ihJinriJ:i;M"».'"">iti •;?!•!.".!; ill.;.: ..»w.t.i"!m-.l;rd

iillliliiiSiiiiiiiiliiiiiii^^^^^

YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

E, E P L Y

TO, A

Jl ^

PAMPHLET RECENTLY CIECTJlATED
BY^K EDWARD BROOKS. ^

BY

JOHN AMORT, LOWELL

.BOSTON:
PRINTED BY FREEMAN AND BOLLES.
1848.

REPLY

TO A

PAMPHLET RECENTLY CIRCULATED
BY MR. EDWARD BROOKS.

JOHN AMORT LOWELL.

BOSTON:
PRINTED BY FREEMAN AND BOLLES,
DEVONSHIRE STEEET.
1848.

I

PREFACE.

I feel that some apology is due to my friends and to the
public for adopting, on matters of a strictly private nature,
the present form of appeal. No one more thoroughly disap
proves of such a mode of adjusting individual grievances.
But the course taken by Mr. Brooks seems to leave me no
alternative. For, however much disposed I might be, were my
own feelings alone concerned, to leave his attack unanswered,
the surviving relatives of Mr. Boott, who look to me for a
vindication of his character, — the public, who have reposed
confidence in my faithful administration of important inter
ests, — and, I may be allowed to add, the honor of a name
which has descended to me untarnished, — alike require, that
charges of so grave a character should at once be met and
refuted. The necessary line of my defence has obliged me, with the
sanction of the persons to whom they were addressed, to make
free use of the letters of Mr. WiUiam Boott. This requires no
apology, — as the printing, by his permission, of the testimony
he would have given before the Supreme Court in impeachment
of the memory of his brother, and also of extracts from private
letters addressed to him by Dr. Boott and Mr. Wells, makes
Viim as much a party to the publication I have answered, as if
his name had been emblazoned with that of Mr. Edward Brooks
on its title-page.
J. A. L.
Boston, February 16, 1848.

CONTENTS

Pages.
I. Coroner's Inquest  • 3-22
II. History of the two Partnerships of Kirk Boott and Sons 23 - 29
III. Mr. J. Wright Boott's Probate Account . . . 30-75
Supposed Losses in Trade ..... 46
Payments to Mr. William Boott .... 59
Cost of Shares in the Boston Manufacturing Company 66
IV. Business of the Milldam Foundery .... 75-92
V. Payment of Income to Mrs. Boott . . . .92-94
VI. Mr. Boott's Accounts as Guardian .... 98
VIL Alleged Insanity of Mr. Boott . . . .110-165
Mr. Brooks's Letters to Mr. Wells . . . 117
Testimony of Mr. William Boott ... 129
Treatment of Mrs. Lyman ..... 135
Testimony of Mr. Robert C. Hooper . . . 144
Reasons for Mr. Lowell's Refusal to exhibit Mr. Boott's
Letter  158
VIII. Mr. Lowell's supposed Interference in the Family Difiiculties 166
IX. Alleged Use of Mr. Brooks's Name in signing a Release 190
X. Mr. William Boott's Motives in calling for his Brother's
Accounts ........ 195
XI. Justice of Mr. Wright Boott's Will ... 200
XII. Tender of a public Trial on all these Issues made, but not
accepted,  206

EttHATUM. — Page 126, in the last line, for Mr. Brooks, read Mrs. Brooks.

REPLY.

Few things are more odious in the view of mankind
in general, or more repugnant to their instinctive sense
of propriety, than an attack on the memory of the
dead. When the deceased is admitted to have been a per
son of warm and generous feelings, endued with a high
sense of honor, and peculiarly disinterested and self-
sacrificing, the case is much aggravated.
But when, in addition to all these circumstances, he
was the near relative of the parties who make the
attack, nothing short of the strongest and clearest
necessity can justify or excuse it.
Mr. Edward Brooks has voluntarily placed himself
in the attitude of such an assailant; and, as if to pro
vide beforehand some substitute, upon whom he might
divert the indignation, which he must otherwise bring
upon himself by his meditated attack on the memory of
the late Mr. John Wright Boott, he opened the corre-
1

spondence with me, with printed copies of which he has
lately favored a select portion of the public*
Early in this correspondence, which took place in
November and December, 1846, it was apparent that
he was seeking, not the truth, but an excuse for his
course ; the most conciliatory letters, meeting substan
tially all his supposed causes of complaint, were scout
ed by him, as mere evasions ; untU my friends, with
whom I had consulted throughout, advised me to decline
any further reply.
The allegation in his letters was, that, at the inquest on
the hody of Mr. Boott, I had testified that he had heen driven
to the act of suicide hy unjust and injuiious charges of
mismanagement of his father's estate, and that Mr. Brooks
was named hy me, as one of the authors of these charges.
While I respectfully and very distinctly denied hav
ing given any such testimony, I was well aware that
the correspondence had been opened by Mr. Brooks
with an ulterior purpose. I had long before heard
rumors of his intention of appealing, in some form, to
the public. Within two days of Mr. Boott's death,
which occurred in March, 1845, Mr. Franklin Dex
ter had announced to me, that he had been retained
as counsel for Mr. Brooks and Mr. William Boott,
and that his clients were determined to have an
inquiry into the question of Mr. Wright Boott's
sanity. No idea of disputing the probate of his
* His pamphlet is entitled, " A Correspondence between Edward
Brooks and John A. Lowell, with Remarks by Edward Brooks, referring
to Documents annexed." Boston: 1847. 8vo. pp. 177 and 72.

will was then entertained ; and it was obvious to
me, that the inquiry spoken of by Mr. Dexter could
not fail, ultimately, to assume the form of a written or
printed vindication of Mr. Brooks's conduct in his rela
tions with Mr. Boott. Nor do I now believe, that any
other form of inquiry was seriously contemplated.
The ulterior purpose of Mr. Brooks, in opening the
correspondence with me, was to create some issues be
tween us, on which he might appeal to the public, and
which might entail on him the unpleasant necessity of
enlightening it, at the same time, on the merits of
his quarrel with Mr. Boott.
The correspondence would also serve as an excuse
for his next step ; which was, to call upon such of the
jury of inquest, as he had ascertained, or believed,
would give answers not inconsistent with his purpose,
to testify before a magistrate, in December, 1846.
He invited me, it is true, to be present on that occa
sion; but, as he had recently appealed to me, as a
gentleman, to inform him of what I had said, and as I
had, as I conceived and as my advisers thought, pro
perly met his call, the invitation was viewed by me and
by them simply as an insult, and was met, as it deserv
ed to be, with silent contempt.
The object of Mr. Brooks was not to elicit the truth,
otherwise he would have summoned all the persons
present at the inquest. These were nine in number, —
the coroner, six jurymen, Mr. Kirk Boott, and mys^elf
Of these, five only were examined before the magis
trate, (pp. 27-31.)

Why did he not call the coroner ? I shall presently
show, that he had ascertained beforehand that the cor
oner would not sustain him.
Why did he not caU Mr. Kirk Boott ? He says,
incidentally, in another part of his book, that Mr. Kirk
Boott was present at the inquest, — designating him
as a son of the late Kirk Boott, Esq., of Lowell, as if to
intimate that he was too young to understand, or cor
rectly to report the proceedings. But, besides being
a nephew of the deceased, he was a gentleman of
intelligence, unblemished reputation, and fuU age.
Why did he not call him ? I am authorized by Mr.
Kirk Boott to say, that Mr. Brooks knew from his own
lips, before his book was printed, that he would not
have sustained him. Tet the benefit of this statement
of Mr. Kirk Boott is nowhere given to me throughout
the book.
The inference is irresistible. The simple truth was not
Mr. Brooks's object. ¦ His object was, to make out a plau
sible excuse for lajdng before the public his side of a
quarrel with Mr. Wright Boott, — at this late day,
when his opponent has been sUenced by death, when
many sources of evidence which he could have furnish
ed are unknown, — and in a form which precludes any
compulsory testimony, or cross-examination of wit
nesses. An investigation of a more unexceptionable
character, though tendered to him, as will be shown
hereafter, he has not ventured to meet.
How he had probably prepared at least some of the
witnesses he did call, and how the examination was
conducted, we will now consider.

From a memorandum made by my friend, Mr. Charles
Gr. Loring, December 19, 1846, of an interview he had
just held with Mr. Pratt, the coroner, it appears, that Mr.
Brooks had made many applications to him (the coroner)
on the subject of the inquest ; that, among other things,
he had inquired, whether there had not been improper
management in getting Dr. Putnam put upon the
jury, and whether Mr. Lowell had not suggested the
questions put to the witnesses, and otherwise inter
fered at the inquest ; and that he (Mr. Pratt) had re
plied, that Mr. Lowell had had nothing to do with it,
and would not have been allowed to meddle, if dis
posed. I here pause one moment to ask^ how Mr. Brooks,
— a gentleman, and a man of naturally generous
impulses, — can justify to himself the publishing of the
statement of one of the jurors (p. 28), tending to show
an improper attempt on my part to bias their proceed
ings, and his subsequent comment upon this as an
established fact, without giving me the benefit of the
indignant denial of Mr. Pratt, the coroner, whose
duty it was to notice and repress any such improper
attempt. Mr. Pratt further stated to Mr. Loring, that Mr.
Brooks had repeatedly asked him about the use of
several "little words" by Mr. Lowell at the hearing.
From this we may infer how he had dealt with those
members of the jury, whom he saw before the examina
tion, and afterwards summoned to be present at it.
I appeal to every man conversant with hum.an testi
mony, to consider what is the value of evidence so

6
procured, after the lapse of nearly two years, when the
most upright and conscientious men are so liable to
confound what was said by one witness on the stand,
with what may have been said by another, or with im
pressions received aliunde at the time, or afterwards
gradually made by repeated inquiries and insinuations.
It must be remembered, also, that the refusal by Mr.
Brooks and Mr. William Boott to sign the deed of the
estate in Bowdoin Square was a matter of general no
toriety, as was the dissension existing in the family;
and that the manner of Mr. Wright Boott's death, and
the causes leading to it, were freely discussed in every
circle, and could not fail to reach the ears of the jurors,
even though no allusion was made to them at the
inquest. The result of the examination was such as might
have been expected. Two only of the five witnesses
state positively, that I mentioned the name of Mr.
Brooks in connection with the family troubles ; another
has the " impression " that 1 mentioned his name " as
one of the heirs " ; but aU agree, that my testimony
tended, more or less clearly, to the conclusion that the
death of Mr. Boott was attributable to uneasiness of
mind, caused by " the unhappy difficulties in the fam
ily, especially in relation to the estate."
Even to this conclusion, Mr. Brooks's witnesses would
hardly have come, if the examination had been conduct
ed with a decent regard to fairness.
We are led to infer that they were aU examined
together. If so, each had the benefit of having his
memory refreshed by the evidence, and by the run-

ning commentaries, of his associates. At any rate, the
questions put to them were of so leading a character,
that in an open court, where the rights of the adverse
party were duly guarded, no lawyer, having any re
gard for his professional reputation, would have ven
tured to put them. We are not favored with the
questions, as put ; but three of the witnesses say :
" He [Mr. Lowell] did not say that the letter charged
Mr. Brooks with dishonesty, or Mrs. Lyman with being
a spy in the house : " — no one of the others, be it ob
served, having said that 1 did. I submit to every law
yer, under whose eye these pages may come, whether
the words " spy " and " dishonesty " were not put into
the witnesses' mouths. The learned counsel, who ad
vised Mr. Brooks in this publication, seem to have taken
especial care, that the fact of his having conducted this
examination without their presence or participation,
should be by him put upon record, (p. 27.)
There is one irrefragable proof, that the words as
cribed to me by some of these witnesses had a very
different origin. Mr. Brooks supposed, that the sale of
the estate in Bowdoin Square to the Mechanics' Char
itable Association had been made by me. He so states
in his pamphlet, page 9, and again, page 93, in these
words : " In April, 1844, Mr. LoweU made another
bargain, by which the house was sold to Mr. WiUiam
Lawrence, at the advanced price of |46,000." This
impression of Mr. Brooks, that the sale had been made
by me, was a very natural one, because I had, at an
earlier period, conducted negotiations for such a sale
with Mr. Lawrence. Now the truth is, that I had no

agency, direct or indirect, in this final sale of the man
sion-house. The bargain was initiated and concluded
between Mr. Wright Boott himself and a committee of
the Association, of which Mr. George Darracott was
one. I never even knew that any negotiation was
pending, and certainly was not consulted by Mr. Boott
about it. Nor did I ever present the deed for the sig
nature of the heirs ; nor did either of them ever state
to me the grounds of their refusal. Mr. Brooks him
self says so (page 95). "He [Mr. Lowell] never called
upon us to request that a deed should be signed, nor to
consult either of us upon the subject, although with
him we were upon the most friendly terms."
Yet Mr. John L. Andrews, the first of the jurors
examined by Mr. Brooks, says, in repeating my testi
mony, " that he, John A. Lowell, had concluded a sale
of the estate in Bowdoin Square ; that, upon an iaves-
tigation of the title, a doubt existed as to whether
Boott, as executor, could convey that estate, and that
it was necessary that the heirs should join in the con
veyance ; that he, Mr. Lowell, called upon the heirs to
obtain their signatures," &c.
It is obviously impossible, that Mr. Andrews, who
knew nothing of these transactions beforehand, could
have put into my mouth a statement, that the sale of
the house had been made by me, (a statement totally
at variance with the truth, and yet precisely agreeing
with Mr. Brooks's impression of the facts,) had he relied
upon his own memory, unassisted by suggestions from
Mr. Brooks.
Nor can any conceivable motive be assigned for my

having sworn that the refusal to sign the deed was
made to me, personally ; because the fact of the refusal
and the grounds of it were perfectly notorious to every
one. It would be, however, quite natural for Mr. An
drews to derive such an inference from a statement
by Mr. Brooks, that I had made the sale, and that
the heirs had refused to execute the deed ; and it is
also entirely consistent with aU that we know of human
testimony, that, upon examination some time after
wards, Mr. Andrews should confound my testimony on
the stand, with what he had heard, in conversation, from
Mr. Brooks.
It will also be observed, that no one of the mtnesses
states the refusal of the heirs to sign the deed, as sub
sequent to the presentment of the accounts ; or in any
other way sustains the charge, originally brought against
me by Mr. Brooks in the correspondence, that I had
stated at the inquest, that I had " represented to the
heirs," that " Mr. Boott had made large gratuitous ad
vances to the estate ; " " but that some of them, not
withstanding, refused to sign a deed of the house until
the property was taken from his hands." (p. 16.)
I will not waste time by further analyzing the tes
timony given at this examination. I will only call atten
tion to the statement of Mr. William H. Learnard, that
I said that " Mr. Brooks was a violent man." So re
markable an expression could hardly have failed to
make a deep impression on any one who heard it. Tet
not one of the other eight persons present at .the inquest
has the slightest recollection or " impression " of any
such statement.

10
I shall now proceed to present the testimony of the
remaining four persons who were present at the in
quest, but not at the examination, viz. the coroner,
Dr. Putnam, Mr. Kirk Boott, and myself
That of the coroner is contained in the Appendix to
Mr. Brooks's pamphlet (p. 62), not presented with the
other testimony in the text, and is put entu'ely out of
view in his commentary upon that testimony. It was
rendered within a few days after the inquest, when aU
the facts were fresh in his mind, and was not elicited by
any intimation of what Mr. Dexter had reported him to
have said, or of any points between the parties, as ]Mr.
Loring expressly states in his letter communicating it
to Mr. Dexter. (App. p. 62.) Evidence, so given,
will, in the judgment of persons competent to judge,
outweigh a volume of such as Mr. Brooks has procured
under the circumstances above enumerated.
Mr. Kirk Boott and Dr. Putnam were both conver
sant with my situation in relation to the deceased and
his famUy, and were therefore more competent than
strangers to appreciate my conduct at the inquest.
The former (Mr. Kirk Boott) informs me, that, on re
turning home, he told his mother that I had testified
with a reserve and tenderness towards the absent, and
a selfpossession, which my known attachment to his
uncle, and the excitement attending so horrible a ca
tastrophe, rendered quite remarkable. A friend of Dr.
Putman informs me, that, on his return from the inquest
that evening, he, also, expressed in strong terms his
sense of the extreme caution and forbearance which I
had shown in my testimony.

11

I win first give my own statement, drawn up on
receiving Mr. Brooks's letters on the subject.
5IY OWN STATEMENT.
I stated to the jury, substantially, in reply to the question,
whether I had known of Mr. Boott's being troubled in mind on
any subject, — that there had been family dissensions, of the merits
of which I knew nothing ; that, latterly, Mr. Boott had been sum
moned to settle his accounts as executor of his father's will ; that
he had presented an account at the probate office, showing a bal
ance in his favor, which had been allowed ; that he had been some
what troubled in his mind by a refusal of some of the heirs to
sign a deed of the house, but that this had finally been done ; that,
these causes of uneasiness being removed, I had hoped his mind
would have been more tranquil ; that I had advised him to give up
the trust under his father's will, and retire into the country, that he
might be removed from all causes of agitation.
Upon being asked whether I thought that his uneasiness and dis
tress of mind amounted to insanity, I said I did not.
In answer to a general inquiry, who were the members of Mr.
Boott's family, I enumerated them, beginning with his mother, and
following down in the order of seniority.

I did not in any other way, or in any other connec
tion, mention the name of any one. I am confident
that I did not say that I, " as a friend of the family,
had examined the accounts, and found that there was
no ground of complaint;" nor that I had "so repre
sented it to the heirs"; nor that "some of them had,
notwithstanding, refused to sign a deed of the house."
Indeed, such statements have an inherent absurdity.
The refusal to sign the deed occurred in May, 1844 ; no

12
request that they should sign it was, after that period,
ever made to them ; whilst the accounts were not made
up, or presented, until November, 1844. This attribut
ing of an antecedent event to a subsequent cause,
requires a peculiar constitution of mind. To me, it
would have been impossible.
In fact, I was exceedingly cautious, entertaining at
that moment sincere hopes that the sad event which
had occurred would soften the hearts of the survivors
towards each other, and was very anxious that no un
guarded word of miae should produce irritation, and
thereby prevent so desirable a consummation.
THE COKONEE'S STATEMENT.
(Brooks, App. p. 63.) " Mr. Pratt said, that at the inquest the
jury asked the coroner, whether he had seen the letter, and he told
them that it was opened in his presence ; that he then inquired of
Mr. Lowell, if the letter alluded to the suicide, and he said it did.
That, at the inquest, Mr. Lowell stated, that Mr. Boott's accounts
had been disputed, but that they had been passed, and he (Mr.
Lowell) had supposed that his mind was relieved upon that point.
That he (Mr. Boott) would have been entitled to a large sum on
the decease of his mother. That he (Mr. Lowell) had advised
Mr. Boott to retire into the country upon the sale of the mansion-
house, and had offered to advance to him the means of building him-
self a place ; and that he did not know of any recent cause of
trouble." " And, at the close of the conversation, he added,'that he did not
know till this moment that Mr. Brooks's name was mentioned in
the letter ; and that Mr. Lowell had never mentioned Mr. Brooks's
name in his presence, excepting in reply to the question, who
were the members of Mr. Boott's family, and has no idea now,
whether the allusions are favorable or unfavorable."

13

MR. KIRK BOOTTS STATEMENT.
Boston, January 4," 1847.
John A. Lowell, Esq.
Deak Sir,
You asked me, some days since, what my recollections were of
your testimony before the coroner's jury, held at the time of my
uncle Wright's death.
I recollect, very clearly, that you stated, that you had known
my uncle for many years ; that lately his mind had been much
disturbed ; that there had been differences between him and other
members of the family, of which you did not know the merits ; that
you named to the coroner the different members of the family, but
did not state who were the friends of my uncle, and who were not.
The coroner said he did not wish to inquire into family matters.
You told him you had received a letter, written by my uncle the
day of his death ; that you would prefer not to show the letter, as
it contained charges, which he was not here to substantiate. The
coroner did not see the letter, neither did you state to him any thing
it contained relative to family troubles.
In reply to the coroner's questions, you told him, that my uncle's
accounts had been questioned, but that they had been settled some
time since. You did not say by whom his accounts had been
disputed, or that you considered this to have induced his death.
This I believe to have been the substance of your testimony, and
I should be willing to take oath to what I have stated.
Yours very truly, KIRK BOOTT.
DR. Putnam's statement. December 21, 1846.
Dear Sir,
You ask me to state my recollections of the evidence before the
coroner's jury, in the case of Mr. J. Wright Boott.
Your evidence was substantially this : That Mr. Boott had lately
made up his accounts, as executor of the estate of his father ; that

14
objection had been taken to said accounts by some of the heirs,
but that they had been finally passed ; that, pending the settlement,
Mr. Boott had been much troubled in mind.
You stated the fact, that dissension had existed in the family ;
but expressed no opinion in regard to such dissension, nor did you
mention the name of any persoh in connection with it.
You produced a letter recently received from Mr. Boott, relating,
as you said, chiefly to private affairs. The coroner declined hear
ing any thing of a private nature ; and, under his direction, you read
such portions only, as he considered requisite, and sufficient for
the proper investigation of the case.
The evidence of Mrs. Lyman, and that of the domestics, related
chiefly to the individual peculiarities of the deceased.
In answer to a question, Mrs. Lyman stated, that Mr. Boott took
his meals alone ; but she added, " I wish it to be understood, that
this was my fault, not his." Yours truly,
C. G. PUTNAM.
J. A. Lowell, Esq.
I have since received from Dr. Putnam the following
note, in relation to a matter personal to himself
November 24, 1847.
Dear Sir,
I notice in the pamphlet issued by Mr. Brooks, that he questioned
members of the jury, whether some one did not propose to em
body in the verdict the fact that Mr. Boott was sane.
Two of the five had no recollection of it. Each of the three,
who thought they heard the proposal, disclaims having made it ; —
therefore, by the process of exclusion, the imputation rests on me.
I made no such proposition, and heard none.
I wish to correct a statement respecting yourself. It is represented,
that you controlled the course of the inquiry at the inquest, and
that you curtailed the testimony of Mrs. Lyman.
Such was not tiie fact. No questions were put by witnesses,

15

and Mrs. Lyman's testimony was not checked, or in any way inter
fered with ; but parts of it, at her request, were not recorded by the
foreman. Yours truly, C. G. PUTNAM.
J. A. Lowell, Esq.
Such are the statements made by those persons, who,
from their previous knowledge of the relative situation
of the parties, would take the deepest interest in the
evidence presented at the inquest, and therefore pay
the strictest attention to it.
Previously to the publication of Mr. Brooks's pam
phlet, he knew that the coroner would not sustain him
in his charges against me ; and he had been expressly
informed by Mr. Kirk Boott, that he well remembered
that I had not given any such testimony to the jury,
as Mr. Brooks alleged. Tet Mr. Brooks suppresses
these denials, while he spreads out before his readers
that part of the testimony which tends to sustain his
views, as a justification of his course, and as conclusive
evidence against me.
It will, I think, be very apparent from this testimo
ny, that I made no statements at the coroner's inquest
of which Mr. Brooks had just cause to complain. So
far from endeavouring to impress upon the jury, that
Mr. Boott's suicide was attributable to the dissensions
in the family, I brought distinctly to their notice, that
both in the matter of his accounts, and in that of the
sale of the house, all difiiculties had been adjusted, and
his mind relieved upon those points, and that I " did
not know of any recent cause of trouble." Is it not

