Endicott through Ezra Church, Georgia

ENDICOTT, William, 1809 – 1881, abolitionist, of Danvers, Massachusetts, he wrote often for abolition papers. A lineal descendant of John Endecott, the first and longest-serving Governor of Massachusetts, he pursued the craft of morocco dressing, but left it to follow humanitarian pursuits.  In 1831, he was on a ship that was shipwrecked off the Fiji Islands, but miraculously, he survived to write a short book about it published 42 years after his death, called “Wrecked among Cannibals in the Fijis,” describing the cannibalistic acts he witnessed firsthand.  When he returned from Fiji, he became an inspector at the Salem Courthouse, where he worked until his death in 1881. (Letters of William Lloyd Garrison: No Union with the Slaveholders, 1841-1849, page 316; Alfred P. Putnam, “History of the Antislavery Movement in Danvers,” Danvers Historical Collections, 30:22-23, 1942.)


ENDICOTT, William, 1826-1914, abolitionist, of Beverly, Massachusetts, financial manager for abolitionist leader William Lloyd Garrison.  Also a descendant of Governor John Endecott, and the son of a respectable dry goods merchant in Beverly, he could not attend college for health reasons and chose instead a business career.   He became a wealthy merchant, known as an innovator in department-store-style merchandising and he developed extensive connections with prominent Bostonians.  As his wealth grew, he served as a trustee and/or treasurer of many of Boston’s financial, cultural, and charitable institutions.  He also took active interest in politics, local and national, which included participating in efforts to keep Kansas free of slavery, lending money to William Lloyd Garrison, taking care of Garrison’s financial affairs, and serving on a committee to create in 1885 the famous statue of Garrison that is on Boston’s Commonwealth Avenue Mall in Boston’s Back Bay.


ENFILADE. To sweep the whole length of the face of any work or line of troops, by a battery on the prolongation of that face or line. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 256).


ENGELHARD, Joseph Adolphus, soldier, born in Monticello, Mississippi, 27 September, 1832; died in Raleigh. North Carolina, 17 February, 1879. After attending schools in Mississippi and New Albany, Indiana, he was graduated at the University of North Carolina in 1854. He studied law at Harvard, and subsequently at Chapel Hill, and was licensed to practice in the County courts in 1850. He then moved to Tarboro, where he remained until the beginning of the war. He entered the Confederate Army as captain and quartermaster of the 33d Regiment in May, 1861, and in April, 1862, was promoted to be major and quartermaster of Branch's brigade. In December of that year he was transferred to General Pender's brigade as its adjutant-general, and served in this capacity till Lee's surrender. He became the editor of the Wilmington "Journal" in 1865, and was afterward elected secretary of state, which office he held till his death.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 356.


ENGINEER CORPS. (See ARMY for its organization.) The functions of the engineers being generally confined to the most elevated branch of military science, they are not to assume, nor are they subject to be ordered on, any duty beyond the line of their immediate profession, except by the special order of the President of the United States; but they are to receive every mark of respect to which their rank in the army may entitle them respectively, and are liable to be transferred, at the discretion of the President, from one corps to another, regard being paid to rank; (ART. 63.)

The engineers are charged with planning, constructing, and repairing all fortifications and other defensive works; with disbursements of money connected with these operations. In time of war, they present plans for the attack and defence of military works; lay out and construct field defences, redoubts, intrenchments, roads, &c.; form a part of the vanguard to remove obstructions; and in retreat, form a part of the rear guard, to erect obstacles, destroy roads, bridges, &c., so as to retard an enemy's pursuit. (See SAPPERS AND MINERS.) (Consult ' LAISNE, Aide Memoire d V Usage des Officiers du Genie.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, pp. 256-257).


ENGINEERS, TOPOGRAPHICAL. (See ARMY for their organization.) The duties of the corps consist in surveys for the defence of the frontiers, and of positions for fortifications, in reconnoissances of the country through which an army has to pass, or in which it has to operate; in the examination of all routes of communication by land or by water, both for supplies and military movements; in the construction of military roads and permanent bridges connected with them; and the charge of the construction of all civil works, authorized by acts of Congress, not specially assigned by law to some other branch of the service. (Consult SALNEUVE, Cours de Topographic d V Usage des Eleves de V Ecole d'Etat Major. R. S. SMITH'S Topographical Drawing.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 257).


ENGLE, Frederick, naval officer, born in Delaware County. Pennsylvania, in 1799; died in Philadelphia, 12 February, 1868. He entered the U.S. Navy as a midshipman on 30 November, 1814, and became lieutenant on 13 January, 1825. During the Mexican War he commanded the " Princeton”, and served in the Blockading Squadron. He was promoted to captain in 1855, and at the beginning of the Civil War was sent to China to bring home the "Hartford." He was then assigned to the command of the Philadelphia Navy-yard, and subsequently became governor of the naval asylum in that city. He was promoted to be rear-admiral on the retired list, 25 July, 1866. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 357.


ENGLISH, Earl, naval officer, born in Crosswicks, Burlington County, New Jersey, 18 February, 1824. He was educated in Trenton, New Jersey, and entered the naval service, 25 February, 1840. His first cruise was in the U. S. frigate "Constellation" around the world, returning after an absence of four years, then being ordered to the Naval Academy in Annapolis, where he was graduated in 1846. He joined the U. S. frigate "Independence," and was actively employed on the Pacific Coast, principally in California. He was at the capture of Mazatlan, Mexico, in November, 1847, and remained there till the close of the Mexican War. In 1852 he was attached to the U. S. brig " Dolphin," which was engaged in " deep-sea soundings" across the Atlantic Ocean from Newfoundland. He was appointed master, 1 March, 1855, and lieutenant on 14 September. In 1857 he cruised in the East Indies, and took part in the engagement with the barrier forts, seven miles below Canton, China, in which he was wounded. He was made lieutenant-commander, 16 July, 1862, and served throughout the Civil War, being employed principally in the Gulf of Mexico and the sounds of North Carolina, and commanding at different periods the " Somerset," "Sagamore," and "Wyalusing." In 1866 he was appointed commander, and after the war served four years on the East India Station. He was then employed in Japanese waters during the struggle that resulted in the overthrow of the Tycoon. When the latter was defeated at Osaka, 18 February, 1868, he received him on board the "Iroquois," which was then anchored in the Osaka River. He was commissioned captain, 28 September, 1871, commodore, 25 March, 1880, and rear-admiral, 4 September, 1884, at which time he resigned the office of chief of the Bureau of Equipment and Recruiting, which he had held for six years. He then took command of the European Station, and was retired, 18 February. 1886. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 358.


ENGLISH, James Edward, 1812-1890, statesman, businessman.  Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Connecticut 1861-1865 as War Democrat.  Governor of Connecticut, 1867-1870.  Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery (Appletons’, 1888, Vol. II, p. 358; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 3, Pt. 2, p. 165; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 7, p. 527; Congressional Globe)

ENGLISH, James Edward, statesman, born in New Haven, Connecticut, 13 March, 1812. He received a common-school education, and served an apprenticeship in a carpenter's shop. Here his energy and capacity were such that before he had attained his majority he was made master builder. He then engaged in the lumber-trade, and subsequently in real estate, banking, and manufacturing enterprises, and became one of the richest men in Connecticut. In 1848 he was a member of the New Haven common council, and elected a member of the state general assembly in 1855, and elected to the Senate in 1856-'8. He was then elected to Congress as a War-Democrat, and served from 1861 till 1865, voting with the Republicans for the abolition of slavery. He was a delegate to the Philadelphia National Union Convention in 1866, and was governor of Connecticut in 1867-'70. He then travelled extensively in Europe and the United States. In 1875 he was elected U.S. Senator to fill a vacancy, and served till the following spring. He is president of the New Haven Savings Bank, and a manager of Adams Express Company. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, pp. 358.


ENGLISH, William Hayden, lawyer, born in Lexington, Scott County, Indiana, 27 August, 1822. His father, Elisha G. English, one of the pioneers of Indiana, was honored with many public trusts during a period of forty years. William was educated in the common schools and at Hanover College, studied law, and was admitted to practice in the U. S. supreme court before he was twenty-three years of age. He served as deputy clerk of his native County, and as postmaster of Lexington, before reaching his majority. In 1843-'4 he was a principal clerk in the Indiana House of Representatives. He was principal secretary of the state convention of 1850, which framed the constitution of Indiana, and was a member and speaker of the first, House of Representatives after its adoption in 1851. He was a clerk in the U. S. Treasury Department during Polk's administration, and held a clerkship in the U. S. Senate about 1850. He was elected to Congress in 1852 as a Democrat, and served from 1853 till 1861, when he resigned and engaged in banking. He was prominently identified with the legislation of that period, and was the author of a compromise measure, in relation to the admission of Kansas as a state, which became a law, and was a prolific theme of controversy in the heated political contests of that day, under the name of "the English Bill." From 1853 till 1861 he was one of the regents of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D. C. In 1880 Mr. English was unanimously nominated for vice-president, on the ticket with General Hancock, by the Democratic National Convention. He is president of the Indiana Historical Society, and author of an historical and biographical work on the constitution and law-makers of that state (Indianapolis, 1887).  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 359.


ENLISTMENTS are voluntary, and made for five years; (Act June 17, 1850.) Any non-commissioned officer or soldier who shall enlist himself in any other regiment, troop, or company, without a regular discharge from the regiment, troop, or company in which he last served, to be considered a deserter; (ART. 22.) Whenever enlistments are made at or in the vicinity of military posts on the western frontier, and at remote and distant stations, a bounty equal in amount to the cost of transporting and subsisting a soldier from the principal recruiting depot in the harbor of New York, to the place of such enlistment be, and the same is hereby allowed to each recruit so enlisted, to be paid in unequal instalments at the end of each year's service, so that the several amounts shall annually increase, and the largest be paid at the expiration of each enlistment; (Act June 17, 1850.) The amounts and instalments have been fixed in the regulations for the Pay Department. (See RE-ENLISTMENT.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 257).


ENSIGN. Lowest grade of commissioned officers of infantry. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 257).


ENTANGLEMENT. Abattis, so called, when made by cutting only partly through the trunks, and pulling the upper parts to the ground, where they are picketed. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 257).


ENTERPRISE, MISSOURI, September 15, 1863. Detachments of the 1st Arkansas Cavalry, 1st Arkansas Artillery, and 18th Iowa Infantry. The expedition, numbering 310 men, under the command of Colonel M. La Rue Harrison, left Springfield to break up reinforcements that were moving to join the Confederate forces under Coffee. While crossing Cowskin prairie Harrison learned that Coffee was at Enterprise with about 1,000 men and resolved to attack him. At Elk mills the enemy's pickets were encountered about 10 a. m. and driven back upon the main body, encamped a mile west of Enterprise. In this action 1 of the Confederate pickets was killed. Upon arriving in sight of the main body, Harrison dismounted, part of his command as skirmishers and began shelling the town, where Coffee's reserves were stationed. After the fight had been going on for about an hour Harrison was attacked in the rear, but the assault was quickly repulsed, and about noon the enemy evacuated the town. No losses were sustained on the Union side, but it was learned that 5 of the enemy were killed and several wounded. Enterprise, Missouri, August 7 1864. (See Buffalo Creek.)  The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 5, p. 380-381.


ENTICING. Any person whatever who shall procure or entice a soldier to desert the service of the United States, may be fined not exceeding $300, or imprisoned any term not exceeding one year, at the discretion of any court having cognizance of the same; (Act March 16, 1802.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 257).


EPAULEMENT. An elevation thrown up to cover troops from the fire of an enemy. It is usually composed of gabions filled with earth, or made of sand-bags, &c. EPAULETTE. Badge of rank, of bullion, worn by officers on the shoulders. The Army Regulations prescribe these badges under authority given by law to the President to establish the uniform of the army. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 258).


EPROUVETTE, (PENDULUM.) The best method of testing the projectile force of gunpowder, is to ascertain by experiment its effects when used in the same quantities in which it is to be employed in service. This method has been adopted by establishing, at the Washington Arsenal, a cannon pendulum and a musket pendulum, which are used for proving samples of powder sent from the manufactories. The apparatus shows the initial velocity of a ball fired from a cannon or musket. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 258).

In the ordinary eprouvette, gunpowder of small grain and low specific gravity gives the highest range, whilst the ballistic pendulum shows that the greatest initial velocity in a shot from a heavy cannon is produced by powder of great specific gravity and coarse grain. (Ordnance Manual.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 258).


EQUIPAGE, CAMP AND GARRISON are tents, kitchen utensils^ axes, spades, &c. (See CLOTHING.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 258).


EQUIPMENT. The complete dress of a soldier, including arms, accoutrements, &c. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 258).


