JACKSON CO., IA: BIOGRAPHY: Platt Smith
From the A.T. Andreas Illustrated Historical Atlas of the State of Iowa, 1875

*************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
*************************************************

NOTE:  For more information on Jackson County, Iowa 
       Please visit the Jackson County, IAGenWeb page  
       at http://iagenweb.org/jackson/
______________________________________________________

PLATT SMITH - The subject of this sketch was born in the town of 
Hoosick, Rensselaer County, New York, May 6, 1813. His parents were 
in rather moderate circumstances and when he was almost two years of 
age the removed to Central New York, and finally settled in Chenango 
County, on a new farm. The country was new and the soil was rather 
poor and covered with heavy timber. Until he was about fourteen years 
of age, there was no school in the district; a warfare was waged about 
the school house site; one house was built, and burned, as was 
supposed, by one of the contending parties. A school house was finally 
built, and a school was kept three months in the Winter, and about the 
same length of time in the Summer, of each year. He attended this 
school, off and on, during a year or two, and acquired sufficient 
information to read a newspaper. Work was plenty, and he did whatever 
was required; there was hardly a branch of business carried on in the 
neighborhood that he did not understand. After he was 21 years of age 
he engaged in merchandizing, at first, but failed in the universal crash of 
1837. The merchandizing affair cost him all he made, and left him forty-
seven dollars in debt. During the next two years he worked at the 
millwright and carpenter business, and whatever else he found to do. 
 
In November 1839, he emigrated to Jackson County, Iowa, where he 
had the ague and fever for the first two years. During this time he was 
cared for by John E. Goodenow and family, the first settlers in the Town 
of Maquoketa. The kindness of Mr. Goodenow and wife will never be 
forgotten.  
 
In November 1842, a controversy arose between Curtis M. Doolittle, an 
intelligent bookseller then recently from Cincinnati, and an old gentleman 
by the name of David 
Harrington; the dispute was about a "claim." Harrington had built a small 
cabin on the land; Doolittle undertook to drive him out, and with a stick of 
brace timber knocked 
off some of the siding. Harrington struck Doolittle; a row ensued; Doolittle 
sued Harrington before a justice of the peace for forcible entry and 
detainer. This action was then regarded by the community as an action 
to test the title, or right of possession. Doolittle was a man of good 
education, was rather a fine public speaker, andfancied he knew 
considerable law. Harrington asked Smith to assist him in the case, to 
which he assented, which was tried before a justice and a jury. The 
evidence was submitted, Doolittle address the jury. Harrington trembled. 
Smith replied to Doolittle, saying that he would meet the issue as 
Doolittle had made it, which was a question of title of ownership of the 
claim to the premises and cabin. The justice had sworn the jury on a 
Bible. Smith picked it up, and read from the 3d chapter of the 1st Kings, 
where Solomon asked the Lord wisdom to judge his people, and the Lord 
answered, "I have done according to thy word. Lo I have given thee a 
wise and understanding heart, so that there was none like thee, before 
thee, neither after tee, shall any arise like unto thee." Immediately after 
this there came before Solomon a controversy between two harlots as to 
who was the true mother of a child. The evidence and assertion of each 
was equally strong. Solomon called for a sword that he might divide the 
child between them. One of the claimants favored the division  the 
destruction  the other yielded he claim, and begged that the child might 
be spared. Solomon immediately decided the case in favor of the one 
who wanted no destruction, and they heard of the decision and wisdom 
of Solomon, and he became famous throughout the land for his wisdom. 
 
That precedent and that decision is as good law to-day an it was when it 
was made. Doolittle sought to destroy the cabin. Harrington objected, 
and struck Doolittle. It is 
unnatural for the owner of property to seek its destruction. Harrington 
naturally sought to stay destruction, being the owner of the cabin. It will 
be remembered that the 
wisdom of Solomon was given him that he might be able to judge his 
people. 
 