16
quite evident, that, if these dissensions had not acquired
an unfortunate notoriety before Mr. Boott's death, the
jury would never have derived from my testimony any
impressions unfavorable to Mr. Brooks, or to any one
else? I shall have occasion, in another connection, to con
sider more fuUy the motives that governed my con
duct, both immediately before, and at the inquest;
motives, that I shall show to have been those of kind
ness towards all the parties to this unhappy controver
sy. I wUl now only notice one or two instances, in which
Mr. Brooks has strangely distorted my meaning on that
occasion, finding food for suspicion in what was sus
ceptible of the simplest and most natural explanation.
Immediately after ascertaining the fact of Mr.
Boott's suicide, I hastened to Mr. Brooks's office, to
inform him of the melancholy event, and to concert
with him the necessary measures to be taken for
holding an inquest on the body. In the conversation
which ensued, I stated to him that there was reason
to believe, that Mr. Boott had written one or more
letters the preceding evening, and had deposited them,
at a late hour, in the postroffice. I told him, that I had
received no letter from him, and that probably he had
written either to Mrs. Wells or to Mrs. Ralston. Mr.
Brooks and myself proceeded together in search of a
coroner ; but, as it was past two o'clock, and Mr. Brooks
was naturally anxious to hasten home with the sad
intelligence, he left me at the door of the building, in
which the coroner's office is situated. I found that the
coroner had gone to dinner ; and, on returning to my

17

own house, I received the letter produced by me at the
inquest, inclosing Mr. Boott's will, and notifying to me
his intended self-destruction.
From these simple facts, Mr. Brooks attempts to
make it appear, that I had received that letter in the
morning, before I called upon him, and that I suppressed
that fact, and indeed asserted the contrary, to prevent
him from appearing as a witness at the inquest. This
he endeavours to make out from the circumstance, that
he left me at the door of the coroner, and that, when I
afterwards saw that officer, I avowedly had the letter.
He also expresses great astonishment, that I should
not sooner have received a letter, which had been
dropped into the posl>office the night before. Now every
business man knows, that such delays are of constant
occurrence at our post-office ; letters, so deposited, not
being ordinarily attended to tiU after the morning dis
tribution of the mails. Besides, what does Mr. Brooks
mean to intimate ? That I had received a letter, ad
vising me of the contemplated suicide of my friend,
early in the day, and that I had, for some ulterior pur
pose of my own, quietly waited, till I should hear from
the house, that the mischief was beyond remedy, and
that the vital spark had fled ? I hardly think that Mr.
Brooks could have fuUy appreciated the bearing of his
insinuations. It only illustrates the perversity, with
which, throughout this business, he has misinterpreted
my feelings and actions.
To put this matter at rest for ever, I subjoin a
note addressed to me on the subject by Dr. James
Jackson. 3

18

Deae Sir,
In reference to the letter, written to you by the late Mr. Wright
Boott on the evening before his death, I remember certain things
very distinctly, which I will state.
I went with you to Mr. Boott's residence on the day after his
death, between twelve and one o'clock, in consequence of a note
to you from Mrs. Lyman, written very obviously under great
agitation, asking you to go to Mr. Boott's, and to take me with
you. When arrived there, we found Mr. Boott dead, and obviously by
his own hand. Mrs. Lyman related to us the circumstances she
knew respecting her brother's movements the preceding evening.
From these it seemed certain, that he had written one or more
letters on that evening, and had gone out at a late hour, and after
a short time had returned, and gone to his bed-chamber. The in
ference was, that he went abroad to deposit his letter, or letters, in
the post-office. It was at once suggested, that he would have
written to you, under the circumstances in which he was, more
probably than to any one else ; but you said, that you had not re
ceived any letter from him. You and Mrs. Lyman then examined
the drawers in the chamber, such as were not locked, to see if he
had left any note, or letter, in them ; but none was found.
When we left the house in Bowdoin Square, we walked together
to Pemberton Hill ; I turned up into the Square, and came home ;
you went down Court street, to take measures in reference to the
sad event which had occurred. This was near two o'clock, as
nearly as I can remember, but not two. I went home, and, as soon
as I had attended to some affairs there, I went into your house with
a view to some arrangement for informing Mr. Wells's family of
the melancholy occurrence. My brother Patrick went into your
house either just before, or just after me. On my entrance, you
told me you had just got the letter, and you held in your hand a
thick letter ; you were crossing the room at the moment ; you then
sat down by the window, and broke the seal of the letter. After
looking through the letter hastily, you read to us some parts of it,
but not the whole, as I supposed and understood at the time.
At the same time you stated to me, that you had seen Mr. Ed-

19

ward Brooks since you had parted with me, and that you had also
taken some measures in relation to a coroner.
I am, dear sir, Yours truly, JAMES JACKSON.
Pemberton Square, December 3, 1847.
To John A. Lowell, Esq.
Another instance of a like kind is the attempt to
fix upon me a proposal, that the coroner's jury should
bring in a verdict that Mr. Boott was a sane man.
Upon this proposal, very rightly characterized by Mr.
Brooks as an extraordinary one, there are some severe
comments. But the learned counsel of Mr. Brooks
might have informed him, that no one is permitted to
be present at the deliberations of a jury. The pro
posal, if made, came from one of themselves. Was
Mr. Brooks ignorant of this ? or, knowing it, was he
wining to hazard the innuendo, trusting to the igno
rance of his readers ?
It is also intimated that I omitted, from some sinis
ter motive, to inform Mr. William Boott, as I had
offered to do, on his arrival from Lowell, of the melan
choly event that had occurred.
The answer is simple. When Mrs. Lyman had given
her evidence, she left the parlour. I waited upon her
to the door of her own apartment. She was in a state
of great agitation, and begged me not to leave the
house without seeing her again.
I was the last witness examined, and as soon as I
got through, I called upon Mrs. Lyman. She was in
such distress, that it was impossible to leave her till the

20
arrival of one of her nephews. So much time had
thus been taken up that it was dark before I left the
house, and the cars from Lowell had long since arrived.
I had no doubt that Mr. William Boott had heard of the
event, which was by that time known all over the city.
It never occurred to me to assure myself of that fact, as
I perhaps ought to have done, by calling at his lodg
ings. There would be no'end of following out all the petty
insinuations, with which this production abounds. I wUl
make one general answer, and then leave, for the pre
sent, that part of the subject which is personal to me.
I had no interest whatever in the settlement of Mr.
Boott's accounts, or in the verdict of the jury of inquest.
The debt of $25,000, due from Mr. Boott, was not due-
to me personally, but to the estate of Jonathan Amory,
of which I was the trustee, — and for this I was amply
secured at the period of his making up his accounts ;
at the time of his death, 1 had been paid in full, except
a small balance of interest, by having exchanged his
debt for his proportion of the note of Mr. William
Lawrence, given for the purchase of the mansion-house.
It was my earnest desire, at the inquest, to give
as little publicity, as possible, to the family quar
rels. I knew, that a verdict of suicide, by a coroner's
jury, involves, in this country, no consequences; that
it does not necessarily express any opinion on the ques
tion of insanity ; and that, when it does, it cannot be
introduced, even as prima facie evidence, in a trial on
the probate of the will. Under these circumstances, who

21

will believe that I was actuated by any motive what
ever, but one of kindness to all the family. I was on
good terms with them all at that time. I knew nothing
whatever of the merits of their quarrels, having refused,
as far as I could, to hear either party ; and I really be
lieved that the settlement effected vrith Judge Warren,
had put an end to all causes of trouble. I was not
a voluntary, but an indispensable witness, being the
only person, who knew from Mr. Boott himself the
fact of the suicide.
Much stress is laid, in Mr. Brooks's pamphlet, upon
a supposed disregard, on my part, of the feelings of the
surviving members of the family, in procuring, or influ
encing, the verdict of the jury. In the first place, it is
utterly untrue, that I interfered with, or attempted to
influence, that verdict at aU, except by my own testi
mony, under the obligation of my oath ; but if I had,
it is to be remembered, that six out of the eight sur
viving members of Mr. Boott's family did not believe
in his insanity, and desired no verdict contrary to the
truth ; and for reasons, which I shall detail in another
connection, I sincerely believed then, as I do now, that
the kindest view, that could be taken of the conduct of
those with whom Mr. Boott was at variance, was, that
they had never practically believed him to be insane.
With the exception of the points noticed above, it
must have been evident to any careful reader of the
pamphlet, that the real issues are between Mr. Boott and
Mr. Brooks ; though, to mask his attack on the memory
of the dead, and avert the revulsion of feeling such an
attack must create, Mr. Brooks has seen fit to represent

22
me as a veritable Mephistoplules, persuading everybody
about matters within their own personal observation, con
trolling public opinion, managing, plotting, contriving,
making people's wUls, effecting compromises against
the interest and honor of the parties, procuring deci
sions of courts of probate without opening my lips,
and finally putting the complainant and his associates
hors de combat without firing a gun !
As the friend and former partner of Mr. Boott, and
as the executor of his will, I had a clear duty to per
form ; I have performed it according to the dictates of
my conscience, firmly but without unkindness to any
one. I have not interfered in any family dissensions,
directly or indirectly. When appealed to as to facts
within my knowledge, or when my opinion as to Mr.
Boott's character, or the state of his mind, has been
called for, I have given those facts and expressed that
opinion frankly and fearlessly, as I shall ever continue
to do at suitable times and places ; — but I have not
given facts, or stated opinions, in a partisan spirit, or
with any desire that they should do injury to any one.
All those persons who have been in habits of daily
intercourse with me well know, that I have rarely
spoken of these matters, and always with reserve and
moderation. My duty to the memory of Mr. Boott requires, that
I should give some account of such facts within my
own knowledge, as may elucidate the matters in con
troversy, and that I should give it at this time, and in
the present foi-m.

23

I went into the counting-room of Kirk Boott & Sons,
in September, 1815, when under seventeen years of
age, and remained with them till March, 1819. I was
treated with great confidence and kindness by the
excellent head of the house, and by his sons ; and I
have ever since felt, that their influence and example
were of no small advantage to me at that critical
period of my life. I have endeavoured since, in some
feeble measure, to requite that early kindness ; and I
most sincerely regret, that any circumstances should
have brought me into unpleasant relations with any
member of that family.
Mr. Boott, the father, died in January, 1817. He
was a man of very marked character, in many points
strongly resembling his gifted but unfortunate son, the
late Mr. J. Wright Boott. Like him, to a reserve and
sensitiveness, that made him reluctant to converse with
strangers on topics personal to himself, he united a del
icacy and fear of wounding the feelings of others, a high-
minded generosity, and a depth of attachment to those
he loved, which were quite peculiar ; qualities, which,
appreciated and requited, form the surest foundation of
domestic happiness, but which render the individual
too keenly susceptible to any thing like ingratitude or
want of affection.
By his will he provided that the business of the co
partnership, in which he was engaged with his sons
J. Wright Boott and Francis Boott, should be con
tinued, just as if he had been alive, until the 19th of
March', 1818, the day when his son James would come
of age ; that, in the mean time, the executors should

24
invest from his share of the capital the amount of the
trust funds, created by the will for the benefit of his
widow and two maiden sisters ; that after the 19th of
March, 1818, if his sons should form a new copartner
ship, they should employ in the business the portions of
his minor children, three in number, until they should
respectively come of age. He gave to his widow the
right of occupying the mansion-house during her life,
free of rent ; and, after a few specific legacies, he left
the residue of his property, with a reversion in the
mansion-house and the trust funds, equally to his nine
children. The execution of this will devolved, by the
resignation of the other executors, upon his eldest son,
the late Mr. J. Wright Boott.
I shall show that he faithfully complied with aU the
material provisions of the wUl.
Acting under the advice of my father, he returned
an inventory of the real estate, and of the property
specifically devised. It is apparent, that, as the tes
tator had provided that the copartnership should con
tinue, just as if he had been alive, his capital in
trade formed no proper subject of an inventory at
that moment, as it was not in the hands of the ex
ecutor. Previously to the 19th of March, 1818, Mr. Wright
Boott invested the trust funds, as directed by the wiU,
and made them the subject of a first account, dated on
the 1st of April in that year.
At that time a new copartnership was formed under
the same name, of Kirk Boott & Sons. To this house,
of which the executor was the senior partner, was con-

25
fided the task of disposing of the stock of goods, and
collecting the outstanding debts, of the old firm. As
the business of Kirk Boott & Sons had been that of
importers of British goods, for sale, almost exclusively,
to country traders, a class of persons proverbially dila
tory in their payments, the process of liquidation neces
sarily occupied several years.
As notliing had been taken from the capital in trade
except the sums necessary for investing the trust
funds, and as the testator left no other property than
his proportion of that capital, except the mansion-
house and the property specifically bequeathed, his
share of the result of this liquidation would determine
the dividend to which the heirs would be immediately
entitled. To ascertain what this dividend might -be expected
to amount to, it is necessary to go back to the death of
the testator.
My position enabled me to see and know a great
deal about the course of the business of the first firm
of Kirk Boott & Sons, of which the father was a co
partner. The stock, or private partnership, leger was
never exposed to the inspection of the clerks. I
consequently cannot state positively the amount of
capital in the firm, nor the proportions of it owned by
the partners. The generally received opinion among
the clerks, ordinarily disposed to overrate rather than
to undervalue in such cases, was, that the property
of Mr. Boott, at the time of his death, was about
$280,000 ; and that of Mr. J. Wright Boott, who had
been a partner of his father for about seven years, was
4

26

estimated at about $70,000. The store in State street,
specifically devised to him, would raise this sum to
about 1 80,000, independently of the share he was to
receive in common with the other heirs.
This estimate of the property of Mr. Boott, senior,
would give to each of the heirs, besides their rever
sionary interests, about $15,000 each; and I well re
member that it was at that time estimated at about
that sum.
The copartnership, however, met with very heavy
losses after the death of Mr. Boott.
These were owing in part to the political circum
stances of the times. The double duties which had
been levied during the war were repealed in 1816, and
there was in consequence a great fall in the value of
merchandise. Kirk Boott & Sons had a very heavy
stock of goods, which were sold at a great sacrifice.
Their country customers, who had bought very largely
at the high prices under the excitement of the return
of peace, suffered in the same way, and began to fail on
every side. To crown this series of misfortunes, Mr.
Kirk Boott, of London, a relative of Mr. Boott, senior,
who had formerly been a partner of the house of Boott
& Pratt, and who was the agent in England of Kirk
Boott & Sons, became bankrupt in June, 1817, owing
them a very large sum of money, I think about
£10,000 sterling. Of this, very little was ever re
covered. From what I saw and knew of these losses, I came
to the conclusion, that, if the sum coming to the heirs
as residuary legatees had not, before they occurred,

27
much exceeded the received opinion, these events
would reduce it below the sum of $10,000 for each,
which the will permitted the executors to advance to
some of them. When it came to my knowledge, some
years afterwards, that Mr. Wright Boott had paid them
all $10,000, and upwards, I felt assured that he had
overpaid them ; and this opinion I have expressed to
nearly every one of them during the last twenty years.
As I left their employment in less than a year after
the formation of the second partnership of Kirk Boott
& Sons, I cannot speak with so much confidence of the
result of the liquidation of the outstanding business of
the first firm. Since, however, that liquidation could not
begin, by the terms of the will, until the 19th of March,
1818, and the large stock of goods on hand sold very
slowly, it remained subject to the appalling reduction
of prices, which, as every importing merchant will well
remember, was consequent upon the resumption of
specie payments by the Bank of England in the latter
part of this year or the beginning of the next. They
had not, like the new house, the opportunity of avail
ing themselves of the low prices to replenish their
stock. The business of the second firm, which consisted of
Mr. J. Wright Boott, Mr. Kirk Boott, and Mr. James
Boott, was continued a little less than four years, and
was closed on Mr. Kirk Boott's removal to Lowell, then
Chelmsford, to take charge of that new enterprise, in
January, 1822. I shall show, in another connection,
that the result of this business was not attended with
any loss.

28
At this period I formed a partnership with Mr.
Wright Boott to continue the same business under the
firm of Boott & Lowell. I did so at the solicitation
of Mr. Kirk Boott, who stated to me that he did not
believe his brother would continue it, unless I would
join him, and that the business was too good to be
abandoned. This I had every reason, from my own
experience, to believe; for I had been in the same
business during the preceding three years, with the
disadvantage of having no established name, and I had
found it lucrative.
During the first year of the partnership of Boott &
LoweU, Mr. Wright Boott was absent in Europe, and
nearly every thing relating to the pecuniary concerns
of the family devolved upon me ; and I then became
assured, of what I had before surmised, that there never
had been realized from the estate so much property as
had been popularly represented. Mr. Boott had en
tered into no speculations, but had adhered to the busi
ness of the firm. The losses, that I had witnessed, had
been incurred while the father's estate was lawfully a
partner ; and my own experience and Mr. Kirk Boott's
representations satisfied me, that none had been expe
rienced since.
Our partnership was dissolved in 1824 ; and from
that time I had no knowledge of Mr. Wright Boott's
affairs, until about the month of August, 1831, when I
was consulted by my friend Mr. Kirk Boott upon some
embarrassments that had grown out of the connection
of his brother in the business of the JNIill Dam Foundery
with Messrs. Lyman & Ralston, whose bankruptcy was

29
then, and had been for some time, apprehended. A
settlement was, however, by my intervention, soon after
effected, and they did not fail.
I had had no personal dealings with Mr. Wright
Boott, except that I had lent to him a few years before
a large sum of money from the trust funds in my hands,
belonging to the estate of Jonathan Amory, on a pledge
of manufacturing stocks. These stocks stood at the time
of his making the loan, and had always stood, in his own
individual name. In May, 1831, Mr. Brooks proposed to
me that the right of redemption of these shares should
be conveyed to Mr. Boott in his capacity of executor,
subject to my debt ; and he suggested, as the simplest
mode of doing this, that I should convey the shares to
Mr. Boott in that capacity, receiving simultaneously a
reconveyance back. The legal effect of this he stated
to be to invest the equity of redemption in the estate,
and nothing more.
I answered, that if Mr. Boott acceded to it, I should
not object, provided it were understood that I was to
reserve the amount of interest due to my trust out of
the dividends, and that I did not waive my right to
pay myself, whenever I should deem it necessary, by a
sale of a portion of the stock.
It is obvious, that I could not be actuated in this
arrangement by any motive, but that of doing a kind
ness to Mr. Brooks and the famUy. I had perfect
security in my hands ; but, on the other hand, I felt
confident that I was dealing with men of honor, who
would never turn to my disadvantage a measure adopt
ed exclusively for their benefit and at their own urgent
request.

30
Mr. Brooks is mistaken, when he says (page 43) that
in our conversation in May, 1831, 1 agreed with him that
the shares pledged to me, though standing in the name
of Mr. Wright Boott, were in reality a part of the assets
of his father's estate. This is impossible ; for it was
not until August, 1831, that is to say, three months
later, that I was consulted about the affairs of Mr.
Wright Boott. I knew nothing about them, except
from Mr. Brooks himself, and could not, of course, either
affirm or deny any representation he might see fit to
make on the subject.
When Mr. Boott was called upon by his brother
William, in June, 1844, to settle his accounts at the pro
bate office, he applied to me for that portion of them
which related to the time when he had been my partner,
which I furnished to him. Subsequently he brought me
aU the papers which he had collected relating to his
accounts, that I might put them in form for him. This
was the whole extent of my agency in the matter. I do
not know upon what authority Mr. Brooks undertakes to
attribute to me any further responsibility than that of
having aided Mr. Boott to the extent above specified. I
made up the account certainly ; but it was from the
materials furnished to me, and on the principles indi
cated, by Mr. Boott himself It is the theory of Mr.
Brooks's pamphlet to represent Mr. Boott as a mere
instrument in my hands. So far from this having been
true, he showed throughout this transaction a most ac
curate memory, and a clear perception of his own rights
and oY his obligations to others.
He stated to me, that he had paid to each of the

31

heirs more than the $10,000 charged to them, but
that he was determined to bring in an account that could
not be disputed. He never expressed any doubt of
being able to show, that he had never received from
the estate more than he had credited in the account.
I knew, of course, that he had no papers beyond
those he brought to me ; and 1 was not surprised at this,
because he had received a discharge from the heirs
eleven years before, and had considered the whole mat
ter as settled. The business of all the copartnerships
had been closed more than twenty years before. The
partnership accounts between the father and sons, and
afterwards between the brothers, I never saw ; nor do I
know how they were kept. I only know, that they
were regularly made up and settled on the first of
February in each year.
Knowing that Mr. Boott had received a discharge in
fall, which would be a complete bar against all de
mands, I asked him why he did not commence his
accounts fi:om the date of that discharge. He answer
ed; "No, Mr. Lowell; I am determined to begin from
the beginning, and show that the estate has not been
wasted in my hands."
I made up the accounts from the data he furnished,
and the result was the one exhibited at the probate
office, showing a balance in his favor, for advances, of
about $3,700. This did not surprise me for the rea
sons stated above, and it appeared to be what Mr. Boott
expected. These accounts were presented at the probate office
as soon as they were made up. Mr. Brooks says, in his

32
pamphlet, that he has reason to believe that they were
made up nearly six months before (p. 121.) This is a
mistake, as wiU appear from Mr. C. G. Loring's letter
to Mr. William Boott, in answer to his of the 7th of
November, 1844, in which he says : " The accounts of
your brother have not yet been made up, though I
believe that the materials are now aU at hand." (App.
p. 43.)
Mr. Brooks says (p. 121), that for nearly six months
Mr. Boott " positively refused to sign that, or any other
account which represented himself to be a creditor of
the estate." This he states on my authority, and says
that he is corroborated in the assertion by Mr Franklin
Dexter and Mr. William Boott, to whom I mentioned
it, except as to the length of time during which the
refusal continued ; and he adds, that it is due to me to
say that I mentioned the fact only as a proof of Mr.
Wright Boott's disinterestedness of character.
He chooses to view it, however, as a proof that the
account was false ; and thus effects a double purpose,
of charging me with preparing, and Mr. Boott with
signing and swearing to, an account we both knew to
be false.
Thus he distinctly charges me (page 87) with indu-
cmg Mr. Boott to adopt a form of account exhibiting
a balance in his favor, and again (page 171) with
making up the accounts and inducing Mr. Boott
reluctantly to adopt them.
Now, so far is this from being true, that Mr. Boott
never for one moment refused to sign the accounts,
or expressed any doubt of his being entitled to the

33
balance they exhibited. He did, however, intimate an
intention of refusing to accept it. This occurred at
an interview at Mr. Loring's house a few days before
the accounts were presented.
Mr. Loring and myself both told him, that there
could be no propriety in such a step. Mr. Boott's
feeling seemed to be, that his having accepted the dis
charge, which the heirs had voluntarily tendered to him
in 1833, amounted to a settlement on the basis of
" uti possidetis" and on an honorary understanding that
that they would mutually claim no balances of each
other. To show that this was the real state of the case, I
subjoin two statements.
The first is an extract from a letter from Mr. C. G.
Loring, which will be given at length in another con
nection. " Mr. Boott expressed his iirm conviction, that, if he had charged
all that he had expended for the heirs, and could exhibit a detailed
statement of his appropriations of the property in his hands, a larger
balance would be found due to him ; but he seemed disposed to
relinquish any claim for that exhibited, under the pressure of the
circumstances in which he was placed by his inability to render
detailed accounts, and the imputations made upon him of abuse of
his trust ; and this is the more deeply impressed upon my memory
by the fact, that in replying to him upon that subject, I designated
the course he proposed as Quixotic, and felt constrained to apolo
gize for the phrase from a sense of its seeming impropriety as
used towards one of the mild and dignified deportment which he
had uniformly exhibited."
The other statement is in a letter to me from Edward
G. Loring, Esq., to whom I related the anecdote at the
time. 5

