Chosen to the House in 1861 and reëlected each succeeding year, to and including 1865, his first period of service covered the strenuous and exciting years of the Civil War, when party spirit ran high, passion sometimes overcame judgment and the conduct of men was commended or condemned according to the varying standards of duty or patriotism by which it was measured. So far as Mr. Bingham's action was concerned, however, in this, or any other period of his legislative service, no man of any party who knew him well ever alleged or believed that it was, in any instance, inspired by other than an honest purpose and sincere desire to promote the welfare of his constituents and of the public at large. A thorough-going party man, he was, nevertheless, no narrow partisan. He regarded his party merely as a means or agency for the promotion of the general good; and he adhered to the Democratic party, defended its principles and policies and supported its organization, solely with a view to that end.

The House of Representatives in the Legislature of 1861, in which body Mr. Bingham first took his seat as a representative from Littleton, his colleague from that town being Douglas Robins, a substantial farmer, father of Rev. J. E. Robins, D. D., who has twice served as chaplain of the House in recent years, was organized by the choice of Edward Ashton Rollins of Somersworth as speaker; Edward Sawyer of Dover as clerk and Samuel D. Lord of Manchester, assistant clerk. Mr. Rollins received 191 votes against 114 for Aaron P. Hughest of

*Edward Ashton Rollins, born in Wakefield, N. H., December 8, 1828, died at Hanover, September 7, 1885. He was a son of Hon. Daniel G. Rollins, and removed with his father to Great Falls, in Somersworth, in childhood, where he attended school. He fitted for college at the academies in Gilmanton and Rochester, and graduated from Dartmouth in the class of 1851. He studied law in Baltimore and Great Falls, and at the Harvard Law School, and commenced practice at Great Falls. He served in the Legislature from Somersworth in 1860, 1861 and 1862, being speaker the last two years. Subsequently he was appointed cashier of the internal revenue bureau at Washington, and in 1865 was made commissioner, serving till 1869. He removed to Philadelphia, where he was for a time president of the National Life Insurance Company. In 1876 he established the Centennial National Bank, of which he was president till his death. He was a warm friend and liberal benefactor of Dartmouth College, and Rollins' chapel at that institution is the principal monument to his memory.

†Aaron P. Hughes, born in Windham, N. H., May 7, 1815, died at Worcester, Mass., February 23, 1864. Mr. Hughes studied law with

Nashua, the Democratic candidate. Although a new member, Mr. Bingham's standing as a lawyer and acknowledged ability, were such as to command prompt recognition at the hands of the speaker who assigned him to a prominent position upon the judiciary committee, then as always, embracing the ablest lawyers of the House. This committee included: James W. Emery of Portsmouth, chairman; Charles W. Woodman of Dover, Aaron P. Hughes of Nashua, Harry Bingham of Littleton, George W. Murray of Canaan, Elijah M. Topliff of Manchester, Cornelius V. Dearborn of Peterborough, Josiah H. Hobbs of Madison, Moses Eaton, Jr., of South Hampton and Stephen Kenrick of Franklin.

Among the more prominent members of the House at this session in addition to those named, were: Moses N. Collins of Exeter, David H. Buffum of Somersworth, Charles S. George of Barnstead, Joseph Q. Rolles of Ossipee, John W. Sanborn of Wakefield, Lyman D. Stevens of Concord, Natt Head of Hooksett, Martin H. Cochran of Pembroke, Francis N. Blood of Hillsborough, Ezekiel A. Straw of Manchester, Charles J. Smith of Mount Vernon, Moses A. Cartland of Weare, Daniel W. Bill of Gilsum, Charles J. Amidon of Hinsdale, Levi Chamberlain of Keene, James Burnap of Marlow, Paul J. Wheeler of Newport, Eleazer B. Parker of Franconia, Nathaniel W. Westgate of Haverhill, David Culver of Lyme, and Thomas J. Smith of Wentworth. Among all these the only present survivor is Elijah M. Topliff of Manchester, one of Mr. Bingham's associates of the

A. F. Sawyer of Nashua, and was admitted to the bar in 1843. He located in practice in Nashua and soon acquired distinction as an advocate. He was originally a Whig in politics, and was a delegate to the National Convention that nominated General Taylor for president in 1848. He served as postmaster of Nashua from 1849 to 1853 and was a member of the Legislature in 1854. In 1856 he joined the Democratic party and was prominent in its councils till the time of his death. He served in the Legislature in 1861 and 1862. He was also conspicuous in Free Masonry and was at one time master of the Grand Lodge of New Hampshire.

*James Woodward Emery was a native of Haverhill, Mass., born November 30, 1808. He graduated from Dartmouth College in 1830 and read law with Ichabod Bartlett at Portsmouth, whose partner he became, continuing till the death of the latter in 1853. He served in the House of Representatives in ten different Legislatures in 1843, 1844, ' 1846, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1861, 1872, 1873 and 1874, being speaker in 1873. He died at Portsmouth, November 16, 1891.

judiciary committee; and of the entire memberschip of the House that year very few survive, the names of William Nourse of Newport and Warren F. Daniell of Franklin, who also served his first term that year, being the only ones, aside from that of Mr. Topliff, recalled with certainty.