The speech was brief; the jury thought it to the point, and the people who 
heard it were of the same opinion. Harrington ever afterwards, on all 
proper occasions, related the story with great satisfaction. Doolittle, the 
next day, came to Smith, and proposed that he should study law; he 
stayed sever hours, and that was the principle theme of conversation. 
Other concurred with him. Doolittle offered to send to Cincinnati for 
books for him. Smith felt gratified by the good opinions that had been 
expressed by his friends in regard to the late trial, and finally consented 
to Doolittle's proposition. At that time there were no railroads in the 
country; the books came to hand on the 12th Day of December. He had 
already obtained the consent of Henry Hopkins, a lawyer of Bellevue, to 
study law in his office. In the 13th of December he took his books to 
Bellevue and commenced. Harrington had previously resided in Bellevue 
and was there on the 14th, and told the story of his previous trial with so 
much enthusiasm, that it was not more than two days afterwards until he 
(Smith) was engaged in another forcible entry and detainer case, this 
being the only action that was the usually brought to recover the claims 
of the settlers on the public lands, and there were no other lands in the 
country and that time. The amount was frequently of the value of five 
hundred dollars, and sometimes several thousand dollars. The trial of the 
first action in Bellevue too place within the first ten days; the case was an 
important one. Hopkins and James K. Moss, the only regular attorney in 
Bellevue, were the opposing counsel. The trial resulted in a verdict for 
Smith's client. There was a large number of people present, and the 
enthusiasm of the people was such that from thenceforth he was almost 
uniformly the first choice in nearly every suit that was brought, and was 
usually opposed by Hopkins & Moss, and was generally paid a fee of 
from fifteen to twenty-five dollars in each case, and received twenty-five 
dollars for the first case which he tried in Bellevue. This was a capital 
such as he had not before had since he came to the territory. He had 
previously engaged his board with Hopkins, and was to saw wood for 
him and others to pay for it. The first cord of wood was finished, and that 
was the last. His time was divided between the study of his books and 
the practical business outside in attending to cases until the first Monday 
in February, when in view of the approaching term if the District Court, he 
went to Dubuque, for the purpose of being admitted to the bar. The court 
in Dubuque at that time was held in Stone Church, on Locust Street. He 
listened to the cases for about four days, and then applied for admission. 
The court and lawyers had a consultation, and there was then a rather 
strong bar at Dubuque. The result was that they denied an examination, 
saying that he had not studied long enough. One of the attorneys, who 
was a very kind and gentle man recommended that he would apprentice 
himself to a harness maker, and proffered any assistance in his power. 
This proposition was made in good faith, and was no doubt done with the 
best of motives. Smith thanked the gentleman, and replied that he was 
coming to Dubuque to practice law, and his mind was then made up to 
do so; and before leaving the city he inquired into the price of board, rent 
of houses, etc. 
 
He had formed quite a favorable opinion of the Dubuque bar 
notwithstanding their refusal to give him an examination for admission; 
he concluded that it would require five or six months to practice in 
Dubuque to get even with Davis and Crawford, whom he regarded as 
the most formidable of the Dubuque attorneys. He then returned to his 
old friend Goodenow, at Maquoketa. The idea that he had been refused 
an examination at Dubuque seemed to shock and astonish his friends in 
Jackson County. He paid Doolittle for the books, and a few days 
afterwards took passage on a raft of lumber that ran out of the Big 
Maquoketa, destined for Muscatine. He worked his passage and acted 
as pilot in running the raft over the Rock Island Rapids, having first tied 
up and run a small boat down to see the channel. At Muscatine he hired 
a horst to go to Tipton, where Judge Williams' Court was then in 
session. He changed his clothes and left his pocket-book by accident in 
Muscatine; when he got to Tipton he discovered the mistake. He viewed 
the court and lawyers a few moments, then introduced himself to Ralph 
P. Lowe, since Governor and Chief Justice of the state. He related to 
him the circumstances; asked him for the loan of ten dollars, which he 
said would be a great favor; told Mr. Lowe that he wanted to be 
examined and admitted. Lowe immediately advanced the money and told 
Smith to pay it to Deshler, his partner in Muscatine. The examination 
was satisfactory; he obtained a certificate of admission, which was dated 
the 27th of March; returned to Muscatine, paid Deshler the ten dollars, 
and returned home. On the first Monday of April, the court sat at Andrew, 
the county seat of Jackson County. The judge, who a few days 
previously had denied and examination at Dubuque, was surprised to 
find Smith's name marked as counsel in thirty-five cases out of a total 
number of forty-two on the docket, and took the first opportunity to 
suggest to Smith that he ought be admitted to the bar before he could 
attend those cases. The judge seemed quite willing that Smith should be 
examined. Smith assured him that he was admitted at Tipton and offered 
to show the judge the certificate which he declined to look at. The judge 
was ever afterwards a good friend of Smith's, and, in fact, in refusing the 
examination he only did what nearly any other judge would do un the 
circumstances. But Smith was not as frank at Tipton in stating the length 
of time that he had studied law as he was at Dubuque; he only said that 
he had studied law sufficiently to qualify himself for admission, as he had 
been advised by Hopkins and Moss. The cases Andrew were disposed 
of in about five days. Smith met the Dubuque bar there, and when Court 
adjourned the all professed, and no doubt sincerely, to regret their 
course of action, and thought that Smith must have been studying law for 
the last five or six years. 
 
