Search Results for: chicago chronicle

Lester G. Hornby

Lester G. Hornby (1882-1956)

Chicago Tribune, December 15, 1917

HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY have been issuing histories of the greater cities of the United States—histories of an intensive character, brief, accurate, picturesque, and psychological. They have required the writers to give them the essence of the city, or rather, to throw upon the screen a few pictures that would convey the meanings, the ambitions and the past of these cities.

“CHICAGO” has for its author Hobart C. Chatfield-Taylor, than whom no better man could have been found. The chronicle, without pretense, false assumption, or verbal excesses, appears as an intimate and sympathetic record. Mr. Taylor was reared on the west side near Union park in the days when it was a bower of flowers and the resting place of the “nicest” people in town. He knew the old families, imbibed the ideals, felt the restrictions of a community which, coming out of New England, was loyal to its traditions and codes.

That group, the essential and authoritative part of Chicago, while it has not helped the balance of political power, and while it has been driven from one locality to another by the encroachments of hundreds of thousands of foreigners, remains, after all, the dominating social, moral, and intellect force. This is a fact which those who really are aware of the ideals of the city know well, but to Mr. Chatfield-Taylor remains the distinction of being the first to point this out in print.

It is fortunate that this history has been written by one who does not have in all cases to refer to records of the past. The author has his own memory to consult, and he is able therefore, to make his own interpretations of tendencies and events. An air of simplicity and distinction characterizes these frank and informing pages, and he who reads the book will, if he had been consulting old family letters, while the reader who must for the first time acquaint himself with the past of our city will be both entertained and instructed.

The illustrations truly supplement the text. They are by Lester G. Hornby, who remained in Chicago for a length of time studying not only its “imposing edifices” but its nooks and corners. This edition is limited to one thousand.

Rush Street at the Bridge
Watercolor

Field Museum, at Jackson Park

State Street from the Van Buren Loop Station

The Library

Michigan Boulevard South from 9th Street

Washington Street Looking East from Clark Street

Park Row at the Railway Station

Chicago River from Rush Street Bridge

The Cañon Quincy Street from Fifth Avenue
Watercolor

From the Viaduct—The Loop Station at West Randolph Street

The Board of TradeBuilding from La Salle Street

The Market in South Water Street

Michigan Avenue from Grant Park

La Salle Street at the Stock Exchange

In the Stockyards

The Douglas Monument

Where the Lake Shore Begins

In Clark Street at Courthouse

Rush Street in the Old Residential Section

In Lincoln Park

The Skyline of Park Row

Lester G. Hornby (1882-1956) is one of the surprising number of early 20th century American artists who achieved great acclaim during their vital years and yet lived to see their works, during the ensuing decades, largely neglected. That condition is now being reversed for many of them.

Hornby received his early training at the Rhode Island School of Design and the Art Students League in New York. He then journeyed to Paris where he developed his technique further at the major art academies there. Hornby’s progress was rapid; he received his first international recognition in Paris in the prestigious Salon d’Automne of 1907.

Completely captivated by Paris and the French countryside, Hornby spent most of his productive years in France, returning intermittently to America. In his latter years, he played an active role as teacher and artist in the Rockport art colony, dying there at his cottage in 1956.

Charles Tobey

Biographies

Biographical Sketches of the Leading Men in Chicago, Photographically Illustrated by John Carbutt, 1868, Pages 418-422

The quiet perseverance of honest industry has more exponents than chroniclers. Where the short sharp struggle, or the masterly movement challenge admiration and demand a record, the not less heroic and more truly noble conflict with the world, in which one man, at a great personal disadvantage, finds the hand of every one raised against him, and by dint of unwearied attention to the one great object gradually threads his way through and between opposing obstacles, rather than beats them down, too seldom finds a place in our permanent annals. Yet these are the men who have done most for the real benefit of themselves and their race. They have not with leaping pole bridged the chasm which isolates the mountain crag, but with slow and toilsome steps they have ascended the steep, and gained the fertile plateau whose plenty makes glad the hearts of a community. Their success is not based on the injury of others, nor achieved by subterfuge or knavery, but, as the legitimate fruit of unwearying application, is so much added to the world’s wealth, and so much of an augmentation to its concrete happiness. It is the presence of these men, so largely numerous among us, that has given to Chicago its proud prominence among the cities of the West, stamping her as the mistress of the Mississippi Valley in all that pertains to commercial enterprise and legitimate business growth. It is the presence of this clement which enables her to reach out and beyond her former rivals into that which once was regarded as their exclusive domain, and, like the sun among the planets, forcing not only them, but their satellites, to revolve in obedience to the influence of its own superior attraction.

One of these conquerors of adverse circumstances is Mr. Charles Tobey, the well-known furniture manufacturer and dealer, whose skill and enterprise have done so much to beautify and render comfortable our Western homes and places of business, and whose integrity has been so largely instrumental in redeeming the character of Western work from the low estimation in which it was at one time held. Commencing at the lowest starting point, he worked his way up, slowly but surely, to his present position, which is not only one of profit, but of reflex honor to the community. The products of his manufactory have achieved for him an enviable reputation, which, though but carved in wood, is as durable as if graved in marble.

Charles Tobey was born in 1831, in Dennis, Barnstable County, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and is the son of Jonathan H. Tobey, who owned and worked a farm which had been occupied by his family through a line of six generations, covering a period of about two hundred years. His ancestry is traced back directly to Wales, Great Britain, through a genealogical record of eight generations.

The early years of Charles were spent on the parental farm, which, when old enough, he helped to till, working nine months in the year, and devoting the other three to obtaining an education in the common district schools of that day. His opportunities were very limited, and even those poor privileges were far from seeming to be fully improved. He was not regarded as a very promising scholar, being, as his father recently remarked, “more devoted to trading jack-knives than to conjugating verbs.” At the age of sixteen, he made several attempts to follow the sea, his great ambition being to go out in, and own, a boat, but he finally came to the conclusion that it was what the sailors call a “dog’s life,” as well as unprofitable. The last consideration decided him, for he had early become impressed with the importance of prospering in the world, and determined to spare no pains to earn a competency. He was never afraid of work, but willing to put his hand to anything that turned up, and remarkably dexterous in his adaptability to everything but dry, book studies. By the time he had attained the age of twenty years, he gave promise of being an excellent farmer, but the occupation did not suit him.He wanted something with more “dash,” more opportunity for getting along, and mingling with the great social throng, than was possible in handling the plow, and he determined to learn a mercantile business. With carpet-bag in hand, he took passage for Boston in a packet, and there sought a situation. The search was a long though diligent one, for situations were far from being plenty. He was well-nigh disheartened, when a friend stepped in and procured him a place as porter in a furniture store. He labored there faithfully for four months, receiving five dollars per week as compensation for his services. During this time he found it very difficult to live on his income, but manfully refused proffered assistance from his friends, determining to be independent, and looking forward hopefully to the time ‘when he would be promoted to a better position. The end of four months brought an increase, and several steps upward were made in the course of the next two years. Then he succeeded in obtaining a position as salesman in a large new furniture house. He thus passed about two years, gaining golden opinions from every one, and being generally looked on as a young man who would make a broad mark in the world. His prospects in Boston were good, even in the face of the strong competition which obtained there, but he could not stay. He had heard the glowing accounts which reached that staid city of the wonderful place called Chicago, then on the very circumference of the civilized wheel of which Boston has been called “the hub.” He fought for awhile, but having caught the genuine fever, he was obliged to break out—West. Without a single friend or
acquaintance between Boston and the regions of the setting sun, or even a letter to any one, he started, in the autumn of 1855, and came to Chicago. His first impressions of the place were favorable; it was then a scene of intense activity, and he was eager to plunge and mingle with the busy throng. He found it difficult, as so many others have done, to push his way into the bustling crowd, but at last succeeded in obtaining a situation as clerk in a furniture store, where he remained about six months.

The southwest corner of State and Randolph Streets in 1857. Taken from a daguerreotype. Charles Tobey and Brother were here at 72 State Street from 1857 to 1862. Advertisement from Chicago Tribune, June 18, 1860.

Mr. Tobey was soon satisfied that he could do much better than working for a salary. He saw in this busy metropolis a fine field for enterprise, and determined to cultivate it. He accepted the offer of a loan of five hundred dollars from the Hon. Francis Bassett, a distinguished lawyer and capitalist of Boston, who was a distant relative and had always shown himself a warm friend. With this little capital, the young man commenced business in the spring of 1856, at No. 296 State street, and succeeded beyond his most sanguine expectations. A subsequent loan of like amount, voluntarily made by the same gentleman, after satisfying himself relative to the business capacity of our young merchant, gave a new impetus to the trade already established. Although Mr. Tobey offered to cancel this indebtedness at various times, yet Mr. Bassett refused to accept it, allowing it to remain in his hands for a number of years, when Mr. Tobey insisted upon paying it, as it was the only note held against him. It would be proper to remark here, that Mr. Tobey holds in great respect this gentleman, and looks upon him as a benefactor to whom he is indebted for all that he now possesses.

How often is it the case that a friendly hand, extended at the proper time to one who is struggling for success in life, will inspire him with zeal and make an impression on the mind which lasts until death. The lesson thus learned by Mr. Tobey in the instance referred to has not been forgotten, as the many opportunities for assisting others which he has improved will abundantly testify. Thousands of dollars have thus been invested, as we might say, in deeds of charity, seeing that much of it can never be repaid, except in hearts filled with thankfulness.

In 1858, he took his brother, Francis B. Tobey, into partnership, and the next year moved to the corner of State and Randolph streets. The firm remained there two years, and then moved to No. 82 Lake street. The ensuing four years was a season of extraordinary success. The firm did a large and profitable business, and was able to command the erection of the large and commodious buildings Nos. 87 and 89 State street, in which the business is at present conducted. They advanced ten thousand dollars—half the cost of the building—on the five years’ lease.

An incident in this connection is worthy of mention. Meeting daily with many of the most prominent business men of our city, he found that all who expressed themselves were unanimous in their opinion that he had made a fatal mistake in transferring his business location to State street, some of them predicting ruin at no distant day. As a proof that Mr. Tobey’s far-reaching vision was not defective, Me may add that the first year’s business in his new location exceeded by one hundred thousand dollars that of any previous year. Having such ample accommodations for years to come, at about one-third the rental which could be obtained for the establishment to-day, it does not require much discernment to enable any one to see that he has an advantage in the sale of his goods which must enable him to defy competition. Having given the location a fair test, we are not surprised to know that he has taken a lease of twenty feet more, immediately adjoining his present store. The building to be erected upon it will be occupied chiefly by himself, his increasing business demanding it. Located next to one of the most magnificent blocks on the continent, now being erected by Potter Palmer, Esq., we may reasonably expect that the large and fashionable trade which Mr. Tobey has commanded for years past will speedily be increased to more than double its present amount.