34

My nEAR Sir,
At the time Mr. J. W. Boott's accounts in relation to his father's
estate were stated for the probate court, you informed me, that,
when the balance shown by them was communicated to Mr. Boott,
he replied, that he always had known the estate was in debt
to him, but that he did not wish to stand urging demands, as a
creditor, against his brothers and sisters.
At the time, this remark of Mr. Boott's, so consonant with his
character, was stated to me by others cognizant of it.
Very truly yours,
EDWARD G. LORING.
December 31, 1847.
That a generous and high-minded purpose of this
sort should be turned into a weapon against Mr. Boott,
to bear out the imputation, that he had knowingly
defrauded the heirs, and sustained the fraud by his
oath, is one of the most cruel perversions of truth in
this whole pamphlet. The anecdote rests on my state
ment. Mr. Brooks says, that I mentioned it as an
instance of Mr. Boott's disinterestedness. Did I say,
then, that he refused to sign the accounts because he
knew them to be untrue ? Or is this the poison to
which an incident so honorable to Mr. Boott is turned
by passing through the alembic of Mr. Brooks's mind ?
After the accounts had been presented, and Mr.
Brooks and Mr. William Boott had given notice of
their intention to oppose them, I had the interviews
with Judge Warren, which are very fairly reported in
the letter of that gentleman to Mr. Brooks. (App.
p. 51.) He and I had certainly the same object in view,
the hushing up of these unhappy domestic difficulties.
I stated to .Judge Warren, substantially as I have stated

35

above, the manner in which the accounts had been
prepared, the deficiency of books and papers on Mr.
Boott's part, so far as related to the earlier transactions,
and the way in which I accounted for that deficiency ;
and I offered, if he would appoint a time for meeting
me at my office, to exhibit to him aU the documents
from which the accounts had been made up. This
Judge Warren considered to be unnecessary, at least
unto, we had satisfied ourselves that the matter could
not be adjusted on a friendly basis. I stated to him
expressly, that I could not carry to Mr. Boott any pro
posal, that did not include a fuU and literal passage of
his accounts as presented ; that Mr. Boott's honor was
involved in this issue, and must not be periQed by me ;
that I admitted that Mr. Boott had allowed stocks
belonging to the estate to stand in his own name for
several years, and that this I did not pretend to jus
tify ; that I had, however, no doubt, that Mr. Boott
believed himself, at the time, to be, as I believed him
to have been, a creditor to the estate ; and that, until
the moment of his having become alarmed about the
solvency of Lyman & Ralston in 1830, it had never
occurred to him as a possibility, that in so doing he
was jeoparding the property of the estate.
It win be observed, that I had no imaginable interest
in the settlement of the accounts, except that it should
be done upon just and equitable principles. Mr. Boott
owed a debt, it is true, to the estate of Jonathan Amory,
of which I was the trustee ; but it was secured by a
pledge of stock in which the estate of Kirk Boott, senior,
had no interest, as I believed and had been assured.

beyond a right of redemption. Even if the form in
which I held those stocks was a wrong one, it was
a form adopted at Mr. Brooks's own suggestion, for the
benefit of the family ; and it had never occurred to me
that Mr. Brooks would avail himself of an act, done at
his own instance, and for such a purpose, to my disad
vantage. Nor do I now believe that he ever would
have done so to my pecuniary disadvantage ; though
he has not scrupled, in the excitement of controversy,
to use it as an argument against me.
It wiU also be observed, that all that portion of the
accounts, which involves by necessary implication the
profit and loss of either of the firms of Kirk Boott &
Sons, was stated on Mr. Boott's personal knowledge and
responsibility. I had never seen them, and could know
nothing about them beyond the general results which
I had witnessed.
Mr. Boott's character was known to me to be, what
Mr. Brooks has described it, highly honorable and self-
sacrfficing ; and I entertained no doubt, and entertain
none now, that the results of those partnerships were such
as his accounts imply that they were. It is not pre
tended that Mr. Boott was laboring under delusions or
insanity of a nature to affect the accuracy of his memory.
I have no doubt, that, if the case had been brought to
trial, he would have so lucidly stated all the points that
are now unknown to us, the amount of his father's estate
and of his own, the losses incurred, the results of both the
partnerships, &c., as to have carried conviction to every
unprejudiced hearer.
The burden of proof was on him, and he did not

37
shrink from it. The accounts once passed, the burden
of proof is shifted. It now behoves Mr. Brooks, if he
wishes to impugn those accounts, to show in what they
are erroneous. Before they were passed he would have
been justified in calling for proof of any point that did
not satisfy him. Now it is for him to prove their inac
curacy, if he can. Such is the decision of law, of equity,
and of common sense. Such would be then- decision, if
Mr. Boott were alive, and as able to answer as he was
on the day he presented them. Such is much more
impressively their decision, when the duty of defending
them is devolved upon an executor, not possessed of
his familiarity with the facts, or with the means that
he possessed for establishing those facts.
Before entering upon an examination of Mr. Brooks's
objection to the accounts, I have to notice a most un
accountable misapprehension which appears to have
possessed his mind respecting them.
After passing months in their analysis, aided by
Mr. WUliam Boott and by two of the ablest lawyers in
Boston, he entertains no doubt that they claim for
Mr. Boott, that he had made advances to the heirs to
the amount of $25,000, beyond the assets received by
him; in other words, that he had distributed among
them more than they were entitled to, to that amount.
That I may not be suspected of overstating Mr.
Brooks's view of the account, I extract the following
passage : " The account alleges in effect, that, by rea
son of cash payments to the heirs, beyond what was
due to them, by $25,000, that amount of the property,
invested and held by Mr. Wright Boott as executor,
belongs to him personally." (p. 116.)

38

Incredible as it may appear after reading this asser
tion, the account claims for Mr. Boott advances to the
amount of $3,700 only, instead of $25,000, as Mr.
Brooks imagines.
To make this intelligible, I will here transcribe the
account. Second Account of John Wright Boott, as Executor of the Will of
Kirk Boott, Esq., of Boston, deceased.
The said executor charges himself as follows :
Amount of inventory rendered January 12, 1818, $36,984.75
Cash received from the firm of Kirk Boott & Sons, in
part of the testator's interest in that copartnership,
and invested in stocks to constitute the trust fund,
as by his account settled at a probate court, May 11,
1818, 116,783.95
Cash received of Boott & Lowell in liquidation of the
outstanding property of Kirk Boott & Sons 69,389.99
Gain on sale of stocks, viz.
On sale of shares in Suffolk Ins. Co. 2,604.06*
Less loss on sale of U. S. 6 per cent.
stock 679.37
Less loss on sale of U. S. 7 per cent.
stock 1,687.08
Less loss on sale of Suffolk Bank
stock 100.00
 2,466.45
 133.61
Income received on the trust fund, for the widow, from
March, 1818, to November, 1844, 274 686.36

$497,978.66

* There appears to be an error, in one of these items, of $4.00, proba
bly made in copying the account for the probate office.

39

And prays allowance for the following items :
Furniture, wines, &,c. specifically devised to
the widow $2,684.75
Store in State street devised to J. W. Boott 9,600.00
Land at West Boston, devised to widow as
residuary legatee, 500.00
Pew in King's Chapel, devised to widow as
residuary legatee, 200.00
Cash paid probate fees January 20, 1817, 12.50
Cash paid copies of will and inventory cer
tificate 8.00
Cash paid advertising notice of administration 1 .00

13,006.25
Cash paid probate fees May 11, 1818, 1.50
Cash paid to the Heirs, nine in number, $10,000 each 90,000.00
Income paid to, or for account and by order of, the
widow, 274,686.36
Leaving in his hands to be accounted for 120,284.55

$497,978.66

To meet which he has the following property :
39 shares in the Boston Manufacturing Company,
18 shares, cost $1,150 each, 20,700
21 « " 1,300 « 27,300
 48,000
7 1 shares in the Merrimack Manuf. Co. cost • 7 1 ,000
Mansion-house in Bowdoin square 24,000
Stable in Bowdoin street, deeded to the execu
tor by J. W. Boott in 1831, 2,500

145,500.00
Less cash balance due the executor 25,215.45

$120,284.55
John W. Boott, Executor.
Nov. 18, 1844.
Omitting, as Mr. Brooks properly does, in his analysis,
the real estate and the items of property specifically
bequeathed, and also the income from both sides of the

40
account, there remains of receipts credited by Mr. Boott
the sum of 186,307.55
Deduct probate, and other small charges 23.00
$186,284.55
Of this sum, the trust fund for the widow
is not distributable tUl her death 100,000.00

Leaving distributable among the heirs 86,284.55
Mr. Boott, by the same accounts, claims to
have paid the heirs, nine in number,
$10,000 each, 90,000.00 3,715.45
All then that Mr. Boott ever claimed, (Mr. Brooks,
Mr. WiUiam Boott, and their learned counsel to the
contrary notwithstanding,) was, that he had overpaid
the heirs $3,700, and not, as they allege, and doubtless
believe, $25,000 !
This is clearly shown by the balance of his account,
expressed in the following words, according to the form
adopted at the probate office :
" Leaving in his hands to be accounted for, $120,284.55."
What made up that balance ?
The mansion-house, appraised at 24,000
Trust fund for the widow 100,000

124,000
Less overpayment, as above, to
the heirs 3,715.45
 120,284.55
Nothing can be more evident.

41
But the account goes on to say that he has property
in his hands, which cost him 145,500.00
Less cash balance due to him 25,215.45
$120,284.55
What does this cash balance mean 1 That he had
overpaid the heirs that amount ? Not at all. It means
that he had stocks, and other property, standing in his
name as executor, more than belonged to the estate, to
that amount.
How came this to be the case ? Was it, as Mr.
Brooks says in the passage above quoted, because Mr.
Boott had invested and held, as executor, that amount
more than he should have done ? By no means.
It was simply, because, in virtue of an agreement
made with me by Mr. Edward Brooks, in 1831, certain
shares, which had stood in Mr. Boott's own name, and
which I had every reason to suppose were his own
individual property, and which, while so standing, had
been pledged to me, four years before, for a loan, were,
on the very day of the presentment of the account,
retransferred by me to Mr. Boott as executor. The
agreement with Mr. Brooks was based on the distinct
recognition of my debt, as a lien on the stock, and was,
virtually, that the estate should have the equity of
redemption of those shares, subject to that debt. It
was not, at that time, intimated by Mr. Brooks, that
these shares, specifically, belonged to the estate of Mr.
Boott, senior ; but the object was, aS Mr. Brooks has him
self stated it (p. 43), to prevent their attachment by
any creditor of Mr. Wright Boott, for their value above

42

the debt due to me, as trustee. Mr. Brooks also, very
fairly, says (p. 117) that undoubtedly I supposed these
shares to be the property of Mr. Wright Boott at the
time I made the loan on that security ; it is therefore
perfectly obvious, that aU that he could have asked, or
I could have consented to, was that I should, in some
form, give to the estate the right of redemption of
those shares. By reconveying them, on the day of Mr.
Boot's presentation of the accounts, I, therefore, con
veyed to the estate, more than it was entitled to receive,
by precisely $25,000, the amount of my debt.
This form of presenting the account was adopted by
the advice of Mr. Loring. It was that gentleman's
opinion, that as part of the assets, although not belong
ing to the estate, did, nevertheless, stand in Mr. Boott's
name as execidor, it was proper and necessary, that
they should be introduced into the account, to prevent
question or confusion hereafter ; and that, therefore,
Mr. Boott should claim the difference, as a balance
due to him, which he could at once apply to the pay
ment of his debt to me.
A part of the agreement between Mr. Brooks and
myself was, that I should not be understood as waiving
the right, whenever I saw fit, to pay myself by a sale
of so much of the stock, as might be necessary for that
purpose; a right I clearly had at common law, as
holder of stock pledged as security for a note pay
able on demand.
Had I so paid myself on the day Mr. Boott pre
sented the account, it is obvious that he would have
shown precisely $25,000 less property in his hands,

43

and there would, then, have been no apparent balance
of $25,000 due to him. This sufficiently shows that
this balance had no reference to supposed advances by
Mr. Boott to the heirs, nor, in fact, to his account with
them, as such heirs, at all. It is merely a specification
of his debt to me, which had become mixed up with
his account, as executor, in consequence of the inter
ference of Mr. Brooks in 1831.
It is curious that a very simple consideration should
not have shown to Mr. Brooks his error. Mr. Boott
paid over the whole of the trust fund for his mother
to Mr. Loring, after the passing of the account, and
discharged his debt to me, without calling on any of
the heirs to refund one cent of the supposed overpay
ment of $25,000. This alone, if Mr. Brooks had re
flected upon it, would have settled the question that
his account claimed no such overpayment.
Thus far the mistake of Mr. Brooks is an innocent
and not very unnatural one. When, however, he
proceeds to draw inferences bearing hard on Mr.
Boott's reputation and on mine, carelessness on his
own part can hardly be pleaded in justification.
Thus, when he says of Mr. Boott (p. 101), that the
account shows, " that he had invested, as executor, more
than there ivas, by $25,500, and that consequently the
estate owes him that money, less some small items," and
adds, " This is certainly a very extraordinary statement,
if true ; and if it does not prove insanity, must at least
be set down for proof of mismanagement : " —
Or when he says of me (p. 87), "Mr. Lowell had,
before the 18th of November, 1844, induced him [Mr.

44
Wright Boott] to adopt a form of account, prepared by
Mr. Lowell himself, exhibiting an apparent balance of
$25,000 and a fraction as due from his father's estate
to him : " —
Or when he allows Mrs. Brooks to say (App. p. 49),
that her brother has brought in his accounts " in such
a way as to make it appear as if the estate was in
debt to him $25,000, just the amount of his private
debttoMr. Lowell :" —
Or when he represents the passing of the account
as so materially altering the state of Mr. Wright Boott's
property, as to increase the amount receivable by Mrs.
Ralston as residuary legatee, from $16,000 to $40,000,
and holds me therefore responsible to prove a new
publication of his will by Mr. Boott : — *
When Mr. Brooks brings aU these various and most
serious charges, as corollaries from the balance ex
hibited in the account, he cannot shelter himself be
hind his own ignorance and incompetency to under
stand accounts. These qualities may be pardonable
in themselves ; but a gentleman, afflicted with them,
has no right to convert them into weapons against
his neighbour.
Recurring to the account, it wUl be observed, that
* "And this was the effect," says Mr. Brooks (p. 88), " of a will pre
pared, not in reference to the state of things existing at his death, but its
effect by reason of a subsequent settlement of accounts, to which he was, in
my view, only passively a parly. Did he intend what he did ? Mr.
Lowell asserts it, when he says this paper was enclosed to him on the 6th
of March, as a will which was to take instant effect. He takes that upon
his own responsibility, when he refuses to produce the letter which en
closed it."

45

Mr. Boott credits the estate with the full amount of all
his trust funds, with the real estate, and with the pro
perty specifically bequeathed ; the only question, there
fore, is concerning the amount distributable among the
heirs before the death of their mother.
Mr. Boott by that account virtually avers, that he
had never taken from the capital in the business any
thing beyond the amount invested for the trust funds,
and his own share of that capital ; that any gain or loss
in the second partnership had been settled by himself,
personally, with his partners, out of his own private
resources ; and that the residual capital, collected and
accounted for by Boott & LoweU, was the true meas
ure of the sum realized from his father's estate beyond
the amount of the trust funds, the real estate, and the
specffic legacies.
Now, to impugn these accounts, — and, I repeat it,
the burden is on Mr. Brooks, — he must do one of
two things. He must show, either that Mr. Boott
received more, or that he paid away less, than is stated
in the account. He has attempted to make out both
these points ; with what success 1 shall now examine.
No direct proof is adduced of what Mr. Boott had
received. In the nature of the case this was impracti
cable. But, as no investment or abstraction of funds
is pretended, it was necessary to show some losses in
trade subsequent to the dissolution of the partnership
with the father, losses too great to have been settled
by Mr. Wright Boott out of his own private fortune.
Mr. Brooks was weU aware of the weakness of this
Une of argument. It required, that he should estabhsh

46
that there were such losses, their amount, and also the
amount of Mr. Wright Boott's abUity, from his private
fortune, to meet them. No one of these essential ele
ments was within his knowledge.
If I settle the first question, and show that the
gains fully balanced the losses in the second copart
nership of Kirk Boott & Sons, I can dispense with the
other branch of the inquiry, as to Mr. Wright Boott's
abUity to meet any such supposed losses.
Now, to establish the fact of the losses, Mr. Brooks
relies upon a letter of Mr. Kirk Boott to himself, dated
February 8, 1826, (App. p. 15) in which, when solicit
ing a loan of $8000, he says; "From recent commu
nications with my brother, I find that our losses in busi
ness proved very heavy, and that he is more in advance
for me than I expected."
This is the whole evidence adduced by Mr. Brooks,
bearing, or pretended to bear, upon the question.
Now the copartnership of Mr. Wright Boott, Mr.
Kirk Boott, and Mr. James Boott had lasted four years,
from 1818 to 1822, and they must have settled four
annual accounts. IMr. Kirk Boott had been the most
active member of the firm, conversant with every detaU
of the busuiess, and was a very accurate merchant.
The only losses, therefore, that could have surprised
him, were those resulting from the sale of their residual
stock and the collection of the debts. This process, as
all dry-goods dealers wUl attest, is very apt to be a
losing one.
Does Mr. Kirk Boott, then, refer to the result of the
four years' partnership, when he speaks of their losses

47
in business proving very heavy ? Mr. Brooks takes it
for granted that he does, and even volunteers to give
us some notion of the amount of Mr. Kirk Boott's share
of those losses, (p. 113.)
The process, by which he arrives at this, is a very
strange one. Not content with putting down the sum
that Mr. Kirk Boott borrowed of him for this specific
purpose, $10,000
He adds to it the amount of Mr. Kirk
Boott's patrimony, which he assumes without
a shadow of evidence, and, as I shaU pre
sently show, without a shadow of foundation
in truth, to have been lost in the business, and
which he sets down at double its real value, 20,000
Finding also that Mr. Kirk Boott about
this time transferred to his brother twenty-
one shares in the Boston Manufacturing Com
pany, (shares, by the way, that had belonged
to Mr. Wright Boott aU along, and had been
taken in Mr. Kirk Boott's name for a specffic
purpose, as I shaU show, in 1823,) — finding, I
say, this transfer, Mr. Brooks eagerly seizes
upon the coincidence of dates, and puts it
down as a reimbursement for these imaginary
losses, 27,300

$57,300

A more monstrous assumption was, perhaps, never
presented as the foundation of a serious charge.
Aware that it proved too much, if it proved any

48
thing, Mr. Brooks puts in a faint alternative, that this
might have been in part a repayment for overdrafts.
I shaU show, that it was not (except the $10,000) a
repayment at aU. As the question of overdrafts has
no bearing whatever on Mr. Brooks's issues with Mr.
Boott, I shaU deal only with the other alternative.
And this I have the better right to do, because it was
Mr. Brooks's evident design to impress that view of
the case upon his readers. For this purpose he em
phasizes the word " loss " in the foUo wing paragraph :
" Was this the loss of one out of three of the partners ?
Or how much more than the others had that partner
drawn out ? " (p. 114.)
Observe what Mr. Brooks would have us believe.
If Mr. Kirk Boott's losses were $57,000, those of the
firm could not have been less than $171,000 ; and as,
on the same page, he teUs us that he cannot " perceive
how Mr. Wright Boott could have had much more "
property than Mr. James Boott, that is, " nothing ex
cept the dividend due to him from his father's estate,"
— the inference is, that this loss fell upon that estate.
Now that estate is not represented in Mr. Brooks's
exaggerated estimates at over $180,000, beyond the
trust funds and real property. Of course the whole,
or nearly the whole, was absorbed in those losses.
And yet he does not deny, that My. Wright Boott has
distributed among the heirs $90,000 (p. 109) ; that is to
say, that, out of nothing, he has contrived to pay a sum of
$90,000 ! And such estimates and inferences as these,
Mr. Brooks and his learned and astute advisers gravely
present to the world in impeachment of accounts, which

49

his brother has presented, on oath, at the probate
office. Have these aUeged losses any foundation, except in
Mr. Brooks's imagination, as applying to the result of
the four years' partnership ? I have given above the
reasons I should have had, a priori, for doubting it.
The inquiries I have made for the purpose of this
reply have settled the question. There were no such
losses. Mr. Kirk Boott, till he went into the house in 1818,
had been a subaltern in the British army, and of course
had no property beyond his patrimony. From 1822
to 1826, the date of the settlement with his brother
above referred to, he was supporting a family, at
Chelmsford, on a salary of $3000 a year. He stated
about that time to the Directors of the Merrimack
Company, what from his style of living was very ap
parent, that he could not five within his salary. What
ever sum, therefore, beyond his patrimony, he refunded
to his brother Wright, he must have borrowed, or
derived from the profits of the earUer years of the
copartnership. There could be no other source. We
have seen above what he borrowed of Mr. Brooks
for this purpose. And how was it with his patrimony ?
Did that go to make up his share of the losses of the
firm ? Mr. Brooks unhesitatingly affirms it.
Fortunately, we are not obUged to grope about in
such a maze of conjecture. We have the means of
knowing what Mr. Kirk Boott's residual property was
after the settlement with his brother in 1826.

50
I find, that there remained in his hands, after the
adjustment of his accounts, the following property :
Two shares in the Boston Manufacturing
Company, $2,700
Ten shares in the Merrimack Company, 10,000
Ten shares in the Locks and Canal, on which
had then been paid $350 each, 3,500
His furniture, worth perhaps 4,000

20,200
Deduct the amount borrowed of Mr. Brooks, 10,000

$10,200
He retained then the fuU amount of his patrimony,
as stated by Mr. Wright Boott in the account which
we are now discussing, and which must be taken,
prima facie, as true.
And how was it with Mr. James Boott, the third
partner ?
Mr. Brooks (p. 114) makes a distinction between
the abUity of Mr. James Boott and Mr. Kirk Boott to
refund their respective shares of any loss in the copart
nership. This he was evidently compeUed to do, to
account for his not finding that Mr. James Boott had
repaid to his brother Wright any such large sums of
money, as he imagines Mr. Kirk Boott to have done.
" As he [Mr. James Boott] was barely of age when
the house was formed, it is obvious that he could
have had nothing to put into it, except the dividend
due to him from his father's estate." (p. 114.) And
again : « The share of that loss and overdraft, which

51

feU upon Mr. Kirk Boott, whatever it was, beyond his
own dividend from the estate, was undoubtedly made
good to Mr. Wright Boott, at the time and in the man
ner above stated. That of Mr. James Boott, probably,
never was." (p. 115.)
Mr. Brooks wUl, perhaps, have the goodness to inform
us what golden opportunities Mr. Kirk Boott, a lieu
tenant in Lord Wellington's army, had enjoyed of accu
mulating a large amount of property.
That Mr. James Boott settled with his brothers at
the same time that Mr. Eork Boott did, and repaid to
Mr. Wright Boott his proportion of the over-estimate
of the profit of the preceding years is certain ; for he
transferred to Mr. Wright Boott, February 28, 1826,
five shares in the Merrimack Manufacturing Company.
And what was his position after the settlement ? He
had remaining
Five shares in the Boston Manufacturing
Company, at $1300, 6,500
Five shares in the Merrimack Company, 5,000

These shares he stUl retains.

$11,500

It thus appears, that, after paying their personal
expenses, which, to my knowledge, during the year I
was with them in their counting-room, were regularly
charged to them, — and which must have much ex
ceeded (especiaUy in the case of Mr. Kirk Boott,
who was a married man,) the interest of $10,000, —
both of the junior partners had their patrimony un
affected by any losses in business. In fact, there had
been some smaU resulting profit.