The criminal cases in which he was engaged were severely contested. 
He assisted Hopkins in the prosecution of a man named Jackson who 
was indicted for the murder of Zopher Perkins. Jackson was convicted 
and hung. Smith soon regretted that he had assisted Hopkins at all, 
because, on reflection, it was extremely doubtful whether Jackson did no 
kill Perkins in self defense. Be that as it may, he never prosecuted 
another man for murder. During the next eight years he was engaged to 
defend a great majority of all criminals that were tried in the district and 
some in the adjoining states  States of Illinois and Wisconsin, - and in no 
case was any one ultimately convicted and sentenced, not even to pay a 
fine. Two of the judges who presided in the district are still living and 
many lawyers who practiced during that time, but no one can mention a 
case where and man ever paid a penalty of a dollar, or was hung or 
imprisoned, except the imprisonment usual before the ultimate trial. He 
sometimes tried seven or eight murder cases in one year; in one 
instance there were four such cases in our successive weeks in four 
different counties  three white men and one Indian, - and frequently he 
defended two or three Indians in the same week. The excitement in 
some of these murder cases ran very high. Public meetings were 
frequently held, especially in Jackson County, to denounce Smith and his 
clients; but it was all of no avail  the supposed culprit was always set 
free. One reason why this was so was that he always gave the case a 
careful examination before he engaged as counsel. If there was no fair 
ground to doubt the guilt of the prisoner, he would leave the matter in the 
hands of others; but if there was a high probability of guilt, yet still there 
was room for a doubt, though the probabilities might preponderate in the 
ratio of ninety-nine to a hundred, that doubt formed in law and practice a 
ground for acquittal. About one half of these criminal cases paid very 
small feel; large proportion of them nothing. A few paid well; but if there 
was a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the prisoner, even though he 
had nothing, the case was attended to the same as though he could pay 
a good fee. About the year 1850, he began to get tired of criminal cases, 
and from that time he turned his attention to civil cases. In the year 1853, 
the Dubuque and Pacific Railroad Company was formed. Smith drew the 
articles and presented them to his friends; was the first attorney of the 
company; got up the stock subscriptions; procured the right of way in 
person. In the fourth volume of G. Greene's report it will be seen that the 
first case was about the validity of Dubuque County's subscription to the 
stock of the road. In that volume the firm of Smith, McKinlay and Poor 
is reported in thirty-six cases; George C. Wright, late Chief Justice and 
United States Senator, had sixteen cases; the other lawyers in the state 
each had a less number. Smith argued the thirty six cases in person, his 
partners frequently assisting of course, in a portion of the Dubuque 
cases. But it may be remarked that he made no pretentions to ability to 
win a civil case; all he could do was argue and submit them, and take his 
chances. The change of practice from criminal to civil cases greatly 
increased the annual compensation; but the change from the law to the 
railroad business was unfortunate so far as compensation was 
concerned. He remained with the first formed company until the road 
reached Iowa Falls, and was generally Vice-President and Attorney of 
the company, and a part of the time President. He then organized the 
Iowa Falls and Sioux City Company, and was one of the four directors 
that had the management of the road until it was completed to Sioux 
City, in 1870. He was also a director in Sioux City and Pacific, and was 
one of the first to organize and help to state four or five other roads. He 
was of the directors and helped to plan the Dubuque bridge, which was a 
work of short duration and very successful. He was almost entirely 
disconnected with the law for about fifteen years, but occasionally took a 
case, and usually received a fee varying from one thousand to and high 
as sixteen thousand dollars in each case. 
 