ERICSSON, John, engineer, born in Langbanshyttan, province of Wermland, Sweden, 31 July, 1803. His father, Olof, was a mining proprietor, and his brother, Baron Nils Ericsson, was colonel of engineers, and became chief of the Swedish railways. As a boy, John had ample opportunity of watching machinery connected with mines, and his mechanical talent was early developed. He received his earliest instruction from a Swedish governess, and a German engineering officer who had served under Bernadotte. Before he was eleven years of age he had constructed with his own hands, and after his own plans, a miniature saw-mill, and had made numerous drawings of complicated mechanical contrivances. These efforts having attracted the attention of Count Platen, this celebrated engineer appointed him a cadet in the corps of mechanical engineers, and, after six months' tuition, he was made a leveller at the grand Swedish ship canal, then in course of construction. Two years later, at the age of fourteen, he was employed to set out the work of a section employing 600 soldier operatives, and occupied his leisure in making drawings of every implement and machine connected with the canal. He entered the Swedish Army as ensign in 1820, and was rapidly promoted to a lieutenancy.  Shortly afterward he passed with distinction a competitive examination for an appointment on the survey of northern Sweden. Notwithstanding the labor attendant upon his duties as a surveyor, he undertook to make drawings for a work on canals, and to engrave the plates in the style of what was known as machine engraving. He devised a line engraving machine, by means of which, within one year, he completed eighteen large copper plates, which experts pronounced to be of superior merit. When about twenty-two years old he constructed a condensing flame-engine of ten-horse power, and in 1826 went to England to introduce it; but it was not successful, the flame produced by mineral fuel being far less in volume than that obtained from a pine-wood fire, while the intense heat from coal seriously affected the working parts of the engine. In 1827 he resigned his commission in the army, after being promoted to a captaincy. The failure of the flame-engine compelled him to draw upon his mechanical abilities for means to prosecute further experiments. He produced, in rapid succession, an instrument for taking sea soundings, a hydrostatic weighing machine, and numerous other devices, including tubular steam-boilers, and artificial draught by centrifugal fan-blowers, dispensing with huge smoke-stacks, economizing fuel, and showing the fallacy of the assertion that the production of steam was dependent on the amount of fire surface. In the steamship "Victory," in 1828, he made the first application to navigation of the principle of condensing steam and returning the water to the boiler, and in the same year submitted to the admiralty his self-acting gun-lock, the peculiarity being that by its means naval cannon could be automatically discharged at any elevation, notwithstanding the rolling of the ship. Not being able to agree as to the terms of adoption in the British Navy, he kept the secret of this invention till 1843, when he applied it to the wrought-iron gun of the " Princeton." In 1829 he produced the celebrated steam carriage " Novelty," built for the purpose of competing with George Stephenson for the historical Liverpool and Manchester railway prize. This engine was planned and completed, and placed on the trial-ground within seven weeks; but, although the "Novelty," guided by its inventor, far exceeded all other competitors in lightness, elegance, and speed, attaining the then amazing speed of thirty miles an hour, Stephenson's "Rocket" proved superior in traction, and was awarded the prize. In the "Novelty" he introduced several features, the four most important of which are retained in the locomotive of the present day. This year, also, he invented a steam fire-engine, which excited great interest in London, and for which he afterward received, in 1840, the great fold medal of the Mechanics' Institute of New York. In 1830 he introduced "link motion " for reversing locomotive engines, and a modification of this device is now in use in all locomotives. His long-cherished plan of a caloric engine was realized in 1833, and was hailed with astonishment by the scientific world of London. Lectures were delivered on it by Dr. Dionysius Lardner and Michael Faraday, and it was highly approved by Dr. Andrew Ure and Sir Richard Phillips. A working engine of five-horse power was built, in which he placed the "Regenerator," but it was unsuccessful owing to the high temperature essential, which produced oxidation, quickly destroying the valves and other working parts. In 1853 the caloric ship " Ericsson," of 2,000 tons, was propelled by a motor on the same principle. A sea trial from New York to Washington and back established great economy in fuel, but at a speed too slow to compete with steam. For several years thereafter Ericsson devoted himself to the improvement of the stationary caloric engine and its application to light mechanical purposes, and more than 6,000 of such engines have been built up to 1887, hundreds being employed in New York City in pumping water in private dwellings. In 1862 the American Academy of arts and sciences awarded the gold and silver Rumford medals to Ericsson "for his improvements in the management of heat, particularly as shown in his caloric engine of 1858." This was the second bestowal of the premium in the United States. In 1836 Ericsson invented and patented the screw propeller, which revolutionized navigation, and in 1837 built a steam vessel having twin screw propellers, which on trial towed the American packet-ship "Toronto" at the rate of five miles an hour on the River Thames. Subsequently the admiralty barge, bearing the lords of the admiralty, was towed at a rapid rate, but the endeavor to convince them of the practicability of the new device was futile, since they thought that, as the power must be applied at the stern, the vessel would not steer. In 1838 he constructed the iron screw-steamer " Robert P. Stockton," which crossed the Atlantic under canvas in 1839, and was afterward employed as a tug-boat on the River Delaware for a quarter of a century. In 1839, urged by Commodore Robert F. Stockton, U. S. N., Ericsson resigned his office in London as superintending engineer of the Eastern Counties Railway, and came to the United States during November. In 1841, under order from the U. S. Navy Department, he furnished designs for the screw war-ship "Princeton," the first vessel having the propelling machinery below water-line, out of the reach of hostile shot. This vessel dictated the reconstruction of the navies of the world. Besides its screw propeller, the " Princeton " was remarkable for numerous mechanical novelties devised by Ericsson, such as a direct-acting semi-cylindrical steam-engine of great compactness and simplicity: a telescopic smoke-stack; and independent centrifugal blowers for ventilation and for promoting combustion in the boiler-furnaces, obviating the necessity of exposing the chimney during battle. He also fitted it with wrought-iron gun-carriages, with mechanism for dispensing with breeching, and taking up the recoil of the twelve-inch wrought iron gun, the first of its kind, and up to that time the largest and most powerful piece of ordnance mounted on ship-board; the self-acting lock, before referred to; and an optical instrument to enable the commanding officer, by mere inspection, accurately to ascertain the distance of the object to be aimed at. The " Princeton" is correctly regarded as the pioneer of modern naval construction, and also as the foundation of the steam marine of the world. During the construction of the " Princeton," and before the end of 1843, numerous propeller vessels were built and furnished with engines by Ericsson, for carrying freight on the rivers and inland waters of the United States, and his propellers were in successful application in more than sixty vessels in this country before a single attempt was made to evade his patent. Up to this period Europe was skeptical regarding the commercial value of the new method of propulsion. In 1851, in the U. S. division of the World's fair held in London, he exhibited several of his inventions, including his instrument for measuring distances at sea; a hydrostatic gauge for fluids under pressure; a gauge for the volume of water passing through pipes; the alarm barometer; a pyrometer; an instrument for measuring fluids by the velocity with which they pass through definite apertures; and a self-registering deep-sea lead, still in use by the U. S. Coast Survey, the principle of which was adopted in constructing the sounding apparatus used by the " Challenger" Expedition. For these philosophical exhibits Ericsson was awarded the prize medal of the exhibition. Previous to 1836, Ericsson conceived the idea that was put in practical shape when, in 1854, he presented to Emperor Napoleon III, plans of a partially submerged armored vessel, with guns in a revolving shot-proof cupola placed centrally on the deck. This was the first suggestion of the "Monitor," which was designed and built by him in Greenpoint, New York, in 1861, for the U. S. government, under very arbitrary conditions. When the proposition to build this vessel was accepted, the only drawing completed by the designer was a mere outline and section to illustrate the stability of the structure; but, by extraordinary energy and executive skill, calculations and working-plans were made, and the " Monitor" launched, with steam machinery complete, in one hundred days from the laying of the keel. She arrived in Hampton Roads just in time to defeat, on 9 March, 1862, the Confederate iron-clad " Merrimac," which, on the day preceding, had destroyed the "Cumberland" and "Congress," and was about to sink or disperse the rest of the government's wooden fleet. But for the victory of the “Monitor," the result of the war might have been changed, and European interference attempted. A fleet of monitors was then quickly built, which defeated several Confederate iron-clad batteries; and Ericsson's system was taken up by European maritime powers and carried out by them on a large scale. In 1869 he constructed for the Spanish government a fleet of thirty steam gun-boats, which was intended to guard Cuba against filibustering parties. In 1881 his latest war-vessel, the "Destroyer" was devised. It carries a submarine gun of sixteen inches calibre, which discharges 300 pounds of gun-cotton, in a 1,500-pound projectile, against an iron-clad's hull beneath the water-line. During many years Ericsson has devoted much time to scientific investigation, including computations of the influences that retard the earth's rotary motion. His " Sun Motor," erected at New York in 1883, develops a steady power obtained from the supply of mechanical energy stored up in the sun. This motor is intended by the designer as a contribution to applied science. Ericsson has contributed numerous papers, on scientific, naval, and mechanical subjects, to various journals in America and Europe. In "Contributions to the Centennial Exhibition " (New York, 1876) he describes the scientific apparatus devised and employed by him in experiments which determined all important practical questions relating to radiant heat, and of numerous novel instruments by which he has demonstrated the intensity of solar energy and the temperature of the solar surface: it also contains a description of his principal engineering constructions during his residence in the United States. Many honors have been bestowed upon him. Besides receiving royal favors from Sweden, he is knight commander of royal orders in Denmark and Spain; recipient of the grand cross of naval merit from the late King Alfonso of Spain, and of a special gold medal sent by the emperor of Austria in behalf of science; has received the thanks of Congress, and is a member of various scientific institutions in Europe and America. Wesleyan University gave him the degree of LL. D, in 1862. In 1867 a huge monument, quarried in one piece from the neighboring granite-mines, was set up in front of his birthplace, bearing the inscription, in the Swedish language, "John Ericsson was born here, 31 July, 1803." He now (1887) resides in New York City. See "Ericsson and his Inventions," "Atlantic Monthly," July, 1862, and "John Ericsson," "Scribner's Monthly," April, 1879.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, pp. 363-365.


ERNST, Oswald Hubert, soldier, born near Cincinnati, Ohio, 27 June, 1842. He entered Harvard in 1858, and two years later was appointed to the U. S. Military Academy, where he was graduated in 1864, becoming at once 1st lieutenant in the Engineer Corps. In July, 1864, he became assistant engineer of the Army of the Tennessee, and served throughout the Georgia Campaign. After a short service at the U. S. Military Academy as assistant professor of engineering, he was appointed assistant engineer in constructing fortifications on the Pacific Coast, and remained so occupied till 1868. He was promoted captain in March, 1867, had command of an engineer company at Willett's Point, New York, in 1868-'71, and in 1870 was sent as astronomer with the government expedition to Spain, to observe the solar eclipse of that year. Later he was appointed instructor of practical military engineering, military signaling, and telegraphy at the Military Academy, performing also the duties of architect for the more important structures of the place. In 1878 he became assistant engineer on western river improvements, and in 1880 was given charge of the improvements of the Mississippi River, between the Illinois and Ohio Rivers. He received his commission as major in May, 1882, and has since had charge of the works of river and harbor improvement in Texas. Major Ernst has written articles on engineering subjects, and has also published "A Manual of Practical Military Engineering" (New York, 1873).  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 365.


ESCALADE, AND SURPRISE OF A FORTIFIED PLACE. A place is taken by surprise, whenever a sufficient number of men are secretly introduced into it to cause the defenders to abandon or surrender it. It is taken by escalade, when ladders are used to cross the walls. (Fig. 111.)

The surest way of succeeding in a surprise, is to have a perfect knowledge of the interior of the place, or to be accompanied by reliable guides, who know those parts of the place which may be penetrated with least difficulty. Such parts are ordinarily dilapidated portions of the body of the place; houses contiguous to the walls, the windows of which are not barred, &c., &c. Aqueducts and sewers have also sometimes been used for the introduction of armed men, unknown to the garrison. But when a place is badly guarded, all parts are accessible with ladders, and it is sometimes best to choose the highest walls for the escalade, as the enemy will probably, from a feeling of security, be less vigilant at such parts of the body of the place. Thus, at the siege of Badajo in 1812, the English escaladed the highest walls in the city, and penetrated into the interior, while the attack directed upon breaches in the lower walls, although vigorously made, was repulsed. When it is considered how slow a process it is to bring up ladders to the counterscarp, in order to descend by them into the ditch, then to cross the ditch, and to rear the ladders against the escarp, and to mount them, it is evident that success will, in a great measure, depend upon the number of men that can mount at the same moment; in other words, upon the number of ladders. A ladder beyond a certain length becomes unwieldy, and the rearing of it difficult. The distance from the foot of the ladders to the wall should be at least equal to one-fourth of their height. If the distance be greater, the ladder will be easily broken under the weight of the men mounting them; if much less, they will be so erect that the soldiers, as they ascend, must be continually in danger of falling headlong down. The scaling ladders introduced by Sir Charles Pasley, are in pieces of 12' 8 (/ and 7' 6" in length, fitting into each other with strong double iron sockets, arid tied by stout ropes. These can be arranged for any length, and quickly adjusted. Ladders made of long spars are awkward to carry; especially if there be narrow sharp turnings in approaching the point of escalade: nor can long sound spars be always procured. It is desirable that ladders should be made of light, tough wood: teak wood is too heavy. If a guy-rope be attached to each side of the ladder, they greatly assist in adjusting and fixing it against the wall: the men told off for the guy-ropes should stand close to the wall, within the slope of the ladder; these guy-ropes should be fixed at 5 or G feet below the top of the ladder, to prevent their being cut by the enemy on the wall. The total lengths of the ladders should exceed the height to be escaladed by 3 or 4 feet, in order that the men may step easily off the ladders on to the parapet or wall. Many failures have occurred from ladders being too short. It is desirable to have a pair of stout lifting bars, 3 or 4 feet long, with hooks, for each ladder. When an escalade is to take place, be sure to practise the men intended for the service thoroughly in carrying, in fixing, in ascending, and descending the ladders; descending, for going down a counter-scarp; ascending, for getting up an escarp. Always use as many ladders as possible. If there be a counterscarp to descend, leave half the ladders there, while the other half are used against the escarp, that no time may be lost. Ascend the ladders together, on as large a front as possible. When an escalade is opposed by an enemy, take care that a good firing party covers the escalade, with especial directions to fire upon any work that may flank the ladders. Avoid night attacks, except under peculiar circumstances: the example of gallant men is lost at night, whilst timidity is infectious. Make all arrangements under cover of darkness, but assault at day-break. At the moment of the escalade, the ladders should be filled with soldiers, and it is necessary, therefore, that they should be underpropped about the middle. Soldiers exercised in gymnastics are capable of mounting high walls with arms and accoutrements, by means of a hook, helved to a pole sufficiently long to reach the top of the wall. This exercise is practised by some French troops, and the walls of the citadel of Montpellier are thus escaladed with the greatest facility.

Precipitous rocks may be escaladed by grasping bushes and roots, or by planting the bayonet in the crevices of the rocks, in order to reach the top. Such escalades are very dangerous when an enemy defends the height, as heavy stones may be rolled down upon the assailants; but activity and ingenuity accomplish much, as was shown by the French in the attack upon Fort Scharnitz near Innsbruck. They tied their haversacks round their heads, and, protected by this buckler, they scrambled up the rocks, despite the stones precipitated upon them. And still later the difficult ascent at Alma was scaled by French troops, in the face of Russian artillery and infantry.