52
Thus faUs utterly the attempt to account for a,
duninution of the property on the ground of any
losses except such as occurred during the first partner
ship, when the father's estate was justly chargeable
with his share of such losses.
But Mr. Brooks attempts to show in another way
what amount of distributable property Mr. Boott must
have received. He says, that on the evening of his own
marriage, in May, 1821, Mr. Wright Boott remarked
to him, that " his [Mr. Wright Boott's] sister would
shortly have $20,000, as her portion of her father's
estate ; that the estate was about to be settled very
soon and divided among the heirs, and would give
them $20,000 apiece." (p. 34.)
Now I weU remember, that the highest estimates
ever put upon the property, when I was in the count
ing-room of Kirk Boott & Sons, would give the heirs
about $16,000 or $17,000 each, independently of the
trust funds. Indeed the received opinion put it at
something less. This was before the loss of the
$50,000 in England and the other heavy losses to
which I have aUuded.
There can be no reasonable doubt, that, if Mr. Boott
ever mentioned the sum of $20,000, he was speaking
of his sister's share of the property, including the trust
funds. Let us see if this is not probable.
The house in Bowdoin Square had been ap
praised, only three years before, at $24,000.
Suppose Mr. Boott valued it, in 1821, $30 000
The trust funds in his hands were then 111 000

53

The property presently distributable among
the heirs, exclusive of the $11,000 trust
fund for his aunts, he probably valued at
what it turned out to be, $75,000

$216,000
This, divided by nine, would give to each of
the heirs, 24,000
But Mrs. Brooks had already received her fur
niture, which had cost certainly not under 4,000
$20,000
So that it is almost certain, that Mr. Boott was
speaking of Mrs. Brooks's ultimate expectations, and
not of the sum presently receivable.
This view is confirmed by what subsequently occur
red. Mr. Boott caUed upon Mr. Brooks in Decem
ber, 1823, (p. 35), and gave him his note for
$10,000, on account of Mrs. Brooks's portion, and a
check for the arrears of interest from the day of the
marriage. Why for $10,000 ? If he had paid him that
sum in money, it would be intelligible enough why it
might be inconvenient to pay up the whole at once ;
but, as he was giving his note, no reason can be im
agined why, if Mrs. Brooks was entitled to receive
),000, Mr. Boott should have given his note for only
3,000, and thenceforward regularly paid Mr. Brooks
the interest on that sum.
Mr. Brooks seems to have asked no questions on the
subject ; nor does it appear that a lisp ever feU from
him, or from any one of the other eight heirs, on this
subject, during the twenty-four years that elapsed be-

54
fore Mr. Boott's death. Neither Mr. Wright Boott him
self, nor either of his former partners, who must have
been conversant with the whole business, nor Mr. Wells,
nor Mr. Brooks, nor Mr. WiUiam Boott, in aU my inter
course with them, and frequent conversations about the
famUy property, ever hinted a suspicion that they had
been underpaid.
In my settlement with Messrs. Lyman & Ralston, in
1831, 1 made it a prominent argument in Mr. Boott's
behalf, that, from my own observation, I entertained no
doubt that he had overpaid them. The same opinion I
have expressed to Mr. Kirk Boott, and also to Mr.
Brooks and Mr. William Boott, who have never, either
of them, untU these recent troubles, disagreed with me
in opinion.
I have it fortunately in my power to show, that such
was the opinion of Mr. WeUs on the 23d of August,
1844, three months before Mr. Boott's accounts were
made up for the probate office. This is the more im
portant, because, until after the passage of those ac
counts, I never exchanged a word with Mr. Wells
on the subject of the famUy troubles, nor indeed had
I conversed with him on any subject for many years.
In a letter of that date, to Dr. Boott, Mr. WeUs says :
"He [Mr. Wright Boott] has probably given to aU
much more than they were entitled to receive from
their father's estate."
Mr. Brooks, aware of the great weight that would
attach to the opinion of Mr. WeUs, from his known
intelligence and moderation of character, attempts be
forehand to discredit his testimony in the foUowing
passage (p. 93) : "Mr. WeUs, though near at hand, was

55

not a man of business, and knew nothing of the case.
I state this not merely*of my own authority ; — it is
stated by Mr. WeUs himself, in a letter to Mr. WiUiam
Boott, dated December 8, 1843. (See App. No. 18.)"
Turning to the Appendix, we find the following
extract fi:om the letter referred to :
" I mentioned Mr. Lowell's declaration, because I was
told, a few days ago, that you said, if J. W. B. con
tinued to manage the property a few years longer,
nothing would be left to the heirs. As I know nothing
of the matter, this statement of Mr. L. pleased me,
and I thought it might you. Had your mother laid up
something of the income, it might, doubtless, have been
increased ; hut I suppose she wished for the whole ; hut of
this matter I am altogether ignorant." (App. p. 34.)
Here it wUl be observed, that Mr. Wells expressly
limits his want of knowledge to two points ; first, the
gradual wasting away of the property, which, as it was
absolutely false, he could not well have known ; second,
to Mrs. Boott's having wished for the whole of her
income, which was undoubtedly true, but of which he
had no personal knowledge, — neither had Mr. WUliam
Boott nor Mr. Brooks any knowledge to the contrary.
Tet to this letter Mr. Brooks has the boldness to
appeal in confirmation of his assertion, that Mr. WeUs
" knew nothing of the case."
Mr. WeUs is not so summarUy to be discarded as a
witness. From his age, position, and character, he is
more competent than any other member of the famUy
to form an unbiassed opinion ; and I should be doing
injustice to the memory of Mr. Boott, if I did not give

56
at length that passage of his letter to Dr. Boott of
August 23, 1844, which refesi to his brother's man
agement of the property.
"As executor, Mr. Boott may have neglected the
proper forms of business. He may have allowed
his brothers and sisters to spend too much money.
He may have been too desirous to gratify them, and
too indulgent to their wishes. It would have been
more for his happiness were it otherwise, and that
a rigid executor had increased the property. No
young man has had a more difficult position. No
one has acted Avith more honesty, with more kindness
to his brothers and sisters, and to aU others under his
care ; or exhibited a more noble and disinterested
character. I attribute to his over-Uberality to them,
and to his desire to indulge their wishes, and to pro
mote their welfare, much more than to any other cause,
the loss of his own property. He has, probably, given
to all, much more than they were entitled to receive
from their father's estate. Nor does it look like a
negUgent manager, that during the last eight years,
many of them so disastrous, he has been able to remit
to his mother more than $7,000 * per annum, besides
providing for the expenses of her house in Boston."
Mr. Brooks endeavours to create the impression that
the late Mr. Kirk Boott viewed the matter differently, by
quoting and emphasizing the following passages from
Mr. Kirk Boott's letter to himself of February 8, 1826,
above cited : " As he [Mr. Wright Boott] is -preparing to
* Mr. Boott remitted to his mother in the seven years from September,
1836, to December, 1843, je8810 sterling, which cost him here $43,037.02
or about $6,000 per annum, not $7,000, as Mr. Wells supposed.

57

settle the estate and pay over the balances," (p. 35) ; and
again (p. 36), " As BUza's portion mil be paid you in
a few months, perhaps you wUl be wUUng to take this
loan." Nothing can be more disingenuous than the use that
is made of these passages.
Mr. Kirk Boott had been a member of the house, and
knew that Mr. Brooks had received no money from his
brother ; he did not know, as Mr. Brooks teUs us in
the very next line, that Mr. Wright Boott had given
his note to Mr. Brooks.
"This led to a conversation when we met soon after;
and then, finding that I held Mr. Wright Boott's note
for $10,000, he proposed to take that, as an equivar
lent, for his purpose, to money." (p. 36.) Can any man
doubt that the portion, which Mr. Kirk Boott referred
to in his letter, as soon to be received by Mr. Brooks,
was this same $10,000? The real state of the case,
I have no doubt, was simply this :
.Mr. Wright Boott had advanced to some of the heirs
$10,000 each, and upwards, before he ascertained the
result of the copartnership business of the old firm,
of which his father was a partner. We learn fi-om Mr.
Kirk Boott's letter above cited, that, on the 8th of Feb
ruary, 1826, his brother was preparing to settle his ac
counts with the family. .Those accounts, when made
up, showed that the sum, so advanced, exceeded by a
few hundred doUars the dividend to which each heir
would be entitled. Mr. Wright Boott was a man
of fortune, certainly worth, when I was his partner, at

58
least $70,000 ;* he was unmarried, and of a peculiarly
generous and self-sacrificing disposition. He resolved
not only not to demand restitution, but, in order to do
equal justice, to pay to each of the rest an equal sum.
The amount in the aggregate would be less than $4000,
an amount of no great consequence to him ; and, that
they might not even know of the sacrffice he had thus
made on their behalf, he put off the settlement of his
accounts. This conduct, which to many persons would
appear romantic, was in perfect unison with the gene
rosity and deUcacy of Mr. Boott's disposition. Whenj in
1833, the heirs came forward and tendered to him a
discharge in full, he was touched by this mark of their
affection and confidence. It had not been solicited by
him, and he had never informed them of the fact of
his advances. He accepted the discharge, mentaUy
resolving never to demand of them any restitution. He
knew that his mother would take care of him whUe she
Uved, and, at her death, he would receive, in his own
right, and by assignment from his sisters, Mrs. Lyman
and Mrs. Ralston, one-third of the trust funds, a fortune
amply sufficient for his wants.
The charge subsequently made against him, of hav
ing squandered his father's estate, rendered it necessary,
as a point of honor, that he should present his accounts.
Eleven years had meanwhile elapsed ; documents,
necessary to enable him to state aU the particulars of his
* He had in our business a capital of $ 40,000
The store in State street was worth 16,000
He had advanced to Wells & Lilly 14,000
$70,000

59

accounts, had been lost or destroyed; * the discharge in
fuU had made it unnecessary to preserve them. Fortu
nately, these facts were certain; that nothing had
been taken from the capital in trade, belonging to his
father's estate, except the trust funds, during either of
the partnerships of Kirk Boott & Sons ; and that the
final liquidation of the whole business was detaUed in the
books of Boott & LoweU, which had been preserved.
He was therefore enabled to present an account, that
should render full justice to every one but himself;
and this was aU he desired.
This view of the matter, so far as the earUer transac
tions are concerned, is not a theory growing out of
his accounts, as finally presented ; it is my deliberate
opinion, formed many years ago, from my own obser
vation, and repeatedly stated by me at different times
to many persons, including most of the heirs, long
before their unhappy dissensions began.
The aUegation, that Mr. Boott had received from the
estate of his father more than he declared on oath
that he had done, thus appears completely unsustained
by proof The other branch of the charge, that he had
paid less to the heirs than he had debited to them in
his account, is confined to one single matter, — the
payments to Mr. WUUam Boott.
* The books of Boott & Pratt, and of both firms of Kirk Boott &
Sons, were, if I mistake not, burnt up in the fire that destroyed Mr.
Boott's store, in April, 1825 ; but 1 believe this did not apply to his papers
and memorandums. Some of these, I well remember, were in the iron
safe, and were saved, though much discolored. The loss of the original
books wUl, however, account for Mr. Boott's inability to replace any
papers lost or mislaid.

60
It is aUeged in distinct terms and in various forms,
that that gentleman had never received any thing from
his father's estate.
In the memorial prepared for presentation at the
probate office by Messrs. Edward Brooks and WiUiam
Boott, it is expressly said, and, if my memory serves me,
without qualification, that Mr. Wright Boott had never
paid his brother any thing toivards a settlement.
In Mrs. Brooks's letter to her mother (App. p. 49),
she says, " William has not been paid any part of his
portion." In Mr. Brooks's pamphlet, the same statement is
repeatedly made, as (page 84), " Mr. WUUam Boott, the
brother of whom he had once been particularly fond,
to whom he had paid nothing, on account of the
$20,000, or more, which should have come to him
from his father's estate."
In two passages, indeed, this broad assertion (which
had been made without qualification during the life
time of Mr. Wright Boott, in letters not communicated
to him, and intended to affect the opinion of his mother,
and in the above-mentioned paper which was deUber-
ately drawn up by Mr. Brooks for presentation to the
judge of probate, and which, since jMr. Boott's death,
at least, has been put in circulation,) is prudently, and
in anticipation of my reply, quaUfied as foUows :
" Unless, indeed, allowing him [Mr. WiUiam Boott]
to spend a great deal of money, while a boy, in Europe,
is to be deemed a payment on account of his capital,
whUe members of the famUy at home were living at
the general expense of the estate." (p. 109.) And

61

again : " Mr. WiUiajn Boott, indeed, never received any
specific sum, though it is true, that a considerable ex
pense must have been incurred on his account, before
he was of age, while travelUng in Europe, of which no
account was ever kept, or rendered, and for which there
was no voucher." (p. 55.)
This charge rests, of course, on Mr. William Boott's
personal knowledge.
Now, what are the facts ? Mr. WUliam Boott went
abroad for the benefit of his health in 1822 ; and, after
travelUng, under the charge of his brother Wright, about
a year, was left in Europe to pursue the study of medi
cine, and did not return until November, 1827.
From a letter now before me from Samuel Williams,
Esq., dated in London, July 29, 1825, it appears that Mr.
WeUes, of Paris, had written to him to make some in
quiries concerning Mr. WUUam Boott, who was calling
upon him for " considerable " sums of money (italicized
in the original) ; to which Mr. Williams replied, that
he had been directed by Mr. Wright Boott to allow Mr.
WiUiam Boott one hundred pounds sterling a year.
What the amount of Mr. WUUam Boott's expenses
were during the four years of his residence abroad
after his brother's return to this country, I do not
know ; but I find, that, during the last two years of
his stay, viz. from October, 1825, to November, 1827,
he spent no less a sum than £ 1377 sterUng, or about
$6,500. If the other two years, which were chiefly
passed in Paris, were equally costly, and I know of no
reason to doubt it, the expenditure in those four years
would amount to $13,000 ; and if only half as costly.

62

he still expended the sum of $10,000 charged to
him in the account, before his return to this country.
For more than ten years after having thus exhausted
his patrimony, he did no business, and Uved, for aught
that appears, at the expense of the estate. There can
be no reasonable doubt, that he has received more than
any other one of the heirs from the common property.
Mr. Brooks is very much mistaken when he says,
that for these expenses in Europe there was no voucher.
I derive them from original letters and accounts
current of Mr. WiUiams, and of Messrs. Thomas and
John D. Thornely, of Liverpool. These documents I
refrain from publishing; but, if Mr. WiUiam Boott
wishes it, they shaU be forthcoming.
I have, in the above sum of .£1377, put down only
those charges which I find positively debited to Mr.
Wright Boott. It appears, however, that further re
mittances, probably to no great amount, were subse
quently made to discharge Mr. WUliam Boott's debts.
The foUowing extract from a letter fi:om him, written
on the 13th of June, after his return, to his brother
Wright, from PhUadelphia, shows this, and also that he
was cognizant of the state of his account in Europe.
Philadelphia, June 13.
Dear Wright,
I had a letter a short time since from Mr. Thornely in answer
to the one in which I remitted him money for the payment of my
debts abroad. The sum sent to him was too small by ^10, and I
find I am still a debtor by ,£8.15 beside. Will you have these
sums remitted to Mr. Thornely on my account .'
Your affectionate brother,
WILLIAM BOOTT.

63

I am entirely wUIing to believe, that Mr. WiUiam
Bpott has forgotten that he had consumed his entire
patrimony before he was twenty-three years of age ;
but let us not condemn his brother too rashly on other
matters dependent for their sole proof on the accuracy
of Mr. WilUam Boott's memory.
My business at this moment is with Mr. Brooks.
How does he state this matter ? He says, as above
quoted (p. 109), that Mr. Wright Boott allowed his
brother WUliam to spend a great deal of money, while
a boy, in Europe ; and again (p. 55), " It is true, that
a considerable expense must have been incurred on his
account, before he was of age, whUe travelUng in Eu
rope." These short sentences, apparently evincing
great candor, contain no less than three distinct aUega-
tions, tending and designed to affect the reputation of
Mr. Wright Boott as a guardian and as a fit manager
of trust property :
1. That Mr. Wright Boott allowed these expenses.
2. That Mr. William Boott was a boy, and under age
at the time.
3. That he was travelling, by permission of his
brother, in Europe.
All three aUegations are distinctly set forth, and aU
three are utterly unfounded.
1. Mr. Samuel WUUams's letter shows that Mr.
Wright Boott aUowed his brother WiUiam £100 a year,
or $500, the interest, at five per cent., of $10,000.
2. Mr. WUliam Boott came of age on the 15th of
June, 1826, and had from that time a perfect right to
do as he pleased with his own. The greater part of

64
the $6,500, was expended after he became of age and
free from the control of his guardian.
3. The statement that Mr. WiUiam Boott was lin-
der age, and traveUing in Europe, impUes that he
was doing so by permission of his brother and guar
dian ; and it might weU be urged, that to aUow him
to do so for four consecutive years, unaccompanied by a
tutor, was a dereUction of duty on the part of that
brother and guardian ; more especiaUy if his patrimony
was so smaU as $10,000, or even $20,000. He would
be acquiring habits, and a taste for expense, that would
tend to disqualify him for devotion to any profession
that would enable him to acquire a Uvelihood.
But how stands the fact ? He was not travelling at
aU, at least by permission ; he was left in Europe to
study medicine in the best schools of Paris and DubUn,
to qualify htm to gain his Uvelihood as a physician or
surgeon. If he did not avaU himself of his advantages,
if the golden opportunity was neglected, the fault
surely does not lie with that friend and guardian,
whose sedulous care and kind and generous treatment
he acknowledged in a letter glowing with grateful
emotions, which I shaU have occasion to transcribe, in
another connection, hereafter.
But what shaU we say to Mr. Brooks ? who not only
asserts, himself, distinctly in several passages, and aUows
his wife to assert distinctly, without quaUfication, that
Mr. WiUiam Boott had received nothing from his
brother ; but, in those passages where he quaUfies the
remark, contrives to introduce, with apparent simpUcity,
no less than three utterly unfounded statements affect-

65

ing the character of his own brother-in-law, and that
brother-in-law removed by death from the opportunity
of a reply.
Nor is he content with this ; but, with that strange
recklessness with which he brings forward charges
against Mr. Boott and myself, he says (p. 106) ;
" The shares of the minors were to be placed out at
interest, and paid to them, when they should come
of age. The share of the youngest chUd (Mr. William
Boott), by accumulation of compound interest, would
have nearly, or quite, doubled at the time he was
entitled to receive it."
It certainly was provided in the wUl, as Mr. Brooks
says, that the shares of the minors should accumulate ;
but the codicU which overrules the wiU, says, in express
terms; "Although in my wUl I have ordered the
expense of clothing and educating of such of my
children as may be in their minority at the time said
wiU of Nov. 20th, 1813, taking effect, yet, it is now my
wiU, that the clothing and educating of each of them
shaU be charged to him or her by my said wife, Mary,
and be aUowed to her."
That this did not escape Mr. Brooks's notice is shown
by his saying (p. 52), " In respect to the minor chUd-
ren, his wiU is so far altered as to direct, that all expenses
for their clothing and education shaU be allowed the
widow." Tet he reiterates the charge (p. 109): "The fact
has also been noticed, that his [Mr. WiUiam Boott's]
share, and the shares of others who were minors
for a number of years after their father's death, should
9

66
have been, at the time of payment, much more than
$10,000, if that and no more was reaUy the original
distributable share."
To any one familiar with the expensive habits of the
famUy, the idea of any accumulation from savings on
the interest of $10,000, if the expenses of the minors
were chargeable to them, is preposterous. No one
knows this better than Mr. Brooks.
It thus appears, that Mr. Brooks has entirely faUed in
estabUshing either of his premises, — that he has not
succeeded in showing, and, I repeat it, the burden of
proof is on him, that Mr. Boott ever received any more,
or paid out any less, than he has charged in his
accounts. But, even if Mr. Boott credited aU he had ever re
ceived, and charged no more than he had paid, there was
still one way left in which he might defraud the estate,
and that was by charging the estate with the stocks on
hand at a higher price than he had a right to do. Mr.
Brooks does not faU to avaU himself of the opportunity
of making this imputation also. The price of the Mer
rimack shares it was hardly possible to find fault with,
as they were charged at par. But the shares in the
Boston Manufacturing Company afforded a better op
portunity. Accordingly Mr. Brooks says (p. 118) :
" It is next to be remarked, that, in order to make out
the fuU balance of $25,000, apparently due from the
estate to Mr. Wright Boott, it was necessary, that the
shares of the Boston Manufacturing Company should
stand at about $20,000 more than they were really
worth, at their market price, then about $725 per share.

67

It is true, that the Merrimack shares, then worth (as
appears by the inventory of C. G. Loring, Esq.) about
twenty-eight per cent, advance on their par value, are
charged at nearly as much less."
Now these shares are spoken of throughout his book
as having always belonged to the trust fund. And, if
one thing is clearer than another, as settled by law, I
take it to be this, — that an executor is bound to dis
charge himself by crediting the stock purchased at its
cost, — that he has no right to claim the market value,
if the price has advanced, nor is he chargeable at the
market value, if it has declined; — in other words, that,
if the investment has been honestly made, the estate,
and not the executor, is entitled to any profit, and
chargeable with any loss, resulting from change in the
market value.
Had the opposite principle been adopted, the result
would have been as foUows :
The manufacturing stock, as shown by Mr.
Boott's account, had cost him $118,000
The market value of the same shares, as
shown by Mr. Loring's inventory, was 119,155 $1,155
That is to say, if Mr. Boott had credited himself
with the stock on the principle Mr. Brooks seems to
indicate, that is, the market value, the result would
have been more favorable to him than it was by $1,155
As however the stable, which cost him $2500,
was appraised to Mr. Loring at only $1500,
there would have been a deduction of 1,000 $155

68
So that Mr. Brooks's complaint resolves itself into
this, that Mr. Boott has credited the estate with $155
more than he ought to have done ! For it can hardly
be supposed, that he meant to say that he ought to
have charged himself with the loss on one of these
stocks, and credited the estate with the gain on the
other. I am aware that Mr. Brooks does say, that this would
be the legal effect, if he, as trustee, had used the funds for
speculations for his own advantage. But of this there
is no pretence. He always credited the dividends on
these shares in the Boston Manufacturing Company,
so far as they belonged to the estate, to his mother, as
I shall presently show.
Mr. Brooks attempts to make it appear, that Mr.
Boott did not charge the estate with the true cost of
the shares in the Boston Manufacturing Company.
Mr. Boott's account of these shares stands thus :
18 shares cost $1150 each, $20,700
21 « " 1300 « 27,300
 $48,000
Mr. Brooks's commentary is this (p. 119) :
" His [Mr. Wright Boott's] thirty-nine shares in the
Boston Manufacturing Company were not the remain
der of an original subscription, which was only for
thirty ; he had bought six two years after, and he had
bought twenty-one six years after, when prices were
high. Mr. Lowell, therefore, charges in the account
twenty-one of these shares, which, from the correspond
ence of number must refer to those purchased from Mr.
Kirk Boott, at $1300 ; and the remaining eighteen he

69

charges at the price of the original subscription. But
with whose funds were the thirty originaUy bought in
1820, and the six in 1822 ? Why should the whole
twenty-one which were purchased in 1826, be placed to
the account of the estate at $1300, and the remaining
eighteen only be placed there at the cost of the original
subscription, when thirty shares were purchased at their
cost?" The audacity of this passage defies all competition.
Does Mr. Brooks know for whom the thirty shares were
subscribed for in 1820 ? or the price paid for the six
shares in 1822 ? or how the twenty-one shares in 1826
were procured ?
He knows no one of these points, vital to the issue
he has raised. Nor did I, when I put the accounts in
form for Mr. Boott, from the data furnished by him.
But I have since thoroughly investigated the matter,
and I wiU enlighten Mr. Brooks.
1. The thirty shares subscribed for by Mr. Boott in
1820, were appropriated by him at the time, as follows :
eighteen to his trust fund, four to Mrs. F. Boott, and
two to each of his four wards. I find, accordingly, in
the cash-book of Boott & LoweU the foUowing entries
under the date of April 1, 1822 :
To sundries.
Received their dividends in the Boston Manufacturing Company :

Mrs. K. Boott,

18 shares.

at $150,

$2,700

Mrs. F. Boott,

4 "

600

Mary Boott,

minor.

