He was born in Harford County, Md., in 1795, and died in March, 1864, it is believed at the old Fountain Inn, which stood on the site of the Carrollton Hotel on Light Street, but his residence throughout his professional life was on the outskirts of Bel Air. There remains little accurate knowledge of his ancestry or of his boyhood and early manhood, and for what I have been able to secure I am under obligation to the kindness of Messers S. A. and F. R. Williams, whose notes I have used freely and often literally. His earliest known Scott progenitor was Daniel Scott of Harford County, who died in 1720, whose son, Daniel, was a member of the General Assembly of Maryland, and a man of prominence in the affairs of the State between 1720 and his death in 1745. Daniel seems to have been a favorite name in the Scott family, and that was the name of Otho Scott's father who died in 1824.

It does not appear that the son enjoyed in youth other than meagre educational advantages, but he was a man of the type of that period, who without the aid of trained instructors, or liberal access to the storehouses of learning, through introspection, the study of a few great works, and concentration of thought, drew out their native faculties and worked out their own education. He studied law in Bel Air under Israel D. Maulsby, the father of Col. Wm. P. Maulsby of Frederick City, but it is known that before this he was a shingle maker and carpenter in Baltimore, and tradition has it, that he placed upon the Old Marsh Market in that city, a roof which bore witness to the fidelity and thoroughness with which he performed every task he undertook. The riving of shingles suggests the splitting of rails, and his career, like that of Lincoln, affords another illustration of the truth that "Honor and Shame from no condition rise; Act well your part; there all the honor lies." He was admitted to the Bar at Bel Air, March 13th, 1821, in company with Francis H. Davidge, Wm. S. Hays, R. W. Gill, Alexis Painter, E. A. McMath and Charles Mitchell, and almost immediately entered upon a career of success

and distinction both at his home circuit and in the Court of Appeals. The law dockets of the Circuit Court for Harford County show that in 1824, three years after his admission, he appeared in 98 out of 237 trials, in 1825 in 142 out of 218; in 1826, in 139 out of 202; in 1859, in 106 out of 275; and in 1863, the year before his death, in 98 out of 310, indicating at once the rapidity with which he acquired, and the security with which he held business.

Upon the Chancery dockets his prominence was equally marked, he being engaged on one side or the other in more than one half of 668 cases from 1821 to 1845, and in 219 out of 747 from 1845 to 1860. His first appearance in the Court of Appeals was in 1823 in the case of McMath vs. State use of Wheeler, 6th H. & J. 98, in which the case was argued for the appellant by Reverdy Johnson, and by Murray & Scott for the appellee, the judgment being affirmed without an opinion.

His next case in that Court was Archer vs. Williamson, 2nd H. & G. 63, which was argued by Mitchell and Reverdy Johnson for the appellants, and by Taney and Scott for the appellees, involving the powers and duties of arbitrators, in which the judgment was reversed in an elaborate opinion by Chief Judge Buchanan. Thus it will be seen that from the start he kept high company, in which he continued throughout his life. His last case was State vs. Price, 21st Md. 448, decided in 1864 after his death, in his favor. During his career he argued 55 cases in that Court of which he won 32 and lost 23. He was pitted against such opponents as McMahon, Johnson, Schley, Nelson, Taney, McLean, Chambers, Archer and Evans, and some times he had the aid of some of these bright lights; but whether he fought in company or alone, whether he won or lost, he fought a good fight, and bore his part in establishing the principles of law for which we no longer have to contend.

Among the leading cases in which he participated were Delaware and Maryland Rail Road Company vs. Stump, 8th G. & J., involving the right to a several fishery in the Sus

quehanna River, and the right of the Railroad Company to erect wharves and employ steam ferry boats, if destructive of the paramount right of general navigation and fishing. Hall's Admr. vs. Creswell, 12th G. & J., dealing with important principles as to the rights of assignees and sureties. Hopkins vs. Frey, 2nd Gill, and Miller vs. Stump, 3rd Gill, questions of dower. Howard vs. Wilmington & Susquehanna Railroad Company, 1st Gill, construction of contract for building a railroad. Vansant vs. Roberts, 3rd Md., validity of a devise to a corporation inaccurately described by name. Sappington vs. Scott, 14th Md. holding that the Constitution ought not to be so constructed as to produce an interregum in office, and Simpers vs. Simpers, 15th Md., a leading case on the Rule in Shelley's case, a rule now relegated to the legal junk shop.