The most favorable time for a surprise is that of a winter night, when there is no moon. A long march may then be made without discovery, and the troops may arrive an hour before day. This is the propitious moment for the execution of the design. It is then that men sleep most profoundly; and it is at that hour the attacking force may begin in the dark, and end the work by daylight; such favorable circumstances are much increased by heavy wind and rain during the night, as the clanking of arms and other inevitable noises made by the troops cannot be heard by the garrison, and the latter, besides, are more disposed to negligence. It is extremely important for the men to be able to recognize each other in the darkness, and the simplest means of doing so is to put the shirt outside the dress, or to tie a white band around the arm.

The party must be furnished with petards, axes, and levers, to force open doors; with beams and ladders, to overthrow and scale walls. Hurdles and fascines are necessary to cross muddy ditches, or broad planks may be used as a substitute for hurdles. With fascines small ditches and pools are filled up. All these articles should be carried by the men from the last halting-place. Wagons and animals would lead to discovery, and are therefore left at a safe distance, while every precaution is taken to maintain silence in the assailing party. The soldiers should also not light their pipes, as the fire can be seen from a long distance in the dark. Barking dogs must be quieted without the use of fire-arms, and every one must be on the alert. The dispositions made for the attack will vary with circumstances, but in general it is well to divide the force into three parts: the first to penetrate into the city; the second to remain without and protect, if necessary, the retreat of the first; and the third to take such position as is most likely to prevent aid from reaching the enemy.

When the first division has penetrated the city by escalade or otherwise, it surrounds at once some of the adjacent quarters, and holds the outlets of the principal streets, whilst detachments quickly open the gates to the troops outside, after having taken or killed the guards. As soon as the gates are opened, and sufficient numbers are at hand, the troops spread themselves in the city, after leaving good reserves, upon which to retreat in case of check. The house of the commandant, barracks, arsenal, and the guards of the interior are at once sought, to prevent, if possible, any re-union of the defenders, and to paralyze all their efforts by the seizure of the commanding officer. If time and means of recovering from his stupor and concentrating his force in the interior of the city be left to the enemy, great risk will be run of being driven out, as the attacking force is necessarily everywhere weak, from the great number of points occupied.

The famous example of Cremona, where Prince Eugene, after having made himself master of a great part of the city, and after having seized Marshal Villeroi, who commanded there, was nevertheless then driven out by the defenders, shows that all is not lost to the defenders when the enemy has seized the exterior posts. Another example may be cited in the surprise of Bergen-op-Zoom in 1814, by General Graham, where, although the surprise was successful, yet the assailants, in the end, were obliged by the garrison to surrender after considerable loss.

Much may then be done by defenders even under such circumstances, but much more may be accomplished by the most unceasing vigilance, and this quality, instead of being relaxed in stormy nights, should be then redoubled. (Consult Cours de Tactique, par le General DUFOUR.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 258-262).


ESCAMBIA RIVER, FLORIDA, March 25, 1865. (See Canoe Creek, same date.)


ESCARP, (or SCARP) is the side of the ditch next to the place, which, in permanent fortifications, is usually faced with masonry. ESCORT. (See CONVOY.) There are also funeral escorts; escorts of honor; color escorts; &c., &c. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 262).


ESPLANADE. Empty space for exercising troops in fortified places. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 262).


ESPRIT DE CORPS. The brotherhood of a corps; military and regimental pride. Nothing is so prejudicial to it, as the failure to unite the companies of a regiment. It might also be promoted by recording the distinguished services of a regiment on its colors. (See SOLDIER.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, pp. 262-263).


ETNA, MISSOURI, July 22, 1861. 21st Missouri Infantry.  The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 5, p. 381.


ETOWAH RIVER, GEORGIA, May 20, 1864. (See Cartersville.)


EUSTIS, George, Congressman, born in New Orleans, Louisiana, 28 September, 1828; died in Cannes, France, 15 March, 1872, was educated at Jefferson College, Louisiana, and at Harvard law-school. He was elected to Congress as an American, and served from 1855 till 1859. He went to France as Secretary of the Confederate Legation, and remained there after the Civil War. During the Franco-Prussian War he voluntarily gave his services to the U. S. Legation in Paris. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 379. 


EUSTIS, James Biddle, senator, born in New Orleans, 27 August, 1834. He received a classical education, was graduated at Harvard law-school in 1854, admitted to the bar in 1856, and practised in New Orleans. When the Civil War began he entered the Confederate Army, and, after one year service as judge-advocate on the staff of General Magruder, was transferred to the staff of General Joseph E. Johnston, with whom he served till the close of the war. He then resumed practice in New Orleans, was elected a member of the legislature prior to the Reconstruction Acts, and was one of the committee sent to Washington to confer with President Johnson on Louisiana affairs. He was a member  of the state house of representatives in 1872, and was elected a member of the state senate for four years in 1874. He was chosen to the U. S. Senate as a Democrat in January, 1870, to fill the vacancy which, it was claimed, existed by failure of the Senate to give the seat to P. B. S. Pinchback, who had been elected in 1873. Only three Republicans took part in the election, on the ground that no vacancy existed, and Mr. Eustis was not given his seat till late in 1877, serving till 1879. He then became professor of civil law in the University of Louisiana, but in 1884 was again elected to the U. S. Senate for the full term of six years. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, pp. 379-380.


 EUSTIS,  Henry Lawrence, engineer, born at Fort Independence, Boston, Massachusetts, 1 February, 1819; died in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 11 January, 1885, was graduated at Harvard in 1838, and in that year was appointed to the U. S. Military Academy, where he was graduated at the head of his class in 1842. He was then assigned to the Engineer Corps, and ordered to Washington as assistant to the chief engineer. He assisted in the construction of Fort Warren and Lovell's Island sea-wall, in Boston Harbor, in 1843-'5, and during the following two years was connected with engineering operations in Newport Harbor. In 1847 he was made the principal assistant professor of engineering at West Point, but resigned in 1849 in order to become professor of engineering in Harvard, and organized that department in the Lawrence scientific school there, and held this office until his death. He was dean of the scientific faculty from 1871 till 1885. In the Civil War he was colonel of the 10th Massachusetts Volunteers, and served at Williamsport, Fredericksburg, Marye Heights, Salem, Gettysburg, Rappahannock Station, Mine Run, Wilderness, Spottsylvania, Cold Harbor, and many minor actions. He was brevetted brigadier-general of volunteers on 12 September, 1863, and resigned on 27 June, 1864, owing to impaired health. He returned to his college duties in Cambridge in 1864. He was a member of various learned societies, to whose transactions he contributed papers, and also wrote reports and technical articles. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 380.


EVACUATE. To withdraw from a town or fortress, in consequence either of a treaty or a capitulation, or of superior orders. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 263).


EVANS, Nathan George, soldier, born in Darlington District, South Carolina, in 1823; died in Midway, Alabama, 80 November, 1868. He was graduated at the U. & Military Academy in 1848, assigned to the 1st U.S. Dragoons, and served on frontier duty and against the Indians. He was made 1st lieutenant in the 2d Cavalry, 3 March, 1855; captain, 1 May, 1856; and distinguished himself in a fight with Comanche Indians, 1 October, 1858, killing two of them in personal combat. He resigned on 27 February, 1861, entered the Confederate service as colonel, and commanded a brigade at Bull Run. He was then promoted to brigadier-general, and commanded the Confederate forces at Ball's Bluff, 19 October, 1861. He also commanded in the actions at James Island, South Carolina, and Kinston, North Carolina, in 1862, and subsequently became major-general. He led a division of Gordon's corps at Hatcher's Run, surrendered with General Lee on 9 April, 1865, and from 1866 till his death was engaged in teaching. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 383.


EVARTS, William Maxwell, lawyer, born in Boston, 6 February, 1818. He was prepared for college in the Boston Latin-school, graduated at Yale in 1837, and while in college, with four of his classmates, he founded the " Yale Literary Magazine." Choosing the profession of the law, he studied in Harvard law school, and in the office of Daniel Lord, of New York City, and was admitted to the bar established a reputation for learning and acumen, and was often consulted by older lawyers. In 1849- '53 he was assistant district attorney in New York City, and in 1851 successfully conducted the prosecution of the Cuban filibusters concerned in the "Cleopatra" Expedition. The same year he was selected to argue in favor of the constitutionality of the Metropolitan Police Act. In 1857 and 1860 he was retained by the state of New York to argue the Lemmon slave case against Charles O'Conor, the counsel for the State of Virginia, before the Supreme Court and the court of appeals. He became an active and prominent member of the Republican Party, was chairman of the New York delegation in the Republican National Convention of 1860, and proposed the name of William H. Seward for the presidency. In 1861 he and Horace Greeley were rival candidates for the U.S. Senatorship before the New York legislature, but finally his name was withdrawn to enable his supporters to secure the election of Ira Harris. In 1862 he conducted the case of the government to establish in the supreme court the right of the United States in the Civil War to treat captured vessels as maritime prizes, according to the laws of war. In 1865 and 1866 he maintained with success before the courts the unconstitutionality of state laws taxing U. S. bonds or National bank tax without the authorization of Congress. In 1868 President Johnson chose him as chief counsel in the impeachment trial before the Senate, and from 15 July, 1868, till the end of President Johnson's administration, he filled the office of Attorney-General of the United States. He acted in 1872 as counsel for the United States before the tribunal of arbitration on the Alabama claims at Geneva, and presented the arguments on which the decisions favorable to the United States were to a large extent based. In 1875 he was senior counsel for Henry Ward Beecher in the trial of the suit against him in Brooklyn. For many years his reputation had been national, and he had been engaged in a large number of cases involving great interests, among the more famous of which were the Parrish will case and the contest over the will of Mrs. Gardner, mother of the widow of President Tyler. His services were often sought in cases in which large corporations were parties, and he received in some instances fees of $25,000 or $50,000 for an opinion, such as that on the Berdell mortgage upon the Boston, Hartford, and Erie Railroad. The firm of Evarts, Choate & Beaman, of which he is senior partner, has among its clients many of the prominent merchants and bankers of New York City. In 1877 he was the advocate of the Republican Party before the electoral commission, and during the administration of President Hayes he was Secretary of State. His administration of the State Department was marked by a judicious and dignified treatment of diplomatic questions, and especially by the introduction of a higher standard of efficiency in the consular service, and the publication of consular reports on economic and commercial conditions in foreign countries. In 1881, after the conclusion of his term of service in the cabinet, he went to Paris as delegate of the United States to the International Monetary Conference. On 4 March, 1885, he took his seat in the U. S. Senate for the term expiring 3 March, 1891, having been elected as a Republican to succeed Elbridge G. Lapham as senator from New York. Mr. Evarts is known as a brilliant speaker at convivial gatherings, and as a public orator of eloquence and versatility. On many important occasions he has delivered addresses, several of which have been published. Among his public addresses are the eulogy on Chief-Justice Chase, at Dartmouth College, in June, 1873; the Centennial oration, in Philadelphia, in 1876; and the speeches at the unveiling of the statues of William H. Seward and Daniel Webster, in New York, and of Bartholdi's Statue of Liberty. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 385


EVERETT, Alexander Hill, 1792-1847, Boston, Massachusetts, newspaper editor of the North American Review, anti-slavery advocate.  Defended the American Colonization Society, and colonization, as anti-slavery.  Raised funds for the Society.  (Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, pp. 386-387; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 3, Pt. 2, p. 220; Staudenraus, P. J. The African Colonization Movement, 1816-1865. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, pp. 135, 210, 214)

EVERETT, Alexander Hill, born in Boston; Massachusetts, 19 March, 1792; died in Macao, China, 28 June, 1847. He was a son of the Reverend Oliver Everett (who was pastor of the New South Church in Boston from 1782 to 1792), and was graduated at Harvard in 1806 with the highest honors of his class, although the youngest of its members. After leaving college he was for a year assistant teacher in Phillips Exeter Academy, then studied law in the office of John Quincy Adams, whom in 1809 he accompanied to Russia, residing for two years in his family, attached to the legation. At the close of the war between the United States and Great Britain, Governor Eustis, of Massachusetts, was appointed minister to the Netherlands, and Mr. Everett went with him as secretary of legation, but after a year of service returned home. On the retirement of Governor Eustis he was appointed his successor, with the rank of charge d’affaires, and held this post from 1818 till 1824. In 1825-'9 he was minister to Spain, after which he returned home and became proprietor and editor of the “North American Review,” to which he had, during the editorship of his brother Edward, been one of the chief contributors. From 1830 till 1835 he sat in the legislature of Massachusetts; in 1840 he resided, as a confidential agent of the United States, in the Island of Cuba, and while there was appointed president of Jefferson College, Louisiana, but was soon obliged by failing health to return to New England. On the return of Caleb Cushing from his mission to China, Mr. Everett was appointed commissioner to that empire, and sailed for Canton, 4 July, 1845. He was detained by illness at Rio Janeiro, and returned home, but in the summer of 1846 made a second and more successful attempt to reach his destination, and died in Macao. Mr. Everett’s first published compositions appeared in the “Monthly Anthology,” the vehicle of the Anthology club of Boston, which consisted of George Ticknor, William Tudor, Dr. Bigelow and Reverend J. S. J. Gardiner, Alexander H. Everett, and Reverend Messrs. Buckminster, Thacher, and Emerson. The “Monthly Anthology,” established by Phineas Adams, was published from 1803 till 1811 Mr. Everett published “Europe, or a General Survey of the Political Situation of the Principal Powers, with Conjectures on their Future Prospects” (London and Boston, 1822; translated into German, French, and Spanish, the German version edited by Professor Jacobi, of the University of Halle); “New Ideas on Population, with Remarks on the Theories of Godwin and Malthus” (London and Boston, 1822); “America, or a General Survey of the Political Situation of the Several Powers of the Western Continent, with Conjectures on their Future Prospects, by a Citizen of the United States” (Philadelphia, 1827; London, 1828); “Critical and Miscellaneous Essays” (first series, Boston, 1845; second series, 1847); and “Poems” (1845). To Sparks’s “American Biography” Mr. Everett contributed the lives of Joseph Warren and Patrick Henry. His principal contributions to the “North American Review” are on the following subjects: French Dramatic Literature; Louis Bonaparte; Private Life of Voltaire; Literature of the 18th Century; Dialogue on Representative Government, between Dr. Franklin and President Montesquieu; Bernardin de St. Pierre; Madame de Staël; J. J. Rousseau; Mirabeau; Schiller; Chinese Grammar; Cicero on Government; Degerando’s History of Philosophy; Lord Byron; British Opinions on the Protecting System; The American System; Life of Henry Clay; Early Literature of Modern Europe; Early Literature of France; Origin and Character of the Old Parties; and Thomas Carlyle. His principal contributions to the “Democratic Review” are the following: The Spectre Bride-groom, from Bürger; The Water-King, a Legend of the Norse; The Texas Question; and The Malthusian Theory. His contributions to the “Boston Quarterly Review” were chiefly, if not altogether, devoted to an exposition of questions connected with the currency. Among Mr. Everett’s published orations are the following: On the Progress and Limits of the Improvement of Society; The French Revolution; The Constitution of the United States; Discovery of America by the Northmen; Battle of New Orleans; and Battle of Bunker Hill.  Appletons’ Cylcopædia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, pp. 386-387