In reference to the peculiarities of character possessed by Mr. Tobey, we think every one personally acquainted with him will bear us out in the following delineation. He is a man of business promptness, efficiency, positiveness, and enterprise. Indomitable perseverance is his predominant quality, and unusually developed. His history thus far demonstrates the fact that he is peculiarly well adapted to do a successful business, having a certain versatility of talent which will succeed in almost anything in which he might engage. He systematizes everything he touches, thus enabling him to do a large business comparatively easy. He seems to be more annoyed by disarrangement than by anything else. He has the very highest sense of business honor and honesty, and would, on no account, compromise his reputation or break faith. We believe he would rather not live than live in disgrace. He is exceedingly particular about his promises, and will not bear any imputations on his honor. He evidently is possessed of that thrift, harmony, industry, sense, talent, efficiency and manner, as well as interest, which will build up slowly and surely. He is well known as a very modest, unassuming man, and his success in life is not due to obtrusiveness. It has been the necessary result of faithful attention to his business.

Mr. Tobey’s versatility of talent, to which we have already alluded, has enabled him to engage in many different branches at the same time. This accounts, in some measure, for the uniform success which has attended his investments outside of his legitimate business. There is, no doubt, a great difference in men in this respect. Whilst some men lose in nearly everything they touch, aside from the beaten track which they have been accustomed to for years, others are successful. Among the latter class Mr. Tobey must be placed. We shall not, out of deference to his known modesty, go into details on this point. It is sufficient to say that he is one of the largest stockholders of the Fourth National Bank, of which he is a Director, and that he is classed among those public spirited and enterprising Chicagoans who accumulate wealth, “not,” as Burns says, “for to hide it in a hedge, nor for a train attendant,” but to so invest it as to increase the public as well as his own personal prosperity. To those unacquainted with his private interests, it might appear that his accumulation of good fortune affords evidence of exorbitant profits from his business, but, whilst he realizes, no doubt, a fair remuneration upon the capital thus invested, yet he is indebted for his wealth as much, or more, to the success which has attended the investments alluded to, as to his legitimate business.

In the dull times preceding the war, the Tobey Brothers had always enough to do, and were able to command living prices. Mr. Tobey, who is again alone in the business, has a large capital employed in it, as must be evident to any one on seeing the immense and costly array of goods on exhibition at his salesrooms.

The prosperity which has attended him thus far, we have reason to believe, will continue, inasmuch as he is young and full of the fire of energy. A more striking example for the imitation of those who are about to push out into the sea of life we could not present, seeing that his success has been rapidly attained and is solely due to personal qualities.

Mr. Tobey has, until quite recently, been what a quaint old writer calls “an I-by-myself-I.” But on the 17th of February, 1868, this bachelor became a benedick. The lady whom he led to the altar was Miss Fannie Van Arman, daughter of Colonel Van Arman, of this city. To speak of the bride in befitting terms is no easy task; for what a stranger might think fulsome flattery would, in the judgment of those who know her, fall far short of the truth. We will only say that she is not only a most radiant and accomplished member of the elite of Chicago, but a person of such strength and beauty of character that none who know her can name her but to praise her.

Charles Tobey passed away on September 26, 1888, in New York City.

John Wentworth

Biographies

Biographical Sketches of the Leading Men in Chicago, Photographically Illustrated by John Carbutt, 1868,Pages 671-689

John Wentworth is one of the very few men now living who attended the meetings called in the winter of 1836-7, to consider the expediency of applying to the Legislature, in session at Vandalia, for a
city charter.

He was secretary of the first political meeting ever called in the First Ward to make nominations preliminary to the first municipal election, and at which meeting Hon. Francis C. Sherman was one of the nominees for Alderman. In August, 1837, he was secretary of a convention held at Brush Hill (now of Du Page County), to nominate officers for the then county of Cook, and at which Walter Kimball, the present City Comptroller, was nominated for Judge of Probate. In 1838, he was appointed School Inspector; and he held the same office, under the new name of Member of the Board of Education, when he was last elected to Congress. He has met among the scholars, whilst making his official visits, the grandchildren of those he met as scholars in his first year of service. He was the first corporation printer of Chicago, elected in 1837, and he held the position for about three-fourths of the period of the twenty-five years that he was sole editor, publisher and proprietor of the “Chicago Democrat.” He commenced making public speeches at our first municipal election, when Hon. W. B. Ogden was elected Mayor.

He was in the then town of Chicago at the Presidential election of 1836, but was not a voter, as he had arrived only the 25th of October, of that year.

He was born in Sandwich, Strafford County, New Hampshire, March 5, 1815. Taking his first lessons in life amid the hardy sons of the Switzerland of America, he was sent, in the winter of 1826-7, to the academy at Gilmanton, New Hampshire; thence to Wolfborough, New Hampshire; to New Hampton, New Hampshire; and to South Berwick, Maine. In 1832, he entered Dartmouth College, and graduated there in 1836. That institution has since conferred the degree of LL. D. upon him. Senator Grimes, of Iowa, was a member of the same class with him, and James F. Joy, of Detroit, was one of their teachers. The winter previous to his entering college, he taught school at New Hampton, New Hampshire, and three of the winters he was in college, he taught at Hanover, Grafton, and East Lebanon. Whilst at the latter place, he was elected a delegate to the County Convention, and was made chairman of the committee upon resolutions, and his report, and remarks accompanying it, were highly commended in the papers of the day as displaying the true “Jackson grit.” He became of age whilst in college, and gave his first vote for Isaac Hill, the Jackson candidate for Governor. He had been a writer for Jackson newspapers before entering college; and whilst there, his contributions to them were frequent. At his College Commencement, Governor Hill, Franklin Pierce, John P. Hale, and Edmund Burke were upon the stage, and publicly congratulated him upon his performance, the three latter little dreaming what relations to each other they were so soon to occupy. In seven years, he was the colleague of Messrs. Hale and Burke in Congress, and he was again in Congress when Mr. Pierce was President.

Mr. Burke, as editor of the “Newport (N. H.) Spectator,” speaking of the exercises at this commencement of Dartmouth College, said:

Some of them gave evidence of a high order of talent, among whom we would mention that of John Wentworth, of Sandwich.

The “Vermont Chronicle” of August 31, 1836, the organ of the Congregational denomination of that State, congratulated young Wentworth “On the possession of a voice of uncommon strength, compass and melody,” and said: “We hope that voice will do good in the world, and not evil; for either of which purposes it may be signally adapted.” As his pen has written more than that of any other one man in Chicago, so his voice has spoken more; and there are two prominent subjects upon which it has given no uncertain sound, viz.: Liberty and Economy.

On Monday, October 3, of the same year, he left his father’s house, with one hundred dollars in his pocket, “bound West.’ So undetermined was he as to his place of destination, that he did not know where to advise his friends to direct their letters. The Governor of his State gave him a letter to some one man in each of the new States and Territories, but which he never had occasion to use. Two of these letters we copy,
the first addressed to Governor Henry Dodge, of Wisconsin, and the second to Hon. R. J. Walker, United States Senator from Mississippi:

His route was by stage over the Green Mountains to Schenectady; thence by the only railroad between Chicago and the East, as far as Utica; thence by canal to Buffalo; and by steamer to Detroit, where he arrived Thursday evening, the 13th. He advertised himself as a school teacher, the day after his arrival, in the “Detroit Free Press,” and walked into the country as far as Ann Arbor, going and returning by different routes. Meeting with no success, he shipped his trunk for Chicago, by Oliver Newberry’s new brig (Manhattan), and, his feet being sore from previous traveling, he took the stage across the country to Michigan City, where he arrived October 22. Thence he traveled on foot to Chicago, around the beach of the Lake, there being, at that time, no other road, where he arrived Tuesday, a. m., the 25th, and took his dinner at the United States Hotel, kept by John Murphy (afterwards Alderman of the city), at the corner of Lake and Market streets, on the site of the Wigwam, where Mr. Lincoln was first nominated for President.

About this time, a New Hampshire acquaintance purchased the “Chicago Democrat,” and made arrangements with Mr. Wentworth to conduct it while he returned East. The “Democrat” was established in 1834, having been the first paper in the city, and there was but one other. The late Daniel Brainard, M. D., was his immediate predecessor in the editorial chair. As the paper was only published weekly, he devoted his leisure time to the study of law, at the office of Henry Moore, then a lawyer of great promise, but whom consumption carried to a premature grave, in his native Massachusetts. On the 23d of November, the first number, under his management, appeared. Although he labored under the disadvantages of youth and inexperience, having been less than four months out of college, and less than thirty days in the State, he soon created a desire among the leading politicians of the Jackson school in the Northwest, that he should become sole proprietor of the establishment. And an opportunity was soon offered him, for misfortune attended the new proprietor at the East, and he was unable to meet his Western engagements. The liabilities for the Democrat were two thousand eight hundred dollars, and it was the wish of all the creditors that Mr. Wentworth should contrive in some way to liquidate them. But his total means when he arrived at Chicago were but thirty dollars, and he had received nothing since. He was unacquainted with business, and was not a printer. It was proposed by some of the creditors that he write to his father, who was a gentleman of respectable means for his locality, for assistance. But his reply was: “I am the oldest of a large family of children, and when my father has educated the others as well as he has me, it will be time for me to ask for further favors.”

They then assured him that it was the wish of all that he take the paper, but they wanted him to tell how he was to pay for it. His answer was characteristic of the future man. Although now surprising no one who knows Mr. Wentworth’s peculiarities, yet it then created a great deal of surprise. He said, “I propose to pay for it out of my earnings and savings. Come in every Saturday night and get what I have left after paying the week’s expenses. Determine among yourselves what debts shall be paid first, and I propose to own the fixtures, types and presses, as fast as I pay for them and no fiister. But I propose to OAvn the columns from the start. Although young, I have very settled convictions, originating in inheritance, perhaps, but certainly confirmed by education, and I propose to make the ‘Democrat’ their organ.”

The result of this negotiation Avas, that in July of 1837, the words, “Agent for the Proprietor,” which had thus long been beneath his name, were dropped, and he continued sole editor, publisher and proprietor, until 1861, when his responsibilities growing with the rapid growth of our city and others outside, incident, not only to his public life, but to the means which he had accumulated, required him to give it up. He had become largely interested in agriculture, having a farm of 2,500 acres, and he would have nothing to do with a newspaper unless he could have all to do with it. It must reflect his sentiments in every column. If public sentiment was wrong, instead of catering to it, he thought it his duty to correct it, and the earlier that correction was undertaken, the better. The war had begun, and new questions were suddenly springing out of it, which had to be promptly met, and he was unwilling to trust them in the hands of those who might happen to be in his employ, when important midnight dispatches might arrive, and, in particular, as he knew that whatever was written would be attributed solely to him. And it is a wonder how an independent editor like Mr. Wentworth could ever have secured so many public positions as he has. For it is the fortune of independent editors to be treading upon the toes of influence. Mr. Wentworth, whilst an editor, was ten years elected to Congress, and two years elected Mayor, with his paper in full blast upon every question that agitated the public. Call over the roll of fearless political writers, and see who have been more successful.