2 •»

300
Harriet Boott,
(C
2 "
300
Frances Boott,
((
2 "
300
Francis Boott,
it
2 "
300
$4,500
70
The same fact will appear on inspection of Mr.
Boott's accounts as guardian, on file at the probate
office. There never were, then, but eighteen shares of
the original subscription, that belonged to, or had been
purchased with, the funds of his father's estate.
2. The six shares purchased in 1822, instead of
having cost less than $1300, as Mr. Brooks evidently
supposes, cost much more. They were bought of Dr.
James Jackson. By permission of that gentleman, I
have inspected his books, and seen the original entry.
Mr. Boott paid for them $1500 each. Tet he does
not charge these to the estate.
3. The twenty-one shares of which he became pos
sessed in 1826, were shares to which he was entitled
in virtue of an arrangement between the Boston and
the Merrimack Companies, in August, 1823. In order
to effect a sale of the patent rights of the Boston Man
ufacturing Company to the Merrimack Manufacturing
Company, and a transfer of the machine-shop and of
Mr. Moody's services from Waltham to Chelmsford,
without any possibUity of injury to any one, it was
arranged that every proprietor should buy or sell a
sufficient number of shares to make him a holder of the
same number of shares in each company; and that
these exchanges should be effected with a difference of
price in favor of the Boston ]\Ianufacturing Company
of thirty per cent. This made the shares in the Boston
Company, so obtained, cost to the Merrimack proprie
tors, $1300 each. This arrangement was made in Au
gust, 1823, during Mr. Wright Boott's absence in
Europe. Mr. Kirk Boott, having no power to transfer

71

his brother's Merrimack shares, suppUed their place by
his own, and took the Boston shares in his own name.
On settlement with his brother in 1826, he conveyed
to him the Boston shares, which had always belonged
to him ; but took the transfer of Merrimack shares as a
sale on his own account, at par.
Mr. Brooks enlarges very much upon the profit
assumed to have been realized by Mr. Boott on the
sale of a part of this stock, and insists that it should
have been credited to his father's estate.
It reaUy seems as if Mr. Brooks never could be right
even by accident. Mr. Boott sold in the whole twelve
shares, not fourteen as Mr. Brooks supposed ; because
Mrs. Mary Lee, to whom the other two shares were
transferred, is the same person as Mrs. F. Boott. Of
the twelve shares sold, six were for account of Mrs. F.
Boott and his wards, to enable him to take up the new
stock to which they were entitled in the Merrimack
Company. The other six shares were the same he
had bought of Dr. Jackson, two years and a half before,
at $1500 each, or $9,000
Seven of these twelve shares were sold to Mr.
John Lowell, Jr., and five to Mr. P. T. Jack
son, the same day, 14th October, 1827, at $1500
each, as I find by inspection of Mr. John Lowell,
Jr.'s books, in my possession, and also by en
tries in the books of Boott & LoweU. This
would be, for the six shares, precisely $9,000
So that Mr. Boott made neither gain nor loss, whe
ther he bought the shares for himself or others. So in
the Merrimack Manufacturing Company. Of the six-

72
teen shares in that Company sold by Mr. Boott in
1824, four belonged jointly to himself, INIr. Kirk Boott,
and Mr. James Boott, being the residue of their
interest as owners of one fourth part of the original
speculation; the other twelve belonged to Mrs. F.
Boott and his wards, and were sold on the occasion of
the stock being doubled in October, 1824. So that
the whole argument about the profits on the sale of
these stocks, that INIr. Boott ought to have credited to
the estate of his father, faUs to the ground. Is it not
deplorable to see a gentleman in ]\Ir. Brooks's position,
groping about in utter darkness and ignorance, en
deavouring to find some excuse for attacking the honor
of the Uving and the dead ?
There is another passage relating to these same
shares in the Boston Manufacturing Company, that
deserves serious animadversion.
It wUl be found in Mr. Brooks's pamphlet, p. 120.
" Among the causes," he says, " it should be remem
bered, which went to bring down the saleable value of
shares in the Boston Manufacturing Company from
§1300, in 1826, to $725, at the date of the rendition
of this account, was the fact, that the company had
sold off a part of its fixed property, and divided the
proceeds, which was a real reduction of capital. Tet
this dividend, which reaUy represented capital, stands
nowhere in the account, unless it was treated as in
come, and included in the credit of near §275,000 paid
' to, or for account and by order of, the widow.' "
Here ^Iv. Brooks is wrong, as usual, both in his facts
and his law.

73

The Boston Manufacturing Company never sold off
any part of its fixed property and divided the proceeds.
The extra dividend in question was made in AprU,
1825, from the profits arising from making the ma
chinery for the first Merrimack mUl, and from a sum of
$75,000 paid to the Boston Company by the Merrimack
Company, for the transfer of their patent rights and of
Mr. Moody's services. Neither of these items stood
charged at any thing in the books of the Boston Manu
facturing Company, and the price obtained for them
was, of course, fairly profit. It was to prevent injustice
being done to any one by this negotiation, that the
proprietors of the two companies exchanged shares at
the difference of the market value, to wit, thirty per
cent, in favor of the Boston Manufacturing Company,
as I have above stated, in August, 1823.
So much for Mr. Brooks's facts. Now for his law.
This same dividend of the Boston Manufacturing Com
pany was one of the questions raised by Harvard Col
lege and the Massachusetts General Hospital, when
they disputed the accounts of Francis Amory, trustee
under the will of John McLean.
Mr. McLean had left certain moneys to these corpo
rations, subject to a life estate to his widow, who was
to receive the income and profits. It was contended,
among other matters, that the trustee had wrongly ap
propriated this very dividend, by paying it, as income,
to the widow, when it was really capital; — the very
point, it will be observed, raised by Mr. Brooks in
the passage above cited.
10

r4

The opinion of the court wUl be found in the 9th
volume of Pickering's Reports, page 446.
In that opinion is the foUowing passage (p. 463) :
" And we do not think that the negotiations between
the Boston Manufacturing Company and the Merrimack
Manufacturing Company, in relation to making a large
quantity of machinery, and the sale of patents and of pat
terns for castings, by the Boston Manufacturing Com
pany to the Merrimack Manufacturing Company, should
be considered as part of the capital stock. We have
seen no evidence that they were ever treated as such
by the proprietors. We think the sums arising from
these causes were properly considered as the fruits of
their industry, and placed to the account of profit and
loss of the Boston Manufacturing Company."
This ignorance of a prominent decision of our Su
preme Court, as weU as the numerous instances of dis
ingenuousness and unfair inferences with which this
pamphlet abounds, convince me that its authorship
should not be attributed, as is popularly done, to one
of the counsel for Mr. Brooks, a gentleman who enjoys
the reputation alike of manly fair dealing, and of acute-
ness and learning in his profession.
I have thus shown, that no one of the allegations of
Mr. Brooks respecting Mr. Boott's accounts is sustained
by proof; that he has not made it out, either that Mr.
Boott received more, or paid over less, than he repre
sented himself to have done ; or that the stocks are
charged at any other price than theU absolute cost ; or
that he had received any profit from the sale of them,
that he ought to have credited.

75

The only other imputation, that I am aware of,
brought forward by Mr. Brooks in this connection, is,
that Mr. Boott expended or appropriated his mother's
income without her knowledge or consent, and this in
the face of her own discharge, which asserts the very
contrary. Whatever may have been the state of Mr.
Brooks's information on this point, Mr. William Boott,
at any rate, well knew the contrary ; for Dr. Francis
Boott, of whose family Mrs. Boott has been for the last
ten years an inmate, in a letter to his brother WUliam,
dated AprU 15, 1845, expressly asserts the contrary.
" No one," he says, " who knew Wright, and was free
to let his ovm generous sentiments have fair play,
would accuse him of a dishonorable use of his trust.
I scorn the imputation. He might have advocated a
greater economy ; but he had his mother's sanction for
the expenditure, year by year ; and, if she did not
insist on saving, the fault is hers."
Mr. Brooks having thus failed in every method he
has adopted for impeaching the account, it must stand,
presented by Mr. Boott on his responsibUity, and sus
tained by his oath, as true, certainly as not more
favorable to himself than the truth.
This preliminary point established, we are now in a
position to appreciate Mr. Boott's true situation at the
time of his connection with Messrs. Lyman & Ralston,
in the business of the MUldam Foundery.
Being, in 1826, out of business in consequence of
the breaking up of our copartnership, and having
naturally a strong mechanical turn, he entered into the

76
busmess of casting iron at a foundery, which he erected
for that purpose on the MUldam. To this he was,
no doubt, partly induced by a desire to assist his
brothers-in-law, Messrs. WUliam Lyman and Robert
Ralston, Jr. These gentlemen had recently married
sisters of Mr. Boott, and entered into a copartnership as
commission merchants, doing business in PhUadelphia
and Boston ; in the former place under the style
of Ralston & Lyman, and in the latter under that
of Lyman & Ralston. They were to be interested to
the extent of one half in the new enterprise ; and were
to make the purchases and sales, for which they would
charge a commission. Mr. Boott was at this time, as I
shaU presently show, in independent circumstances.
He had a perfect right to carry on business, if he saw
fit ; and it probably never occurred to him that he
was incurring any hazard in associating himself, so far
as the MUldam Foundery was concerned, with Messrs.
Lyman & Ralston, or in indorsing their paper to the
extent of their actual purchases for the use of these
works. He never became a partner in their general
business, nor liable for any of their debts, except for
such notes as he thus indorsed.
Things went on prosperously until about September,
1830, when Mr. Boott became suddenly alarmed by a
report that Lyman & Ralston were embarrassed and
in danger of failing. On inquiry, it appeared that
there was imminent hazard of such a result. Mr. Ral
ston was a thorough man of business ; but Mr. Lyman,
on whom devolved the management in Boston, though
an amiable and gentlemanly man, was without mer-

77

cantUe experience, and inadequate to so heavy a re-
sponsibiUty. Mr. Boott's position was this : He was indebted on
his guardianship accounts about $20,000, and had
indorsed the paper of Lyman & Ralston to the amount
of $30,000, for stock purchased for the iron foundery.
Both these liabiUties he could have met from his own
resources; but there was an apprehension that the
MUldam property might be attached for the private
debts of Lyman & Ralston. Should this event occur,
he might not be able to meet his engagements as indor-
ser and as guardian. His father's estate was impli
cated in this issue to this extent, that his father was
his bondsman, as guardian, at the probate office.
Mr. Boott, under these circumstances, took the course
dictated by the highest sense of honor. He instantly
laid the whole matter before his friends, at least those
of his own family, at the same time calling upon
Messrs. Lyman & Ralston to give him security for his
indorsements. They replied, that he had already secu
rity in his own hands in the reversionary shares of
their wives in the trust funds, which they were ready
legaUy to assign to him for this purpose. This would
not answer, and a long negotiation ensued, which ended
in Mr. Boott's joining in a mortgage of the Foundery
property, to the amount of $30,000, for theU benefit.
In the summer of 1831 a new alarm as to their
responsibility occurred, and Mr. Kirk Boott applied to
me to undertake the bringing about of some settlement,
stating that he and Mr. Brooks had tried their hand at
it and faUed. This was the first knowledge I had of

78
the nature and extent of these embarrassments, though
rumors had reached me of Lyman & Ralston's troubles,
and I had entertained an apprehension that Mr. Wright
Boott might be involved in them.
I declined at first, but was at last prevaUed upon to
attempt it. 1 called on Mr. Boott, and received from
him a fuU exposition of his affairs. The Foundery was
supposed to be doing a good business ; and their
accounts showed a profit, which had been applied to
the enlargement of the works. This concern owed no
debts, except one of $2500, to Colonel Thorndike. It
had, however, been mortgaged the year before for the
personal benefit of Lyman & Ralston. Mr. Boott repre
sented himself as exceedingly anxious to save that
house from bankruptcy, both for his sisters' sake, and
because he might become involved in their embarrass
ments. After this exposition of Mr. Boott's affairs, I became
satisfied, and so assured him, that he was quite need
lessly alarmed ; that, if Lyman & Ralston should faU,
it was hardly possible, that out of their debt to him,
and his half of the Foundery property, he should not
realize enough to enable him to discharge aU his UabUi-
ties, and have a handsome property left ; and I much
regretted, that motives of pride or deUcacy had prevent
ed him from consulting his friends, not members of the
family, the preceding year, when the adjustment could
have been more easily effected.
Mr. Boott expressed himself ready to make any
sacrifice of his own property necessary to effect the
object of averting the bankruptcy of Lyman & Ralston,

79

provided that he should be guaranteed from further
responsibUity, and should realize enough from his de
mand against the firm to pay any balance he might
owe on his guardianship accounts.
I undertook the negotiation, but it was some weeks
before I succeeded in bringing it to a successful issue.
The terms were briefly these. The whole property in
the MUldam Foundery was to be sold to a joint
stock company, to be created for that purpose, who
were to take upon themselves the debt of $2500 to
Colonel Thorndike ; the mortgage made the preceding
year was to be discharged ; Messrs. Lyman & Ralston
were to pay at once $16,000 of the indorsed paper,
and Mr. Boott was to continue his indorsement for
$14,000 for the term of one year ; they were to assign
to Mr. Boott their reversionary interest in the real and
personal estate of Mr. Boott, senior, and to pay him
$7,624, by their note, with coUateral security, payable
in two years, with interest; they were also to give
secm-ity for the outstanding indorsements. AU these
stipulations were fulfiUed ; and the collateral security
remained in my hands, until the indorsed notes and
their note for $7,624 had been paid in full
This is a simple statement of what occurred at this
dark period of Mr. Boott's Ufe. What did it amount
to? In itself, to nothing more than a little too much
confidence in the stabiUty of the house of Lyman &
Ralston, a confidence quite excusable, from Mr. Ral
ston's personal character, and the fact, that his father
was a man of large property.
But how does Mr. Brooks treat it ? On the strength

80
of a mere pencU memorandum, unsigned and without
date or caption, and relying on his memory after a
lapse of sixteen years to interpret that memorandum,
he undertakes to put us in possession of the whole
state of Mr. Boott's property and UabUities, and to
found upon these reminiscences, charges of utter in
solvency and of a reckless and unprincipled use of the
property of others ; charges deliberately made after fuU
time for consideration, against the memory of his wife's
brother. To show what Mr. Brooks's reminiscences are worth
after such a lapse of time, I wUl adduce a single
instance. He says (p. 49), that in February, 1835, Mr.
Boott settled his accounts as guardian ; that he for
a long time insisted upon making up the accounts
with interest compounded at frequent intervals, and
that the compound interest so to have been aUowed
"would have made a difference of $10,000 in the
amount to be paid."
Now I happen to have, among the papers received
in my capacity of executor to Mr. Boott, an original
letter, which I wrote to him on this very subject. It is
as foUows : Boston, October 21, 1834.
John W. Boott, Esq.
My Dear Sir,
The mode of computing interest, which you have adopted, is
one very unreasonably favorable to the minors. If you do not
think proper to charge any commission for your services of nearly
twenty years, which, considering the present relative situation of
the parties, so different from what it was at the opening of the
account, and different owing to your good judgment and exertions

81

in their behalf, is an excess of liberality on your part, — if, not
withstanding all these considerations, you persist in not charging
them any thing for your services, you surely have done enough,
without allowing them an exorbitant rate of interest for the sums
which have lain in your hands. I roughly went over one of the
accounts, the other day, on the principle of allowing no interest on
income until it became funded by being added to the principal on
the following first of January, and found that this would make a
difference of about $800, or, on the three accounts, of $2500.
1 should like to see you upon this subject whenever you are at
leisure. Yours truly, J. A. LOWELL.

Here then it appears that the difference in the modes
of computing interest would have been $2,500, instead
of $10,000, to which it has grown when refracted
through the prism of Mr. Brooks's memory ! If all his
statements of sums are to be divided by four, it wUl
make a material difference in the result. Tet nearly
the whole of this book, so far as money matters are
concerned, rests on Mr. Brooks's memory.
To return to the state of things in 1830-31. A
careful perusal of Mr. Bark Boott's letters, published in
Mr. Brooks's Appendix, shows, that the whole trouble
grew, as I stated above, out of the fear that Lyman &
Ralston might fail. No bad management of the Foun
dery business is anywhere hinted at. Mr. Boott mere
ly says (App. p. 21), that it was doubtful whether
any profit had yet been derived from carrying on
those works ; and again, that, if a profit could be
shown equal to the support of the works, and the grad-
11

82

ual Uquidation of the debts (of Lyman & Ralston),
it might be a judicious course to go on; and that
he wiU send down his clerk, Mr. Tufts, to examine the
books with the view of determining this point. The
result of Mr. Tufts's investigation is not given ; but the
works were permitted to go on.
It is also to be remarked, that not the slightest hint
is given in these letters that Mr. Boott was indebted to
the estate of his father beyond the amount of his trust
fund ; or that any of the capital of that fund had been
employed in the business of the Foundery. The ap
prehension expressed throughout is, lest Mr. Boott
should be obliged to pay his indorsements for Lyman
& Ralston, and lest the Milldam property should be
attached for their debts ; in which case the debt due to
the children of Mrs. F. Boott must be paid out of the
trust fund, and Mrs. K. Boott's income be thereby
diminished. Mr. J. Wright Boott, himself, in a letter to his
brother Eark, when commenting upon the reluctance
of Lyman & Ralston to join in an assignment of the
MiUdam property to secure the guardianship accounts,
and by consequence the estate of his father, who was
his bondsman, says (App. p. 17), "I am bound, hand
and foot, and can do nothing of myself It is, cer
tainly, equally for the interest of the heirs that the
fund left to my mother should be made good ; it will
come to them eventuaUy." Not a word about his ow
ing any thing to the heirs beyond the trust fund;
though if he had owed such a debt, it would have been
stiU more obviously for the interest of Messrs. Lyman

83

& Ralston to join in securing that, for it would have
come to them not eventually, but immediately.
An attempt, indeed, is made by Mr. Brooks to create
the idea in the mind of a casual reader that such a
debt was due, by carefuUy italicizing the word executor,
wherever it occurs ; as, for instance, a proposal is men
tioned (App. p. 21), "that Lyman should convey to
Robert Ralston aU his interest in the MUldam Foun
dery, as weU as any claim upon J. Wright Boott as
executor, and his reversionary interest in the estate."
Now these expressions of Mr. Elirk Boott are strictly
correct. An executor, who is appointed trustee in a
wUl, may settle his account as executor, whereby his
bondsmen would be discharged, and take out letters of
trust, giving new bonds; or he may administer the
trusts in his capacity of executor, under his old bonds.
The latter was the course pursued by Mr. Wright Boott.
He held the trust funds in his capacity of executor.
The above quotation very properly distinguishes be
tween the trust funds, which were in Mr. Boott's hands
as executor, and the real estate, of which the reversion
had already vested in the heirs.
This same notion of the distinction between a trustee
and an executor is a very old one with Mr. Brooks. He
himself drew up the discharge of the heirs to Mr. Boott,
in 1833, as he says himself (p. 45), and it is " from
aU claims and demands in his capacity as executor."
The intention certainly was to discharge him only so
far as the property beyond the amount of the trust
fund was concerned ; yet it would admit of a doubt,
whether this instrument did not discharge him also

84

from aU UabiUty for the trust fund itself, which he cer
tainly held " in his capacity of executor." This was,
to say the least, exceedingly careless ; with a man of
honor, like Mr. Boott, no risk was incurred by this
phraseology ; it hardly behoves Mr. Brooks, however,
to be too severe on mere errors of form.
This same practice of conveying a false impression
by italicizing certain words or passages, is curiously
exempUfied in another instance.
Mr. Brooks says (p. 94), that Mr. Boott had thoughts
about this time of resigning his executorship, the
inference being, that it was from some consciousness
of malversation. Not one word of proof is brought for
ward of any such intention. Mr. Boott speaks, in
his letter to Mr. Kirk Boott, above quoted, of his wish
" that the property should be taken out of his hands to
be appropriated as he first pointed out." This property
could not be his trust fund, for no action could be
necessary to take that out of his hands, if he wished to
get rid of it. The property spoken of is the Foundery,
of which an assignment could not be made without the
cooperation of Messrs. Lyman & Ralston. Mr. Brooks,
however, endeavours to create the impression that the
trust funds were intended, by itaUcizing the word
" resignation " in two very curious instances. The first
is where (p. 42) he is citing the terms of a trust
deed, in which certain property is to be held subject to
Mr. Boott's order as executor, or, in case of his death
or resignation, to the order of any future administrator.
This word, inserted in aU such instruments, is empha
sized by Mr. Brooks to authorize his commentary, that

85

his resignation was "then contemplated as a contin
gency not improbable." He might as well have itali
cized the word "death" to show that he even then
contemplated suicide.
Again, the word "resignation" is emphasized in
Mr. Kirk Boott's letter (App. p. 20), in the following
sentence : " Now such an occurrence as this [the refusal
of a bank to discount Lyman & Ralston's paper] being
immediately followed by J. W. Boott' s resignation, for which
no adequate motives cotdd be openly assigned, did not, in
my mind, admit of a doubtful interpretation. William
A. [Appleton] had already made the appUcation, and
several others strongly suspected the cause ; " that is,
suspected that Lyman & Ralston's faUure was at hand.
But what resignation of Mr. J. Wright Boott is here
spoken of? Not as executor, for he never did resign,
and of course no effect, upon anybody's mind, could be
attributed to an event that had not occurred. What
he resigned was, the place of treasurer and agent of
the Suffolk Manufacturing Company, to which he had
been elected, and which he had accepted on the 12th
of January, 1831, and which he resigned on the 15th
of May, 1831, one week before the date of Mr. Kirk
Boott's letter.
These instances show the spirit in which this book is
written. It would be easy to foUow out these misrep
resentations step by step ; but more important matters
claim our attention.
The pencU memorandum brought forward by Mr.
Brooks, is as follows (p. 37) :

86

Mill Dam

70,000

Store

15,000

Note, Wells &.
Lilly
14,000
Sturgis
42,000
21,000
J. A. Lowell
50,000
30,000
Other Shares
19,000
Stable
3,000
213,000
The first column being supposed to represent assets, and
the second, liabUities. Now, suppose this to have been
an exact statement of Mr. Boott's condition, before the
alarm occurred about Lyman & Ralston's solvency,
how did he stand ?
He had property to the amount of $213,000, which
he had every reason to believe worth that sum and a
good deal more. The store he afterwards sold for
$16,000. The debt of WeUs & LUly was secured
by a mortgage of personal property, and was, a few
years later, paid in full. The stable he had recently
bought for the benefit of the estate, supposing, as
he himself informed me, that he thereby acquired a
right of way into Bowdoin street. In this he was mis
taken, and it was eventuaUy sold for $1500. StiU, if
he had made this investment in good faith, and for the
benefit of the estate, he had a right to charge it at the
cost. The manufacturing stock had cost him $9,000
more than the par value at which it is put down in the
memorandum, and he had, clearly, the right to charge
it to the trust fund at the cost.
This brings his assets to $222,000
87

He had, in addition, his reversionary share
of his father's estate, from which he would
eventually reaUze $16,000, 16,000

$238,000

And what were his debts ?