EVERETT, Edward, statesman.  Supporter of colonization and the American Colonization Society.  (Burin, 2005, p. 28; Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II., pp. 387-389, Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 3, Pt. 2; Staudenraus, P. J. The African Colonization Movement, 1816-1865. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, pp. 207, 245w)

EVERETT, Edward, born in Dorchester. Massachusetts, 11 April. 1794; died in Boston, 15 January, 1865, entered Harvard (where he edited the " Harvard Lyceum" in 1807, and was graduated with the highest honors in 1811. In 1813 he was settled as pastor over the Unitarian Church in Brattle Square, Boston, succeeding the Reverend Joseph Stevens Buckminster, and soon attracted attention by his eloquence, especially by his sermon delivered in the hall of the House of Representatives, Washington, in February, 1820. "The sermon was truly splendid," wrote Judge Joseph Story, "and was heard with a breathless silence. The audience was very large, and, being in that magnificent apartment of the House of Representatives, it had vast effect. I saw Mr. King, of New York, and Mr. Otis, of Massachusetts, there. They were both very much affected with Mr. Everett's sermon; and Mr. Otis, in particular, wept bitterly. There were some very stirring appeals to our most delicate feelings on the loss of our friends. Indeed, Mr. Everett was almost universally admired as the most eloquent of preachers. Mr. King told me he never heard a discourse so full of unction, eloquence, and good taste." After his graduation Mr. Everett was Latin tutor at Harvard, and in 1814 he was chosen to fill the newly-formed chair of Greek literature, to qualify himself for which he spent more than four years (from the spring of 1815 to the autumn of 1819) in Europe, studying for two years in the University of Gottingen. "Edward Everett," remarks Abraham Hayward in his sketch of "American Orators and Statesmen," in the "London Quarterly Review" for December, 1840, "is one of the most remarkable men living. ... At nineteen he had already acquired the reputation of an accomplished scholar, and was drawing large audiences as a Unitarian preacher. At twenty-one (the age at which Roger Ascham achieved a similar distinction) he was appointed professor of Greek in Harvard University, and soon afterward he made a tour of Europe, including Greece. M. Cousin, who was with him in Germany, informed a friend of ours that he was one of the best Grecians he ever knew, and the translator of Plato must have known a good many of the best. On his return from his travels he lectured on Greek literature with the enthusiasm and success of another Abelard—we hope without the Heloise." Before his departure for Europe, Mr. Everett had given a striking proof of his wide reading and critical powers in answering a volume entitled " The Grounds of Christianity Examined," by George B. English (Boston, 1813). Mr. Everett convicts English of dishonesty in his assertions, and of plagiarism from Evanson, Collins. Toland, Sember, Priestley, Rabbi Isaac, and Orobio. About ninety-four pages are borrowed from other writers, while English credits other authors with twenty-four pages only. In 1819 Mr. Everett returned home and entered upon the duties of the Greek professorship. In addition to his regular duties he published a translation of Buttman's Greek grammar, and a Greek reader based upon that of Jacobs. He became editor of the "North American Review" in January, 1820, and in the next four years contributed to its pages about fifty papers, to which are to be added sixty more written while the "Review" was under the management of his brother Alexander and his successors. In May, 1822, Mr. Everett married Charlotte Gray, a daughter of Peter Chardon Brooks, whose biography he wrote. In 1824 Mr. Everett was elected to Congress from the Boston District, and sat in the House of Representatives for ten years. He took the side in politics maintained by the friends of President John Q. Adams, as a " National Republican " and " Whig "; but gave special attention to obtaining pensions for the survivors of the Revolution, and offered vigorous opposition to the removal of the Indians from Georgia. In 1835, and for three successive years thereafter, he was elected governor of Massachusetts, and at the next election was defeated by only one vote out of more than 100,000. In 1840 he made another journey to Europe, and while residing in London he was appointed, chiefly through the influence of Daniel Webster, minister to England. During his sojourn in that country he received the degree of D. O. L. from Oxford and that of LL.D. from Cambridge and Dublin. He was recalled by President Polk in 1845. From 1846 till 1849 he was president of Harvard College, and on the death of Daniel Webster, in 1852, was appointed Secretary of State. In 1853 he succeeded John Davis in the U. S. Senate. In the summer and autumn of this year he spoke on the Central American question, addressed the New York Historical Society on colonization and emigration, replied to Lord John Russell's protest against the doctrines of the U. S. government in the note declining the Tripartite Convention, and spoke in opposition to the proposed new constitution in Massachusetts. On the assembling of Congress in December, 1853, although his health had been impaired by his labors, he continued them with such zeal and fidelity in the discussion of the bill to repeal the Missouri Compromise, and other important measures of that session, that in the following May he was obliged to resign his seat. In 1853 Miss Ann Pamela Cunningham originated a plan to purchase Mount Vernon by private subscription, in an address to the women of the United States, signed "A Southern Matron," and in this praiseworthy object she found an efficient advocate in Mr. Everett, who delivered in its behalf his oration on Washington, from 19 March, 1856, till June, 1859 —122 times—with a result of more than $58,000. In the autumn of 1858 Mr. Everett contracted with Robert Bonner, proprietor of the New York "Ledger," to furnish an article weekly for that paper for one year, in consideration of $10,000, to be paid in advance to the Mount Vernon fund. Mr. Everett also invited the readers of the "Ledger" to transmit each the sum of fifty cents or more toward the same object, and this appeal produced more than $3,000. On 22 December, 1857, he delivered an address on charity and charitable associations for the benefit of the Boston Provident Association, which was repeated fifteen times, with receipts of about $18,500. On 17 January, 1859, he delivered an address in Boston on the " Early Days of Franklin," which was repeated five times, yielding about $4,000 to various institutions. The receipts of these lectures were not less than $90,000. A notice of the "Life and Works of Daniel Webster," by Mr. Everett, is included in the collective edition of the works of the former (6 vols., Boston, 1852). From his pen also came the "Life of General Stark," in Sparks's "American Biography," and several of the annual reports of the Massachusetts board of education. At the instance of Lord Macaulay, he contributed a life of Washington to the "Encyclopedia Britannica " (published separately, New York, 1860). Mr. Everett had substantial claims to the character of a poet. His dirge of "Alaric the Visigoth" and the beautiful poem of "Santa Croce" are among the few compositions that the remembrance of school-boy declamation can present without fear of rebuke to the maturer judgment of riper years. In addition to the "Defence of Christianity," already mentioned, and occasional addresses, official letters, reports, etc., Mr. Everett published "Orations and Speeches on Various Occasions" (Boston, 1836); "Importance of Practical Education and Useful Knowledge," a selection from his "Orations and other Discourses," published in 1836, originally prepared for the Massachusetts District-school library at the request of the Board of Education (New York, 1847); "Orations and Speeches on Various Occasions from 1826 to 1850" (2d ed., 2 vols., Boston, 1850; this edition includes all that were in the edition of 1836; 3d ed., 2 vols., 1853). These volumes contain eighty-one articles. The third volume of Everett's "Orations and Speeches" (Boston, 1859) contains forty-six articles, and also a copious index to the contents of the three volumes. Volume IV of the "Orations and Speeches" (Boston, 1859) contains fifty-nine articles. Those who would witness a remarkable illustration of the power of eloquence to transfuse life and beauty into the teachings of science, the lessons of history, the ethics of politics, and vicissitudes of letters, will not neglect to devote their "days and nights" to the orations of Edward Everett. The first oration that drew upon Mr. Everett the eyes of his countrymen at largo was delivered at Cambridge before the Phi Beta Kappa Society, 27 August, 1824. The subject was, " The Circumstances Favorable to the Progress of Literature in America." When the youthful orator had excited to a painful pitch the feelings of the vast assemblage, he suddenly turned to the illustrious guest, Lafayette, who had seen so much of the rise and fall of human greatness, who had witnessed alike the destruction of a throne and the birth of a nation, and addressed him in an apostrophe never to be forgotten by auditor or reader. Perhaps Mr. Everett's powers as an orator are nowhere displayed to greater advantage than in that passage in his Fourth of July address delivered at Dorchester, Massachusetts, in 1855, in which he epitomizes, in a single eloquent paragraph, the far-reaching consequences of the battle of Lexington. he said: " On the 19th of April the all-important blow was struck; the blow which severed the fated chain whose every link was bolted by an act of parliament, whose every rivet was closed up by an order in council— which bound to the wake of Europe the brave bark of our youthful fortune, destined henceforth and forever to ride the waves alone—the blow which severed that fated chain was struck. The blow was struck which will be felt in its consequences to ourselves and the family of nations till the seventh seal is broken from the apocalyptic volume of the history of empires. The consummation of four centuries was completed. The life-long hopes and heart-sick visions of Columbus, poorly fulfilled in the subjugation of the plumed tribes of a few tropical islands, and the partial survey of the continent; cruelly mocked by the fetters placed upon his noble limbs by his own menial and which he carried with him into his grave, were at length more than fulfilled, when the new world of his discovery put on the sovereign robes of her separate national existence, and joined, for peace and for war, the great Panathenaic procession of the nations. The wrongs of generations were redressed. The cup of humiliation drained to the dregs by the old puritan confessors and nonconformist victims of oppression—loathsome prisons, blasted fortunes, lips forbidden to open in prayer, earth and water denied in their pleasant native land, the separations and sorrows of exile, the sounding perils of the ocean, the scented hedge-rows and vocal thickets of the 'old countrie' exchanged for a pathless wilderness ringing with the war-whoop and gleaming with the scalping-knife; the secular insolence of colonial rule, cheeked by no periodical recurrence to the public will; governors appointed on the other side of the globe that knew not Joseph; the patronizing disdain of undelegated power: the legal contumely of foreign law, wanting the first element of obligation, the consent of the governed expressed by his authorized representative; and at length the last unutterable and burning affront and shame, a mercenary soldiery encamped upon the fair eminences of our cities, ships of war with springs on their cables moored in front of our crowded quays, artillery planted open-mouthed in our principal streets, at the doors of our houses of assembly, their morning and evening salvos proclaiming to the rising and the setting sun that we are the subjects and they the lords—all these hideous phantoms of the long colonial night swept off by the first sharp volley on Lexington Green." An eloquent review of Mr. Everett's orations, by Professor Cornelius C. Felton, was published in the "North American Review " for October, 1850, and an admirable analysis of his mental characteristics and oratorical style, by a distinguished critic, himself an orator of renown, George S. Hillard, will be found in the same periodical for January, 1837. We give a brief extract from the latter: "The great charm of Mr. Everett's orations consists not so much in any single and strongly developed intellectual trait as in that symmetry and finish which, on every page, give token to the richly endowed and thorough scholar. The natural movements of his mind are full of grace; and the most indifferent sentence which falls from his pen has that simple elegance which it is as difficult to define as it is easy to perceive. His level passages are never tame, and his fine ones are never superfine. His style, with matchless flexibility, rises and falls with his subject, and is alternately easy, vivid, elevated, ornamented, or picturesque, adapting itself to the dominant mood of the mind, as an instrument responds to the touch of a master's hand. His knowledge is so extensive and the field of his allusions so wide, that the most familiar views, in passing through his hands, gather such a halo of luminous illustrations that their likeness seems transformed, and wo entertain doubts of their identity." In 1860, when secession was seriously threatened by South Carolina. Mr. Everett, against his own inclination (as he wrote to the author of this sketch), permitted his name to be used by the Constitutional-Union Party as a candidate for the vice-presidency, John Bell, of Tennessee, being the candidate for president. They received thirty-nine electoral votes—those of Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. (See Bell, John.) During the Civil War Mr. Everett labored zealously in defence of the Union, but was always disposed to extend the hand of fraternal reconciliation toward those whom he regarded as so greatly in the wrong; and his last public service was one of humanity in behalf of southern sufferers by the conflict, at the meeting in Faneuil Hall on Monday, 9 January, 1865, for the relief of the people of Savannah. On his return home after a day of fatiguing engagements, he was obliged to summon his physician, and did not again leave his house. "We all remember him," remarks Daniel Webster, "some of us personally, myself, certainly, with great interest, in his deliberations in the Congress of the United States, to which he brought such a degree of learning and ability and eloquence as few equalled and none surpassed. He administered, afterward, satisfactorily to his fellow-citizens, the duties of the chair of the commonwealth. He then, to the great advantage of his country, went abroad. He was deputed to represent his government at the most important court of Europe, and he carried thither many qualities, most of them essential, and all of them ornamental and useful, to fill that high station. He had education and scholarship. He had a reputation at home and abroad. More than all, he had an acquaintance with the politics of the world, with the laws of this country and of nations, and with the history and policy of the countries of Europe. And how well these qualities enabled him to reflect honor upon the literature and character of his native land, not we only, but all the country and all the world, know. He has performed this career, and yet is at such a period of life that I may venture something upon the character and privilege of my countrymen when I predict that those who have known him long and know him now, those who have seen him and see him now, those who have heard him and hear him now, are very likely to think that his country has demands upon him for future efforts in its service." It is pleasing to know that the cordial relations that united the hearts of these distinguished pal riots were never disturbed by misunderstanding nor chilled by estrangement. To this gratifying truth we have the following testimony, which occurs in a letter from Webster to Everett, written about three months before the decease of the former: "We now and then see stretching across the heavens a clear, blue, cerulean sky, without cloud, or mist, or haze. And such appears to me our acquaintance from the time when I heard you for a week recite your lessons in the little school-house in Short street, to the date hereof [21 July, 1852]. Mr. Everett had long contemplated a work upon international law, and at the time of his death he was preparing a course of lectures on this theme, which he had "promised to deliver before the Dane law-school." But failing health, and the fatigue and excitement of travel arising from "much serving" in patriotic enterprises, prevented the completion of the greatly desired treatise. The accompanying illustration is a view of Mr. Everett's birthplace in Dorchester, Massachusetts. The house is supposed to have been built by Colonel Robert Oliver, about 1740.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, pp. 387-389.


