Bio of BROOKS, Hon. Frank Clark (b.1853), Hennepin Co., MN
=========================================================================
USGENWEB NOTICE: In keeping with our policy of providing free information
on the Internet, material may be freely used by non-commercial entities,
as long as this message remains on all copied material, AND permission is
obtained from the contributor of the file.
These electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit or
presentation by other organizations. Persons or organizations desiring to
use this material for non-commercial purposes, MUST obtain the written
consent of the contributor, OR the legal representative of the submitter,
and contact the listed USGenWeb archivist with proof of this consent.

If you have found this file through a source other than the MNArchives 
Table Of Contents you can find other Minnesota related Archives at:
http://www.usgwarchives.net/mn/mnfiles.htm
Please note the county and type of file at the top of this page to find 
the submitter information or other files for this county.
FileFormat by Terri--MNArchives

Made available to The USGenWeb Archives by: Laura Pruden
Submitted: June 2003
=========================================================================
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
========================================================
EXTRACTED FROM: History of Minneapolis, Gateway to the Northwest; 
Chicago-Minneapolis, The S J Clarke Publishing Co, 1923; Edited by: Rev. 
Marion Daniel Shutter, D.D., LL.D.; Volume I - Shutter (Historical); 
volume II - Biographical; volume III - Biographical
========================================================

HON. FRANK CLARK BROOKS - Vol II, pg 42-49
In the death of Hon. Frank Clark Brooks, Minneapolis lost a lawyer of profound
legal learning and a jurist of eminent ability. To his friends his passing was
like a day in which the clouds o'ershadow the sun and the winds blow cold and
drear. Something dear and priceless seemed to have gone from life, but all who
knew him cherish most tenderly his memory and feel the inspiration of his
upright career. Judge Brooks was born in Taunton, Massachusetts, January 12,
1853, a son of Oscar Mortimer and Ann Reynolds Brooks and a descendant of six or
more pioneer families of New England. His great-grandfather was Major William
Brooks, a Revolutionary soldier of Hancock, New Hampshire, and for eleven
successive terms a representative in the general assembly of his state. Both the
grandfather and father were mechanical engineers. In 1859 Oscar and Ann Brooks
established their home in Cuyahoga county, Ohio, and there Frank Brooks remained
until nineteen years of age. Then the family moved further west to Janesville,
Wisconsin.
Courses in Beloit and Antioch colleges constituted the supplementary training to
Frank Clark Brooks' common schooling. Later he entered the law school of the
University of Wisconsin, graduated with highest honors and was admitted to the
bar in 1878. He practiced for a year in Janesville, Wisconsin, and for a period
of three years was a partner in the firm of Frawley, Brooks & Hendrix at Eau
Claire, that state. In May, 1884, he came to Minneapolis and with his former
partner, Fred N. Hendrix, organized the firm of Brooks & Hendrix, which
maintained a continuous existence until Judge Brooks was elected to the bench in
1898. During this period of fourteen years the firm won high rank and standing
at the bar, their practice including many notable cases. By reason of the
reputation he had gained as a lawyer of profound learning Judge Brooks was
chosen by the city of Minneapolis in 1894 to act as special counsel in
conducting important litigation against the street railway company, which up to
that time issued no transfers except at a few central points in the heart of the
city, and it was the generally accepted opinion that the street railway
corporation could not be forced to issue further transfers under its then
existing contract with the city. Relative to this the Minneapolis Times of
October 23, 1894, said editorially: "For twenty years it was the general opinion
that the street railway company had a valid contract with the city that rendered
an ordinance ineffectual which undertook to regulate its business and which was
not assented to and accepted by it." When the city council passed an ordinance
requiring the street railway company to issue transfers it was vetoed by the
mayor because he believed that the course was not legal, whereupon the Times
said editorially: "There was one lawyer who held a different opinion and
maintained that that ordinance was valid and enforceable as it was passed. That
lawyer was Judge Brooks. He was the man for the hour." After the Judge had
obtained a writ of mandamus from the district court compelling the street
railway company to comply with the ordinance, the case was tried before Seagrave
Smith and was decided in favor of the city-a matter of general rejoicing to the
citizens and undoubtedly one of the causes that brought to Judge Brooks a
notably large vote when he became a candidate for the district bench in the Tall
of 1898. He presided over the court for eleven years and the proceedings were
most orderly on the part of everyone that appeared before him, no man ever more
fully sustaining the dignity of the law. A contemporary writer said of him: "In
this position he had the confidence and respect, not only of the bar, but of
"the people of the entire county. He was patient and courteous in the conduct of
all cases coming before him. He studied every case carefully. He took the
greatest pains fully to master every legal question that it was necessary for
him to decide. As a result his decisions were generally affirmed by the supreme
court. In this particular Judge Brooks' record was probably not surpassed by
that of any judge who ever sat upon the bench of this court." He retired from
judicial service voluntarily in 1909 again to resume the active practice of law
as the senior partner in the firm of Brooks & Jamison, a connection that was
maintained until the day of his death, July 15, 1917. Soon after his withdrawal
from the bench the city of Minneapolis again employed him as special counsel in
a controversy with the Minneapolis Gas Light Company over the terms of the
renewal of the company's franchise. In a memorial address delivered by A. C.