Having made up his mind to pay off the indebtedness of the “Chicago Democrat,” and to own it, he brought to bear all those indomitable energies which have ever characterized the descendants of the earliest settlers of New England; and although this had to be done in the midst of one of the severest financial crises through which the country ever passed, and although his views upon all the questions growing out of such a crisis were considered radical and extreme, his paper never lost that bold and defiant tone with which a conviction of right ever inspires a man. It ought before to have been stated, that he is a descendant on both sides from the old Puritan and revolutionary stock of New England, men who left their native land, over two and a quarter centuries ago, to enjoy freedom of opinion, and whose descendants have all been members of the same church which they came to New England to establish.

His maternal grandfather, Colonel Amos Cogswell, had served through the entire war of the Revolution. His paternal great-grandfather, Judge John Wentworth, had presided at the first revolutionary convention in New Hampshire. His grandfather, John Wentworth, Jr., at the age of thirty-three, was a member of the Continental Congress. And the pastor of the church of which his parents were members, and by whom he was christened, had been a soldier of the Revolution and had prayed in the camp of Washington. He brought his New England habits and inspirations to bear upon the work he had undertaken. He made his bed among the types and presses, and became not only editor, but folder, pressman, clerk and mail boy. There was no industry that could have surpassed his. By continuous daily and nightly toil, by denying himself everything that the most pressing necessity did not demand, he had paid the last dollar by the summer of 1839, and was then enabled to visit his native New England, the sole proprietor of the leading administration paper in the Northwest. During that visit, he delivered his first literary address at the commencement of Norwich (Vt.) University, taking for his subject, “All education should be practical,” which was highly commended by the papers of the day as a literary production; and he was the guest at the time of General Truman B. Eausom, one of the Professors, who fell on the battle fields of Mexico, and who was the father of our own General Ransom of the War of the Rebellion.

The foresight of Mr. Wentworth, in early securing the entire control of the columns of the “Democrat,” Avas apparent when the financial crisis of 1837 overtook the country, and which was attributed by many to the Jackson-Van Buren policy, but which he attributed to a redundant paper circulation and its natural consequences, speculation and extravagance; claiming, as he has so often done since, amid similar crises, that the specie redemption point should be the measure of paper circulation, and that all excesses of paper issues must result in a disastrous inflation of prices. An extra session of Congress was called, and the entire Democratic delegation from Illinois in the House went over to the opposition, for which the “Democrat” vehemently denounced them, and took the most decided administration ground. Its articles were copied into the “Washington Globe,” the “New York Evening Post,” and all the leading administration papers. The business men of Chicago, and the speculators universally, were against President Van Buren, and so, of course, were against the “Democrat,” and so became many of its old creditors, who refused to have it left at their doors. It was then, as it many times afterwards Avas, upon the agitation of similar questions, denounced in public meetings for creating an erroneous public sentiment, and threats were made of throwing it in the river. But it kept up an unremitting fire, and defied all denunciation. The excitement was increased by the early call of a Congressional Convention at Peoria, the denunciation of the member of Congress, and the nomination of Stephen A. Douglas in his place. Mr. Wentworth was pressed as a candidate by many delegates who were acquainted with him through his paper, but did not know that he was under the required age. One of them would insist upon voting for him, and made the prediction in the Convention that he would some day be in Congress.

The friends of the incumbent made a personal matter of the proceedings of the Convention, and his son-in-law publicly shot down one of the Committee upon Resolutions. Douglas and his opponent canvassed the District together on horseback, and their discussions, confined entirely to financial questions, were attended with great bitterness on the part of the audience, which occasionally broke out into personal collisions. Douglas made his headquarters, in Chicago, at the “Democrat” office, during this canvass, and it was the necessity of defending the administration that induced Mr. Wentworth to laboriously study the principles of governmental finance, and wliicli qualified him to write and speak so determinedly upon them in after years.

As early as February, 1840, in answer to an invitation to address the Bay State Association, at Boston, he wrote a letter upon the relation of banks to the Government, which was extensively circulated in pamphlet form, and copied into the administration papers. The “Boston Post” of that day said: “An ample apology for its great length will be found in the sound doctrines it contains, and the powerful and eloquent style in which they are communicated. Mr. Wentworth’s views of the banking system, statesmanlike and equitable as they are, cannot fail to meet with approbation from all Democrats, and from none more fully than the generous sons of the West.”

It was not until 1840 that Mr. Wentworth commenced addressing public assemblies outside of the city. The Presidential election was to take place that year; and, looking upon the prospects of Mr. Van Buren as unfavorable, he started the first Democratic daily paper in the Northwest, and having got it well under way, he commenced addressing the people in Northern Illinois, and so continued until the end of the campaign, often riding in the same conveyance, and speaking from the same stand, with Douglas. But the adnunistration of Mr. Van Buren was overthrown, and with it all those measures of finance to which Mr. Wentworth had become so early a devotee. Rut when the term of the new administration had half expired, Douglas and Wentworth entered Congress together, and assisted in restoring them to the national code. At the close of the contest, he received a very complimentary letter from Governor Thomas Carlin for his services, enclosing a commission as his Aid-de-Camp, signed by Stephen A. Douglas, as Secretary of State. Hence is derived his title of Colonel.

He continued his legal studies as political excitement subsided, and in the spring of 1841 entered the Law School at Cambridge, Massachusetts, with the intention of remaining a year, and had secured the services of the late Judge George Manierre, as editor in his absence. But, in the autumn his friends became uneasy lest his absence should provoke competition for the nomination to Congress, and prevailed upon him reluctantly to return home. Calling to take leave of Judge Story, one of the Professors, he was asked why he left before the close of the term. “Private business,” was the reply. Scarce had two years elapsed, before he met Judge Story, as Congressman, who observed: “Your private business has assumed public importance. Two years ago, my student; now, my law-maker. Truly, a young man of rapid growth.”

Soon after his return, he was examined by the late Governor Thomas Ford, whilst holding court at Sycamore, DeKalb County, and the late Thomas C. Brown, who was holding court at the same time in Dixon, in the adjoining county of Lee, and admitted to the bar. But his early election to Congress, and long continuance therein, with his other public positions, have left him with only the name of lawyer.

In August, 18-13 (the election being a year later than usual in consequence of a delay in the apportionment), before he had been in the State seven years, he was elected to the twenty-eighth Congress, the youngest member of that body. Before that time, there had been no Member of Congress from Illinois north of Springfield, and none from any State, who resided upon Lake Michigan. He was in Congress eight years under the census of 1840, two under that of 1850, and two under that of 1860. He was in the Twenty-eighth, Twenty-ninth, Thirtieth, Thirty-first, Thirty-third and Thirty-ninth Congresses, comprising a period of Tyler’s, Fillmore’s and Johnson’s administrations, being that of all the Vice-Presidents who ever acted as Presidents. He was under the Speakerships of Jones, of Virginia, Davis, of Indiana, Winthrop, of Massachusetts, Cobb, of Georgia, Boyd, of Kentucky, and Colfax, of Indiana; and under the administrations of Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce and Johnson. His first District was composed of the counties of Cook, Boone, Bureau, Champagne, DeKalb, DuPage, Grundy, Iroquois, Kane, Kendall, Lake, LaSalle, Livingston, McHenry, McLean, Vermillion and Will; and from these new counties and parts of counties have since been created. This territory is now represented, in whole or in part, by seven different Members of Congress. when first elected, the canal was not completed, and there was not a railroad in the State. The northern part of the State did not contain the population that Chicago now does. Wisconsin and Iowa were not admitted into the Union, and Minnesota was only known as a part of Wisconsin Territory. But little more than half the public land in the State had been sold. He could only canvass his District in a buggy, and oftentimes his appointments could not be fulfilled from the rise of streams by sudden rains. This District extended from the Wisconsin State line about two hundred and fifty miles south, and from the Indiana State line about one hundred miles west; and there were distances which would require from eight to ten hours’ travel without meeting a single inhabitant.

The history of his public acts would require a review of the history of the times. The journals of the House will speak for his votes, and the “Congressional Globe” for his speeches. He entered public life with his present motto—”Liberty and Economy.” He constituted one of the small majority that rescinded, during his first term, on the motion of John Quincy Adams, the rule that prohibited the reception of all petitions upon the subject of slavery. He was present in the House when John Quincy Adams fell, and was one of the committee to escort his remains to Massachusetts. In all measures of finance, he took an equally early stand with the most radical of the anti-debt and anti-repudiation, as well as of the specie-paying and low-taxation party.

The local legislation required for his District, and the business of his constituents with the various Departments at that day, can hardly be appreciated at present. There was no telegraph, and but very little railroad communication between Chicago and Washington, and the water communication was very circuitous. The postage on an ordinary letter was then twenty-five cents. He had to get maritime jurisdiction extended over the Lakes, harbors constructed, light-houses erected, ports of entry established. United States District Courts and court-houses, marine hospitals, post office buildings, etc., etc. New mail routes and post offices were wanted; and all over Northern Illinois towns and villages have assumed names that Mr. Wentworth gave to their original prairie post office. Contested land cases, arising under the various pre-emption laws were numerous, and required time at the Departments, as well as in Congress.

The Mexican war was begun and ended whilst he was in Congress, and this brought the claims of soldiers and their heirs for back pay, pensions, bounty, etc., etc.; and Mr. Wentworth ever took pride in being the gratuitous agent for all of his constituents.

He never relaxed his efforts, until they were crowned with success, to repeal the non-resident speculators’ law, exempting lands from taxation until five years after they were sold, and to enact pre-emption, graduation and homestead laws. He was the first man from the West to introduce a bill in favor of the bonded warehouse system.