He owed Mr. WUUam Sturgis, for Mr.
Cushing, $21,000
He owed me, for the estate of Jonathan
Amory, 30,000
Balance of his account, as ex
ecutor, $120,284.55
Less the mansion-house, included
in that balance, but not in the
assets above enumerated, 24,000
 96,284.55
Due to the chUdren of Mr. F. Boott, 20,000

$167,284.55
Excess, being Mr. Boott's private fortune, if
we rely upon the pencil memorandum, $70,715.45
It cannot, then, be maintained, that Mr. Boott
had intentionaUy used the property of his father's
estate in the business of the MiUdam Foundery.
The debt of Wells & LUly was one which had grown
out of advances made by Mr. Boott, senior, to his son-
in-law, Mr. Wells, and subsequent advances by Mr.
Wright Boott himself This debt, he expected soon to
realize, and the store in State street was for sale. He

88
had temporarily borrowed, on a pledge of stocks,
$51,000. Of this he expected to repay $30,000 from
the two sources above indicated; and of the stock
pledged, at least $25,000 belonged to himself, as the
result has proved.
That Mr. Boott should have aUowed stocks, which
he had subscribed for as an investment partly for his
trust funds, partly for his wards, and partly for himself,
to stand in his own name unseparated, is certainly
unjustifiable ; and so I have at aU times, and in aU
places, to himself and others, uniformly represented it.
It wUl be remembered, however, that it was not for
merly the practice of executors and trustees to make so
careful a distinction of these forms as is now customary ;
and that merchants, especially, are much accustomed
to owing, and having due to them, large sums on book
account ; and so long as their leger balance is on the
right side, no apprehension, or consciousness of irregu
larity, is entertained on this score.
It wUl, also, not escape observation, that it was per
fectly known in 1830, to all the parties interested, how
this property actually stood; that no objection was made
on that account, and that none is hinted at in the let
ters of Mr. Kirk Boott. More than this ; Mr. Kirk Boott,
during his brother's absence in Europe in 1823, had
the charge of receiving his dividends, and of paying
his assessments, on this same manufacturing stock ; and
therefore had known, for at least seven years, that the
stock stood in his individual name. And, when he
transferred back the twenty-one shares in the Boston
Manufacturing Company in 1826, as above related, he

89

transferred them to Mr. Wright Boott individually, and
not as 'fexecutor.
The utmost that can be made- of it, is that it was an
irregularity ; but, after all, carelessness is not a crime,
nor to be Adsited on Mr. Boott as such, especiaUy after
the lapse of so many years, and when atoned for by so
much suffering as Mr. Kirk Boott's letters represent
his brother to have endured in 1830.
How does Mr. Brooks deal with the condition of
Mr. Wright Boott at that time ? He is bringing for
ward a solemn charge, — for it is one affecting the
character of a gentleman, to whom he himself ascribes
some of the noblest attributes that can adorn human
nature, — and bringing it after that gentleman's lips
are sealed by death. He does not pretend, that Mr.
Boott was at that time insane, nor that his insanity
was, at any period of his Ufe, of a nature to incapaci
tate him for business. It behoves Mr. Brooks, there
fore, to be more than ordinarily guarded, that no injus
tice shall be done by him by any assumption, that is
not based on the clearest and most undeniable proof
How is the fact? In reviewing the condition of
Mr. Boott in 1830, Mr. Brooks deliberately charges
him with being Uable to pay the general debts of
Lyman & Ralston, amounting to $50,000. Now Mr.
Boott never was a partner of that house, nor liable for
their debts, except so far as he indorsed them. I
have the authority of Mr. Ralston for this statement ;
the correctness of which is also apparent on the face of
their settlement, in which provision was made to secure
him for his indorsements of $30,000, and not for their
12

90

general debts amounting to $80,000. And Mr. Brooks
cannot plead, that he did not know this, or had not the
means of knowing it, at the time. For in the letter of
Mr. Kirk Boott to himself of September 29, 1830, pub-
Ushed in his own Appendix (p. 16), are these words :
" For, as they are all partners in as far as the MUldam
Foundery is concerned, if Ralston & Lyman are unable
to meet their payments, or get their notes renewed,
there is fear that the whole of this property may be
taken by attachment," — expressly limiting the part
nership to the MiUdam Foundery. Here then is a
deUberate charge of Fifty Thousaot) Dollars as one
of Mr. Boott's UabUities, for which he was no more
Uable than Mr. Brooks or myself.
In summing up (on p. 39) the state of JMr. Boott's
affairs, not only is this $50,000 put down to his dis
advantage, but a note of WeUs & LUly of $14,000, with
coUateral security, is deducted as unavaUable, though
it was ultimately paid; and $92,000 of factory stock,
pledged for notes on demand for $51,000, is also de
ducted in full, as if any creditor would refuse to take the
right of redemption at its fuU par value of $41,000 ! The
MUldam property, Mr. Boott's half of which had cost
$57,000 independent of advances of about $13,000
more, is also deducted in full, as unavaUable ; though
Mr. Brooks teUs us two pages after (p. 41), that it was
found that $30,000 might be raised upon it by mort
gage, addmg, "as a fi:iendly, rather than a business ar
rangement;"— as if a property costing $114,000, which
there is no pretence was then considered a bad invest
ment, would not at any time have commanded a loan of

91
less than a third of its cost ! Mr. Boott's indorsements
also for $30,000, for which he was liable, in addition
to the $50,000 for which he was not, are put down as a
total loss; as if Lyman & Ralston had absolutely no
assets, though in fact they never did faU, but paid their
debts in fuU !
By aU these assumptions, as curious, as they are
manifestly unfair, Mr. Brooks arrives at the conclusion
(p. 40), that Mr. Boott was "in danger of insolvency,
even if the whole property of the estate were appro
priated to his use." Indeed his summing up shows
liabUities of $100,000, with avaUable assets of only
$37,000 to meet it; in other words, a deficit of
$63,000 !
It is astonishing that Mr. Brooks did not see, that
the extravagance of such statements must defeat their
object. How have things resulted ?
Mr. Boott entered into no mercantUe busi
ness or speculations afterwards ; yet he
paid aU his debts, as enumerated by me
above, amounting to 167,000
and left a property, receivable at the death of
his mother, 48,000

$215,000

And this has been done, according to Mr. Brooks, not
only out of nothing, but in the face of a deficit in 1830,
of $63,000. If this were true, he has certainly shown
financial talents, to which the history of commerce
affords no parallel.

92
Mr. Brooks has the coolness to cite Mr. Kirk Boott
as having been knowing to " this state of affairs," that
is, as indorsing these extravagant statements, and re
fers to his letters in the Appendix. Those letters do
not contain one word to sustain this assertion ; on the
contrary, they expressly contradict him on the point
of Mr. Boott's UabiUty for the §50,000 of Lyman &
Ralston's private debts.
But ;Mr. Brooks says, that Mr. Boott appUed to these
payments a portion of his mother's income. " He [Mr.
Wright Boott] was enabled, by the aid of the large divi
dends which accrued upon that stock, to discharge aU his
personal debts, except the debt to ]Mr. LoweU." (p. 57.)
And elsewhere he specffies the sum so appUed as
"about $60,000." (p. 142.)
Let us look at this a Uttle more narrowly. Mrs.
Boott's income, as shown by the accounts, had been
for twenty-seven years $275,000, or a little more than
$10,000 a year. For the thirteen years from 1831 to
1844, the gross income of all the manufacturing stock
did not exceed $12,000 a year. It should be remem
bered, that Mr. Boott held, through aU this period,
stocks which had cost him $120,000, whUe the trust
fund for his mother was precisely $100,000. He had,
therefore, a perfect right to retain one sixth part of the
income of those stocks, amounting, as I have said, to
$12,000 ; that is, he had a right to retain $2,000 a
year to be appropriated to his own use, or to the pay
ment of the principal and interest of his debts. It
was for this very purpose, that the debt to me was
permitted to continue, instead of being paid off by a
sale of a portion of the stock in 1831.

93

Mrs. Boott's income, therefore, during the thirteen
years in question, did not exceed $10,000 a year. A
reasonably large income, too, from a fund of $100,000.
From this income, Mr. Boott remitted to his mother
about $6,000 a year ; not $5,000 as Mr. Brooks, with
his usual accuracy, asserts. I have before me a precise
statement of those remittances, and the average is
between $5,900 and $6,000 a year. In addition to
this, Mrs. Boott's establishment in Bowdoin square was
to be kept up. Mr. Brooks calls it (p. 108) Mr. Boott's
" own establishment," though it is notorious that it was
Mrs. Boott's, and was kept up at her request. It was, in
fact, the common home of the family. Mr. Wells's
family dined there when in town. Mr. and Mrs. Ralston
stayed there when in Boston ; Mr. and Mrs. Brooks
visited there frequently before their quarrel with Mr.
Wright Boott. Mrs. Brooks, in one of her letters, speaks
of dining there, as usual, on Christmas day with the
family. It was the home of two of Mrs. Boott's grand
sons, and of Mr. Kirk Boott, and of Mr. William
Boott, when in Boston. In short, it was Mrs. Boott's
pride and pleasure, that this estabUshment should be
kept up on its ancient footing.
To do this, as well as to pay Mrs. Boott's taxes, and
such sums as she might order to be expended here from
time to time, sums, to my knowledge, often considera
ble, there was left but $4,000 a year. Mr. Brooks
speaks (p. 58) of his "observation of the excessive
expenditure which was constantly going on." And Mr.
WUliam Boott, in a letter to Dr. Boott of December 31,
1844, styles it " the most expensive bachelor estabUsh
ment in Boston."

94
I think the reader wUl agree with me, that to keep
up such an estabUshment as I have described, and
to pay taxes on this whole property, to say nothing of
other disbursements, for four thousand doUars a year,
required, what in fact the whole famUy know was prac
tised, the most rigid economy. Mr. WiUiam Boott him
self, in a letter to Mrs. Ralston of March 24,1844,
says : " The expense of the estabUshment, added to
the interest of the money for which it [the estate]
would seU, and the saving in taxes, wiU make up about
$7,000 per annum," This estimate of ]\Ir. WUUam
Boott supposes the expense of the establishment and
the taxes to amount to about $4,300 a year. At aU
events, it is perfectly obvious that Mr. Boott could
have derived nothing from this source, to enable him to
pay the $167,000 of debt, and Mi-. Brooks's fancied
deficit of $63,000 into the bargain!
In the face of this notorious fact, that Mrs. Boott was
keeping up a double estabUshment, in England and in
this country, on an income of $10,000 a year, INIr. Brooks
does not hesitate to style the charge of $275,000 paid
to, or for account and by order of, the widow, during
twenty-seven years, "fictitious." (p. 116.)
After commenting upon ^Mr. Boott's position in relar
tion to the affairs of the MiUdam Foundery in 1831,
Mr. Brooks goes on to give a history of his further pro
ceedings in relation to his property and UabUities ; and
this he does with a confidence of statement, that leaves
no doubt on the mind of the reader that he is relating
events, concerning which he was consulted throughout,
or of which, at least, he was cognizant at the time,

95

and concerning which he cannot be mistaken. So far
is this from being true, that the narrative is fuU of
such inaccuracies as prove, either that the whole is
merely a bold conjecture from the "documents" re
cently collected for his own justification, or else that
his memory is signaUy treacherous.
I wUl exempUfy this in a single instance. He teUs
us, (p. 46) : " The store in State street Mr. Wright
Boott had been enabled to sell for $1000 more than it
had been estimated at in his memorandum. The pro
ceeds ($16,000) and receipts from dividends on the
manufacturing stock had enabled him to pay off his
debt of $21,000 to Mr. Sturgis, and to relieve the
forty-two shares of the Merrimack stock which had
been pledged in that quarter. But, in the mean time,
he had been obUged to rely on Mr. LoweU, I pre
sume, for some further aid ; for, in the course of these
transactions, twenty-one of those shares appear to have
been transferred to Mr. LoweU, who already held am
ple security for his former loan of $30,000 ; the remain
ing twenty-one shares were now restored to Mr. Wright
Boott in his capacity of executor."
Mr. Brooks here undertakes to state, as from his
own knowledge, not only that Mr. Boott paid the debt
to Mr. Sturgis, but also from what sources he derived
the money for such payment.
It is a very important question, what degree of reU-
ance is to be placed upon a statement so deUberately
made and so circumstantial in its detaUs. The ques
tion is easUy resolved.
Mr. Boott did not pay the debt to Mr. Sturgis at

96

the time and from the sources specified. I paid the
^21,000 to Mr. Sturgis, and took the debt to my ac
count, as trustee, at the request of Mr. Boott, who pre
ferred to be indebted to me alone. The effect of the
transaction was to relieve one half of the stock which
had been pledged to Mr. Sturgis ; as the shares which I
already held, with the twenty-one shares transferred to
me by him, amply secured me for the whole .of my
advances. If Mr. Brooks had stated these matters hypotheti-
cally, no great harm would have been done ; although
the propriety of hazarding mere conjectures in bring
ing forward grave accusations may weU be questioned.
It wUl be observed, however, that these things are
stated as facts, and within the writer's knowledge ;
and that one of the points stated is, that Mr. Boott
derived from the dividends on the manufacturing stock,
in part, the means of paying his debt to Mr. Sturgis.
Now, such an error as the above, however innocent
in its inception, is very apt to lead to the most unjust
conclusions. This is eminently the case in the present
instance ; for Mr. Brooks occupies nearly two pages in
specifying, and commenting upon, certain payments,
amounting to about $10,000, made by himself to Mr.
Wright Boott, from funds which he held in trust for Mr.
Boott. These payments, he says, were made upon the
understanding, expressed or implied, that they were to
be employed towards the reduction of Mr. Boott's debt
to me. Laboring, however, under the preconceived
opinion that the Sturgis debt had been paid, and
that my debt was only $30,000, and finding my debt

97
to be stUl $25,000, he draws the inference, or endeav
ours to make his readers draw it, that Mr. Boott had
deceived him in this matter, and had not applied this
money as he had agreed to do.
Had Mr. Brooks known or remembered (as the case
may be), that Mr. Boott's debt to me after January,
1834, was $46,000, and not $25,000, as he alleges, he
would have spared me the pain of refuting the follow
ing imputation on the memory of Mr. Boott :
" Mr. Wright Boott had not so managed his affairs,
during those thirteen years [from 1831 to 1844], as to
have been able to reduce the debt one dollar, notwith
standing that he had received from me, within the first
three years of the series, by payment, either to himself
or to Mr. LoweU, upwards of $10,000, for that specific
object:' (p. 48.)
How cruel this imputation appears, when the truth
comes to be told, that Mr. Boott reduced his debt to
me TwENTF-six Thousand Dollars during those very
thirteen years !
On such unsubstantial speculations is this whole
matter of impeachment based ; carefuUy investigated,
they aU vanish, " And, like the baseless fabric of a vision.
Leave not a rack behind."
I shaU now show, that Mr. Boott was, in substance,
whatever he might be in form, a remarkably good
manager of trust property.
All his old contemporaries in trade wUl bear witness,
that he was an energetic and accurate man of business.
13

98
His accounts were as carefuUy kept as those of any
other merchant. Of those of his wards, annuaUy com
puted and settled during the time that I was in the house,
I stiU possess copies in his o-\vn handwriting. Mr. Kirk
Boott's letter to Mr. Brooks (App. p. 15) shows, that he
was in 1826 on the eve of settUng with his brother,
and was preparing to settle the estate. He therefore
had accounts at that time ; and it is not to be presumed
that Mr. Kirk Boott, himself a most exact man, made
that settlement without receiving credit for the precise
amount of his patrimony. Why Mr. Wright Boott did
not then settle with the other heirs, and how it hap
pened that, eleven years after receiving a discharge, he
had not all the items and vouchers of his old accounts,
I have already explained.
I wiU not now cite the result of his management of
his father's estate, although to reaUze $10,000 a year
for twenty-seven years, from a fund of $100,000, is cer
tainly a case very much in point. As this is the very
matter at issue, I wUl take, in preference, another set
of accounts, concerning which Mr. Brooks has charged
him with " unfaithfulness." I refer to his accounts as
guardian to the four chUdren of his cousin, jNIr. Francis
Boott. I will take one of the accounts as a sample,
(and they do not materiaUy differ in result.)
Mr. Boott received in 1817, for his ward, $12,500
He paid for her expenses, in the eigh
teen years from 1817 to 1834 inclusive,
$11,394.56, or a little more than five per
cent, a year, and paid over to her, on set
tlement, property amounting to 27,609.75

99

That is to say, after spending the interest of the
original capital at five per cent., it had more than
doubled under his care. With respect to his having had
a part of the money in his own hands, at times, pajdng
interest therefor, I am authorized by Judge Loring to
state, that the accounts were annually made up and sub
mitted to Mrs.F. Boott, the investments being explained,
and thoroughly understood and approved by her.
That so brUUant a result was not attained by taking
unusual risks, wiU appear by the items of investment.
14 shares Columbian Bank, at $104, $1,456
4 " Eagle " at $102 1, 409.50
97 " Suffolk Insurance Company, 3,496.76
100 " National " " at par, 5,000
2 " Merrimack Manufacturing Com
pany, at $1052, 2,104.07
1 " Boston Manufacturing Co. 1,193.83
3 " Lawrence " " at $900, 2,700
2 " Locks and Canals, at par, 1,000
2 " LoweU RaUroad, at $400, 800
5 « Merchants' Ins. Co., at $120, 600
Cash, 8,849.59
$27,609.75
If any one can point to a more successful administrar
tion of a trust fund, I should much Uke to see it.
I shaU now cite the testimony of a person, whose
competency to judge, Mr. Brooks wUl hardly dispute,
and who, knowing all the facts of those embarrassments

100
on which Mr. Brooks has laid such stress, expressed
concerning Mr. Boott the opinions I shaU quote.
The following letter was written at the time when
Mr. Boott had it in contemplation to resign his office of
Treasurer of the Suffolk Manufacturing Company, on
the duties of which he had not yet entered. His mo
tive was the difficulty he had experienced in bringing
his connection with the MiUdam Foundery to a close,
and his reluctance to enter into new engagements,
pending that coimection. Waltham, 8th May, I83I.
My Dear Sir,
The confidence and candor with which you explained to me your
situation, when we conversed on the subject of your taking charge
of the business of the Suffolk Manufacturing Company, leads me
to hope you will not be displeased, if I take the liberty of giv
ing my opinion as to the course necessary for you to pursue.
The time has arrived when you should give bond as Treas
urer, and enter upon the duties of your office. That this has not
been done, I believe arises from a reluctance on your part to settle
up your accounts, which I suppose must be done, before you can
give the necessary bond ; if I am right in my conjecture as to the
cause of the delay, will you allow me to urge you to overcome this
reluctance, and to proceed immediately to the settlement of your
affairs, more particularly those of your own family, so as to com
mence your new business with that energy, which I know you will
exert as soon as you have freed yourself from the weight which
now oppresses you.
When I engaged your services for the Suffolk Company, I felt
assured that I had rendered them a service in obtaining a man well
qualified to manage their affairs. The frank and candid manner, in
which you explained your situation to me, produced no other alter
ation in my mind, than as it confirmed the opinion I had previously
entertained of your perfect uprightness and integrity, and made
me, if possible, better satisfied with my selection.

101

That you were poorer than I had supposed, I regretted for your
sake ; but I did not think this disqualified you for the office ; nor do
I now think so. If, however, you are under any engagements or
embarrassments, which you cannot get rid of, and which will oc
cupy your time and thoughts, this may be a reason why you should
decline taking charge of business for others. From your state
ments, I feel certain, that, with some exertion, you can free your
self from what now appears to you a heavy burden, to be borne
for ever.
If you think my remarks are too free, believe that I have made
them from a sincere desire to serve you, and that I am very truly,
and with much esteem and regard. Your friend, P. T. JACKSON.
J. W. Boott, Esq.

It seems, then, that Mr. Boott, with the candor and
high sense of honor, which so eminently distinguished
him, had not deemed it proper to accept an appoint
ment of trust, without disclosing to Mr. Jackson his
true position in relation to his family and to the Mill
dam Foundery. The character attributed to him by
Mr. Brooks forbids the supposition, that he made any
but a fuU and fair disclosure. And what is the infer
ence drawn by Mr. Jackson ? He is confirmed in the
opinion he had previously entertained of Mr. Boott's
perfect uprightness and integrity, and, if possible, bet
ter satisfied than ever with his selection of him as an
agent. Another thing, also, is to be noted. Mr. Jack
son finds him poorer than he had expected ; — not bank
rupt, not a defaulter, but simply poorer. This is a
contemporaneous exposition, from the highest author
ity, to be offset against Mr. Brooks's reminiscences.

102
In another letter, addressed to Kirk Boott, Esq., Mr.
Jackson mentions an intention of employing Mr. Wright
Boott to purchase the iron, then wanted from England
for the Boston and Lowell RaUroad.
Boston, 30th May, 1831.
Dear Sir,
Your note of last evening is received. I will endeavour to see
you in town to-morrow.
I should like much to have J. W. Boott go to England ; and it can
easily be arranged, if the Suffolk Company can find some good per
son to take his place. J. A. L. and I agree, that he cannot well con
firm his resignation there, and immediately take another business ;
besides which, we think now is the time, if ever, when he should
settle every thing and free himself from all engagements and
responsibility on old concerns. This done, he is then competent
to take charge of the Suffolk business ; and it appears to me that
his services are due there, if they demand them.
If I don't see you, John will explain this more at large ; and I
think you will see, that a regard for his own reputation will hold
him bound to the Suffolk Company, if they want him.
If this can be settled satisfactorily, I am sure he is the best man
we can send to England. Yours truly,
P. T. JACKSON.
By this letter it appears that Mr. Jackson was in
correspondence with Mr. Kirk Boott on the subject of
employing his brother in a business, in which large
sums of money must necessarUy be intrusted to him,
and where great accuracy and fideUty were required in
the management. Now, is it to be beUeved, unless Mr.
Brooks means to impeach the character of Mr. Kirk
Boott also, that that gentleman would have recom-

103
mended, or allowed to be selected, a person who had
been guUty of the moral deUnquencies attributed by
Mr. Brooks to Mr. J. Wright Boott ?
That this plan of sending Mr. Boott to England on
business of the railroad originated with Mr. Kirk
Boott, appears from the foUowing note to his brother,
inclosing the foregoing letter from Mr. Jackson.
My Dear Wright,
I should have conversed with you last evening on the subject of
the inclosed, but was inclined to first sleep upon it. You will per
ceive, that I have urged your being sent to England, and that you
are considered the most suitable person.
J. A. L. offered, and offers, to go on to Philadelphia for the
purpose of arranging with the Ralstons as to your indorsements
and the mortgage ; and I believe he would find little difficulty in
settling them.
The reversionary interest of Lyman & Ralston in the estate is,
in fact, some security, and might be substituted for your name.
The Milldam might be divided according to your respective in
terests, the whole deeded to L. & R., and a mortgage given by
them for the amount due you as executor.
This would entirely free you from all responsibilities, and leave
you free to make your election as to your future occupation ; and
certainly not put L. & R. in any worse condition than they are at
present. What objections are there to this course .'' I cannot discover any
on account of L. & R., and none in relation to yourself, unless it
be the confiding a delicate and not very agreeable business to a
third party. This is due to you from J. A. L. He feels it to be
so ; and it will give him great satisfaction, if he can bring the affair
to a successful termination.
However litrie you are inclined to think of yourself at this mo
ment, I do consider it of the utmost importance to your future hap
piness and usefulness, that you should be relieved from your embar-

104

rassments. Your earnings you can then dispose of as you please,
and at some time you will estimate this advantage differendy from
what you do now.
I hope to be able to go home to-morrow, and to meet Jackson at
Lowell. May I beg you to give this subject a calm and dispas
sionate consideration, and to acquaint me with the result before I
go. That you may come to the same conclusion that I have, I do
most fervently hope. Your affectionate brother,
KIRK BOOTT.
Wednesday Morning.
What a spontaneous tribute Mr. Kirk Boott here pays
to his brother's disinterestedness, who, through Ufe, as
at that moment, thought little of himself and much of
others. This letter is interesting on another account.
It shows that Mr. Kirk Boott knew, and speaks of it as
an admitted fact, that Lyman & Ralston were indebted
to Mr. Wright Boott, as executor, and not he to them.
If they could secure him as indorser, and pay him the
amount due to him as executor, this, Mr. Kirk Boott
says, " would entirely free you from aU responsibUi-
ties." How so, if Mr. Boott was then reaUy owing the
heirs of his father $90,000 and upwards, as Mr. Brooks
pretends ?
This is another contemporaneous exposition, to be
offset against Mr. Brooks's reminiscences.
Mr. Kirk Boott's letter to Mr. Brooks himself, of May
22, 1831, published in his own Appendix (p. 20),
is sufficient evidence, if any were needed, of the opin
ion he entertained of his brother's character and quaU-
fications.