Paul reference was made to this as follows: "The questions of law and fact were
complicated and difficult. Judge Brooks studied the situation until he had
completely mastered all of the questions. Then he prepared and filed with the
city an opinion, about as he would have prepared a decision in a case that came
before him for trial while he was on the bench. He stated the facts for both
sides so fairly and impartially and he so clearly applied the law to these facts
that his opinion was accepted by both sides as entitled to the greatest
consideration, and having practically as much weight as the findings of a trial
court. On one of the principal questions in dispute between the city and the
company, counsel for the company stated, as reported at the time by the
Minneapolis Tribune, that after Judge Brooks' opinion was rendered their client
had been compelled to change its attitude. The net result was that this
important matter was finally settled without litigation, very much to the
advantage of the city and with great saving to the citizens. If the matter had
been taken into court it would necessarily have required a number of years for
its final decision, and the expense of the litigation would have been very
great. Nothing that Judge Brooks ever did in the way of public or legal work was
more highly commended by the people of the city generally and by the public
press than his successful handling of this important matter." Judge Brooks was
made a member of several charter commissions and following his judicial service
he was strongly urged by many friends to become a candidate for representative
in congress and again for governor. Directly following the gas controversy his
name was proposed as city attorney with a much increased salary. All these
honors he declined to consider, though the opportunities of service they would
have afforded deeply appealed to him. Back in 1900 he had received the
democratic nomination for the office of chief justice of Minnesota; but he had
withdrawn with the urgent request that the supreme court be eliminated from
partisan strife. The democratic state central committee thereupon endorsed both
Judge Start for chief justice and Judge Collins for associate justice, the two
being elected without opposition. While occupying a seat on the district bench
he had served as chief justice of a temporary supreme court, appointed to act
during the disqualification of the permanent one.
On the 2d of August, 1879, at Janesville, Wisconsin, Judge Brooks married Ella
Noyes of that city, who passed away June 29, 1891. Their children are: Olive
May; William Clark, who died December 8, 1920, an attorney of Minneapolis and a
veteran of the World war; Charles Noyes, a physician of this city; Ellen, the
wife of Claude G. Krause, a Minneapolis attorney; and Major Frank Noyes, now a
lumber merchant of Bellingham, Washington. He was married again July 2, 1908,
Mrs. Nina Miles Stearns of Oak Park, Illinois, becoming his wife. Her childhood
home had also been in Cuyahoga county, Ohio. She was a widow with three grown
sons and a daughter: Dr. Lester M., who is practicing in Kearney, Nebraska;
Richard Irving and Marcus C., of Chicago; and Marguerite, now Mrs. Harry Heneage
of East Orange, New Jersey. Judge Brooks belonged to the Unitarian church and
for several terms was a director of the American Unitarian Association, serving
thereon with President Charles Eliot of Harvard University and Hon. William
Howard Taft. While Judge Brooks ranked as one of the eminent representatives of
the Minnesota bar, there were strong personal qualities that made him most
popular and beloved by his many friends. Very interesting estimates of his
character have been given by those who were closely associated with him. Rev.
Jenkin Lloyd Jones, secretary for the Congress of Religions, a part of the
Chicago World's Fair, and founder of Lincoln Center, Chicago, wrote to his
family following the death of Judge Brooks: "Of all the boys that came under my
ministration I have considered Frank Brooks the highest in achievement and
character. I found him in the early days of my ministry. It was given me to give
him his first lessons in Greek and to help pave the way for him to Antioch
College, and ever since he has carried my affection and commanded my closest
attention. I delighted in every step in his career and have always rejoiced in
his successes, not only in professional lines which were eminent, but in
character. The few glimpses I had of his home were so satisfying. I am sure he
and I always took each other for granted without correspondence or personal
contact."