The premature adoption of an extensive railroad system had brought upon the State financial embarrassments, from which it seemed impossible to extricate it, unless Congress should make a railroad grant of land similar to that made for the canal. The Illinois delegation labored industriously for this, but they found almost insurmountable obstacles in the way. One party, to keep the tariff low, wanted to apply all the proceeds of the public lands to defraying the expenses of the General Government. The other, to keep it high, wanted to divide the proceeds of their sales among the States. Three Congresses had passed away in ineffectual attempts. The Senate had been favorable; but the House, where the older States where in greater preponderance, was immovable. Whilst the finally successful negotiations were pending to get the Illinois bondholders to complete the canal, Mr. Wentworth had formed the acquaintance of many very influential bondholders in New York and Boston; and, from the complexion of the House, he believed these men had influence enough to gain the necessary votes to pass the bill. The canal had been a success, and the registered canal bonds were far above the others in the market. Mr. Wentworth opened a correspondence with them to show that a railroad grant could be so managed as to complete the road and bring the bonds to a par with the canal bonds. They sent a delegation to Washington, who soon made the report that the tariff question was in the way. “And what I sent for you for was because, as tariff men, I supposed you could get it out of the way,” said Mr. Wentworth. A few days more, and they brought to him a notification that a distinguished Member of Congress from Massachusetts had been chosen mediator, and would insist upon a slight modification of the tariff bill, as a condition of passing all the Western land bills. Mr. Wentworth called a meeting at his room, and made known the proposition. He took the ground that the modification of the tariff might work well, and, if so, there would bo no censure attached to its passage; and, if not so, then it could be repealed; whereas the land grants could not be repealed.

It was arranged to furnish votes enough to pass the bill, which was called up early next morning, and defeated by the absence of a few of the strongest tariff men in the House. So, to all appearances, ended the Illinois land grant, and Mr. Wentworth felt the discomfiture keenly. It was his fourth Congress of labor for it, and he had declined a re-election. He felt that the tariff bill was lost through no fault of his, or his Western allies. They had all worked up to their agreement, and he resolved on an appeal to the magnanimity of the tariff men. He suggested that they pass the Illinois bill, and thereby show what they could do, and then keep back the other bills until the tariff bill should pass. This policy was approved, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Hon. George Ashmun, engineered the bill safely through the House. But the tariff bill could not be passed, and its friends would allow no other land grant to pass, and this fact made the Illinois grant still more valuable, as the company that secured it had no competition at its organization in disposing of that class of securities. The men who were thus instrumental in securing the passage of the bill where not long in submitting to Mr. Wentworth the original draft of the present charter, which still exists, interlined in Mr. Wentworth’s own handwriting, making the Governor an ex-officio director, and strengthening the clause making the State’s income therefrom applicable to the liquidation of Illinois indebtedness. President Polk pocketed the harbor and river bill that passed the Twenty-ninth Congress; and Mr. Wentworth, thinking that he saw a disposition to make opposition to such bills a party test, deemed some immediate popular action necessary, and consulted Members of Congress upon the subject, and the result was the calling of a convention at Chicago, July 5, 1847. Mr. Wentworth, as Chairman of the Citizens’ Committee, drafted the address. The most prominent of the party with which Mr. Wentworth acted gave the convention the cold shoulder, as tending to injure the administration. But this only inspirited him, and nothing that he could do through his newspaper, or by public speeches or private letters, was left undone. The magical effects of that convention are proverbial.

He resisted with all his energies the surrender of the United States claim to any portion of the Pacific Territory south of the Russian Possessions, and was one of twelve who voted that our right to the whole country should not be the subject of negotiation or compromise. He was one of the few Democrats who attended a private meeting under Mr. Polk’s administration, and resolved to defeat any measure looking to the acquisition of new territory unless slavery was prohibited therein, and the fruits of which meeting was the celebrated “Wilmot Proviso.”

Wheeler, who was at Washington during all these eight years, in his Biographical and Political History of Congress, Volume II, says:

We mark him down a man of untiring energy, whose mind, once fixed upon a project, is not apt to be diverted from it, but will make every consideration secondary to its accomplishment. Possessing a good knowledge of parliamentary tactics, and conversant generally with the means of success in any movement he may make, he calculates coolly and afar off, and turns every little circumstance to good account. We have seen him stand up in the face of denunciation and excommunication fierce enough to awe into submission any mind accustomed to acknowledge the obligations of that austere discipline which is characteristic of the Democratic party. If he has winced, we never saw him.

And the “United States Democratic Review,” published about the same time, said of him:

Colonel Wentworth’s political career has been marked by untiring industry and perseverance; by independence of thought, expression and action; by a thorough knowledge of human nature; by a moral courage equal to any crisis; by a self-possession that enables him to avail himself of any chance of success, when on the very threshold of defeat; and by a steady devotion to what he believes the wishes and interests of those whose representative he is.

Under the census of 1850, Chicago was placed in a District composed of the counties of Cook, DeKalb, DuPage, Kane, Lee, Whiteside and Rock Island, the three latter counties not having been in the District formerly represented by Mr. Wentworth in Congress. He was its first Representative. He and Senator Douglas canvassed the entire District in company, both urging the claims of General Pierce to the Presidency. But the introduction of the Missouri Compromise Repeal, by Senator Douglas, and the support given that measure by General Pierce, soon separated them politically. Mr. Wentworth left them with regret. He had been an admirer of Douglas ever since he had known him, and hoped to see him President of the United States. And his admiration for President Pierce was inherited, as his own father (Hon. Paul Wentworth) had been a supporter, not only of the President’s father (Governor Benjamin Pierce) for every public position he had held, but in the Legislature, the son Franklin, when he was first elected Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, and also when elected United States Senator. His sense of public duty overcame his personal attachments, and when the administration added to its slavery policy opposition to harbor and river improvements, he could not see upon what living question he sympathized with the dominant party. So he took sides with the opposition at the next election, and supported General Fremont for the Presidency.

The public records prove Mr. Wentworth one of the most efficient opponents of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, as well as of every other measure that could be construed, by even the most fastidious, to lessen the influence of free labor upon the country. The scene when he outgeneraled the opposition to Colonel Benton in the House, will never be forgotten by those who witnessed it. The great Missourian, after having served so long in the Senate as to have acquired the title of Pater Senatus, was transferred to the House, and was about making his debut upon the repeal question. The friends of that measure knew that,mwith his slow, Senatorial style of speaking, he could not produce much effect in a single hour, and they were determined that the “hour rule” should be enforced upon him. The audience was such a crowded one as only a man of his eminence could call out. He had hardly laid out his ground-work, when the presiding officer raised his hammer; but, before it fell, Mr. Wentworth addressed him, and was recognized, and he desired to give the gentleman from Missouri such a portion of his time as would enable him to finish. Objections from the administration men rang throughout the House, and as loudly rang appeals in his favor from the others. Amid the general melee, Colonel Benton seemed nonplussed. He had been in the habit of surmounting all obstacles, but the relentless hour rule was now in his way. Mr. Wentworth loomed up amid the crowd, holding the floor with a coolness that satisfied those who knew him, that he was either going to find a way for the Colonel to deliver his speech, or else he was going to take his sheets and read them himself. Mr. Wentworth passed him a note to move an amendment, as none was pending. To use Colonel Benton’s own words afterwards: “I obeyed orders; I was in the woods; I did not know how to get out; I had been in the Senate too long for that hour rule.” “Can I offer an amendment?” said he. “With the consent of the gentleman from Illinois,” was the reply. He passed up his amendment, and Mr. Wentworth passed to him another note, saying: “Now explain it.” He asked if he could explain his amendment. “If the gentleman from Illinois surrenders the floor,” was the reply. There was deep sensation in the ranks of the Administration, their leaders looking at each other as if to inquire: “Can this be done?” The more experienced gave it up; and Colonel Benton was allowed to finish his last great speech in the halls of legislation. Senator Douglas Avas present, and, with John C. Breckenridge, came to Wentworth’s seat, after Colonel Benton had resumed, and said: “The Abolitionists are quite successful under their new leader.” Douglas then little dreamed that the time was not far distant when Breckenridge was to taunt him in the same way, for opposing Mr. Buchanan’s administration, as Mr. Wentworth did that of General Pierce. Colonel Benton gave a large dinner party in honor of his extrication by Mr. Wentworth from the embarrassments of the “hour rule,” and entertained his guests to a late hour with a most interesting account of incidents in his life, but every little while declaring that he never lost his composure so much as when the nullifiers drove him up against the hour rule. And when he made his last visit to Chicago, while Mr. Wentworth was Mayor, to deliver his lecture, he described his feelings very glowingly to a large collection of ladies and gentlemen in the Tremont House. He said he had been in many trying emergencies; he had traveled on horseback from Missouri to Washington when the country was a wilderness; he had had conflicts with personal enemies; he had fought the enemies of his country on the battle-field; he had met its great men in Senatorial debate; but he had never appreciated assistance so much as when his friend here (taking Mayor Wentworth by the hand) piloted him past the gag-law. After much labor he had prepared his speech, and he wanted to deliver it; and he never published one that he did not deliver; but after all his labor, and with all his anxiety, it would have been an abortion but for the Chicago Representative.

In 1857, and again in 1860, Mr. Wentworth was elected Mayor of Chicago, and as such had an opportunity to prove how sincere he had been, as editor and Congressman, in advocating the most rigid economy. He found a large floating debt against the city when he entered upon each of his terms; and, when he closed each of them, he left not a dollar of it outstanding. He stopped all rows at the elections, and made access to the polls as easy as to private dwellings. He reduced both the number and salaries of officials. He summarily cleared our streets and sidewalks of obstructions. He demolished the houses of infamy upon the “Sands.” He compelled persons erecting, repairing or removing buildings to give bonds protecting the city against damages to individuals. He established the present grade of the city. He introduced steam fire-engines, in spite of the most violent opposition. He reduced the people’s taxes, and raised the credit of the city.

In co-operation with the English Embassy at Washington, he went to Montreal, in 1860, to induce the Duke of Newcastle to change the intended route of the Prince of Wales through the Western British Possessions to the United States, and submitted a programme, so far as Chicago was concerned, that proved satisfactory to our citizens and to the royal party. Lord Lyons, the British Minister to the United States, afterwards wrote him a letter of thanks, as also did the Duke of Newcastle, and he repeated them in different letters afterwards. And the Prince himself sent a man, at his own expense, expressly to deliver to him a pair of Southdown sheep for his Summit farm, as a testimonial of his esteem.¹

In 1861, he was elected a delegate to the convention to revise the Constitution of Illinois, upon a fusion ticket, composed of half Democrats and half Republicans, both parties waiving nominations.

In 1863, he was appointed one of the Board of Police Commissioners, and in that capacity he became associated with the military authorities in ferreting out and bringing to justice the conspirators to liberate the rebel prisoners in Camp Douglas, who were to burn the city on the night prior to the election, and thus came in possession of facts that he successfully used, while a Member of Congress, to defeat the application of their leader for a pardon. In that capacity, also, it was his duty to aid in the maintenance of law and order while the great concourse was here which nominated General McClellan for President. Fears were entertained that violence would ensue if Mr. Vallandigham, of Ohio, undertook to address our people in the open air; and upon the evening announced for his address, Mr. Wentworth went amongst the most excited portion of the audience and successfully urged them to quietude. At the close of Mr, Vallandigham’s address, he stepped upon the Court House steps and claimed for himself the same courtesy that had been extended to Mr. Vallandigham. He then made a speech to the assembly, which was opposed to him in politics, in support of Mr. Lincoln’s administration, which ranked among his very best efforts, and was circulated through several States as a campaign document.