It may be noted that Mr. Bingham's first assignment to duty was made before the announcement of the standing committees, on the first day of the session, when he was named by the speaker as the minority member of a committee of three, to take into consideration the messages of Governors Ichabod Goodwin and Nathaniel S. Berry, the outgoing and incoming chief magistrates, both of whom addressed the Legislature in joint convention the former upon retiring and the later upon taking the oath of office and report what disposition should be made of the several subjects therein. Mr. Collins* of Exeter, upon whose motion the committee was appointed, and Mr. Cartlandt of Weare were his associates upon this committee, which in due time performed its duty and reported accordingly.

Mr. Bingham naturally and by general consent, took rank

*Moses N. Collins was born in Brentwood, April 15, 1820. He attended the academies at Gilmanton and Hampton Falls, and taught school for several years before entering upon the study of the law, which he pursued at Epping for a time, and concluded with Gen. Gilman Marston at Exeter, being admitted to the bar in 1857 and commencing practice in Exeter. He had represented Brentwood in the Legislature in 1855, and was elected from Exeter in 1861 and 1862, enlisting in the Eleventh New Hampshire Regiment the latter year, in which he was commissioned major. Subsequently he was promoted to lieutenant-colonel, being succeeded as major by Evarts W. Farr of Littleton. He was shot through the head and instantly killed in the Battle of the Wilderness, May 6, 1864.

†Moses A. Cartland was prominently known as a teacher and as a leader of the abolition movement. He was a native of the town of Lee, born November 17, 1805. He was a Quaker, educated in the noted Friends School at Providence, R. I. He established the famous Clinton Grove Academy in Weare in 1834, and was its principal for fourteen years, many able men there receiving instruction. Subsequently he was for a time principal of the Walnut Grove School in Lee. Later he returned to Weare and taught a year or two. He had a farm on Burnt Hill, near North Weare, where the last years of his life were passed. He was a cousin and close friend of the poet, Whittier, and was for a time his assistant in editing the Pennsylvania Freeman. He was also connected with other publications, including the New Hampshire Journal of Agriculture and Journal of Education. He was superintending school committee in Weare several years, but served in the Legislature only in 1861. He died in Providence, July 5, 1863.

with the leaders of the minority in the House, sharing with Francis N. Blood of Hillsborough, chairman of the Democratic legislative caucus and Aaron P. Hughes of Nashua, the party candidate for speaker, the honor and responsibility attaching to such position. As a member of the judiciary committee, he devoted himself earnestly to the important work in hand, and was immediately recognized by his fellow members as a man of great ability, resolute purpose, and sincere devotion to duty, giving every measure coming before the committee for consideration such attention as its merits demanded. He held position upon this committee during his entire legislative career, in both branches and it is safe to say that no man in the state, since the organization of the government, has exercised greater influence in shaping legislation. Many a wholesome measure has found its way upon the statute book through the support he gave it in the committee room, and many a vicious bill has been killed by his determined opposition in the same place. Indeed the judgment of no other man of any party, in any period of our history, has been more generally deferred to by his associates in the work of legislation, in all matters except those of a partisan nature, than was that of Mr. Bingham throughout his long period of service.

By far the most important measure that came before the Legislature of 1861, and the one whose presentation and consideration aroused the most earnest discussion, both in and out of that body, was what was generally known as the "Million Dollar Bill"- a measure entitled "An Act to Aid in the Defence of the Country," reported from the House Committee on Finance by Mr. Straw of Manchester on the 20th day of June and laid on the table to be printed and distributed on motion of Mr. Hughes of Nashua. By the terms of this measure the governor was authorized, with advice and consent of the council, "to take such measures as he deemed best for arming, equipping, disciplining, maintaining and transporting such military force of the state, as in his judgment may be needed for defending and maintaining in its full integrity the authority of the government of the United States, and the Constitution and laws thereof."

Expenses had already been incurred by the Governor on be

half of the state, in raising, equipping and transporting troops, and by the terms of this act, it was provided that "for the purpose of meeting expenses already incurred, or any that may be incurred under this act, or any other act to provide for the defence of the country,' etc., "the treasurer is authorized to issue bonds or certificates of debt in the name and on behalf of the state, to an amount not exceeding $1,000,000."

The position of the minority in the Legislature, in reference to this great war measure, which provided an appropriation so large as to render infinitesimal by comparison any former state appropriation for any purpose, and which clothed the Governor with power and discretion in the matter of expenditure and in the enlistment of men, such as no previous executive had ever exercised or held, was in accordance with the generally existing sentiment of the Democratic party of the state and country. The generally accepted position of the Democratic party in the early days of the Civil War period was that the power and authority of the federal government over all its territory and property, wherever located, was to be maintained at all hazards and that all attempts on the part of the Southern Confederacy to capture and hold government fortifications or reservations anywhere, or to invade the federal territory or that of any state not in revolt, were to be resisted and defeated at whatever cost. It was not generally held or believed by Democrats, however, that the general government would be justified in waging a war of subjugation against the seceding states; much less that it should carry on a war for the liberation of the southern slaves, which object was unhesitatingly avowed by some of the more radical leaders of the opposite party, even at that time. It was generally felt by Democrats, in and out of the Legislature, therefore, that this measure, considering the magnitude of the appropriation, and the vast power left by its terms in the hands of the governor, was unwarranted by the demands of the occasion, and effort was made to secure its modification in various directions, but without success.

The bill came up on second reading on Wednesday, June 26, when certain minor amendments were proposed and considered, but the measure was not then farther acted upon. On the fol