EVIDENCE is that which makes clear, demonstrates, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue; (3. El. Comm., 367.) Evidence may be considered with reference to, 1, the nature of the evidence 2, the object of the evidence; 3, the instruments of evidence; and, 4, the effect of evidence.

As to its nature, evidence may be considered with reference to its being, 1, the primary evidence; 2, secondary evidence; 3, positive; 4, presumptive; 5, hearsay; and, 6, admissions.

1. Primary evidence. The law generally requires that the best evidence the case admits of shall be given; (1 Stark. Ev., 102, 390.)

2. Secondary evidence is that species of proof which is admissible on the loss of primary evidence. Before it is admitted, proof must be made of the loss or impossibility of obtaining the primary evidence.

3. Positive evidence is that which, if believed, establishes the truth of a fact in issue, and does not arise from any presumption. Evidence is positive when the very facts in dispute are communicated by those who have actual knowledge of them by means of their senses; (1 Stark. 19.)

4. Presumptive evidence is that which is not direct, but where, on the contrary, a fact which is not positively known, is presumed from one or more other facts or circumstances which are known; (1 Stark. 18.)

5. Hearsay is the evidence of those who relate not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others. As a general rule, hearsay evidence of a fact is not admissible. But evidence given on a former trial by a person since dead is admissible, as is also the dying declarations of a person who has received a mortal injury. A few more exceptions may be found in Phillips' Ev. chap. 7; 1 Stark. Ev., 40.

6. Admissions, which are the declarations made l/y a party for himself or those acting under his authority. These admissions are % generally evidence of facts declared, but the admissions themselves must be proved.

The object of evidence is to ascertain the truth between the parties. Experience shows that this is best done by the following rules, which are now binding in law: 1. The evidence must be confined to the point in issue; 2. The substance of the issue must be proved, but only the substance is required to be proved; 3. The affirmative of the issue must be proved. A witness, on being admitted in court, is first subjected to the examination of the party in whose behalf he is called. This is termed the examination in chief. The principal rule to bo observed by the party examining is, that leading questions are not to be asked. The witness is then cross-examined by the other party. The object of cross-examination is twofold: to weaken the evidence given by the witness as to the fact in question, either by eliciting contradictions or new explanatory facts; or, secondly, to invalidate the general credit of the witness. In the latter case it is a general rule, that a witness may refuse to answer any question, if his answer will expose him to criminal liability. The general practice of English courts also seems to authorize his refusal to answer any question which will disgrace him. The credit of a witness may likewise be impeached by the general evidence of others as to his character; but in this case no evidence can be given of particular facts which militate against his general credit. Witnesses are excluded from giving evidence by: 1. Want of reason or understanding; 2. Want of belief in God and a future state; 3. Infancy; and, 4. Interest. Besides witnesses, records and private writings are also instruments of evidence.

1. Records, in all cases where the issue is nul tiel record, are to bo, proved by an exemplification duly authenticated; that is, an attestation made by a proper officer, by which he certifies that a record is in due form of law, and that the person who certifies it is the officer appointed by law to do so. In other cases an examined copy, duly proved, will in general be evidence.

2. Private writings are proved by producing the attesting witness, or, in case of his absence, death, or other legal inability to testify, as if, after attesting the paper, he becomes infamous, his handwriting may bo proved. When there is no witness to the instrument, it may be proved by evidence of the handwriting of the party, by a person who has seen him write, or in a course of correspondence has become acquainted with his hand. Parol evidence is admissible to defeat a written instrument on the ground of fraud, mistake, &c.; or to apply it to its proper subject matter, or, in some instances, as ancillary to such application, to explain the meaning of doubtful terms, or rebut presumptions arising extrinsically. But in all cases the parol evidence does not usurp the place or arrogate the authority of the written instrument. (Consult generally Treatises on Evidence by PHILLIPS and STARKIE; BOUVIER'S Law Dictionary; BRANDE'S Encyclopedia.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, pp. 263-264).


EVERGREEN, ALABAMA, March 24. 1865. 2nd Brigade, Lucas' Cavalry. In the Mobile campaign the brigade, Lieutenant-Colonel A. B. Spurling commanding, came upon 3 Confederates within a few miles of Evergreen on the night of the 23d. In attempting to escape 2 of the enemy were wounded and all captured. About midnight the railroad was reached 5 miles above Evergreen and a portion of the track was torn up. At 4:30 a. m. of the 24th a train from Pollard was captured and destroyed and some 3 hours later another train from Montgomery met the same fate. The latter train had on board 100 officers and soldiers, all of whom were captured. After the destruction of the trains the command proceeded to Evergreen, where the provisions needed were taken, the rest destroyed, and at 2 p. m. the brigade moved to Sparta.  The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 5, p. 381.


EVOLUTIONS. (See MANOEUVRES.)


EWELL, Benjamin Stoddert, soldier and educator, born in Washington, D. C, 10 June, 1810. He is a grandson of Benjamin Stoddert, first Secretary of the Navy. He was graduated at the U. S. Military Academy in 1832, and assigned to the 4th U.S. Artillery. He served in the Military Academy as assistant professor of mathematics in 1832-'5, and as assistant professor of natural and experimental philosophy in 1835-'6, when he resigned. From 1836 till 1839 he was one of the principal assistant engineers of the Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad. He was professor of mathematics at Hampden-Sidney from 1840 till 1846, when he was elected to the Cincinnati professorship of mathematics and military science in Washington College, Lexington, Virginia, which office he held two years. In 1848 he was elected professor of mathematics and acting president of William and Mary, and became president in 1854. He held this office till the beginning of the Civil War, when the college was suspended. He then served in the Confederate Army as colonel of the 32d Virginia Regiment in 1861-'2, and afterward was appointed adjutant-general to General Joseph E. Johnston, when he commanded the departments of Tennessee and Mississippi. He was again elected president of William and Mary in 1865, and still (1887) retains the office. The degree of LL. D., was conferred on him from Hobart College in 1874. He was made an honorary member of the Royal Historical Society of Great Britain in 1880. Dr. Ewell urged the election and re-election of General Grant to the presidency because of his moderation and magnanimity at the close of the Civil War. He was opposed to secession in 1861, thinking it unnecessary and unconstitutional, and resisted the measure until war was waged. Since 1865 he has exerted himself to foster harmony between the north and the south, and loyalty to the National government, he spoke in the House of Representatives at Washington on 1 April, 1874, and again on 25 January, 1876, in support of the petition of William and Mary College for an appropriation on account of the destruction of its buildings and property during the Civil War.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, pp. 391-392.


EWELL, Richard Stoddert, soldier, born in Georgetown, D. C, 8 February, 1817; died in Springfield, Tenn., 25 January, 1872. was graduated at the U. S. Military Academy in 1840. His first experience of actual warfare was obtained in Mexico, where, in August, 1847, he was engaged at Contreras and at Churubusco. He was promoted to captain, 4 August, 1849, and in June, 1857, won distinction fighting against the Apaches in New Mexico. When the Civil War began, he resigned his commission, entered the Confederate Army, and was actively engaged throughout the war. He was promoted to the rank of major-general, and fought at Blackburn's Ford, 18 July, 1861, and at Bull Run, 21 July. In the following year he distinguished himself under Jackson, by whom he was greatly trusted, and took an active part in the various movements preceding the second battle of Bull Run, losing a leg at Warrenton Turnpike on 28 August, 1862. He took part also in the Maryland Campaign. When General Jackson was fatally wounded at Chancellorsville, Ewell, at his request, was promoted to lieutenant-general, and assigned to the command of the 2d Corps. At the head of Jackson's veterans he fought valiantly at Winchester, at Gettysburg, and at the Wilderness on the Confederate left. He was captured, with his entire force, by Sheridan at Sailor's Creek, 6 April, 1865. After the war he retired to private life. General Grant says in his " Memoirs ": "Here " [at Farmville] "I met Dr. Smith, a Virginian and an officer of the regular army, who told me that in a conversation with General Ewell, a relative of his" [who had just been made a prisoner], " Ewell had said that when we hail got across the James River he knew their cause was lost, and it was the duty of their authorities to make the best terms they could while they still had a right to claim concessions. The authorities thought differently, however. Now the cause was lost, and they had no right to claim anything. He said further, that for every man that was killed after this in the war, somebody is responsible, and it would be but very little better than murder. He was not sure, that Lee would consent to surrender his army without being able to consult with the president, but he hoped he would." Grant says this gave him the first idea of demanding the surrender.—his brother, Thomas Ewell, was killed at the battle of Cerro Gordo. Mexico, in 1847. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 392.


EWING, Andrew, Confederate soldier, born in Nashville, Tennessee; died in Atlanta, Georgia, 16 June, 1864. He studied law and became eminent in his profession, and for years participated in the political controversies that distinguished the history of Tennessee at that time. He represented the Nashville District in Congress from 3 December, 1849, to 3 March, 1851, having been elected as a Democrat. In February, 1861, he was elected as a Unionist to represent Davidson County in the proposed state convention, which was voted down by the people. Subsequently he was drawn away from his allegiance to the Union, and took an active part against the government. After the fall of Fort Donelson he left his home, and until he died held an office in the Confederate Army.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 393.


EWING, Thomas, 1789-1871, West Liberty, Ohio, statesman, attorney, Whig U.S. Senator, 1831-1837, from Oho, opposed slavery as a senator.  Secretary of the Treasury, 1841-1847.  Secretary of the Interior.  Opposed Fugitive Slave Law, Henry Clay’s Compromise Bill, and called for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.  Adopted Civil War General William T. Sherman as a boy.  (Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, pp. 393-394; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 3, Pt. 2, p. 237)

EWING, Thomas, statesman, born near West Liberty, Ohio County, Virginia, 28 December, 1789; died in Lancaster, Ohio, 20 October, 1871. His father, George Ewing, served in the Revolutionary Army, and moved with his family in 1792 to the Muskingum River, and then to what is now Athens County, Ohio. In this unsettled district young Ewing's education was necessarily imperfect. His sister taught him to read, and in the evenings he studied the few books at his command. In his twentieth year he left his home and worked in the Kanawha salt establishments, pursuing his studies at night by the light of the furnace-fires. He remained here till he had earned enough money to clear from debt the farm that his father had bought in 1792, and had qualified himself to enter the Ohio University at Athens, where, in 1815, he received the first degree of A. B. that was ever granted in the Northwest. He then studied law in Lancaster, was admitted to the bar in 1816, and practised with success for fifteen years. In 1831-37 he served as U. S. Senator from Ohio, having been chosen as a Whig. He supported the protective tariff system of Clay, and advocated a reduction in the rates of postage, a recharter of the U. S. bank, and the revenue collection bill, known as the "forcebill." He opposed the removal of the deposits from the U. S. bank, and introduced a bill for the settlement of the Ohio boundary question, which was passed in 1836. During the same session he brought forward a bill for the reorganization of the general land-office, which was passed, and also presented a memorial for the abolition of slavery. In July, 1836, the secretary of the treasury issued what was known as the " specie circular." This directed receivers in land-offices to accept payments only in gold, silver, or treasury certificates, except from certain classes of persons for a limited time. Mr. Ewing brought in a bill to annul this circular, and another to make it unlawful for the secretary to make such a discrimination, but these were not carried. After the expiration of his term in 1837 he resumed the practice of his profession. He became Secretary of the Treasury in 1841, under Harrison, and in 1849 accepted the newly created portfolio of the interior, under Taylor, and organized that department. Among the measures recommended in his first report, 3 December, 1849, were the establishment of a mint near the California gold-mines, and the construction of a railroad to the Pacific. When Thomas Corwin became Secretary of the Treasury in 1850, Mr. Ewing was appointed to succeed him in the Senate. During this term he opposed the Fugitive Slave Law, Clay's compromise bill, reported a bill for the establishment of a branch mint in California, and advocated a reduction of postage, and the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. He retired from public life in 1851, and again resumed his law-practice in Lancaster. He was a delegate to the Peace Congress of 1861. During the Civil War he gave, through the press and by correspondence and personal interviews, his counsel and influence to the support of the National authorities. While he devoted much of his time to political subjects, the law was his favorite study and pursuit. He early won and maintained throughout his life unquestioned supremacy at the Bar of Ohio, and ranked in the Supreme Court of the United States among the foremost lawyers of the nation. In 1829, just after his father's death, General William T. Sherman, then a boy nine years of age, was adopted by Mr. Ewing, who afterward appointed him to the U. S. Military Academy, and in 1850 he married Ellen, the daughter of his benefactor.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, pp. 393-394.