John F. McGee who sat upon the district bench concurrently with Frank C. Brooks
was thus quoted by the Tribune: "He was one of the best men I ever knew, and one
of the best lawyers, if not the best. He was as true as steel and had the most
keenly analytical mind I have ever known. It is no doubt true that during his
period of service on the bench Judge Brooks in the perplexing problems that
arose in court work was more frequently consulted by his associates than any
other member of the court. The Judge was thoroughly democratic in temperament,
one very sympathetic by nature and with him the desire to do justice in every
matter presented to him in the course of his judicial life, amounted to a
religion."
The tribute of Judge Hale, spoken at his funeral service, was in part as
follows: "Judge Brooks came to this growing and enterprising city to make it his
home, and to build up his reputation and his fame here among us, some thirty
years ago; and we who have walked with him and have known him during all that
time have learned to fully appreciate his ability. His life was well rounded
out. He was his own architect and his own builder; and he planned and builded
well. He was, indeed, a great lawyer. He was a great and just judge. He was a
conscientious judge. He was always fair and impartial. He treated everybody
alike; whether they were rich or poor, he knew no distinction; and whether they
were friend or foe it made no difference to him. He could see only the case
before him, which must be decided according to the law and the facts as he
understood them, let the consequences be what they might. He was patient,
untiring in his efforts, in his work. He was a friend particularly to the young
members of the bar, not only while he was upon the bench but while he was
practicing law; and I venture to say that no judge and no lawyer was more often
consulted than was Judge Brooks, and there never was a time when he was too busy
to lay away whatever he had on hand and listen and give his fatherly advice,
until he became known among the younger members of the bar as their father in
consultation. And all this without any compensation."
An estimate of his judicial service was given editorially by the Journal, which
said: "The death of Frank C. Brooks takes a leader from the bar. He had that,
capacity for taking pains that has been defined as constituting genius.
Throughout his eleven years' service on the Hennepin district bench, and in his
legal practice before and after that service, he was never content to take the
conclusions or adopt the researches of others. It was his habit of going to the
bottom of things, of ascertaining for himself, that in time wore out his
strength. With this habit he combined that grasp of legal principles and that
power of keen analysis which characterizes the great lawyer. Aside from his work
on the bench, Judge Brooks rendered two signal services to the people of
Minneapolis. The first was when, as special counsel for the city, he established
the validity of the Harvey ordinance and thereby secured universal transfers on
the street railway. The second was the dominating share he had, again as special
counsel for the city, in shaping and putting through the present admirable
franchise of the gas company. Both were services of continuing beneficence to
the public, and should keep his memory green in Minneapolis. Judge Brooks' bent
was for public service, and he seemed to prefer a cause to fight for, a great
client to serve, rather than the unappreciated drudgery of judicial work. And
though he gave years of service uncomplainingly on the bench, and was a most
useful judge, he found his real metier in private practice with the public as an
occasional client."
In his tribute expressed at the memorial meeting of the Hennepin County Bar
Association, A. C. Paul said: "I had only what might be called a casual
acquaintance with Judge Brooks until within the past ten years. We came to
Minneapolis in the same month of the same year, and I met him soon after that
time. I soon learned that he was forging to the front ranks of the bar. I seldom
came in personal contact with him. During the last ten years, however, we have
been almost next-door neighbors, and saw each other almost daily. As a
consequence I had the privilege of intimate association with him for a number of
years. I learned to love him as a neighbor and friend and I acquired the highest
admiration for his great intellect and his lovable character. His home life was
ideal. He was surrounded by a loving and devoted family. For seventeen years
this man had given all of his time outside that required for his professional
and judicial duties in the rearing of his five motherless children. Lavishing
upon them all the affection of his great heart and watching over them tenderly,
he saw them reach manhood and womanhood as their sole guardian and protector. He
had a circle of intimate and admiring friends. In addition he had another great
resource for happiness-his extensive knowledge and love of the best literature.