He was elected to the Thirty-ninth Congress, in 1864, from a District which, under the census of 1860, was composed only of the County of Cook. He was upon the Committee of Roads and Canals, and upon the Committee of Ways and Means. As a member of the former, he labored successfully to get the Niagara Ship Canal bill through the House, but it failed in the Senate. The latter committee is a little Congress of itself. It is there where all financial bills are framed, and where representatives of all the trades and industries are in constant attendance. It sits most of the time while the House is in session, and mornings and evenings besides. Finance was the main question when he first wrote for the “Chicago Democrat,” and when he first entered public life. The slavery question had overshadowed it for many years. Upon this subject, from first to last, he had made but one record. The war being over, and slavery abolished, reconstruction was the prevailing question, and upon it Mr, Wentworth signalized himself among the most radical of the radicals. As reconstruction began to be settled, finance loomed up as the next question. How to pay the debt, and resume specie payments with the least distress to the people, were questions of great interest to him; and so, whenever he could leave the House without detriment to pending questions, he was always in the committee room, supporting every measure of retrenchment and economy, and listening to the suggestions of its numerous visitors. No measure looking to an increase of public, expenditures, the repudiation of the national debt, violation of contracts, or to a postponement of the resumption of specie payments, ever received any encouragement from him.

Mr. Wentworth, all through his editorial and official life, has shown himself not only a man of decided convictions, but has proved, on many notable occasions, that he had, under the most adverse circumstances, the courage to follow them. He has ever looked upon parties as only necessary organizations for the accomplishment of desirable ends, and has had no party attachments beyond his decided convictions of right, always having principles which he wished sustained by the legislation of his country, and always seeking that political organization which would best promote this object. And, although he has been more highly honored that any other citizen of Chicago by official positions, he has in many instances flung away such honors, against the remonstrances of highly valued friends, when their attainment required a compromise of well settled convictions. In 1854, the opposition to the Democratic party was not consolidated into a single organization, as it now is, and Mr. Wentworth belonged to the “Free Soil Democratic Party,” in contradiction to that of the Americans, the Abolitionists, the Democrats, and the Whigs. It was the unanimous desire of the Free Soil Democrats that he should be returned to Congress, and the Abolitionists were willing to gratify that desire. But these two organizations could not alone elect their candidate. It required the concurrence of the Americans to enable these two organizations to outnumber the Whigs and Democrats, each of which party was determined to run a separate candidate. The Americans were desirous of fusing with the Free Soil Democrats and Abolitionists, but required that the candidate should be pledged to their peculiar views as to the rights of foreign born residents. A committee of three leading citizens called upon Mr. Wentworth, inviting his private initiation into their order, with the assurance that they Mould support him for Congress. He promptly declined the candidacy upon such terms. Again, in 1866, he had warm advocates; but the laboring classes required that he should sign a pledge of his honor as a man to introduce, advocate, and vote for the eight-hour law, but he preferred to stand by the rule from which he had never deviated, to make no pledges, except that which every honorable man gives when nominated for office, viz: to abide by the platform adopted by the convention at the time of his nomination. He contended that it would be no honor to himself, and no triumph to the Republican party, if he had to be pledged to an outside organization to get his election. When he was Mayor, all the city patronage was in his hands; and he, being besought to make some pledges beforehand, said he would respond at the next public meeting; and in Metropolitan Hall, before an immense audience, he denounced all such attempts, and declared that under no circumstances would he appoint any man to office who ever even insinuated that he ever had the least encouragement from him that he was to have an office. When he was leaving for Congress, at one time, a clergyman said to him, “I pray God to give you courage!” Mr. Wentworth responded: “You need not do that; but pray God to give me light—to show me the right; I have the courage already to follow it.”

Mr. Wentworth is one of the most enterprising agriculturists in the Northwest, having a farm of two thousand live hundred acres, grazed by the choicest selections from foreign herds, six miles from the city limits; and he was member of the Agricultural Board from the State at large at the time of his election to the Thirty-ninth Congress.

At the time of the consolidation of the old Galena and Chicago Union Railroad Company with the Northwestern, he had been for some years a Director in the former company, and won the admiration, not only of the stockholders, but of the people all along the line, by his unflagging zeal to avoid all unnecessary expenses, to correct all abuses, and to accommodate the public—developing the same administrative ability in private as in official affairs.

Mr. Wentworth has been remarkable for habits of untiring industry, and for keeping such control of his private business that lie has ever been independent of political results to himself personally; and therefore he has always made his own time more valuable when devoted to his own private pursuits than when devoted to official positions, with even the highest emoluments. He has always stepped from public to private life with profit to himself. Nor has he ever been concerned in any means of legislation that would result in private benefit to himself or any of his friends; the volumes of private laws passed by the Illinois Legislature will be searched in vain for his name; and the originators of the numerous indignation meetings in Chicago, against different schemes of private legislation, have never failed to call upon him for his immediate co-operation. He has always combated that system of morals which would excuse a man for doing in his corporate capacity what would be unjust or dishonest in his individual capacity—that system which is continually making individuals very rich, while the corporations which they manage become proportionately poor. After the disastrous explosion of the Illinois State General Banking System, which Mr. Wentworth had opposed from the beginning, many of its supporters undertook to protect themselves from the consequences of their measures by deducting from the dues to their depositors the difference between good and the depreciated money; and a bank in which Mr. Wentworth had a small interest so far imitated this example as to make a comparatively small deduction in such cases. At the first meeting of the stockholders thereafter, Mr. Wentworth took the ground that this deduction should be refunded, and the measure was carried, although no other institution similarly situated has ever made such a restitution.

Mr. Wentworth has also been remarkable, as a writer and speaker. for conveying his ideas in the fewest possible words, and for his success in commanding the closest attention of promiscuous audiences. His portrait, painted by Healy, in 1858, for the Common Council Chamber, is pronounced one of the best works of that distinguished artist.

NOTES:

¹After retiring from Congress in 1868 Wentworth purchased about 5,000 acres of land in what is today part of the Chicago neighborhood of Garfield Ridge and suburban Summit. His country estate was near the 5400 block of South Neva. It was demolished in 1968 after years of falling into disrepair.

George P. A. Healy

Biographies

Biographical Sketches of the Leading Men in Chicago, Photographically Illustrated by John Carbutt, 1868, Pages 627-633

Although our city has been more or less absorbed, during the years that are past, in the great work of building up a lasting foundation for her present and future greatness, thus compelling her to give almost exclusive attention to commercial enterprises, yet we are glad to chronicle the fact that, of late years, her attention has been turned, in a great degree, to the culture of the fine arts. To-day she boasts of a corps of artists whose busy fingers are constantly engaged in satisfying the increasing demands of her citizens for works of this description. Foremost in this list is he whose sketch we are about to write.

Geoege P. A. Healy was born in Boston, Massachusetts, July 15, 1813, being the eldest son of Captain William and Mary Healy. His father led an active life in his profession, as a captain in the merchant service. In the war of 1812, his vessel and cargo, in which his entire fortune was embarked, were captured by a British privateer, and he himself detained as a prisoner of war six months on the island of Antigua, after which time he was exchanged. On his return, he married Miss Mary Hicks, who was only fourteen years of age. From his mother Mr. Healy, no doubt, inherited his talent for painting, of which, however, he gave no indication until the age of sixteen, when it was developed by drawing maps for his school companions.

Two years later, Thomas Sully visited Boston, commissioned by the Athenaeum of that city to paint a whole-length portrait of its benefactor, the late Colonel Thomas H. Perkins. A friend of Mr. Healy Jane Stuart, Miss Jane Stewart, daughter of the late Gilbert Stuart—presented him to this great artist, who requested him to make a study from nature and copy a head by Stuart. When completed and shown to Mr. Sully, he, with his characteristic kindness, said: “By all means, Mr. Healy, make painting your profession.” Mr. Sully was commissioned by the St. George’s Society, seven years later, to go to London and paint Queen Victoria, and, at that time, looking at a portrait of Audubon, be bowed and said ” Mr. Healy, you have no reason to regret having taken my advice.”

The encouragement given to Mr. Healy in the autumn of 1831, emboldened the young man to take a painting room on Federal street, in a house belonging to the late Richard Tucker, to whom our young artist went at the end of the first quarter, saying he had not earned enough to pay the rent. The reply was: “Then Charles and John must sit to you.” The former was his only son, and the latter his son-in-law, John Henry Gray. These, the first portraits Mr. Healy exhibited, were seen at the Athenseum in 1832. The following spring, he was painting Lieutenant Van Brunt, of the Navy, to whom he said he wished he knew some beautiful woman whose picture he might place in the coming exhibition, to open in a few weeks. He had, early that morning, been permitted to see them hanging the pictures at the Athenseum, where he noticed an exquisite likeness of Mrs. Sully, painted by her husband, our greatest painter of women. This it was that inspired the wish. Said Lieutenant Van Brunt: ” Mr. Healy, stop this sitting, and go at once to Mrs. Harrison Gray Otis; say to her that you are painting my picture, and tell her what you said to me.” The young artist called, and sent word to the lady that a gentleman wished to see her on business. He was received with great kindness, and, after listening to the simple facts, Mrs. Otis laughed, and said: “Pray, whom have I the pleasure of addressing?” She then received the artist’s card, and promised to call very soon and see the portraits of her friends, Lieutenant Van Brunt and John Henry Gray. The following day, she called with a friend, and, on taking leave of Mr. Healy, said: “I am pleased with what I have seen; call. at my house when you have time.” He allowed one day to pass, and then presented himself, but his timidity deprived him of speech. The generous lady, seeing his confusion, relieved him by saying: “When shall I sit?” Still seeing him unable to utter a word, she smilingly added: “Shall it be to-morrow?” Mr. Healy exclaimed, with gratitude: “I must prepare for you, madam; let it be the following day, if you please.” The result of the first sitting was, from his nervousness, beyond doubt, the poorest effort our artist ever made; but he was encouraged to persevere, and, at the second sitting, he placed the mirror in such a position that his charming sitter could see the progress of the work, which amused her, and thus he caught her laughing expression.

This work enabled Mr. Healy to leave a handsome sum of money with his mother, and to go to Europe, with a thousand dollars in his pocket, in the spring of 1834. He studied two years in Paris, during which time he drew from the life, and copied a number of pictures in the Louvre. While thus occupied, he was very much gratified by the remarks of an English gentleman and lady, upon his copy of Correggio’s ” Mysterious Marriage of St. Catherine.”