EWING, Hugh Boyle, soldier, born in Lancaster, Ohio, 31 October, 1826, was educated at the U. S. Military Academy. At the time of the gold fever, in 1849, he went to California by way of New Orleans and Texas, and travelled extensively through that country, going to the High Sierra in an expedition sent by his father, then Secretary of the Interior, to rescue emigrants from the snows. In 1852 he returned by way of Panama, as bearer of despatches to Washington. He then went to Lancaster and completed his law studies, began the practice of his profession in St. Louis in 1854. and two years later opened an office with his brother Thomas in Leavenworth, Kansas. In 1858 he moved to Ohio, in order to assume charge of his father's salt-works. In April, 1861, he was appointed brigade-inspector of Ohio volunteers, with the rank of major, and took part in the early combats in the mountains of West Virginia under McClellan and Rosecrans. He commanded the 30th Ohio Regiment in August, 1861, was appointed brigadier- general, 29 November, 1862, and brevetted major-general in 1865. He led a brigade at Antietam, and at the siege of Vicksburg. and a division at Chickamauga, which formed the advance of Sherman's army, and which, in a desperate battle, carried Mission Ridge. He was afterward ordered to North Carolina, and was preparing a secret joint military and naval expedition up the Roanoke, when the war came to an end. In 1866 he was appointed U. S. Minister to Holland, where he served for four years. After his return he bought a small estate near his native town, where he has since resided. General Ewing has travelled widely in this country and abroad, and is author of " The Grand Ladron, a Tale of Early California," and "A Castle in the Air" (1887). Son of Thomas Ewing. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 394.


EWING, Thomas, lawyer, born in Lancaster, Ohio, 7 August, 1829, was educated at Brown University, which gave him the degree of A. M. in 1860. He was private secretary to President Taylor from 1849 till 1850, and subsequently studied law in Cincinnati, where he began to practice his profession. In 1856 he moved to Leavenworth, Kansas, and became a member of the Leavenworth Constitutional Convention of 1858, and in 1861 became the first chief- justice of the state, he was a delegate to the Peace Conference of 1860. He resigned his judge-ship in 1862, recruited the 11th Kansas Regiment, was made its colonel, and served with distinction in the Civil War, taking part in the battles of Fort Wayne, Cane Hill, and Prairie Grove. He was made brigadier-general, 13 March, 1863, for gallantry at the last-named battle, commanded the district of the border, and subsequently at Pilot Knob, 28 September, 1864, with a thousand men, held his position against the repeated assaults of the Confederates under Price, thus checking the invasion of Missouri. He made a retreat to Rolla in 1864, and in 1865 was brevetted major-general of volunteers. After the war he practised law in Washington, D. C, but returned to Lancaster in 1871, and in 1877-'81 was a member of Congress, where he prepared a bill to establish a bureau of labor statistics. He also actively supported the measures that stopped the use of troops at the polls, advocated the remonetization of silver, and the retention of the greenback currency. In 1879 he was the unsuccessful candidate for governor of Ohio. At the close of his last term in Congress he declined a renomination, and moved to New York City, where he has since practised law. Son of Thomas Ewing.  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, p. 394


EWING, Charles, soldier, born in Lancaster, Ohio, 6 March, 1835; died in Washington, D. C, 20 June, 1883, was educated in his native town, at a Dominican College, and at the University of Virginia. At the beginning of the Civil War he received a commission in the regular army as captain of the 13th Infantry, and also served for some time on the staff of his brother-in-law, Gen. William T. Sherman. He was brevetted major in 1863 for gallantry in the first assault at Vicksburg, where he was wounded while planting the flag of his battalion on the parapet. He was also brevetted lieutenant-colonel in 1864 for services in the Atlanta Campaign, and colonel in 1865 for gallant conduct during the war. On 8 March, 1865, he was appointed brigadier-general of volunteers. He resigned his commission in 1867, and practised law successfully in Washington, D. C. during the remainder of his life. [Son of Thomas Ewing].  Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. II, pp. 394-395.


EXECUTION OF LAWS. On all occasions when the troops are  employed in restoring or maintaining public order among their fellow-citizens, the use of arms, and particularly fire-arms, is obviously attended with loss of life or limb to private individuals; and for these consequences, a military man may be called to stand at the bar of a criminal court. A private soldier also may occasionally be detached on special duty, with the necessity of exercising discretion as to the use of his arms; and in such cases he is responsible, like 'an officer, for the right use or exercise of such discretion. One of the earliest reported cases on this subject occurred in 1735, when Thomas Macadam, a private sentinel, and James Long, a corporal, were tried before the Admiralty Court of Scotland, upon a charge of murder under the following circumstances: They were ordered to attend some custom-house officers, for their protection in making a legal seizure; and being in a boat with the officers in quest of the contraband goods, one Frazer and his companions came up with them, leaped into the boat, and endeavored to disarm the soldiers. In the scuffle, the prisoners stabbed Frazer with their bayonets, and threw him into the sea. For this homicide the prisoners were tried and convicted of murder by a jury; and the Judge-admiral sentenced them to death. But the High Court of Justiciary reversed this judgment, on the ground that the homicide in question was necessary for securing the execution of the trust committed to the prisoners. The report of this case contains the following remarks upon it by Mr. Forbes, afterwards Lord President of the Court of Session of Scotland; and they appear to be of great importance to military men: “ Where a man has by law weapons put into his hands, to be employed not only in defence of his life when attacked, but in support of the execution of the laws, and in defence of the property of the Crown, and the liberty of any subject, he doubtless may use those weapons, not only when his own life is put so far in danger that he cannot probably escape without making use of them, but also when there is imminent danger that he may by violence be disabled to execute his trust, without resorting to the use of those weapons; but when the life of the officer is exposed to no danger, when his duty does not necessarily call upon him for the execution of his trust, or for the preservation of the property of the Crown, or the preservation of the property or liberty of the subject, to make use of mortal weapons, which may destroy His Majesty's subjects, especially numbers of them who may be innocent, it is impossible from the resolution of the Court of Justiciary to expect any countenance to, or shelter for, the inhuman act.” This quotation, in the latter part of it, has a direct bearing on the case of the unfortunate Captain Porteus, whose trial took place in the following year, and whose melancholy fate is the groundwork of Sir Walter Scott's “Heart of Mid Lothian.” In the year 1736, the collector of customs on the coast of Fife made a seizure of contraband goods of considerable value, which were condemned and sold. ' Two of the proprietors of these goods took an opportunity of robbing the collector of just so much money as these goods had sold for. They regarded this as merely a fair reprisal, and no robbery; but they were nevertheless taken up, tried, and condemned to death for the fact. With the exception of some smuggling transactions, in which they had been concerned, the prisoners were men of fair character; and the mob expressed much dissatisfaction with their sentence, and the prospect of their execution. On the Sunday preceding the day appointed for the execution, the prisoners were taken to a church near the gaol, attended by only three or four of the city guards, to hear divine service. None of the congregation had assembled, and the guards being feeble old men, one of the prisoners made a spring over the pew where they sat, while the other, whose name was Wilson, in order to facilitate his companion's escape, caught hold of two of the guards with his hands, and seized another with his teeth, and thus enabled his companion to join the mob outside, who bore him to a place of safety. Wilson then composedly resumed his own seat, without making any attempt to recover his own liberty. This generous conduct of Wilson created a strong public feeling in his favor; and the magistrates of Edinburgh soon learned that an attempt would be made by the mob to rescue him at the place of execution. They therefore procured some of the regular forces on duty in the suburbs to be posted at a convenient distance from the spot, so as to support the city guard, in case they should be vigorously attacked. The officer, whose turn it was to do duty as captain of the city guard, being deemed unfit for the critical duties of the day, Captain Porteus, unfortunately for himself, was appointed to the command on the occasion. His men were served with ball-cartridge; and, by order of the magistrates, they loaded their pieces when they went upon duty. The execution took place without any disturbance until the time arrived for cutting down the body, when the mob severely pelted the executioner with stones, which hit the guards as they surrounded the scaffold, and provoked them to fire upon the crowd. Some persons at a distance from the place of execution were thus killed. As soon as the body was removed, Captain Porteus withdrew his men, and marched up the West Bow, which is a narrow winding passage. The mob, having recovered from the fright occasioned by the previous firing, followed the guard up this passage, and pelted the rear with stones, which the guards returned with some dropping shot, whereby some where killed, and others wounded. On reaching the guard-house they deposited their arms in the usual form, and Captain Porteus went with his piece in his hand to the Spread Eagle Tavern, where the magistrates were assembled. On his arrival there, he was charged with the murder of the persons who had been slain by the city guards, on the allegation that he had commanded the guards to fire. The mob was very riotous, and called for justice upon him; and the magistrates, after adjourning to the council chamber, committed him to the Tollbooth for trial. The strongest feeling existed against him on the part of the mob, until the hour of his trial before the High Court of Justiciary arrived, when, to their great satisfaction, he was found guilty, and condemned to be hanged. The higher classes of society, however, unaffected by the popular prejudice against the unfortunate prisoner, exerted themselves strenuously in his behalf, and succeeded in obtaining a reprieve. This created the greatest discontent among the lower orders, who, on the night before the day originally appointed for the execution, broke open the gaol, dragged the unhappy Captain Porteus down stairs by the heels, carried him to the common place of execution, and there, throwing a rope over a dyer's pole, hanged him with many marks of barbarity. The perpetrators of this outrage were never discovered, and the subject gave rise to very warm debates in Parliament, particularly in the House of Lords, with respect to the conduct of the city magistrates and officers.

It was quite clear, however, with reference to the criminality of Captain Porteus, that he had ordered his men to fire without sufficient cause or justification; and, under such circumstances, he was in point of law justly found guilty of murder.

Ensign Hugh Maxwell, of the Lanarkshire Militia, was tried in 1807, before the High Court of Justiciary of Scotland, for the murder of Charles Cottier, a French prisoner of war at Greenlaw, by improperly ordering John Gow, a private sentinel, to fire into the room where Cottier and other prisoners were confined, and so causing him to be mortally wounded. It appeared that Ensign Maxwell had been appointed to the military guard over 300 prisoners of war, chiefly taken from French privateers. The building in which they were confined was of no great strength, and afforded some possibilities of escape. The prisoners were of a very turbulent character, and to prevent their escape during the long winter nights, an order was given that all lights in the prison should be put out by nine o'clock, and that if this was not done at the second call, the guard were to fire upon the prisoners, who were often warned that this would be the consequence of disobedience with regard to the lights. On the night in question, there was a tumult in the prison, but of no great importance; and Ensign Maxwell's attention having been on that account drawn to the prisoners, he observed a light burning beyond the appointed hour, and twice ordered it to be put out. This order not being obeyed he ordered the sentry to fire, but the musket merely snapped. He repeated the order; the sentinel fired again, and Cottier received his mortal wound. At this time there was no symptom of disorder in the prison, und the prisoners were all in bed. The general instructions issued from the adjutant-general's office in Edinburgh, for the conduct of the troops guarding the prison, contained no such order as that which Ensign Maxwell had acted upon; and it appeared that the order in question was a mere verbal one, which had from time to time, in the hearing of the officers, been repeated by the corporal to the sentries, on mounting guard, and had never been countermanded by those officers, who were also senior to Ensign Maxwell. The Lord Justice Clerk described the case to the jury as altogether the most distressing that any court had ever been called upon to consider, and laid it down most distinctly, that Ensign Maxwell could only defend himself by proving specific orders, which he was bound to obey without discretion; or by showing that in the general discharge of his duty he was placed in circumstances, which gave him discretion, and called upon him to do what he did. His lordship was of opinion that both these grounds of defence failed in the present case; and the jury having found Ensign Maxwell guilty of the minor offence of culpable homicide, with a recommendation to mercy, the court sentenced him to nine months' imprisonment. Ensign Maxwell's conduct certainly exhibited none of those gross features which characterize murder; but at the same time he was guilty of a rash and inconsiderate act, which, if he had not been engaged at the time in military duty, though he was mistaken in the exercise of it, would probably have been held to amount to murder. In Maxwell's case, the soldier who fired the shot was not prosecuted for the act, nor was he liable to such prosecution.

It is laid down in a book of authority, that if a ship's sentinel shoot a man, because he persists in approaching the ship when he has been ordered not to do so, it will be murder, unless such an act was necessary for the ship's safety. And it will be murder, though the sentinel had orders to prevent the approach of any boats, had ammunition given to him when he was put on guard, and acted on the mistaken impression that it was his duty. In Rex v. Thomas, the prisoner was sentinel on board H.M.S. Achille, when she was paying off. The orders to him from the preceding sentinel were to keep off all boats, unless they had officers in uniform in them, or unless the officer on deck allowed them to approach: and he received a musket, three blank-cartridges, and three balls. The boats pressed, upon which he repeatedly called to them to keep off; but one of them persisted, and came close under the ship, and he then fired at a man in the boat and killed him. It was put to the jury to find whether the sentinel did not fire under the mistaken impression that it was his duty; and they found that he did. But the case being reserved for the opinion of the judges, their lordships were unanimous that it was murder. They thought it, however, a proper case for a pardon: and further, they were of opinion that if the act had been necessary for the preservation of the ship, as if the deceased had been stirring up a mutiny, the sentinel would have been justified.

The cases already cited turned upon the improper exercise of discretion by the officers concerned. But in the following case, though not attended with actual consequences involving a criminal charge, the discretion in the use of arms was wisely exercised, and indicated great presence of mind, and correctness of judgment.

Some years ago, the public journals of London recorded the meritorious behavior of a private sentry, upon the occasion of a riotous mob assembled at the entrance of Downing-street, with the intention of attacking the government offices in that quarter of the town. This man standing alone presented his musket, and threatened to fire upon the crowd, if the slightest attempt were made to approach the particular office for the defence of which he was placed on duty, and succeeded by the terror thus created, though at a great risk of consequences to himself, in keeping the rioters at bay until a larger force arrived to assist him. The soldier's conduct was publicly much approved. It was also clearly legal according to Macadam's case; and if after the announcement of his intentions the mob had pressed forward to execute their purpose, he would have been held justified at law in firing at the rioters upon his own responsibility. The Duke of Wellington, as Constable of the Tower, testified his marked approbation of this man's conduct, by promoting him at once to a Wardership at that fortress.