105

" I do not," says he, " under all circumstances, think it very
important that J. W. B. should take the agency of the Suffolk
Company. My wish would be to have him sent to England
for the railroad. This would take a year, and to procure the
agency of the new concern * for him on his return. The advan
tages of this course are — that such a change would turn the whole
current of his ideas, throw him much upon the world, and afford
him an opportunity of procuring much information that is wanted,
and which would give him a consideration with those concerned
with us. He is admirably qualified for this purpose, and I do hope
and believe it all might be effected. At all events, it could be
speedily ascertained. The new concern, too, would be a much
better field for him."
To suppose that Mr. Kirk Boott entertained the
views of INIr. Wright Boott's administration of the trust
funds, now attributed to him by Mr. Brooks, at the
moment he was thus urging his claims to be appointed
treasurer and agent of the Lawrence Manufacturing
Company, with a capital of a million of dollars, is as
much a Ubel on Mr. Kirk Boott's memory as on that
of his brother. Is not the inference very reasonable,
that Mr. Edward Brooks, to Avhom this letter was ad
dressed, did not himself, at that time, entertain them ?
Besides which, is it credible, that Mr. Kirk Boott,
who was then far from being rich, would have aUow
ed the trust funds, under his father's will, to remain in
the charge of a person who had administered them as is
represented by Mr. Brooks ? Nay, would Mr. Brooks
himself have done so ? He affects, indeed, a lofty in
difference to mere pecuniary considerations in his own
* The new concern, here spoken of, was the Lawrence Manufacturing
Company, at Lowell, then just starting, with the object of making and
printing calicoes. 14

106

person ; but did he extend the same indifference to the
interests of aU the rest of the family ? He has been
one of the trustees under Mr. Kirk Boott's wUl since
1838, and on this subject he gives us to understand
that he is pecuUarly sensitive ; how happened it that
he remained quiescent for six years ? Why was his
conscience dormant during that long period, to awaken
only when, as I shall presently show, he had come to
be on terms of personal hostiUty with Mr. Boott ?
It is a little too much, to ask the pubUc to believe,
that he ever seriously thought Mr. Boott to be the man
this pamphlet would represent him, tUl he had become
blinded by his own excited feelings of animosity.
It is very evident that he did not beUeve, at that
time, in any such default and insolvency as he now
attempts to make out ; and, even now, he is evidently
conscious that they are not satisfactorUy accounted
for by his own exaggerated picture of the imaginary
losses of the second firm of Kirk Boott & Sons. Ac
cordingly, not content with having shown how Mr.
Boott lost his private fortune, he goes a step further,
and undertakes to intimate (p. 114), that he never had
any to lose :
" So far as I am informed, he [Mr. Wright Boott]
had no opportunity of making any thing considerable
before he went into partnership with his father. That
partnership had existed only two or three years, at the
time of his father's death, and by its terms five per cent.
was to be paid upon the capital employed, which must
have been furnished by his father, before any division
of profits, of which his share was to be one fourth.

107
Although he was commonly supposed, therefore, to be
worth some $50,000, or more, when 1 first knew him, I
am incUned to believe, that he was reaUy worth nothing,
after the winding up of the affairs of Kirk Boott &
Sons' second concern."
If Mr. Brooks had stated nothing, except so far as
he was really informed, he would have omitted a large
portion of his book. Mr. Wright Boott came of age
in May, 1809, and was probably admitted as a partner
in the house on the 1st of February following. At all
events, I find in the New England Palladium of Sep
tember 11, 1810, an advertisement of a large stock of
goods recently imported by Kirk Boott & Son. The
father di^d in January, 1817 ; so that, instead of two
or three years, as Mr. Brooks, without quaUfication,
asserts, he had then been a partner of the house about
seven years, — in fact during nearly the whole of
that period when, according to Mr. Pratt (p. 113),
Mr. Boott, senior, had been engaged in trade success-
fully. The settlement effected vdth Messrs. Lyman & Ral
ston, in September, 1831, affords a good opportunity of
testing the accuracy of Mr. Brooks's memory.
It is represented by him as a transaction very
deeply impressed upon his mind.
" I beUeve," he says, " I do remember that settle
ment pretty well." Here is a case, where he is very
sure that he cannot be mistaken. Tet, strange as it
may seem, he does not remember a single item of that
settlement. He says, over and over again, that Mr.
Boott's investment there was " sunk " (p. 134) ; — that

108
a release from his indorsements of $30,000 "was the
only advantage ever realized by Mr. Wright Boott from
the $70,000 invested by him in the MUldam specula
tion" (p. 41) ; — that, as part of this settlement, "it
was finaUy arranged, that this mortgage should be made
of the MUldam property to raise the $30,000 " (p. 41) ;—
and that " the mortgagee, who was one of Mr. Ralston's
family, afterwards took possession, and foreclosed the
mortgage." (p. 42.)
Not one of these statements has a shadow of truth.
Mr. Wright Boott received by that settlement, besides
the reversions of his two sisters, which wUl be worth at
his mother's death $32,000, a payment in cash, or its
equivalent, of $7,624, making in aU nearly $40,000.
The mortgage in question was not created as part
of that settlement ; on the other hand, it Avas expressly
stipulated in the agreement, that it shoiUd be taken
up, as a preliminary step to aU further proceedings.
It was accordingly discharged in Oclobei-, 1831, and
of course it was never foreclosed.
Subsequent events have made Mr. Brooks famUiar
with the fact, that Mr. Boott's sisters assigned to him
their reversionary interests ; but he asserts (p. 41), that
this was a condition insisted on by ]\lr. Boott, before he
would join in the mortgage of the MUldam Foundery ;
whereas that mortgage was made the year before, and
the money went to the relief of those ladies' husbands.
Mr. Brooks moreover says (p. 134), that Mr. Boott's
capital in the MUldam Foundery, amounting by his
own statement to $70,000, amounted, with interest, in
his (Mr. Brooks's) judgment, to much more, before the
concern was finaUy wound up.

109
Again (p. 46) ; " The business of the MiUdam Foun
dery, so far as Mr. Wright Boott's concern in it extend
ed, was gradually wound up, leaving the residuum
subject to the mortgage above mentioned, in which it
was finaUy absorbed."
And again (p. 115) ; " I presume, before the busi
ness was finaUy wound up, his loss there, including
interest, was not much short of $100,000."
I do not doubt, that such is Mr. Brooks's judgment ;
and his presumption is undeniable. But he is evidently
ignorant, that, by the settlement of 1831, Mr. Boott
parted with his whole right, title, and interest in the
MiUdam Foundery, and had no more to do with its
winding up, or the subsequent gain or loss, than Mr.
Brooks or I had.
In short, Mr. Brooks has not stated one single con
dition of that settlement aright.
By this time, I think, it must be pretty evident that
Mr. Brooks has undertaken to enUghten the public
about transactions, of which he never knew any thing,
or which he has completely forgotten.
The settlement with Messrs. Lyman & Ralston was
made by myself in behalf of Mr. Wright Boott, and all
the original papers are stUl in my possession. Mr.
Boott took especial care to have that settlement made
upon a basis, that would enable him to discharge all his
obUgations to others. That his calculations were accu
rately made, is proved by the result, viz. that, when he
finaUy settled his account, he had property in his hands
sufficient to pay his debt to the estate of Jonathan
Amory, without encroaching upon his trust funds.

110
Had any adverse circumstance disappointed his just
expectations, he stiU had a reversionary interest of
one third of the estate, worth at his mother's death
$48,000, to fall back upon ; so that, in no event, could
any one have lost any thing by him. Tet this exact
ness of calculation, proving how completely he under
stood his affairs, is made use of by Mr. Brooks, as a
coincidence affording ground of suspicion. And Mrs.
Brooks, in her letter to her mother (App. p. 49), says,
that her brother had brought in " his accounts in such
a way as to make it appear as if the estate was in debt
to him $25,000, just the amount of his private debt to
Mr. LoweU, when, by his own showing, even at his own
high estimates, your $100,000 is not entire, and when
WilUam has not been paid any part of his portion."
With this choice extract, I wiU now dismiss this por
tion of the subject, and turn to the question of Mr.
Boott's supposed insanity.
This is not, of course, Uke matters of account, sus
ceptible of direct proof, and must ever be, to some
extent, differently viewed by different minds. I wiU
endeavour to examine it dispassionately.
It is not pretended, that Mr. Boott at any time
labored under a general insanity, or one which disa
bled him from taking his part in the ordinary inter
course of Ufe. Had such been pretended, a host of
witnesses would have been ready to bear theU testi
mony to his clearness of inteUect, tranquiUity of de
portment, and urbanity of manners.
What is alleged is, that Mr. Boott had a mono-

Ill

mania, or partial insanity, manifesting itself in insane
suspicions that certain of his nearest relations were
inimical to him, and leagued together for his injury ;
that such suspicions were founded in a mere delusion ;
and that their effect was, to keep him in a state of con
stant irritation, which broke out at intervals with great
Aiolence. Such a form of insanity is by no means uncommon,
and is detected at once whenever a conversation hap
pens to turn on the persons or transactions, that form
the objects of suspicion.
It is necessary, however, to be well assured, — before
the mere existence of such suspicions, or any violence
consequent upon them, is received as evidence of
insanity, — not merely that they are unfounded in fact,
but that the party entertaining them had no rational
grounds for his belief For, no matter how false they
were in themselves, no insanity can be inferred, if
there was reasonable ground for entertaining them, —
or even such ground as would be sufficient to influence
a person, not insane, laboring under any of the various
passions, which agitate the human breast. A prima
fade case might, perhaps, in the latter instance, be
made out, subject to refutation on proving the exist
ence of such passion in the mind of the person sus
pected of insanity.
The first point of inquiiy, then, is, whether Mr. Boott
had any rational ground for the belief, that certain
members of his famUy were inimical to, and leagued
against him.
I shall begin with Mr. and Mrs. Brooks, whose quarrel

112

with him appears to have had the earliest origin. It
seems, that, during the summer of 1842, Mrs. Brooks
had been writing to her mother in England, complain
ing of the mode of living of the famUy in Bowdoin
square, and especially that the sons of Mr. WeUs, who
were at that time residing in their grandmother's
house, got up late in the morning, smoked cigars after
breakfast, &c.
How early these complaints were made, or reached
the ears of Mr. Wright Boott, or what anterior causes
of offence he may have had with his sister, we are
not informed ; but certain it is, that this interference,
as he considered it, and underhand attempt to injure
him with his mother, was not very agreeable to Mr.
Boott ; and he especially resented the terms in which
she spoke of his nephew, William B. WeUs, a young
gentleman of most amiable deportment and exemplary
character, who was beloved and respected by aU who
had the pleasure of his acquaintance. Though natu-
raUy offended at these letters of jNIrs. Brooks, Mr.
Boott manifested his displeasure by no violent re
proaches, nor by any angry letters or messages ; but,
with that gentleness that ordinarily marked his charac
ter, he satisfied himself with treating her, and her hus
band, at whose instigation he beUeved her to have
written, with marked coldness. Could he weU have
done less? That I may not be suspected of giving
any undue coloring to this recital, I subjoin an au
thority which Mr. Brooks wUl hardly dispute. It is a
statement made by Mrs. Brooks herself, and inclosed,
on a separate sheet of paper, in a letter to Dr. Francis
Boott, of November 30, 1842.

113

MRS. BROOKS S STATEIVIENT.

Wright, for many years, even before mother left home, has
treated Edward with the most marked indignity and caprice ; often
refusing to speak to him, when we have called on him, and taking
no notice of him at the family dinners, not even asking him to
partake of any of the dishes he might be carving. This has been
submitted to for the sake of family peace ! Till Christmas, 1841 ,
he behaved to me in a friendly way. That morning I sent
him, as I had often done before, a trifling gift (some socks, such
as I knew he liked and could not buy). He refused them in a
most rude and ungracious manner. I was very unwell at that time,
but, to show that I had not taken offence at his message in the
morning, I made an effort and joined the family at dinner. Wright
received me very coldly and hardly spoke to me during my visit,
though he talked fast enough with the rest of the company. I
returned to the Tremont before tea, feeling a good deal annoyed,
and Edward declared I should not go to the house again. How
ever, as mother constantly urged our going to see him, in two or
three weeks we called and were scarcely noticed, Edward not at all.
This was not very encouraging, but we called, from time to time,
for mother's sake, through the spring. During the summer, I often
went to the Square (as usual when in the country) to sit half an
hour or more, till Edward could join me to go out of town.
Sometimes I saw Wright in the parlour, and sometimes would go to
the garden to speak to him. His manner grew worse and worse,
till one day, I think the 10th of September, 1842, I went to the
Square to get some thick clothes from my trunks, which were
there by mother's permission. After I had made up my bundle,
I went to the garden to see Wright. The plants were so high I
did not see him, and called to Nannie, who was there, to ask where
he was. " Why,. close to you," she said, and ran down the walk
to join me. I turned and saw W. walking towards me on the
gravel walk in front of the dining-room. I extended my hand and
said, " How do you do, Uncle Wright .' " He did not take my
hand, — made no answer, and began to pick some dead leaves off
a plant near us. I then said, " You want rain." He looked at me
15

114
in his stem way, — turned his back and walked away ! I felt very
much vexed, but determined to keep my temper and walked
slowly after him and said, " Your dahlias are very fine." Not a
word of reply, and he went in among the dahlias. My heart
began to stop, as it ahvays does when I am excited, but I walked
round the bottom of the garden, up the middle walk. I took my
glass to look at some flower Nannie pointed out, and through it
I could see Wright watching me through the high plants. As I
passed him I said to Nannie that we had better go home, as Uncle
Wright did not incline to speak to us, and went through the house
to my carriage and drove home ; — and thus ended my last visit to
the home of my childhood !
About ten days after this the Great Western got in, and one day
being in town I stopped for Sarah Wells at the Square, but of
course did not go in. Whenever there had been any letters for
me at the Square, Sarah, or whichever of the Wells might chance
to be with me, would bring them to me, and give them directly to
me on getting into the carriage, that I might cast my eye over them
and read them any news that would interest them. This day she
said nothing of any letters, till, as she was going into her own gate,
she handed me a letter loosely wrapped in half a sheet of paper,
and said, " A gentleman asked me to give this to you." I said,
" Why, what is h .? " She replied, " O, you will see." When I
got home I found it was a letter for me from mother, and on the
outside was scrawled in Wright's handwriting this sentence ; " Ex
tract from James's letter of September 2nd ; ' I wish you would tell
Eliza to mind her own business, and not to write out to mother
what she pleases to call disgraceful practices at the Square, the
young men breakfasting at noon with cigars. Now, does she do
this to give mother pleasure ? If not, she ought to be ashamed of
herself, and I shall have no pleasure in getting her littie wants if
she has not more Christian spirit.' "
What had I done, that James should in this unprovoked and
wanton way injure me ? and to this day he has never written to
say he regretted it.
I remember writing to mother one morning after I had been at
the Square, where I went to wait an hour for Edward to go out of

115

town with me. I went to the dining-room, where I found William
Wells lounging on the two easy chairs reading the paper, with a
cigar in his mouth, and his breakfast beside him. He took no notice
of me in any way. I went to the garden where Wright treated
me so grufily, answering me very rudely or not at all, that I returned
to my carriage, preferring to sit in the street to subjecting myself to
such insults. This was after 12 o'clock, and as I passed the stairs
F. Wells was just coming down in his morning gown.
When I showed Edward how Wright had scrawled on my mother's
letter, I [he] wrote to Wright to express his sense of his conduct,
and to forbid him to hold any further intercourse with us. He
wrote also to Mr. Wells, and since then we have had no commu
nication of any kind.
Such is Mrs. Brooks's own vindication of the course
Mr. Edward Brooks deemed it necessary to pursue on
this occasion. It is very evident, that Mr. Boott had
legitimate cause of offence. He was the head of the
famUy. Mrs. Brooks was not living there, and it was
at least officious in her to write to his mother, without
his knowledge, entering complaints against him and
those under his roof It is equaUy clear, that he did
not give vent to his feeUngs by any harsh or intem
perate language, but contented himself with treating
those who had offended him with sUent coldness.
It might have been wiser, if Mr. Brooks could have
exhibited equal forbearance. Instead of which, imme
diately on the occurrence of Mr. James Boott's message
above cited, he indited the foUowing letter to Mr.
Boott. Boston, September 22, 1842.
Sir, The petty and spiteful insolence which you have thought proper,
for reasons best known to yourself, to show both towards me and

116

my wife for many months, is no longer to be endured. As there
has not been the slightest cause of provocation, all expostulation is
in vain with one who disregards not only common politeness, but
common sense.
My wife, who is laboring under complaints which may soon put
an end to her life, is not to be subjected longer to the insults she
has been constantly exposed to from you, whenever she has entered
her mother's house.
The object, therefore, of this is to forbid you henceforth from
holding any intercourse with either of us under any pretence what
soever. You may, perhaps, resort, as you have already done, to the
manly expedient of retaining a letter which came into your hands
several days, and then scribbling on it low and vulgar abuse of the
lady to whom it belonged. This, perhaps, we may find it difficult
to prevent, but we shall take care that you shall not often have the
opportunity ; and should it happen, we shall be prepared to treat
such conduct with proper contempt. Do not presume to send an
answer to this communication. If you do, it will be returned
unread.
EDWARD BROOKS.
Mr. John W. Boott, Bowdoin Square.
It is not one of the least extraordinary " facts of this
extraordinary case," that this message of Mi-. James
Boott, the mere transmission of which called forth the
above phUippic, did not produce any feeUng of endur
ing resentment towards its author. Mrs. Brooks in a
letter to her mother of May 15, 1844, thus speaks of
her brother James :
" I would to Heaven I could see him, and help you nurse him.
I hope he thinks of us, as we do of him, kindly and affectionately."
Mr. Brooks has the coolness, after having written
this letter, forbidding Mr. Wright Boott, under any pre-

117
tence whatsoever, from holding any intercourse with
himself or his wife, to make it a subject of reproach to
Mr. Boott (p. 62), that " he refused, or caused the re
fusal of, aU intercourse, of the most ordinary kind, with
any of us. And all this was, so far as I know and be
Ueve, without any cause in the world, that any rational
man could act upon."
Mr. Brooks's letter may, perhaps, in his own estima
tion, not be a cause to justify any action by a rational
man. Not content with fulminating this epistle at Mr.
Boott on a provocation so obviously inadequate to jus
tify it, Mr. Brooks wrote on the same day to Mr. WeUs,
as foUows.

Thursday, September 22, 1842.
Dear Sir,
The conduct of J. W. Boott to Eliza and myself for a year
past has been rude beyond measure, but within a day or two his
treatment has been such that we have been obliged to break with
him altogether.
I have written him this morning, expressing my indignation at
his unprovoked ill-treatment.
To yourself and family I have always entertained the kindest
feelings, and still do, as I believe I have shown as I had opportu
nity. I hope still to be able to remain on the friendly terms we
have always been upon.
It becomes necessary, however, to know what members of the
family intend to uphold this person in his insolent usurpation and
unjust aspersions on certain members of the family.
All who continue to frequent the house during his stay in it, and
uphold him in exclusive possession of what we have a right to con
sider as common, I shall look upon as siding with him.
You may easily suppose that I must have good reasons before I

118
could be brought to take such ground as this ; but I deem it neces
sary to have the rights of the family and the feelings of its mem
bers respected. Now is the time to let the thing be distinctly
settied. During my connection with Mrs. Boott's family, it has
been my constant aim to live on good terms with all and to keep
peace. Why my wife should be insulted in her father's house,
and treated with injustice and unmanly meanness, I cannot under
stand, and certainly will not permit it, without expressing all the
resentment I feel. I wish you to consider this matter and let me
know what I am to e.xpect. Yours very truly,
EDWARD BROOKS.
William Wells, Esq.
To this communication, Mr. WeUs made the foUowing
mUd and gentlemanly reply.
September 23, 1842.
Dear Sir,
I was much surprised and troubled by your note of yesterday.
In the many differences, which have unhappily arisen in the
family, we have never been consulted by either party, or taken
sides, or been requested by any one to do so. Aware that discussions
and explanations in such cases are rarely useful, and the whole
of the right seldom entirely on one side, perhaps owing to defective
information, we have studiously avoided them ; and contented our
selves with what little we could do, to moderate these irritations.
This course, I think, is the only one I can with propriety take.
To act otherwise would be to constitute myself a judge between
the parties. This, I think, I have no right to do.
Fanny, and my family in general, as well as myself, are grate
ful for the many essential services you have rendered us, and
indeed look upon your conduct and that of Eliza, as a series of
kind offices. This feeling we have expressed unreservedly, and
upon every proper occasion.
From Mr. Wright Boott, during an intimacy of more than thirty

119

years, I have received continued and uninterrupted kindness ; and
this has been extended to every part of my family, perhaps too lib
erally. Are you correct in requiring me to cancel and dissolve a
friendship so durable ?
I conceive that a neutrality in these misunderstandings is the
only proper course for me and my family to take. We shall be
most seriously grieved to lose the pleasure of your society and
friendship, and that of your wife.
But I hope better things, and that you will still permit us to
enjoy those advantages. I am truly sorry for the offence between
you and Mr. J. W. Boott, with the grounds of which I am very im
perfectly acquainted. I remain, dear sir, Yours truly,
W. WELLS.
Mr. Brooks.
It is impossible too much to admire the concUiatory
tone of this letter, and the truly Christian spirit it
evinces. How was it received by Mr. Brooks ?
September 23, 1842.
Dear Sir,
I perceive from the tenor of your note that we are to be stran
gers for the time to come.
As to J. W. B., his conduct has become such, that no members
of the family can long avoid becoming parties to the feuds, which
his insane conduct is producing. I have no right to ask you to
dissolve your connection with that person, nor do I pretend to dic
tate to you about it.
But as to becoming parties in the question, that, I conceive, you
and yours have long since become, perhaps unconsciously ; but
even a good principle may be carried too far. The case, as I
view it, is just this. You are apparently but little acquainted with
the actual state of it. J. W. B. has long since usurped possession
of the family mansion. I do not mean that he originally did so,

120

but of late years, especially since his mother's absence, he has
undertaken to refuse admission to all and every member of the
family, as far as I know, excepting yourself, wife, and children;
with the grievances of others I have nothing to do, otherwise I
might repeat, as you know, some very disgusting instances of his
malicious interference with some of the family. There are many
others which you do not know, but of which you cannot long
remain in ignorance. With regard to myself, you know whether
I am likely to provoke ill-treatment, or to fancy it unjustly.
Now, the case stands thus. Mr. and Mrs. Wells and their
children are the only persons of the family permitted by this man
to enter the mansion of their common parent. While he is driving
every one else away, your sons are harboured by him, I think I may
say, very much to their injury in every possible way.
My wife has felt and expressed her indignation, that, while this
person, whose name I have hardly patience to repeat, has treated
her with disdain, turning his back upon her, your son, at 12 o'clock
in the day was sitting at his breakfast, with a cigar in his mouth,
not deigning so much as to return her salute, as she came into the
room. Now look at the thing, out of doors, as it appears to the
world. Here is the whole family turned into the street, and Mr.
and Mrs. Wells and their children looking out of the windows, and
laughing at them. For one, I am determined not to submit quietly
to such a state of things. I have done nothing to deserve it,
unless to have shielded this man, when his unfaithfulness as a
guardian and executor, and his slanderous imputations as a brother,
had brought him nearly into the fangs of the law. You must not
talk of misunderstandings and differences. It is no such thing.
You must arouse yourself, or you will be in a situation much more
serious than you imagine. I talked last spring very seriously to
your son Frank, as I had a right to do, he having called on me
for pecuniary assistance. I told him, as I now tell you, that he
would have neither credit nor character as a man of business,
while he remained as he now is. You see how I view this matter.
It is to me the most painful thing 1 ever did. I have made more
sacrifices of feeling to keep on terms with J. W. B. than I
have ever done with any man, — but all in vain ; and upon my

121

honor, never to my knowledge gave him just cause of offence.
Had I done so, and he had convinced me of it, I would most freely
have asked his pardon.
There are some matters of business between us, which, as we
cannot conduct them in the pleasant manner we have done, I wish
to have closed. The mortgage 1 hold on your estate, you can, no
doubt, easily transfer to some one else, as the estate is worth a
good deal more. Pray do so, and if possible, within a fortnight.
Our other concerns are not important. You will some day see this
business in its true light, though I have no hope that you will do so
now. 1 suppose it is intended for some good purpose, that
one, and he, let us hope, not in his right mind, should poison the
peace of so many. Yours, &c.
EDWARD BROOKS.
P. S. You must see that while you, the eldest member of the
family, countenance this man, by allowing him to go without
remonstrance, it is virtually taking his part.
Was Mr. Boott insane when he thought Mr. Brooks
inimical to him ?
As Mr. Brooks, in the above letter, states upon his
honor, that he had never given Mr. Boott "just cause
of offence," a declaration, which, I have no doubt, was
made in aU sincerity, I claim for Mr. Boott the privi
lege of being heard on the same point.
On the back of the letter of Mr. Brooks to Mr. Boott,
above transcribed, Mr. Boott made a memorandum in
these words :
" I defy him [Mr. Brooks] to point out an instance
in which I have treated him with the slightest discour
tesy. I have never given him provocation, other than
this, — that I have preferred to forego his society,
16

122
rather than submit to the caprices of his intolerable
temper." Although Mr. WeUs, in his answer to Mr. Brooks's
first letter, above transcribed, expressed an earnest wish
to be allowed to remain on good terms with both par
ties, it was not that he was not fully sensible of the con
trast between them in the degree of their excitement.
" Though I desired," says he, (in the letter to Dr.
Boott, of August 23, 1844, above quoted,) " to remain
neutral in this quarrel, I protest against being under
stood to consider both sides as equally blamable ; nor
does my letter to Mr. Brooks admit of any such inter
pretation. The violence of Mr. Brooks astonished and
shocked me."
Mr. Brooks, in a note (p. 137), enters into a la
bored vindication of the request to Mr. WeUs, in his
second letter, that he would pay off the loan he had
made to him on the estate at Cambridge. He says
that his conduct has been much misrepresented in that
matter, but does not charge that misrepresentation upon
me, and admits that it has but a remote connection
with the issue between us. I certainly have not the
slightest desire or intention of attributing to him any
improper motives in that transaction ; nor should I now
advert to it at aU, except for the purpose of stating
that part of the subsequent occurrences which is within
my own knowledge. This seems to me to be due to the
parties, whoever they may be, with whom he is at issue
on this subject.
It is true, as Mr. Brooks says, that Mr. WeUs was
put to no inconvenience in raising the money, Mr.