Late that autumn, he started for Italy, by the way of Mount Cenis. While on the piazza of the hotel at the first town on the plains of Italy where the diligence stopped, a lady came towards him, extending her hand and saying: “I am delighted to make your acquaintance, Mr. Healy; I am Lady Faulkner; Sir Arthur and I met you in the Louvre, and have since passed two months in the society of your friend, Mrs. Otis, now at Geneva, from whom we have heard all about you; we insist on your dining with us, and accepting a seat in our carriage for the balance of your journey through Italy” Thus commenced one of the most delightful friendships of our artist’s life. The first gallery visited was at Turin; the two works he most vividly remembered were the pictures of Van Dyke’s “Children of Charles I.,” and a cabinet-sized portrait of a burgomaster, by Rembrandt. Mr. Healy reveled in the palaces and pictures at Genoa, from which city the party followed the coast, en route for Florence, by way of Sienna. The journey was rendered extremely interesting by Sir Arthur’s translating Horace’s description of the very scenes through which tliey were so little changed by the lapse of centuries. During five weeks passed in Florence, Mr. Healy copied Titian’s Venus and one or two other important works. The Faulkners had letters from Royalty to the best people in Florence, and their young protege was presented as if he were one of their an advantage fully appreciated by Mr. Healy, and which was extended to him at Rome and Naples, where he took an affectionate leave of his friends.

On his way back to Paris, he stopped two months at Geneva, where he painted Mrs. Otis and family, besides many English people. In July, he returned to Paris and made several copies in the Louvre, painting, evenings, from the life.

In the spring of 1836, he visited London for the first time, and saw the last exhibition ever held in Somerset House; he also painted a portrait of Bentham and Burdett—the well-known Francis Place.

In the autumn of that year, Joseph Hume wrote a note saying he would be glad to sit if he could obtain so good a likeness, to accomplish which he returned in the early part of January. The note reached Mr. Healy while on a sketching tour, (some of the studies of which are now in his studio,) during which expedition he made a journey of three hundred leagues on foot, in company with two French artists.

During Mr. Hume’s sittings, Mr. Healy spoke of his visit to Italy, in connection with the kindness of Sir Arthur Brook Faulkner ; he replied ” He was one of the stewards of the great reform dinner given to myself and colleague last night, and now resides in St. John’s Wood.” Mr. Healy was warmly received by his friends, and Sir Arthur gave him a commission to paint his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex and himself. With this handsome opening, he painted with great success until the summer of 1838, when the American Minister, Andrew Stevenson, gave him a commission to paint a portrait of Marshal Soult, saying “Mr. Healy, you must arrange with General Cass, our Minister in Paris, in regard to the sittings.” The artist wrote to that gentleman, saying that Mr. Stevenson wished this portrait as a commemoration of the Marshal who had so nobly represented France at the recent coronation of Queen Victoria. The reply of General Cass reached Mr. Healy while making studies in Belgium, saying: ” Come to Paris, and I will do what I can to induce the Marshal to sit for you; in the meantime, I wish you to paint myself and family, for, although young in years, your fame has reached me.” The Marshal was unable to sit at that time. During the sittings of General Cass, that gentleman said “How would you like to paint a portrait of Louis Philippe?” at which our artist laughed, as if that were impossible. The General asked the King to sit, but His Majesty declined on the score of want of time. When, however, he saw the portrait of General Cass in the Louvre, he decided otherwise, and when he next saw the General at Court, said: ” Inform your young friend that, when he visits Paris again, it will be a pleasure for me to sit to him.” This the General communicated to Mr. Healy in London. On completing his commissions as rapidly as possible, he returned to Paris, and was accompanied by General Cass near His Majesty for the first sitting. When permission was asked to take the measure of his face, the reply was ” Do as you are accustomed, Mr. Healy, so as not to lose time.” With this permission, the rapid ascent of two or three steps took him to where the King sat. The new dividers in the hand of the artist gleamed like a poignard, and one of the aids rushed forward to seize the arm, when Louis Philippe observed ” Monsieur le General, Mr. Healy is a republican from the United States, and there is no danger.” This was said in consequence of two or three attempts which had, not long before, been made on the life of the King.

During this year, Mr. Healy painted the portrait of Mrs. Cass, which, in the exhibition at the Louvre, in the spring of 1840, obtained for him his first gold medal. During this year he returned to London, formed a matrimonial alliance with Miss Louisa Phipp, of that city, and returned to Paris, where he resumed the sittings of Louis Philippe. During one of these, in 1842, His Majesty observed: ” I was seen in good company last night, at the grand ball given by General Cass to commemorate the birthday of General Washington, hanging, as I did, between the portraits of that great man and M. Guizot.” The King’s portrait, although unfinished, General Cass had placed between the two, as above mentioned. The King said: ” Mr. Healy, where did you get the likeness of General Washington?” The reply was ” From an engraving in the life Avritten by Sparks.” “I thought so, as I know of no portrait of Washington in France.” His Majesty here said, with a kindness of manner never to be forgotten: “Mr. Healy, I want a whole-length portrait of General Washington for my historical gallery at Versailles, and I wish it (bowing) from your pencil.” This was said at the end of the sitting, and the artist worked no more that day. Here the King showed an intimate knowledge of the different portraits of the General. Our artist suggested that he should make a copy of the whole-length likeness in Faneuil Hall, Boston the King said ” I wish, rather, for a copy of that which Mrs. Bingham ordered Stuart to paint, and which I saw in its progress in the artist’s studio, for that is in his black velvet, as President, and not as General. That picture is now in London. M. le Comte St. Auler, our Ambassador, shall be instructed to obtain permission for you to copy it, and I will send for you in a week.” The King was true to his word, and on meeting, the first thing he said was ” Mr. Healy, we are dished; the portrait in question has gone to St. Petersburg, where I may not send you; I now leave this matter in your hands. Proceed to the United States, and do as well as you can from the one in the Presidential Mansion, which Avas saved by Mrs. Madison when the British took Washington.”

Mr. Healy returned to Boston after an absence of eight years, lost no time in executing the work confided to him, and was received most kindly by Washington Allston, to whom he delivered a message from the Duke of Sutherland, in regard to the picture ordered for him by his brother-in-law, Lord Morpeth. The painter’s reply was: “I informed his Lordship that I could not complete that work until my great picture, on which I have been occupied for twenty-five years, is finished.”

Mr. Healy showed his copy to a friend in London, who remarked ” That is from one of West’s.” Upon being corrected, he said: “I thought it was, as I saw one like it among the effects of the late Johu D. Lewis.” Mr. Healy expressed regret that that picture was then in St. Petersburg. “No,” said his friend, “it is in this neighborhood, stored in Silbury’s warehouse.” This was joyful news, and he obtained from the executors permission to finish the copy from the original, which copy now hangs at Versailles. The Marquis of Lansdowne, having quarreled with his heirs, sold the library and pictures; the portrait was purchased by Moon, Boys Graves, the great printsellers of that day, who tried to dispose of it to the English Government. The Duke of Wellington and other members of the Cabinet went to see it, but, although admiring the work and the character of the original, decided that they could not hang the portrait of a traitor to England in the National Gallery. The firm then disposed of it by lottery, and thus it came into the hands of the late John D. Lewis.

On Mr. Healy’s return to Paris, Monsieur Guizot, after a Cabinet meeting, was invited to see this picture, with the remark: “I wish you to see what my American painter has done for me.” Apropos to M. Guizot, the year before, the Americans in Paris, as a compliment to the Prime Minister for his pamphlet on Washington, and his other writings, ordered Mr. Healy to paint his whole-length portrait, to be placed in Washington, wherever President Tyler should think most appropriate to hang it. That gentleman expressed to the artist his fear that, wherever it was placed, he would be found fault with; but in that he was mistaken, for all approved of its being hung in the National Institute—it now occupies a place in the Smithsonian.

In 1844, the King commissioned Mr. Healy to make copies of the portraits of the royal personages, from Elizabeth down to William IV., together with those of the most eminent statesmen. While still executing these orders, he was instructed to proceed in all haste to paint the portrait of General Jackson, and several of the Presidents and statesmen of our country. These being done, he obtained permission from his Majesty to return to the United States, to make the studies for his great picture of “Webster Replying to Hayne,” the studies for, and the execution of which work, occupied him seven years. It was purchased by the city of Boston, and is now in Fanueil Hall. Before it was completed, Louis Philippe was dethroned, and when Mr Healy deplored this fact to his friend, George Ticknor, that gentleman replied: “The best patron an artist can have is the public.”

On his return to Europe, Mr. Healy paid his respects to his patron and family at Claremount, where he was most cordially received. Our artist’s next important work represents Franklin, Lee and Dean, negotiating a treaty of alliance between France and the struggling Colonies. This work, now in Chicago, obtained for him his second gold medal at the Universal Exhibition in Paris, in 1855, in which year Mr. Healy first came to Chicago, where his family followed him the year after. The family returned to Paris in 1866, where Mr. Healy joined them during the past summer.

We need not add a word as to the great success which has uniformly attended Mr. Healy’s efforts to please his patrons in Chicago, as it has become proverbial that to engage a sitting with him is to secure a finished likeness.

A more perfect gentleman, genial companion and affectionate parent need not be looked for, than he of whom we have written. A friend to the poor, always ready to lend a helping hand to those who are struggling for success, especially in the art circles of which he is the acknowledged head, he has Avon a place in the affections of hundreds of our citizens, which time cannot efface.

Chicago Tribune, June 25, 1894

G. P. A. Healy, the celebrated portrait painter, died at 2:30 o’clock yesterday morning at his residence, No. 387 Ontario street, of exhaustion brought on by the hoy weather. About a year ago he fell and sustained injuries on the head from which he never fully recovered. It was this, doubtless, that had something to do with his inability to withstand the heat. Furthermore Mr. Healy was within a few days of the 81st anniversary of his birth, consequently had lost much of his vigor. Then, too, his entire life had been singularly free from sickness; therefore, as seems to be generally true in nearly all such cases, when he began to lose vitality the end came quickly. Only last week, however, did his wasting strength begin to make itself seriously felt and he remained confined at home. Up to five days ago it had been customary with him to go to his studio on Huron, near State street, every morning.

The end was calm and peaceful. The great artist quietly fell asleep and was no more. His wife, two daughters, and a grandson were at his bedside. His son, George Healy, was in New York at the time, and two of his daughters, Mme. Charles Bigot and Miss Edith Healy, are in Paris. The time of the funeral has not yet been decided upon, but it is known that the remains will be buried at Calvary Cemetery.