During the Irish insurrection of 1848, Smith O'Brien was arrested at the railway station of Thurles, on a charge of high treason. A public passenger train was on the point of starting for Dublin, and the engineer was mounted on the engine, with the steam up, and every thing in readiness for the immediate prosecution of the journey. The scene of the arrest lay in the disturbed district, which was in the occupation of the troops employed to suppress the insurrection and prevent its extension. General Macdonald's aide-de-camp, having been apprised of the arrest, proceeded instantly to the station, and there commanded the engineer to dismount from the engine, and to stop the train; it being of the utmost importance to the public safety and service that the news of the arrest should not be carried along the line of railway, as the country people might assemble in great numbers and destroy the rails, and rescue the prisoner, or otherwise impede the conveyance of the prisoner to Dublin. Such interference would obviously have occasioned great loss of life, besides the danger to the public service at such a season. The engineer at first refused to obey the aide-de-camp's orders, whereupon the officer presented his pistol at the engineer, and threatened him with instant death if he persisted in his refusal. The man then dismounted; but it is conceived that the officer pursued a correct line of conduct, and exercised upon the occasion a sound discretion, which would have been a good legal defence to him, if he had ultimately proceeded to execute his threat upon the engineer. “Power in law (says Sir Edward Coke) means power with force.”

The right of officers or soldiers to interfere in quelling a felonious riot, whether with or without superior military orders, or the direction of a civil magistrate, is quite clear, and beyond the possibility of mistake. This subject, however, was formerly little understood; and military men failed in their public duty through excess of caution.

George III. and his Attorney -general (Wedderburn) both deservedly acquired high credit for their energy in the crisis of the riots of 1780. When the king heard that the troops which had been marched in from all quarters were of no avail in restoring order, on account of a scruple that they could not be ordered to fire till an hour after the Riot Act had been read, he called a cabinet council, at which he himself presided, and propounded for their consideration the legality of this opinion. There was much hesitation among the councillors, as they remembered the outcry that had been made by reason of some deaths from the interference of the military in Wilkes's riots, and the eagerness with which grand juries had found indictments for murder against those who had acted under the command of their superiors. At last the question was put to the Attorney-general, who attended as assessor, and he gave a clear, unhesitating, and unqualified answer to the effect, that if the mob were committing a felony, as by burning down dwelling-houses, and could not be prevented from doing so by other means, the military, according to the law of England, might and ought to be ordered to fire upon them: the reading of the Riot Act being wholly unnecessary and nugatory under such circumstances. The exact words used by him on this occasion are not known; but they must have been nearly the same which he employed when he shortly afterwards expounded from the judgment seat the true doctrine upon the subject. The requisite orders were issued to the troops, the conflagrations were stopped, and tranquillity was speedily restored.

This eminent lawyer having become Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, with the title of Lord Loughborough, delivered a charge to the grand jury on the special commission for the trial of the rioters of 1780, in the following terms: “ I take this public opportunity of mentioning a fatal mistake into which many persons have fallen. It has been imagined, because the law allows an hour for the dispersion of a mob to whom the Riot Act has been read by the magistrate, the better to support the civil authority, that during that time the civil power and the magistracy are disarmed, and the king's subjects, whose duty it is at all times to suppress riots, are to remain quiet and passive. No such meaning was within view of the legislature, nor does the operation of the act warrant such effect. The civil magistrates are left in possession of all those powers which the law had given them before. If the mob collectively, or a part of it, or 'any individual within or before the expiration of that hour, attempts, or begins to perpetrate an outrage amounting to felony, to pull down a house, or by any other act to violate the law, it is the duty of all present, of whatever description they may be, to endeavor to stop the mischief, and to apprehend the offender.”

“A riot (says Mr. Justice Gaselee) is not the less a riot, nor an illegal meeting, because the proclamation of the Riot Act has not been read; the effect of that proclamation being to make the parties guilty of a capital offence if they do not disperse within an hour; but if that proclamation be not read, the common law offence remains, and it is a misdemeanor; and all magistrates, constables, and even private individuals are justified in dispersing the offenders; and if they cannot otherwise succeed in doing so, they may use force.”

After the suppression of the great riots of London in 1780, by the aid of the troops, as already mentioned, the government was acrimoniously attacked both in and out of parliament, on the ground that the employment of a military force, to quell riots by firing on the people, could only be justified, if at all, by martial law proclaimed under a special exercise of the royal prerogative; and it was thence argued that the nation was living under martial law. But Lord Mansfield, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, addressed the House of Lords on this subject, and placed it in its true light. “I hold (said his lordship) that His Majesty, in the orders he issued by the advice of his ministers, acted perfectly and strictly according to the common law of the land, and the principles of the Constitution Every individual in his private capacity may lawfully interfere to suppress a riot, much more to prevent acts of felony, treason, and rebellion. Not only is he authorized to interfere for such a purpose, but it is his duty to do so: and if called upon by a magistrate, he is punishable in case of refusal. What any single individual may lawfully do for the prevention of crime and preservation of the public peace, may be done by any number assembled to perform their duty as good citizens. It is the peculiar business of all constables to apprehend rioters, to endeavor to disperse all unlawful assemblies, and in case of resistance, to attack, wound, nay kill those who continue to resist; taking care not to commit unnecessary violence, or to abuse the power legally vested in them. Every one is justified in doing what is necessary for the faithful discharge of the duties annexed to his office, although he is doubly culpable if he wantonly commits an illegal act under the color or pretext of law. The persons who assisted in the suppression of those tumults are to be considered mere private individuals acting as duty required. My lords, we have not been living under martial law, but under that law which it has long been my sacred function to administer. For any violation of that law the offenders are amenable to our ordinary courts of justice, and may be tried before a jury of their countrymen. Supposing a soldier or any other military person who acted in the course of the late riots, had exceeded the power with which he was invested, I have not a single doubt that he may be punished, not by a court-martial, but upon an indictment to be found by the Grand Inquest of the City of London or the County of Middlesex, and disposed' of before the ermined judges sitting in Justice Hall at the Old Bailey. Consequently the idea is false, that we are living under a military government, or that, since the commencement of the riots, any part of the laws or of the Constitution has been suspended or dispensed with. I believe that much mischief has arisen from a misconception of the Riot Act, which enacts that after proclamation made persons present at a riotous assembly shall depart to their homes; those who remain there above an hour afterwards shall be guilty of felony and liable to suffer death. From this it has been imagined that the military cannot act, whatever crimes may be committed in their sight, till an hour after such proclamation has been made, or, as it is termed, ' the Riot Act is read.' But the Riot Act only introduces a new offence remaining an hour after the proclamation without qualifying any pre-existing law, or abridging the means which before existed for preventing or punishing crimes.”

In the case of Handcock v. Baker, which was an action brought against the defendants, who were not constables, for forcibly detaining and confining the plaintiff, in order to prevent him from murdering his wife, Mr. Justice Heath made the following observations: “ It is a matter of the last consequence that it should be known upon what occasions bystanders may interfere so as to prevent felony. In the riots which took place in 1780, this matter was much misunderstood, and a general persuasion prevailed that no indifferent person could interpose without the authority of a magistrate; in consequence of which much mischief was done which might otherwise have been prevented.” And in the same case Mr. Justice Chambre said: “There is a great difference between the right of a private person in cases of intended felony and breach of the peace. It is lawful for a private person to do any thing for, the prevention of a felony.” And in so doing it becomes quite immaterial whether the persons wounded or slain are taking any active part in the riot. In the case of Clifford v. Brandon, which was an action by a barrister of great eminence against the box-keeper of Covent Garden Theatre, who had arrested him in the theatre for wearing in his hat a ticket with O.P. on it this being a badge of the party by whom the celebrated O.P. riots relative to the prices of admission were carried on and nothing else having been proved against him the Lord Chief Justice, Sir James Mansfield, said: “ If any person encourages, or promotes, or takes part in riots, whether by words, signs, or gestures, or by wearing the badge or ensign of the rioters, he is himself to be considered a rioter, he is liable to be arrested for a breach of the peace. In this case all are principals.”

But notwithstanding the existence of a clear right and duty on the part of military men voluntarily to aid in the suppression of a riot, it would be the height of imprudence to intrude with military force, except upon the requisition of a magistrate, unless in those cases where the civil power is obviously overcome, or on the point of being overcome, by the rioters.

With regard to the requisition of military aid by the civil magistrate, the rule seems to be, that when once the magistrate has charged the military officer with the duty of suppressing a riot, the execution of that duty is wholly confided to the judgment and skill of the military officer, who thenceforward acts independently of the magistrate until the service required is fully performed. The magistrate cannot dictate to the officer the mode of executing the duty; and an officer would desert his duty if he submitted to receive any such orders from the magistrate. Neither is it necessary for the magistrate to accompany the officer in the execution of his duty.

The learning on these points may be gathered from the charge of Mr. Justice Littledale to the jury, in the trial of the mayor of Bristol, for breach of duty in not suppressing the riots at that city in 1831. “ Another charge (said His Lordship) against the defendant is, that upon being required to ride with Major Beckwith, he did not do so. In my opinion he was not bound to do so in point of law. I do not apprehend it to be the duty of a justice of the peace to ride along and charge with the military. A military officer may act without the authority of the magistrate, if he chooses to take the responsibility; but although that is the strict law, there are few military men who will take upon themselves so to do, except on the most pressing occasions. Where it is likely to be attended with a great destruction of life, a man, generally speaking, is unwilling to act without a magistrate's authority; but that authority need not be given by his presence. In this case the mayor did give his authority to act; the order has been read in evidence; and he was not bound in law to ride with the soldiers, more particularly on such an occasion as this, when his presence elsewhere might be required to give general directions. If he was bound to make one charge, he was bound to have made as many other charges as the soldiers made. m It is not in evidence that the mayor was able to ride, or at least in the habit of doing so; and to charge with soldiers it is not only necessary to ride, but to ride in the same manner as they do; otherwise it is probable the person would soon be unhorsed, and would do more harm than good: besides that, if the mob were disposed to resist, a man who appeared in plain clothes leading the military would be soon selected and destroyed. I do not apprehend that it is any part of the duty of a person who has to give general directions, to expose himself to all kinds of personal danger. The general commanding an army does not ordinarily do so, and I can see no reason why a magistrate should. A case may be conceived where it might be prudent, but here no necessity for it has been shown.”

This subject was also luminously expounded by the late Lord Chief Justice Tindal, in his charge to the grand jury on the special commission held at Bristol, on the 2d of January, 1832, for the trial of the parties implicated in the formidable riots and devastations committed in that city during the autumn of the previous year: It has been well said that the use of the law consists, first, in preserving men's persons from death and violence; next, in securing to them the free enjoyment of their property; and although every single act of violence, and each individual breach of the law, tends to counteract and destroy this its primary use and object, yet do general risings and tumultuous meetings of the people in a more especial and particular manner produce this effect, not only removing all security, both from the persons and property of men, but for the time putting down the law itself, and daring to usurp its place In the first place, by the common law, every private person may lawfully endeavor, of his own authority, and without any warrant or sanction of the magistrate, to suppress a riot by every means in his power. He may disperse, or assist in dispersing, those who are assembled; he may stay those who are engaged in it from executing their purpose; he may stop and prevent others whom he shall see coming up, from joining the rest; and not only has he the authority, but it is his bounden duty, as a good subject of the king, to perform this to the utmost of his ability. If the riot be general and dangerous, he may arm himself against the evil-doers to keep the peace. Such was the opinion of all the judges of England in the time of Queen Elizabeth, in a case called ' The Case of Arms,' (Popham's Reports, p. 121,) although the judges add, that ' it would be more discreet for every one in such a case to attend and be assistant to the justices, sheriffs, or other ministers of the king in doing this.' It would, undoubtedly, be more advisable so to do; for the presence and authority of the magistrate would restrain the proceeding to such extremities, until the danger was sufficiently immediate, or until some felony was either committed or could not be prevented without recourse to arms; and at all events the assistance given by men who act in subordination to, and in concert with, the civil magistrate, will be more effectual to attain the object proposed, than any efforts, however well intended, of separate and disunited individuals. But if the occasion demands immediate action, and no opportunity is given for procuring the advice or sanction of the magistrate, it is the duty of every subject to act for himself, and upon his own responsibility in suppressing a riotous and tumultuous assembly; and he may be assured that whatever is honestly done by him in the execution of that object, will be supported and justified by the common law. And whilst I am stating the obligation imposed by the law on every subject of the realm, I wish to observe that the law acknowledges no distinction in this respect between the soldier and the private individual. The soldier is still a citizen, lying under the same obligation, and invested with the same authority to preserve the peace of the king as any other subject. If the one is bound to attend the call of the civil magistrate, so also is the other; if the one may interfere for that purpose when the occasion demands it, without the requisition of the magistrate, so may the other too; if the one may employ arms for that purpose, when arms are necessary, the soldier may do the same. Undoubtedly the same exercise of discretion which requires the private subject to act in subordination to, and in aid of, the magistrate, rather than upon his own authority, before recourse is had to arms, ought to operate in a still stronger degree with a military force. But where the danger is pressing and immediate, where a felony has actually been committed, or cannot otherwise be prevented, and from the circumstances of the case no opportunity is offered of obtaining a requisition from the proper authorities, the military subjects of the king, like his civil subjects, not only may, but are bound to do their utmost, of their own authority, to prevent the perpetration of outrage, to put down riot and tumult, arid to preserve the lives and property of the people.”

 It is one result of the law, as laid down by the foregoing authorities, that a military officer refusing or failing, on a proper occasion, to bring into action against a riotous or an insurrectionary mob, the force under his command, would be guilty of an indictable offence at common law, and might be prosecuted accordingly for breach of duty, independently of his liability to military censure.