His books were his daily companions. Judge Brooks was a lifelong democrat. Here
we differed radically but he was always so fair and so clearly looked at the
other side as well as his own that he disarmed controversy. He was a great
admirer of President Wilson. He believed that he was the right man in the right
place at this critical time in the life of the nation. The great war touched him
deeply. Our country had just taken the side of the allies. He had the utmost
confidence in the ultimate triumph of democracy and the liberty of the people of
all nations. For a period of more than three years before his death Judge Brooks
knew that the summons might come to him at any moment, and yet with unshaken
fortitude and with sublime faith in the future he went on in the even tenor of
his way, never doubting, but always knowing that when the end came it would find
him fully prepared. To suggestions made to him by his family when his health
began to fail that he take a long period of rest, away from the rigors of our
Minnesota climate, he turned a deaf ear. He wanted to die in the harness. He had
his wish. The first serious attack came while he was on his way to the
courthouse to attend the trial of a case. The day before his death he was in
consultation for several hours with another member of the bar over an important
matter of litigation. Let me quote a few sentences from an address made by Judge
Brooks several years before his death. He undoubtedly spoke with the greatest
sincerity and his words show his high ideals and his feeling of the great
responsibility that rests upon the members of our profession. 1 quote his words
as follows: 'The laws of a country which control not only property rights but
also the personal relations of man with man and of man with woman and which
govern alike the cradle and the grave and all that lies between them, will
always give the true measure of a nation's greatness. * * * The making of wise
laws and their wise administration are the highest objects to which one's
talents and labor can be applied. Civilization in all its forms of development,
in material well-being, in science, in intellectual culture, in all the means
and appliances of human happiness, will advance and recede in proportion as the
laws in their making or administration are good or bad. If the currents are pure
and healthful, order and prosperity will prevail; if its currents are corrupt,
we have in our social system the seeds of disease and death. It is our
profession, the lawyers at the bar and on the bench, to whom is committed this
talisman upon which the safety and security of society so largely depends. It is
our duty-the duty of judges and lawyers to apply the law to the daily affairs of
men, to guard the weak, to protect the innocent, to punish crime, and to secure
for all an unbought justice freely without denial and promptly without delay.
The profession has in this country thus far performed its duty well. It has
until now largely controlled the government and will continue to do so, so long
as it remains true to itself. For two hundred and fifty years it has done more
than any other class to shape the destinies of the Anglo-Saxon race. It has
fought the great battle of freedom on both sides of the Atlantic. It has
overcome religious persecution, and made opinion tree as the winds of heaven. It
has already achieved a great historic name, the lustre of which increases with
each succeeding year.' "
A further tribute was paid to the personal worth of Judge Brooks by Judge
Dickinson at the memorial service, as follows: "Little can be added to the just
and beautiful tributes which you have on this occasion paid to those who have
gone before. Of all those whose names have been honored today some kindly word
or pleasant memory might be spoken from this bench. But I cannot let the
occasion pass without adding a word to the memory of my friend and one-time
associate on this bench, Judge Frank C. Brooks. In the death of Judge Brooks,
the bar, it will be conceded, lost one of its greatest lawyers. His high place
in that regard is too fixed to call for any further encomium from me. He was a
profound lawyer and a just judge. His learning and capacity for research, his
powers of analysis and insight were all of such a scope and quality as to place
him easily at the head of the profession in this community. I prefer rather to
speak a word which shall emanate from my years of intimate personal relationship
with him whereby I learned to love and honor him, and which imposed upon me the
sense of grievous personal loss in his passing. Judge Brooks was a member of
this bench for nearly eleven years, and when he resigned in the fall of 1909
expressions of regret were universal among laymen as well as lawyers, for with
his resignation this community had lost its ablest judge and jurist. For five
years Judge Brooks was my associate upon this bench, and I am the only present
representative of the bench who had the privilege of a seat with him. During
those five years I came into almost daily contact with him and learned to love
him. That attachment strengthened as the years went by. It is one of my proudest
memories that I sat at his feet and learned my lessons from him. In a large
sense it is a memory of gratitude. His many acts of kindness, his ever-ready
willingness to yield of the rich store of his knowledge and experience to my
perplexing needs, I shall always hold in grateful remembrance. It was during
those days that the members of this bench met much more frequently for social
intercourse and friendly interchange of ideas-out of which grew mutual
helpfulness-than they do now or ever have since. Of course, the group of judges
is larger now, but they might well profit by imitating, to some extent at least,
the example of those earlier times. And I recall that it was in great measure
the genial influence of Judge Brooks that used to bring us together. He was not
only a man of great talent and learning in the law, but carried a cheerfulness
and radiance with him that no vicissitudes of health or fortune could overcome
nor shadow. He was eminently courteous at all times, modest of bearing and never
overbearing, whether on the bench or off. With all his capacity for high place
he rather seemed to shun the limelight. His ambition appeared to be not only
devotedness, which carried him easily to the top of his profession, but
helpfulness-in every relation of life,in all of his dealings with his
fellowmen,whether in public or in private. Layman and lawyer alike revere his
memory."
A truly great man thus passed into eternity, but his life work remains as an
inspiration and a benediction; for such unique characters are necessary in the
building of a city. These modern days we seem to have too few Franklins and
Jeffersons, willing to give their best for their country's good.