In 1853 he tried his first case in the Supreme Court of the United States; 
the case of Chotau v. P. Malony. That was a test case brought to try the 
validity of the Dubuque claim, which was a grant by the Spanish 
Governor to Dubuque, of a tract of land nine miles wide by twenty miles 
in length. It included the City of Dubuque, and was supposed to be of the 
value of fourteen million dollars. Hon. T. S. Wilson and Platt Smith 
represented the settlers. In opposition, Chotau, who claimed under 
Dubuque; Reverdy Johnson and Mr. Cornick were counsel for Chotau. 
The documents were written in French and Spanish. The claim was 
situate in Louisiana at the time the grant was made. The law that applied 
to the case was also French and Spanish. A very unusual interest was 
shown by all concerned, especially those living on the tract, not only on 
account of the large amount involved in the case, but the novelty of the 
questions also made the case interesting. 
 
Hon. A. C. Dodge and George W. Jones, the two United States 
Senators, were present at the argument. At the close of the case, C. J. 
Taney and several other of the judges, spoke in complimentary terms of 
Smith's speech, and congratulated the Senators. This was regarded as a 
good omen by Smith and his friends, but was looked upon as rather a 
backhanded compliment by the opposite counsel. Mr. Charles Gregoire, 
who had a very important ferry case pending in the same court at the 
same term, was there to employ counsel for his case. He consulted 
Reverdy Johnson about it, who spoke so highly of Smith's speech that 
Gregoire concluded to commit the whole case to Smith's hands  both 
cases were decided in his favor; but one point which was argued for 
Gregoir was overruled. Justice Grier especially complimented Smith for 
his effort in Gregoire's case, and said he would lay the brief away for 
reference in some future case. In Conway et al. v. Tayar's Executors, 
the 1st of Black's Reports, a similar question arose eight years 
afterwards in which the same question was involved. Mr. Justice 
Swayne, in delivering the opinion of the court, refers to the brief in 
Fanning v. Gregiore, and says, "The arguments on file show that this 
objection was pressed with learning and ability." This shows that Justice 
Grier must probably have called the attention of Justice Swayne to the 
brief, as the latter was not on the bench at the time the Gregoire case 
was tried. In the case of The Dubuque and Pacific Railroad Company v. 
Litchfield, Mr. Justice Catron refers to Smith's brief, and quotes a half 
page from it on pages 88 and 89. This case was a test case involving the 
title of several million dollars worth of land. It was also decided in favor of 
Smith's client, but was afterwards practically overruled in subsequent 
cases, in which Smith was not counsel. In one of those cases he filed a 
brief which presented the case in a light that did not suit his associate 
counsel they withdrew and suppressed it, and stated the case on their 
own points, and were beaten. The case might have resulted differently if 
the brief had been left in. In the case of Sanders v. The State of Iowa, 
reported in the 2d Iowa Reports, page 251, will be found the only 
reported speech made by Smith in a law case. As he was about leaving 
Iowa City, he was asked to assist William E. Leffingwell in a small case 
involving an important constitutional question. James M. McKinlay, 
Smith's partner, who was an expert shorthand writer, reported the 
speech for Mr. Clark, the reporter, who inserted it verbatim.