The most recent case on this subject arose out of the conduct of the military at Six-mile Bridge, in the County of Clare, during the parliamentary election for that county in the year 1852. At the ensuing Spring Assizes held at Ennis in February, 1853, an indictment for murder w r as preferred against the magistrate and the officers and men whose conduct was impeached; but the grand jury threw out the bill: and the case is here noticed only for the sake of the charge delivered to them by Mr. Justice Perrin, who thus commented upon the law in its application to the offence of which the military were accused:

“It appears that there was an escort of soldiers, consisting of forty men, with two sergeants, as a safe-guard for some persons going to the hustings at Six-mile Bridge, under the command of a captain and a lieutenant, and the conduct of a magistrate a very difficult and a very nice service. With respect to the requisition, its terms, grounds, or sufficiency, the soldiers could have no knowledge. The orders of the general, which they are bound to obey, and not permitted to canvass, were obligatory on them; and for its sufficiency they are not responsible, and you are happily relieved from any inquiry into that matter. Under that order, and the command of Captain Eager, and the conduct of Mr. Delmege, they assembled. They proceeded to Six-mile Bridge, and were there, with their arms in their hands, in obedience to orders. Those orders will not justify any unlawful conduct or violence in them, but it accounts for their presence there in arms: for ordinary persons going on such an occasion as that to the hustings would act very indiscreetly and very dangerously, if, perhaps, not very illegally, to arm themselves with deadly weapons, in order to meet obstruction or opposition, if it were expected. But the soldiers were bound, and were there under orders; and that which in other persons might denote a previous evil or deadly intention, you will see, plainly suggests none in them, for they must obey their orders as soldiers. There was nothing illegal in their proceeding through the crowd with the freeholders, possibly like any other body of freeholders and their companions, but doing or offering no unnecessary violence, nor were they to be subject to any violence beyond others. They had no right to force a way through the crowd by violence, nor to remove any obstruction by arms, still less by discharging deadly fire-arms. They had no right to repel a trespass on themselves, or on the escort, by firing or inflicting mortal wounds. You will observe the distinction I take between removing an obstruction and repelling a trespass in another part of the case. They had a right to lay hold of, as every subject of Her Majesty has, and to arrest persons guilty of any assault or trespass, or other act tending to a riot, either to restrain or make them amenable. There is no distinction between soldiers and others in that respect, Lord Mansfield says, and his attention was very much called to this subject, touching the military engaged, not as soldiers, but, he says, as citizens, and I say, as subjects of Her Majesty. No matter whether their coats be red or brown, they are employed not to subvert, but to preserve the laws which they ought to prize so highly, taking care not to commit any unnecessary violence, or to abuse the power vested in them. Every one is justified in doing what is necessary for the faithful discharge of his duty, although he is deeply culpable if he wantonly commits any illegal act under the color or pretext of law. Those persons who assist in the suppression of tumults are to be considered as mere private individuals, acting as duty requires. It is a mistake to suppose that having resort to soldiers, is introducing martial law or military government. Suppose a soldier, or any other military person, who acted in the course of the late occurrence, had exceeded the powers with which he was invested, there is no doubt that he may be punished, not by a court-martial, but by an indictment, to be found by the Grand Inquest of the County of Clare, and to be disposed of before the criminal judge, acting with the assistance of the jury, in the court of the county. If assaulted, or struck with stones, they had a right to repel force by force, but not with deadly or mortal weapons; though if provoked by blows, so as to lose the command of their tempers though more forbearance, perhaps, would be expected from soldiers than from others if they did, when so provoked, use the mortal weapons in their hands, not with any previous premeditation on their parts so to use them and I have marked the distinction between soldiers and others under such circumstances in such repulsion or affray, the law, in consideration of the provocation and the frailty of human nature, reduces the crime, which would otherwise be murder, to manslaughter. And if it should still further appear that, having been so assailed and attacked, they had been guilty of no aggression, and repelling force by force, the violence proceeded so far that, without any misconduct on their part, their lives were threatened, and in actual danger; and if it appears that, in order to save themselves and their lives, they were obliged to fire, and did fire, in the defence of their lives, and slay, the homicide is excusable and justifiable. But in order to warrant that finding by the jury, or that proceeding by the soldiers, you must be convinced by actual proof that their conduct had been all through correct, and by actual proof not the saying nor the opinions of any individual that their lives were in danger, and were saved by the firing, and only by the firing. In order to warrant such a finding as that, you must entertain that conviction founded upon the evidence given before you. The facts evincing danger imminent to their lives, and which could be prevented only by the firing, must be established by clear evidence, demonstrating that such danger existed, and could be preserved only by resorting to that deplorable remedy. In considering that matter, you will recollect that there were of the party forty soldiers fully armed, with fixed bayonets, under the command of two officers and two sergeants; and further, that it is at least doubtful whether there was any legal command upon them to fire. No command was given by their officers I think that is admitted on all hands. And further, you must recollect that the firing cannot be justified upon the ground merely that otherwise the freeholders might either have escaped or been withdrawn. That would afford no justification for slaying the assailants. You will also consider where the matter occurred in this respect favorable to the accused a narrow lane. In another point of view, (but that is a matter for inquiry,) it is said to have been near the courthouse, and near an open road, where there was a large body of police, and a strong detachment of soldiers stationed, and where several magistrates were in attendance. You will also consider the matter I have before taken into consideration, whether the soldiers fired without orders, and whether they showed the steadiness and forbearance that they ought. I need not again repeat to gentlemen of your intelligence, that when I state any thing, I merely state what I have been informed; and I will not state a word as to that, but you will look to the evidence before you. If it shall appear to you that shots were fired, and some persons were killed, at a considerable distance from the lane, and out of that lane, and by some of the soldiers who had occupied and immediately come from it, and gained the open ground without any continued resistance where there was no pretence of danger to their lives, and the persons were, some at a great distance, and some of them with their backs turned if that state of facts appeared, without previous excitement and previous provocation, it would amount to a case of murder; but it will be for you to say whether such a state of facts as to some individual soldiers should appear whether there was any previous excitement and provocation (which, as I before told you, would reduce the killing, though it would not justify it, to manslaughter) continuing for a sufficient time, and preventing the blood from cooling. You will consider how far that consideration in your mind operates, and leads you to the conclusion that they acted, not from a deliberate intention to take away life, but from the excitement and warmth produced by previous provocation. That would reduce the crime to manslaughter. Therefore, gentlemen, as to those persons who were slain on what is called the Lodge Road, or near Miss Wilson's, your inquiry will be: first, as to whether any persons were slain; next, by whom they were slain: because, unless it appears that the whole body of soldiers were forward, and if it should appear there were only a few there, it will be your duty to inquire with respect to them if it make any distinction in the finding to identify and particularize those individuals. If you should find that the homicide was of the worst description, and that they had unnecessarily, and without provocation and excitement to excuse, and also a warmth of blood, for which there is allowance made, you could not visit their act upon the whole body; and, therefore, it will be material for you to ascertain who those individual persons were. That is as much and as important a part of the bill as any other. Then, gentlemen, if they be distinguishable, it is your duty to do so. If you find them guilty of a higher degree of offence than any of the others, you must be able to distinguish them: for you cannot find a general verdict against all upon that. With respect to those slain in the lane, if you are convinced that the soldiers were not the aggressors, but that when they fired they were unlawfully assailed, so as to be in real danger of their own lives, and could not otherwise save them as I before mentioned, it would amount to justifiable homicide, and ought to be so found. But if you think that, though they were not the aggressors, and that they were assailed and struck, and, being thereby provoked, repelled force by force, with the affray thickening, and they receiving blows, either from weapons in the hands, or from stones cast upon them that they were provoked so, and repelled force by force, so as to get their blood so heated that they fired and slew them I think then you ought to find a bill of manslaughter against all, that is, against every man who is proved to you to have discharged his musket on that occasion; but you must have such proof, of course. And whatever you find in respect to those slain in the lane manslaughter or homicide in self-defence you ought to find a bill of manslaughter, at the very least, against every soldier who is proved to have fired in the broad street, or what is called the Lodge Road. These are the observations that I think it right to suggest for your assistance. I cannot, of course, in my imperfect view of the facts, give you such advice and assistance as I would give a jury upon a case which I had heard; but I will be ready and happy, if you find any difficulty in applying any thing I have said upon the evidence, to give you such further assistance as I can, and answer any questions which you shall put to me on the subject.”

It may, perhaps, be useful to subjoin a general order issued to the commander-in-chief at Madras, in April, 1825, during the government of Sir Thomas Munro, shortly after a melancholy affair at Kittoor, in which one or two civil servants of the East India Company lost their lives under circumstances which, in the opinion of the public authorities, indicated, both in the civil and military functionaries, a want of general knowledge respecting the subject of the order.

“The Honorable, the Governor in Council, deems it necessary to lay down the following rules relative to the exercise of the authority with which civil magistrates, and other officers acting in a similar capacity, are vested, for calling out military force to preserve the peace of the country:

“1. The first and most important rule is, that no civil officer shall call out troops until he is convinced, by mature consideration of all the circumstances, that such a measure is necessary.

“2. When the civil officer is satisfied of the necessity of the measure, he should, before carrying it into execution, receive the sanction of government, unless the delay requisite for that purpose is likely to prove detrimental to the public interests. In that case, also, he should fully report the circumstances to government.

“3. When the civil officer may not deem it safe to wait for the orders of government, he should address his requisition for troops, not to any subordinate military officer, but to the officer commanding the division, to whom he should communicate his object in making it, and all the information he may possess regarding the strength and designs of those by whom the public peace is menaced or disturbed. His duty is confined to these points. He has no authority in directing military operations. “4. The officer commanding the troops has alone authority to determine the number and nature of those to be employed; the time and manner of making the attack, and every other operation for the reduction of the enemy.

“5. Whenever the officer commanding the division may think the troops at his disposal inadequate to the enterprise, he should call upon the officer commanding the neighboring division for aid, and report to government and to the commander-in-chief.

“6. No assistant or subordinate magistrate is authorized to call out troops. When any such officer thinks military aid necessary, he must refer to his superior, the principal magistrate of the district. “The foregoing rules are to be observed, when it can be done without danger to the public safety. Should any extraordinary case occur, which admits of no delay, civil and military officers must then act according to the emergency and the best of their judgment. Such cases, however, can rarely occur, unless when an enemy becomes the assailant; and therefore occasion can hardly ever arise for departing from the regular course of calling out troops, only by the requisition of the principal civil magistrates of the province, to the officer commanding the division. “Ordered, that the foregoing resolutions be published in general orders to the army, and be communicated for the information and guidance of such civil officers as they concern.” (Consult PRENDERGAST. See CALLING FORTH MILITIA; OBSTRUCTION OF LAWS; INSURRECTION; MARSHALS; POSSE COMITATUS.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, pp. 265-281).


EXEMPTS FROM MILITIA DUTY. The Vice-president of the United States; the officers, judicial and executive, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom-house officers, with their clerks; all post-officers and stage-drivers, who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post-office of the United States; all ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots and mariners actually employed in the service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who are or may be exempted by the laws of the different States; (Act May 8, 1792.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, pp. 281-282).


EXPEDITION is an enterprise undertaken either by sea or by land against an enemy, the fortunate termination of which principally depends on the rapidity and unexpected nature of its movements. To be successful, the design and preparations for an expedition should, as far as may be practicable, be carefully concealed; the means employed be proportioned to the object in view; the plan carefully arranged, and its execution intrusted to a general whose talents are known to fit him for such a command, and who possesses a perfect knowledge of the scene of action. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 282).


EXPENSE MAGAZINES are small powder magazines containing ammunition, &c., made up for present use. There is usually one in each bastion. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 282).


EXTERIOR SIDE is the side of the polygon, upon which a front of fortification is formed. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 282).


EXTERIOR SLOPE is a slope given to the outside of the parapet. It is found by experience that earth of common quality will naturally acquire a slope of 45, even when battered by cannon. This inclination is therefore given to the slope. (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 282).


EXTRA ALLOWANCES. Officers shall not receive any additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation in any form whatever, for disbursements of public money, or any other service or duty whatsoever, unless the same shall be authorized by law, and the appropriation therefor explicitly set forth; that is, for such additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation; (Act Aug. 23, 1842.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 282).


EXTRA EXPENSES. Where any commissioned officer shall be obliged to incur any extra expense in travelling, and sitting on general courts-martial, he shall be allowed one dollar and twenty-five cents per day, if not entitled to forage, and one dollar if so entitled; (Act Jan. 29, 1813.) (Scott, Military Dictionary, Van Nostrand, 1862, p. 282).


EZRA CHURCH, GEORGIA, July 28, 1864. 15th Army Corps. During the advance on Atlanta and the fighting around that place General J. C. Brown was ordered to attack General John A. Logan and drive him beyond Ezra Church. An attempt was made on the Union forces just as they reached the top of the ridge upon which the church was situated and the line was carried at several places, but Brown was repulsed. After a little time the Confederate commander sent three brigades of General Clayton's division against Logan, but with the same result. The Union troops had had time to throw up some rude defenses and the fire of the enemy did not effect them as much as in the first assault. After Brown and Clayton had failed General Walthall was sent out by General Hood, commanding the Confederate forces about Atlanta, to engage Logan. Sharp fighting continued from 2 o'clock until dark when Hood withdrew all his forces within the lines about Atlanta. This engagement at Ezra Church was the last fought outside the Confederate works during the campaign. The fight lasted from 11:30 a. m. until darkness fell. Logan reported his loss as 50 killed, 439 wounded and 73 missing. The Confederate loss was 600 killed. Logan's forces also captured 5 battle flags, 106 prisoners and 1,500 to 2,000 muskets.. Fairburn, Georgia, July 15. 1864. Cavalry, Armies of the Cumberland and Ohio. On this date the division commanded by Colonel Israel Garrard, of the Army of the Ohio, joined General Kilpatrick's division to assist in cutting the Atlanta & West Point railroad near Fairburn. Garrard engaged the enemy while Kilpatrick's force burned the depot and tore up a small section of the track. This was a preliminary to the raid made three days later. No casualties were reported on either side. Fairburn, Georgia, October 2, 1864. 1st and 4th Divisions of the 17th Army Corps. At daylight of the 2nd Brigadier-General T. E. G. Ransom with the two divisions moved out from near Atlanta toward Fairburn, driving the Confederate cavalry from his position at Shadna Church and Westbrook's. Nearly half a mile beyond the church Ransom took up a position and sent forward Potts' brigade of the 4th division with instructions to push into Fairburn if possible. When within a mile of the town the enemy put up a stiff resistance with artillery and mounted and dismounted skirmishers. The Federal artillery silenced the Confederate guns and the skirmishers of Potts' brigade drove those of the enemy into and through the town. The Union Army, 1908, Vol. 5, p. 381.