Sketch of His Busy Life.
Mr. Healy was one of the most celebrated portrait artists in the world. His fame extended over two continents. His name and his works are as well known in England, Germany, France, and Italy as in America. He had painted the pictures of many of the most distinguished men and women of all these countries, and among his patrons he numbered more crowned heads than any artist in his time. He was born in Boston July 15, 1813, of humble parents. While yet a lad in knickerbockers his father died, and at the age of 15 he was earning a livelihood for himself and supporting his mother. Some of his first drawings attracted the attention of Boston people, and when only 18 years old he painted a portrait of Mrs. Harrison Gray Otis that laid the foundation for his future reputation. Copies of the original picture are familiar to every one the world over. It represents an exceedingly beautiful woman laughing in such a way as to show her pretty teeth to the best advantage. After completing this picture, which was his first important effort, young Healy was enabled to go to Paris, where he studied for a time. Lewis Cass, then Minister to the Court of France, became interested in the young man and helped him along. Through his influence he succeeded in getting Mr. Healy an order from the throne to paint the portrait of King Louis Philippe. His success in the work was so pronounced that he at once became a favorite with the King, who sent him to this country with a commission to paint portraits of George Washington, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Andrew Jackson, and other distinguished American statesmen, to be hung in the gallery of the Louvre. Before Healy returned to France, King Louis had been dethroned, but the portraits were hung and are there now. During his first years in Paris he executed a great many pictures that were hung in the Salon exhibitions and received the highest awards. Among his effects the dead artist leaves a score or more of medals. It is said that one time a wealthy American family visiting in Paris were so favorably struck with a copy of “Noces de Cana,” done by Mr. Healy and hung in the palace museum, that they toolk the artist in their chaise and carried him away on a pleasure trip with them. It was in 1841 that he painted the portrait of King Louis Philippe.

Other Noted Portraits Painted.
While in America executing the King’s order he also painted a portrait of Benjamin Franklin and Louis XVI together, from which a medal was made in Paris. He also painted portraits of the Pope, President Theirs, Gambetta, Bismarck, Liszt, Lord Lytton, and many crowned heads of Europe. Among the finest pictures painted by him on this side of the water was his famous “Peace Picture,” the figures in which were life-size representations of Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, and Porter. This work was destroyed by fire at the Calumet club last year. He also painted other Generals of the war, the poet Longfellow, and scores of the distinguished men of the country. Among the members of royalty his warmest friends and admirers were King Charles I, and Carmen Sylva, Queen of Roumania, whose portraits he painted several times. Among his works are paintings of nearly all great people, covering a period of more than fifty years. One of the last portraits turned out by him was of the Duke d’Aumale of France.

Mr. Healy was married in 1840 at London to Miss Louisa Phipps, who survives him. Four daughters and one son are the fruit of their marriage. They are Mme. de Mare and Mme. Charles Bigot of Paris, Miss Edith Healy, Miss Kathleen Healy, and George Healy. Mme. de Mare and her four children, Miss Kathleen, and the son are here.

Mr. Healy came to Chicago first in 1856 and remained until 1866, when he returned to Paris. His home then was on Wabash avenue, near Jackson street. It was destroyed by the big fire. During his last residence in Paris he used to come to America for a two or three months’ stay almost every year. He retained his interest in Chicago and three years ago he came back with his family to make this city his final home. He was the friend and companion of nearly all the older citizens and had painted the portraits of one or the other of the parents of those who knew him in their childhood. An exhibit of his work was one of the attractive features of the portrait department of the Art Palace at the Exposition last year.

Swartz Building

< –Previous Up Next–>

Swartz Building
Life Span: 1866 (Never Completed)
Location: Near the Corner of State and Madison Streets
Architect: None. Hand built by Mr. Swartz

Chicago Tribune, October 22, 1866
The illustration is from Harper’s Weekly, November 10, 1866, but their accompanying description is an excerpt from the following article.

An appalling calamity befel a portion of the city during the violent storm of last night, such a one as, happily, but rarely, becomes the duty of the chronicler of passing events to record—a disaster which has sent many human beings to their grave, and inflicted untold agonies upon as many more who have been rescued from the most dreadful event we can imagine as falling to the lot of the living. Between eleven and tweelve o’clock a terrific crash resounded ominously over, we might say, the whole of the central portion of the city. The majority of people imagined it to be a peal of thunder, yet there was something in the sound which boded a direr disaster, a more immediate peril than even the bolt of Jove himself. From Madison along State street to the bridge, and up and down all the immediate streets for a considerable distance, the shock was felt as of a terrible earthquake, and sleepers were startled from their slumbers by the noise and the concussion. There was a wide-spread feeling of terror among the citizens, even before anything could be ascertained as the the cause of the dreadful summons.

It proved to be the fall of a huge brick structure in process of erection near the corner of Madison and State streets, running from McVicker’s alley, and fronting on State. It was one of those hastily and cheaply cobbled together pieces of architecture which are a disgrace to any city—one of those card castles that seem to to waver and shake in every breeze, and which seem each moment to threaten destruction to the passenger. The gale last night, which, after all, was not excessively fierce, proved too much for this fragile mass of uncompleted mason-work, and the whole edifice caved in and fell like an avalanche, carrying death, and tortures worse than death, to the homes of many families who lived in the surrounding tenements. I one dreadful moment, as if the trump of doom had sounded, their wretched inmates, many of whome were chatting comfortably around their stoves and listening ton the wild storm without, were without a note of warning, crushed to pieces or thrown maimed and shuttered into the street.

Such a scene of devastation and misery as presented itself immediately after the edifice fell, it would be difficult to convey. Almost from McVicer’s Theatre, on Madison street, round the corner and along State street for some distance, making a very considerable section of a square, the frame tenements which had stood there, were so completely flattened, and crushed, that the upper stories were on a level with the sidewalk. The sidewalks were entirely uprooted from the ground, and the outer edges stuck out in the form of an abatti. Clambering up to these swaying planks, one had to slide down an inclined plane to the horrible mass of ruins in the centre. And such a mass! It was impenetrable one would have thought, and for the helpless men and women, and children who were groaning and screaming in agony far below there seemed but small hope of succor. To add to the horror and hopelessness of the case, the rain was coming down in pitiless torrents, while the wind seemed to sing a dismal corouach over the ruins. Few people were abroad in such a night, and for an hour, at least, no very material assistance could be rendered to the sufferers. People were seen frantically rushing up and down the streets, not knowing what to do, wildly crying for help, and their temporary frenzy, cursing the laggards who did not come. But it seemed as if the efforts of a thousand men would have been of little avail to extricate from such an indistinguishable pile of rubbish any one who lay beneath. The police were summoned, and from every station they soon began tio muster in large force. The fire-bell pealed forth its alarm, and the department were speedily on hand. The citizens, too, came to the spot in crowds, attracted by the alarm from the Court House. Then the work of excavation began in earnest. The inmates were dragged forth from their living graves, some terribly mangkled, some only cut and scratched, and some ebtirely unscathed. Every one was, of course, eager to help and the real difficulty with the police was now to keep the volunteers from overcrowding the scene of action. Body after body was carried out, most of them fortunately alive, and again the search was prosecuted, until about 2 o’clock it was supposed that the great majority of those who had been buried were recovered.

To give a more accurate conception as to the extent of the disaster, we will name the several tenements which fell under the terrible avalanche. On Madison street the first building next to the theatre is that which Mr. Frank Monroe occupies as a saloon. This was untouched. Adjoining it was a small boot and shoe store kept by B. Dulle, and the next was another of similar dimensions occupied as a barber shop by a man named Gilmore. At the corner of Madison and State streets was a saloon kept by James Stenson. Following that on State street was the confectionery store of Mr. Martin, and adjoining it an the elegant clothing store occupied by Hamilton & Clark. Then came the brick building. On the south side of it was a large dwelling house in which dwells a number of boarders, presided over by Mrs. Van Belsen. The upper portions of the above named houses were nearly all occupied by families, an the moment the builsing fell they were pretty full. One inmate, Mr. William Bohn, related he was sitting in his room over Hamilton & Craib’s, in quiet conversation with a friend, when the dreadful shock came. One cried out “God help us, it is an earthquake,” and in a moment they found themselves struggling in a cloud of dust amid bricks and rafters and mud. Mr. Bohn, by some miraculous chance was hurled clean through the window into the street. Mr. Hamilton escaped with some very heavy bruises, and one of his children was badly hurt. His oldest son, John Hamilton, was not extricated for a long time from the ruins, and when he was brought forth, he was more dead than alive. Mr. Gilmore, his wife and child, remained for a long time under the mountain of rubbish and their groans and cries were distinctly heard from the street. First Gilmore’s neice was taken out much unjured, and after a while Mr. Gilmore himself was extricated. He was severely injured. Joseph Dulle, a young man, brother of Mr. Dulle before mentioned, and who generally slept in the boot and shoe store, was crushed to death. His lifeless body was taken out about one o’clock. Up to the time of writing we are informed that several persons are still lying beneath the ruins, among the others is Mr. Gilmore’s wife and child.

How so many escaped being crushed to death, will seem little short of miraculous to every one who views the ruins. Yet such hair-breadth wscapes are often herd of in such accidents.

The building, which has been the cause of all the devastation, was being erected by Mr. Swartz as a wholesale store. It appears that the walls of the new block were but sixteen inches thick, much too thin for the great height to which they were carried up, and during Sunday they were found to have bulged out in an alarming manner, so much so that the opinion had been expressed that they would fall before morning, and the families in the adjoining buildings had retired wit a considerable feeling of apprehension.

At the time of our going to press a large crowd of men are actively at work cleaning away the ruins, and searching for still other unfortunates who may be suffering the most excruciating agonies beneath.

Later.
Since the above writing the dead bodies of Mrs. Gilmore and that of her little child have been found. They are both frightfully bruised.

Chicago Tribune Editorial, October 23, 1866

On Sunday night four human beings were murdered in their beds in the vicinity of State and Madison streets. Had a man entered their dwellings and with pistol or knife taken their lives, the community would have been appalled at the enormity of the crime. Had a man stealthily kindled a flame under the tenements, and thus destroyed the lives of four human beings, the mere hanging of the heartless murderer would nit have satisfied the public judgement upon his crime. Had a man ventured beneath the frame buildings and by the use of saw and mallet so weakened their underpilings that they had fallen, burying in their ruins five human beings, there would have been but one opinion to the fate that such a wretch would merit. Yet in what degree does the wholesome slaughter of Sunday night differ from any other inhuman killing of harmless persons? We do not propose in advance of the Coroner, to charge the crime upon the architect, the builder, or the owner. Either may be guilty in whole or in part; all may share the responsibility, or neither may be justly chargeable. But a crime has been committed; some person or persons must be responsible, and upon that person or persons we charge the murder of these people. It will not do to say that there was an absence of all intent to kill any body. The man who fires his pistol wantonly in the streets where the probabilities are that he will kill some person, and does kill some one, is as guilty of a wicked intent as though he took deliberate aim at the man he shot. The man who throw’s a stone through his neighbor’s window, knowing the possibilities of a fatal result, and kills the neighbor, is as guilty as if his intent to kill were openly avowed. In this case there were erected two parallel walls 120 feet long, and fifty five feet high above the foundation, each wall only twelve inches in thickness. These parallel walls were connected at one end, and that end did not fall. But at the front there had not been a brick laid to connect or tie these side walls one to the other. These walls being nothing more thyan two two bricks piled sideways, one upon the other, to the height of fifty-five feet, fell, upon the first high wind that struck them, and in their fall buried five or six dwelling houses with their living inmates. We call that murder. The man who builds a fire so near to his neighbor’s dwelling, causing the death of its inmates, is as guilty of their death as if he set fire to the premises secretly. These walls were erected in the heart of a cluster of small frame dwellings. It was the business of all responsible parties to have so constructed them that no injury could have occurred to the adjoining premises, either by bricks or lumber. If it was a solemn duty to have guarded against injury to life and property by the falling of a single brick or timber upon the roofs or into the yards of the adjoining premises, then there was a responsibility resting upon some one to see that the entire building was so constructed, and strengthened and protected, that it would not fall upon the neighboring houses, destroying the property and lives of its inmates. It may be that this calamity was the result of ignorance; if so, then it was a carelessness so criminal in its nature, that the crime is only enhanced by the nature of the apology.