From 1838 to 1845, Mr. Scott and William Schley were occupied in the proceedings for the condemnation of the lands required for the construction of the Tidewater Canal Company from Mason and Dixon's Line to Havre de Grace. Out of those condemnations came the great case of Tidewater Canal Company vs. Archer, argued before the Harford County Court by Schley and Scott for the Company, and by McMahon and Reverdy Johnson for Mrs. Archer. The inquisition was set aside, and a new inquisition ordered, in an opinion of great learning and power by Judges Magruder and Purviance, so fully approved by the Court of Appeals that, notwithstanding it was not subject to review by that Court, it was published in 9th G. & J., and has ever since been cited as the highest authority for the principles there enunciated, not only in Maryland, but in other States.

Mr. Scott also conducted the condemnation proceedings for the Baltimore and Port Deposit Railroad and its successor, the P., W. & B. R. R., through Harford County, and has left his impress upon the legislation affecting that road in sundry acts narrowing the charter obligations to afford free transportation to the citizens of Harford and

Cecil Counties across their railroad bridge, which superseded the old ferry at that point. That obligation, as the result of Mr. Scott's policy, has, since the conversion of the original railroad bridge into a toll bridge for vehicles and foot passengers, almost reached the vanishing point.

So great had become his reputation for skill and learning, by reason especially of his connection with these great public enterprises, that whenever he appeared in a contested case of any character both counsel and court, if I may be pardoned for dropping into the vernacular, it is said, were accustomed "to sit up and take notice."

The late Stevenson Archer, who studied law with him, described him as follows: "He was about five feet ten inches in height, quite stout, broad forehead, gray eyes, straight nose, firm and expressive mouth and cleft chin." His portrait in oil hangs in the Courthouse at Belair, and another in the office of Mr. S. A. Williams. Like many other men of marked mentality, he was exceedingly careless and slovenly in dress, frequently neglecting to tie his shoes, and sometimes, it is said, forcing the foot into his shoe as into an old slipper, and liberally sprinkling his linen and outer clothing with the juice of the weed, which he chewed with gusto. I have a distinct recollection of this characteristic from the few occasions when I saw him at my father's house when a boy.

He was a man of original ideas in many directions, and designed and built what is reputed to be the first fireproof office building in the State, constructed of stone and brick, with iron girders and shutters. Before occupying it, in order to test its usefulness, he piled a number of cords of hickory wood in the building and fired it. It stood the test to his satisfaction, the only injury done being the warping of some of the shutters, and he thereupon entrusted to it his valuable library. This building still stands opposite the Courthouse, upon a part of the old Courthouse and jail lot, which he induced the County Commissioners in 1833 to allow him to occupy for an office. He was the

Democratic leader of the county at that time, and the suggestion that the influence he exerted was political is not unreasonable. A few years later the Whig leader, Thomas A. Hays, with a fine sense of impartial favor, persuaded the County Commissioners to deed him a part of the same lot to improve a hotel property which he owned.

Mr. Scott attended each session of the General Assembly, keeping rooms at Annapolis, and thus not only kept himself informed as to the course of legislation, but acquired an extensive acquaintance with influential men throughout the State, and this doubtless led to his selection by the Legislature, together with Hiram McCullough, for the preparation of the Code of 1860. Each was to be paid $22,500 for the work, but the tradition in Harford County is that Mr. McCullough's appetite for hard work was not equal to that of Mr. Scott, who, discovering that fact at an early date, paid him $5,000 in cash, and did all the work of codification. Whoever did it, it was work well done, in the opinion of the leaders of the profession at that period.

It was his custom during the summer to drive with his friend, John T. Dallam, through Harford County, stopping with friends at different points, and thus maintaining social and personal relations with his home people.

An excellent illustration of his adroitness in the conduct of a bad case is related in a case in Harford County, Harts, lessee, vs. Gover, where he represented a mere occupant of land without title, or color of title. Hart, through Mr. Charles F. Mayer and the late George W. Dobbin, brought ejectment against Gover in 1838, and Mr. Scott, by the influence and skill which he possessed, through continuances and warrants of resurvey, delayed trial until May, 1843, when plaintiff's counsel, worn out, said: "Here, Scott, we are not coming here again for this case; now divide the land, "(140 acres just above Havre de Grace,)” the way you want to," and an agreement was filed accordingly. It is said that during his professional life the greater