He gave the war for the Union an earnest, active and powerful support. No man appreciated more thoroughly the principles involved in that contest, and few indeed have the power to present those principles so well as he. His party services have been numerous and efficient. A man of fine personal appearance, with a fair, open face, which carries with it the conviction of sincerity in all he says, possessed of a grace of manner which makes it a pleasure to hear him on any subject, and having such a command of language as to enable him to put his thoughts in the fittest words, he is of course a favorite speaker always. He has a conscientiousness in all he does, which never allows him to treat carelessly any matter, even in an unexpected public speech. There are few men in Cleveland who carry so much weight in speaking, whether it be before a court and jury, or to a general assembly of people. Taking an intelligent interest in all public affairs, he yet devotes himself studiously to his profession, in which he has as bright prospects as any man at his age need wish for.

William Collins.

William Collins was born at Lowville, New York, the county seat of Lewis county, February 22, 1818. He was a son of Ela Collins, who was a son of General Oliver Collins, of Oneida county, New York, and Maria Clinton, daughter of Rev. Isaac Clinton, of Lowville.

Mr. Collins read law with his father, and was admitted to practice in the courts of New York, at Rochester, in September, 1813. In October, 1843, he formed a copartnership with his father, under the firm name of E. & W. Collins. They continued in active and successful practice until the death of his father, in 1849. Immediately after Mr. Collins' admission to the Bar, he was elected, as the successor of his father, public prosecutor. This office he held until 1846, when he resigned, having been elected, by the Democratic party, in November, 1846, at the age of twenty-seven, a member of the House of Representatives, in the Thirtieth Congress. The district represented by him was composed of Lewis and St. Lawrence counties. He was in Congress in the years 1847-8-9, during the first agitation of the question of extending slavery to the free territories. Mr. Collins opposed the proposed extension with much zeal and ability. Among his speeches will be found one delivered July 28, 1848, on the "Bill to establish the territorial government of Oregon," advocating the Wilmot Proviso. Apart from its merit as a brilliant literary production, it contains many passages that will be read with much interest by the general reader, as showing the beginning of the end at which we have arrived. Slavery itself having now become a matter of history, we think it will be of interest to introduce the following extracts from the Congressional Globe of July, 1848:

I shall assume, then, sir, that the institution does not exist in our late Mexican acquisitions, but that it has been effectually prohibited. The real question, then, is shall the laws securing _freedom_ in these Territories be abolished, and _slavery_ established? This is indeed, sir, a question of the gravest magnitude. To millions of the oppressed and degraded children of Africa, it is an issue upon which depends all that is dear to them in life--all that is bitter in the hour of death. It seems to me, sir, that they are even now stretching forth their dark hands, and beseeching us, in the name of the God of liberty whom our fathers worshipped, to remove from them the poisoned cup of bondage--to forge for them no more chains. The termination of this question also involves the dearest interests of every person in this country who desires to sustain himself by honorable labor. It intimately concerns our national honor, reputation, and progress in the great family of nations. The two hundred and fifty thousand immigrants who annually land upon our shores are in pursuit of 'free soil and free labor.' Can we pronounce in favor of slavery, without danger to our experiment at self-government? If we thus decide, what will become of the cherished hopes of the friends of civilization, Christianity, and human progress?

Those who insist upon preserving freedom in the Territories, have no desire to disturb the institution of slavery in the States. The Constitution confers upon them no such authority. They could not interfere with it if they would, and they would not if they could. They have ever heretofore been, and still are, ready strictly to fulfil the constitutional provisions upon this subject.

I shall aim to discuss this question with a proper regard for the most sensitive feelings of our brethren of the slave States, but also, sir, with a plainness commensurate with its profound importance. The legislatures of thirteen of the States of the Union, including Delaware, which still has two thousand slaves, have passed resolutions instructing their Senators and requesting their Representatives in Congress to oppose any further extension of slavery. There is but one sentiment upon this subject throughout the free States--it is that of eternal and _uncompromising_ hostility to the project. They will never consent that the free and virgin soil of the Territories shall be blighted and cursed by the tears of the slave, while they have a will to determine, or a muscle to resist.

The proposition to make this Government the instrument for planting slavery upon soil now free, is regarded by a few at the North as so improbable and monstrous, that they have refused to believe that it is seriously entertained. Startling as the proposal is, it is nevertheless true.

* * * * *

Another argument employed by these apologists is, that the 'Proviso,' or a law prohibiting slavery in these Territories, is unnecessary; that it is an abstraction--a 'firebrand' employed by demagogues and factionists to kindle strife in the Democratic party; that the Territories are now free, and that they will so continue, unless an act of Congress is passed establishing slavery. It is impossible to avoid asking ourselves why, if these gentlemen are sincere--if they truly believe that slavery can not and will not go there, and they do not desire that it should--why they so strenuously oppose the passage of such a prohibition? If their views are correct, then such a law would be a mere harmless superfluity. But, sir, this '_firebrand of freedom_' is a thing more exalted and noble than a mere abstraction. It is wielded by men of strong arms, adamantine will, and hearts animated by the divine impulses of patriotism and liberty. They have registered a vow in Heaven to employ every lawful and constitutional means to roll back the dark tide of slavery from the temple of Freedom, and vindicate the character of the Republic from the disgrace and reproach of establishing slavery in a free territory. We are no abstractionists. The Representatives in this Congress from the fifteen slaveholding States of the Union, without an exception, and without distinction of party, avow an intention to carry their slaves into these Territories, and there hold them in bondage. They assert, with passionate vehemence, that they have such a constitutional right. They have even told us, sir, that, regardless of the remonstrances of the people of the North--heedless of any prohibitory law of Congress upon the subject, they would invade the free soil of the Pacific, and take with them their slaves, and weapons of defence! Are these declarations abstractions? Do they make no appeal for immediate, energetic and prohibitory legislation?