This is not the first accident of this kind that has happened in Chicago; other buildings have fallen, owing to like stupidity, or carelessness, or worse, of the persons responsible for the mode of their construction. Buildings have been erected in this city this season—buildings of the most pretentious character—which, so far as the strength of their walls and timbers in proportion to the general dimensions of the edifices, have been wanton abuses of public confidence. Men claim and exercise with impunity the right to erect buildings to rent and to be occupied as dwellings and for business purposes, which are in fact but so many traps, which are eventually to fail, burying beneath them the victims of this criminal disregard for human safety. There are buildings now in this city, and perhaps others in construction, which, despite their marble fronts and gaudy externals, should be condemned as nuisances, dangerous to the public safety, and should be torn down without delay.

The previous instances of the falling of buildings in Chicago have been unattached with loss of life, and have not attracted the attention which they deserved. This calamity, however, should be sufficient to arouse public interest in their own own protection. Citizens occupying dwellings and stores should have some assurance that the new building erecting near them will not when finished, or before finished, tumble over and crush them to death. Men renting offices and stores in large buildings should have some guarantee that the walls will not burst out, letting them fall amid the ruins. The public when invited to attend a public meeting or other gathering, should have some reasonable guarantee that the building in which they may assemble will not give way, involving them in its destruction. Every insecure building erected in the city is a trap which sooner or later will destroy human life. It is time that the erection of such traps should be prohibited. It is time that the rapacity of owners should be checked by considerations of safety. It is time there should be a law which, by its strong arm, should arrest the construction of insecure buildings, nd should interpose its power to protect lives and property of others against the criminal ignorance and recklessness of builders and owners.

The Legislature is about to meet. This terrible calamity furnishes ample argument for the necessity of some legislation. Let us have some authority somewhere to interpose for the protection of the public. Let us have some building regulation that will prevent the repetition of such homicides as that of Sunday night. Let us have an authority not only to compel all buildings to be constructed of such strength and material as will be commensurate with their dimensions, but also as an authority that will compel them to be constructed in a manner consistent with safety. Just south of the building that fell on Sunday night was a large double house used as a boarding house. Had the walls fallen upon it, who can tell how many of the fifty or sixty inmates would have come out alive or injured? Shall this thing go on until some day a massacre of three or four hundred victims shall proclaim the heartlessness of our past inaction? In every other large city the privilege of building is conditioned upon assurances of public safety. No building can be erected which has not been certified to be of such strength as to warrant the neighborhood against the dangers of its falling; nor are buildings permitted to go up according to the whim or interest of those erecting them. Had we any such regulations here, and had we proper officers to enforce them, those walls would never have been permitted to be built fifty or sixty feet high without some certain precautions against falling. As it is, one man builds an unprotected and insecure wall adjoining and overhanging his neighbor’s house. If it be dangerous, the neighbor must move out and go away or run from the risk. The owner of the wall claims “the right” to build on his own ground. But had we a proper lae, he could not do this without first making that wall secure.

The four mangled corpses upon Madison street, appeal in their silent, but most eloquent horror against any further neglect in this matter. These victims ask in the circumstances of their death, how many other lives must be sacrificed before the people of Chicago shall invoke a law for the protection of the public. We have a law against burglars, but none against wanton crushing in our habitations and agonizing murder in our sleep at night. We repeat, is it not time to act in this matter, and put an end to architecture homicide?

Chicago Tribune, January 30, 1868

FIRE WARDENS.
The city charter was amended at the last session of the Legislature by adding to it the following provisions:

The Fire Marshal, the Assistant Fire Marshals, the members of the Board of Police, and such members of the Fire Department, shall be Fire Wardens, and shall have and exercise all rights and powers, and shall perform all the duties now conferred, exercised, imposed or required by law of Fire Wardens. The Fire Wardens are hereby authorized to enter upon and inspect any building, place or places, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the same is or are in safe condition, and, if not, to direct or cause the same to be made so.

The Common Council of the city of Chicago have power, by ordinance,

To control and regulate the construction of buildings, chimneys and stacks, and to prevent and prohibit the erection or maintenance of any insecure or unsafe building, chimney, stack, wall or chimney, in said city, and to declare them to be nuisances, and to provide for their summary abatement.

These powers are ample to enable the Common Council and the Police Commissioners, acting in concert, to provide for a thorough inspection of all buildings erected and in course of erection, and to require them to be so constructed as to avoid the common chances of fire. Under these and other powers, the city government may establish and enforce building regulations which at least could prohibit many imperfections which daily experiences has shown to invite fires, and to make them destructive.

We have, however, in the ordinances of the city many wholesome regulations which the authorities do not enforce, and by the neglect to enforce which there is always more or less danger of fire.

If the city had a good building code, and men who would enforce it, we might have fewer destructive fires, and a vast improvement in the value of our property.

Chicago Tribune, November 28, 1875

THE NEW BUILDING ORDINANCE.
We have at last a competent building ordinance, under which it is believed (Superintendent of Buildings) Mr. Bailey’s inspection-bureau may be able to restrain the flagrant violations of public safety that have been endured in Chicago since the fire of 1871 under the patch-work ordinance that has been our only protection. The new ordinance, adopted Friday evening last, has been the subject of much careful consideration by the leading architects, builders, and insurance agents of the city, and its adoption as a whole by a vote of 26 to 5 is the most credible action the Council has taken for a long time. The propositions in the Council to tinker at it were fortunately defeated, because a large body of men unfamiliar with building are not the proper persons to treat a matter of this kind. The best test for it is actual experience, and we have sufficient confidence in Supt. Bailey to believe that he will administer it honestly, and discover and defects it may be proved to have in its pleasant shape. The value of the ordinance, if it is a complete and effective as it is believed, in two-fold:

With this ordinance in practical working there is reason to believe that Chicago will henceforth be regarded by insurance companies as one of the safest cities in the country, instead of one of the most dangerous, for the placing of risks.

The new ordinance fully and unreservedly reaffirms the fire-limits as co-extensive with the city limits, and requires that the walls of all buildings henceforth to be erected within the corporate limits shall be constructed wholly of incombustible materials, and with foundations of masonry. The exceptions are in the case of elevators, which may be built of wood, but must be protected by an envelope of incombustible material that is rigid and firm i itself; sheds, which must have a slanting roof, and may not exceed twelve feet in height, twelve feet in width, and sixteen feet in length, and which may only be used for storage of wood and coal; and, also, brick buildings of not more than twenty feet in height may be set upon wood-sills, provided in the space between the sill and the ground there shall be an intervention of some fire-proof material. The latter exception is intended for those localities which are without sewerage.

One of the great nuisances and most serious dangers in the city since the adoption of the late ordinance has been the repairing of frame buildings damaged by fire. The present law, like the old one, provides that a damage by fire, decay, or otherwise, of more than50 per cent of the value of such buildings shall warrant the Superintendent of Buildings in condemning them as public nuisances and abating them in his own way, unless there shall be an application for a committee of reference; in the latter case the committee shall consist of three disinterested person, one of whom shall chosen by the owner of the building, another by the Superintendent of Buildings, and a third to be chosen by these two. The referee on the part of the city was formerly chosen by the Mayor, who was likely to be deceived; but since Supt. Bailey will henceforth have the choice it is hoped that he may be more fortunate in his selections. He should proceed under this provision against many public nuisances in the city that have been damaged more than 50 per cent by decay; and the line should be strictly drawn in every case of fire. It is this provision more than any one which, if rigidly applied, will enable authorities to improve the condition of certain inflammable districts near the centre of the city which are a constant menace to its safety.

Another valuable feature of the new ordinance is the stricter definition of the requirements in regard to the projections and ornamentation of buildings. It os provided that all stoops, steps, balconies, verandas, porches, bay-windows, towers, observatories, dormer windows, etc., shall be wholly constructed of incombustible material, with a few exceptions in the case of first and second stories and dwelling-houses, for which other rules are provided. It is also required that all cornices, gutters, eaves, and parapets shall be made of incombustible material. The same is true of roofs, except that composition-roofs shall be excluded; but the regulations in regard to the latter require a covering of dry gravel, and, when they have a mean height of 45 feet, also an incombustible protection under the weather-covering. All Mansard and Gothic roofs must be so constructed as to exclude wood entirely.

Additional protection afforded by many other requirements of the ordinance, among them the following:
Every roof must be accessible either by scuttle or iron steps running up the outside walls.
All buildings more than 56 feet high, and covering an area exceeding 5,000 superficial feet, must be provided with 2½-inch metallic stand-pipe extending above the roof, with hose-couplings conforming to the size and pattern used by the Fire Department. All signs at a height of 40 feet must be of incombustible material, and other signs may not be more than 2 feet wide nor form a part of the building. Outside walls of dwelling; must be carried up at least 20 inches above the roof. The regulations concerning the proximity of flues, hearths, steam-pipes, furnaces and their pipes to the wood-work, should be strictly enforced, and they will then prove to be among the best provisions of the law. The provisions in regard to the obtaining of permits, which some of the Aldermen wanted is a strike out, will probably prove to be an important means of enforcing the ordinance.

It may well be doubted whether the ordinance is adequate in regard to the penalties it fixes for a violation of all its provisions. A conviction subjects the offender to a fine of $10 to $100 for the first offense, $25 to $200 for the second offense, and $300 to $1,000 for the third offense within a lapse of one year, and such penalty may then be enforced only by am action of debt in the name of the city. It would be better if the collection of the fines were enforced by imprisonment on failure of payment, and if the Superintendent of Buildings were permitted to take a more summary process in the case of the more flagrant violations of the law. We may, nevertheless, be thankful for the great improvements the ordinance offers.