123
Boott having undertaken to do it for him. He (Mr.
Boott) first applied to me. I was not in funds, and ad
vised him to propose the loan to the Massachusetts Hos
pital Life Insurance Company. He did so ; but Mr.
TUden, the actuary, informed him that the office lent
only from $3,000 to $5,000 on country estates, and
the sum required was $7,800. He next sent out to
Mr. Cushing, at Watertown, with Uke ill success. He
then employed Mr. Henry Andrews, who, after several
days, reported that it was impossible to induce capi-
taUsts to lend on that kind of security. At last,
through the intervention of the late Mr. George A.
Goddard, he obtained the money from Mr. Bbenezer
Francis, but only on condition that Mr. Wells should
pledge, in addition to the estate, six of his shares in
the Merrimack Manufacturing Company.
Let the reader judge how far Mr. Brooks is justified
in his assertion (p. 138, note), that "any capitaUst,
desiring a good investment, would wUUngly lend, on
such a property, a third of its value."
There is one point, however, in relation to this sub
ject, deserving a more serious animadversion, as it
throws some light upon the accuracy of Mr. Brooks,
an accuracy vital to almost every issue he has raised.
He asserts, in the same note, that he fiad requested Mr.
WeUs to pay the mortgage, " not at a moment's warn
ing, but within a few days, or weeks, when convenience
would permit ; " and he quotes the conclusion of his
letter to Mr. Wells in the foUowing words, opposite to
which I wUl repeat the exact words of the original
letter, now before me.

124

MR. BROOKS'S EXTRACT.
There are some matters of
business between us, which, as
we cannot conduct them in the
pleasant manner we have done,
I wish to have closed. The
mortgage on j'our estate, I pre
sume, you will find no difficulty
in transferring ; as it is worth
much more than its cost. I
should like to have it settled
within ten days, or a fortnight,
if convenient to you. The other
money matters between us are
of no consequence.
Very truly yours, &c.
Ed. Brooks.

ORIGINAL letter.
There are some matters of
business between us, which, as
we cannot conduct them in the
pleasant manner we have done,
I wish to have closed. The
mortgage I hold on your estate
you can, no doubt, eeisily transfer
to some one else, as the estate
is worth a good deal more.
Pray do so, and if possible, with
in a fortnight. Our other con
cerns are not important. You
will some day see this business
in its true light, though I have
no hope that you will do so now.
I suppose it is intended for some
good purpose, that one, and he,
let us hope, not in his right mind,
should poison the peace of so
many. Yours, &c.
Edward Brooks.
P. S. You must see that
while you, the eldest member
of the family, countenance this
man, by allowing him to go
without remonstrance, it is vir
tually taking his part.

It wUl be observed that the Avords, not only quoted
but emphasized by Mr. Brooks, " if convenient to you"
are not in the original letter, and would have materiaUy
modified the peremptoriness of the requisition.

125

I repeat, that it is no part of my intention to sit in
judgment on Mr. Brooks's motives in this transaction ;
but it is all-important that his accuracy should be
tested, wherever he has afforded us an opportunity of
doing so. A more correct opinion can thus be
formed of the reliance to be placed on such of his
reminiscences, as cannot be subjected to the same
ordeal. Mr. Brooks, in the same note, further says of this letter
to Mr. Wells ; " I spoke of Mr. Wright Boott in it, under
the provocation of the moment, in harsher terms than I
should now deliberately approve." This apology, to a
certain extent, every right-feeling man wiU admit ; but
when did Mr. Brooks come to this more deUberate judg
ment? If he did so when he became persuaded of
Mr. Wright Boott's insanity, did he ever attempt to
soothe that gentleman's feeUngs by the sUghtest ex
pression of his regret ?
Mr. Brooks himself informs us, that, when he wrote
the letter to Mr. Boott, in September, 1842, he had
no settled beUef in Mr. Wright Boott's insanity. I wiU
do him the justice to say, that it is morally impossible
that he could have even suspected it. But did he or
Mrs. Brooks ever have any intercourse with Mr. Boott
afterwards ? Certainly not. Their beUef that he was
insane, therefore, does not rest on their personal ob
servation. It is worth whUe, before proceeding further, to see
who, among the persons competent to form an opinion,
did so esteem him. It is well known, that a person
laboring under monomania wUl exhibit it at once, when

126
the persons or topics, forming the subject of the delu
sion, are alluded to in conversation.
Now, Mr. and Mrs. Brooks did not think him insane.
Mrs. Lyman, his sister, who had seen and conversed
with him on these topics before she removed from her
lodgings, did not, as she testffied at the inquest, so
esteem him.
Nor did Mr. and Mrs. Wells and their famUy, who
were in the habit of visiting him constantly, down to
the day of his death, and who conversed with him freely
on these topics.
Nor did Mrs. Kirk Boott and her fanuly, who had
the same opportunities of observing him.
Nor did Mr. and Mrs. Ralston, who passed some
weeks in his famUy, in the height of these troubles, and
heard him speak of them frequently.
Nor did Mr. Loring, his legal adviser, with whom he
communicated, exclusively on these topics.
Nor did Mr. Darracott, who was brought into con
tact with him at the moment when the refusal of Mr.
and Mrs. Brooks and Mr. WiUiam Boott, to sign the
deed of the house, must have peculiarly irritated Mr.
Boott. Nor did I, his confidential friend and adviser.
Not a single human being, having opportunity of
judging, and whose opinion was unbiassed by personal
resentments, has been adduced as beUeving in Mr.
Boott's insanity.
It is true that extracts are given from several letters
from Dr. Francis Boott of London, showing that, at one
time, on ex parte statements from Mr. Brooks, Mr. Wil-

127

Uam Boott, and Mr. Robert C. Hooper, he entertained
the opinion that his brother was insane. Who would
not, on such statements uncontradicted ?
Mr. Brooks says (p. 79) ; " Dr. Boott, to whom the
principal events above-mentioned were fuUy communi
cated, by Mr. WUliam Boott, as they occurred, consid
ered them plain evidences of partial insanity ; " — show
ing clearly the ex parte nature of his information.
On the next page, Mr. Brooks says ; " It was once
said by Mr. LoweU in my hearing, that Dr. Boott
also, afterwards, altered his opinion respecting his bro
ther's derangement. I doubt whether Mr. Lowell has
sufficient ground for that statement." And again
(p. 81 ) ; " Subsequent events, I have reason to believe,
left Dr. Boott's opinion of his brother's insanity pre
cisely where it originaUy was."
He does not teU us what that reason was, or on what
his doubt is founded.
The foUowing passage in a letter from Dr. Boott to
me, dated June 16, 1845, after his brother's death, wiU
not only set this point at rest, but show how much
value is to be attached to Mr. Edward Brooks's unex
plained reason and doubt :
" Mrs. WeUs tells me, that there are conferences held
by the Brooks and Mr. WiUiam Boott -^dth Mr. F.
Dexter, with a view to defeat the wiU. I cannot sup
pose any such idea is entertained ; but, if the attempt
is made, I wish to suggest to you, that the letters writ
ten during the last year or two by J. W. B. to his
mother and brother James would afford very conclu
sive evidence of his competency to discharge any duty ;

128

and I can only say, that they shaU be sent to you, —
and that, as my mother's age and my brother's infirmi
ties forbid the idea of their giving testimony in person,
I wUl wUlingly appear to offer my evidence, if I can
be of use."
In a letter to Mr. Wells, dated July 2, 1845, speak
ing of the confirmation of the intended opposition to
the wUl, he says ; " I cannot suppose, that there is any
ground of apprehension about the result. It may be
difficult for a judge to account for the animosity be
tween brothers, but such things exist without any
mental disorder ; and, if family dissensions are to be
ascribed to insanity, it behoves us to enlarge our hos
pitals, and to put many now at large under restraint.
I have sent to Mr. LoweU my brother's letters of the
last two years to myself, my mother, and James ; and
also such as have been preserved of Mrs. Ljonan's, Mrs.
Brooks's and William's. My brother's, I think, would
satisfy any judge of his sanity." And again ; " The
clear and indisputable evidence of his mental sound
ness, to be derived from your testimony. Dr. Jackson's,
Mr. LoweU' s, and from his letters, would, at least in this
country, banish any opposing party out of court with
disgrace." In another letter, also to Mr. WeUs, dated July
17, 1845, Dr. Boott says ; " I do not believe the fool
ish attempt wUl be made, to set it [the wUl] aside. In
one respect, I an? malicious enough to wish it might be
made ; for I know nothing that would so well expose the
temper and judgment of my brother's opponents. I
trust no compromise, which Mrs. Ralston says has been

129
thought of by them, wUl be, for a moment, entertained.
But in Mr. LoweU's firmness we can trust."
Mv. Brooks is certainly unfortunate in his selection
of Dr. Boott, as the only member of the family, not
concerned in these quarrels, who coincided with him in
opinion. The case, then, so far as personal testimony is con
cerned, is narrowed down to that of WUUam Boott and
Robert C. Hooper, Esquires.
Now, these gentlemen have, avowedly, been engaged
in an altercation with Mr. Boott, resulting in the one
case in a blow, in the other in a letter designed to pro
voke a challenge. What the provocation was, that led
to these results, we can know only from the statements
of the parties. The immutable rule of justice has ever
been, in all countries, that, in disputes, both parties, or
neither, should be heard, and no one condemned on the
ex parte testimony of his opponents. No rule can be
more just. For there hardly ever has occurred a dis
pute, in which each party did not afterwards sincerely
believe himself to have been in the right, and to have
exhibited a moderation and forbearance strikingly in
contrast with the excitement of his adversary.
In the present instance, the lips of Mr. Wright Boott
are closed in death. Does any one doubt, that, if he
had an opportunity to be heard, — if he were here to
state his own case, — he would present a very different
view of the whole matter ?
He informed me, immediately after its occurrence,
of the interview with his brother William that resulted
in a blow; and, whUe he deeply lamented, that he
17

130

had aUowed himself to be so much excited, he most
solemnly assured me, that he was provoked by the most
galling and insulting remarks. Mr. WUliam Boott's
own statement of that interview shows, certainly, that
he did not refrain from taunting personal observations,
such as surely tended, whether so designed or not, to irri
tate Mr. Wright Boott, and such as could hardly be justi
fied, if addressed to an insane brother. He told him,
that "his conduct had been such, as to drive away from
him every member of the famUy," and especially in
stanced Mrs. Brooks, " who used to be very kind and
attentive to him, untU he had treated her so, that she
had been obUged to break off aU intercourse with him."
(p. 74.) I wiU do Mr. WUUam Boott the justice to say,
that I have no belief that, when he addressed these
reproaches to his brother, he believed him to be labor
ing under insanity. Di 1 he think him so afterwards ?
In order to solve t'lis question, it becomes necessary
to see what were Mr. WilUam Boott's feeUngs and
what was his conduct towards j\Ir. Wright Boott, after
the time when, according to Mr. Brooks's pamphlet, he
beUeved him to be insane. I do not mean to express
a doubt, that Mr. WiUiam Boott thinks that he beUeves
his brother to have been insane ; but there is a wide
difference between what a man, laboring under strong
excitement, thinks he believes, and what he really does
believe, as evinced by the less fallible criterion of his
words and actions.
I suppose it to be impossible, that any man, having the
natural affections of our race, should feel resentment.
towards a near relative, and especiaUy towards one cha-

131
racterized by a noble and generous nature, who was
laboring under that direst visitation of heaven, insanity;
I suppose it to be impossible, that the tenderest sym
pathies should not be awakened by such an affliction,
and the strongest desire be felt, to soothe the feelings
of the sufferer during Ufe, and, when dead, to shield
his memory from obloquy or suspicion.
This, then, I conceive to be a test, by which to try the
sincerity of Mr. William Boott's belief in his brother's
insanity. If we find, that he thought and spoke of him
with resentment, — that he wished to humUiate and pun
ish him, — the inference is Uresistible that he did not,
at the bottom of his heart, beUeve him to be irrespon
sible by reason of insanity.
To show what Mr. WiUiam Boott's feelings were
towards Mr. Wright Boott, before and after the quarrel,
of which he has given a narrative, I shall resort to a
testimony to which he cannot take exception, the tes
timony of his own letters.
The foUovsdng letter, which does honor to the feel
ings of the writer, was written on the eve of Mr. Wright
Boott's departure from England, after traveUing with
Mr. WilUam Boott in Europe. Liverpool, August 7, 1823.
Dear Wright,
I should not do justice to my feelings, did I suffer you to leave
the country without expressing my gratitude for the sacrifices you
have made on my account, and for the unceasing kindness and
attention you have shown me during the time we have been
together. I cannot speak the warmth of my feelings, but they are
not for this reason the less strong. There is no one to whom I am
bound by offices of kindness so strongly as yourself, though I too

132

well know these have not always met with such a reception as they
merited. I have wept for my errors, and can assure you they
will never return. While on the Continent, my health, or, more
probably, my irritable disposition, embittered much of your pleasure,
as it has done, upon reflection, my own happiness ; but I trust the
future will compensate for all. Your absence has cast a gloom over
our circle, which will be only removed by the news of your safe arri
val in Boston, to which place may prosperous breezes soon bear you.
If I can be of any service to you, it will be a pleasure to me.
I write these hasty lines to assure you of my affection, which you
must not distrust, for I am sincere when I say, whatever be my
faults, want of love or gratitude to you is not one. God bless you.
Yours truly, WILLIAM.
The next letter was written soon after he had at
tained his majority. Dublin, July 7, 1826.
Dear Wright,
If I did not write to you on the 15th of June, I did not forget
that my first duty on that day was to thank you for a very kind
and affectionate guardianship, which you have discharged without
ever hinting at the trouble it must, at times, have given you. I
am very grateful to you for all your kindness, and especially for
the readiness with which you left home, at an inconvenient time,
to accompany a sick, peevish boy to Europe. If I have not beeii
able to restrain my expenses within the due bounds, it is not that
I have any pleasure in spending more money than I ought, but
you know how much money is required in this country for mod
erate expenses. I have found that very few foreigners are well
received anywhere without their appearance indicates ease in pecu
niary affairs, and I have perhaps too much pride to wish to show
my poverty.
I am not fond of my profession, nor do I see any reasonable
prospects of its conducting to the ultimate object of all men's labors,
success. When I say I am not fond of it, I do not mean that I do
not appreciate its general utility and respectability ; but it does not

133
suh either the character of my mind, or the tone of my feelings.
To succeed in any object, I must have a taste for it ; and, if I could
meet one suited to me, I think I can devote myself faithfully to it.
If I knew any honorable means of gaining the competence I aspire
at, I would sacrifice all secondary objects in its pursuit, and attach
myself to it with all the energies I possess. It is a great while
since I have heard from you, and I think my letters cannot all have
reached you. Frank wrote me that you had remitted some
money to Mr. Wright, and told me that I might draw for j£'200,
which I shall have remitted to Mr. Thornely. This remittance
will leave me in debt to him .£400, and I hope you will soon re
mit to him, and give me credit upon some one here. Will you
give my best love to mother, and believe me Yours truly,
W. B.

From a large number of letters addressed by Mr.
WiUiam Boott during the last three years to his
friends in England, filled with complaints and harsh
expressions concerning his brother, 1 shaU select a few
sentences sufficiently indicative of the tone of his feel
ings. I do not transcribe the letters at large, because
they contain matter relating to other members of the
family, and also relating to strangers, which might
make mischief, and which is alien to the present issue.
In a letter addressed to Dr. Boott, dated May 14,
1844, he has this remarkable sentence : " I regret that
I did not bring him [Mr. Wright Boott] to an account
for the blow he struck me last summer."
Again, July 31, 1844 : "Afterwards, when he [Mr.
Wright Boott] brought false charges against Eliza and
me, and cunningly attempted to forestall public opin
ion by disseminating them among our friends by means

134
of Fanny [Mrs. Wells] and Anne [Mrs. Ralston], and
when he treated IMary so brutally, I became very angry
Avith him, and time has strengthened my resentment.
These were not the outbreaks of a temper, ruined by
solitude, and made ungovernable by indulgence, but
prudent, selfish calculations, and interested attempts
to make a tool of a person [Mrs. Lyman] whom he
believed to be at his mercy, and, as such, betraying no
disquaUfication of insanity." Again, November 15,
1844. " The long submission I have made, the
movement of John LoweU in getting a joint letter*
signed by some of the famUy, which is represented as
an entire defence in aU things of Wright, and the con
stant petty slanders of the Wells, have done me great
harm ; and you may beUeve how I long for an exhibi
tion of the accounts, that every one may see what sort
of a person Wright ever has been."
Again, May 1, 1844 : " Fanny and Anne have sought
to defend him at aU risks. The result of their conduct,
by bringing out the truth, wiU be the reverse, and expose
him, vulnerable in so many points, to the censure and
retribution, that he might have avoided by quietly
retiring, and letting himself be forgotten, with aU the
mischief he has done."
And yet again : " I desire to show in my own justi
fication, that there is, in my case, no family quarrel, —
unless a man, who is knocked down by a highwayman,
has got into trouble by quarrelUng with the latter."
Is it possible, that, when iNIr. WUUam Boott penned
• I never procured, or knew of, any such letter.

135

these sentences, he believed, in his heart, that his
brother was insane ? Every principle of human nature
forbids the inference. And was Mr. Wright Boott
insane for believing Mr. William Boott to be hostUe
to him, and acting with others for his injury ?
As aUusion is made, in one of these extracts, to Mr.
Wright Boott's treatment of his sister, Mrs. Lyman,
when she went to reside with him in Bowdoin Square,
it may be proper, here, briefly to notice the aUegations
on that subject.
Mr. Brooks in his pamphlet (p. 4) says : " Mrs.
Lyman, after her husband's decease, early in 1844,
being without a home and in straitened circumstances,
naturally looked to her mother's house as the only
place to which 'she could properly retire, and she
occupied apartments there during the last year of Mr.
Wright Boott's life, — but Uterally occupied her own
apartments only. Mr. Wright Boott required this as a
condition of her being received into the house, not per
mitting her even to take a meal in his company, and
UteraUy never seeing her, though under the same roof,
unless by accident, and then not speaking to her."
It wUl be observed, that this is a direct, distinct,
positive charge, without any quaUfication whatsoever.
And again (p. 77) : " Mr. Wright Boott called to
see her and was at first, kind in his manner, but soon
after insisted on her signing a formal paper, promising
to observe certain conditions, already aUuded to. She
was never to see him, but to live by herself in her own
apartments, and never to permit either Mrs. Brooks, or
Mr. WilUam Boott, to visit her."

136
It is well known to every person at aU intimately
acquainted with the parties, that this harshness, as it
was called, was the theme of loud and reiterated com
plaint, and tended, more than any other one thing, to
produce a prejudice against Mr. Wright Boott.
It forms a prominent topic in Mr. WilUam Boott's
letters to his brother. Dr. Boott.
In his letter of May 14, 1844, he says, that Mr.
Wright Boott " so far forgot himself as to insult Mary
in her need, and just after her husband's death."
Again, May 1, 1844: "As I had, in very strong
terms, expressed my indignation at Wright's indolent
oppression* of Mary, one of Anne's objects was to
explain away the effect of the paper that Wright made
Mary sign ; and she spoke of it at Ihe  , as a
paper which Wright was justffied in drawing up."
And, in the same letter : " I have never inquired
what her [Mrs. Lyman's] feeUngs to Wright are, — but
I certainly hope, that she does not forgive such an ouf>-
rage, as he ' has put upon her, easily. INly indignation
is excited to the utmost, when I learn that Mrs. Lyman
has shown a great deal of temper in her conduct to her
brother Wright ; that her confinement to her room is a
voluntar}^ thing on her part, and so on."
Again : " We are constantly asked. How is it that
your mother aUows the Wells' and Ralstons to use her
house as their own, and yet imposes such hard condi
tions upon Mary before she is admitted to enter it
under humiUating conditions in her time of want and
sorrow ? " * Underscored in the original.

137
Again: "I forgive him his conduct to me, and,
although I am very indignant at his shameful conduct
to Mary, I remember the disordered state of his mind."
Again, in a letter, dated July 31, 1844 : " How could
I not resent his treatment of Mary ? What would father
have done ? Tou say that the bond was fooUsh. So it
was, but that was the least of its bad qualities. If his
heartless oppression of her, aggravated by the recent
loss of her husband, are not good causes for strong
resentment, I can conceive none."
WiU it be beUeved, that for all this there is not
the shadow of a foundation ? To prove it, I now pro
duce the conditions signed by Mrs. Lyman, the original
of which is in my possession. They are in the shape
of a letter from Mr. Wright Boott to her.

Boston, March 21, 1844.
Dear Mary,
I have reflected upon the conversation which passed between us
yesterday, and deem it necessary to recapitulate some points, which
may be of importance hereafter, from the systematic misrepre
sentation which has been made of my words or actions. I stated,
that, from a consideration of your affliction and condition, I would
receive you in this house, and should be happy to do what I could
to soothe and comfort you. It was also clearly enforced upon you,
that, if you came, neither Brooks, or his wife, or William Boott
would be permitted to visit you ; — that I did not wish to influence
you in these quarrels, and desired you not to involve yourself in
them, and that, on your inquiry if I expected you to break off all
acquaintance with these persons, I told you I had no such desire,
and that you might visit them as often and as much as you pleas
ed, but that you must never mention their names in my presence.
You mentioned to me, much to my surprise, that I knew that Fanny
18

138

did not like you, and was jealous of my conduct to Mrs. Ralston and
Mrs. Boott. I proved to you the total groundlessness of such a belief,
from facts and circumstances (not of recent occurrence) within
my own knowledge, which have taken place, at various times, as
far back as eighteen months or two years. Mr. and Mrs. Wells
and their family will be often here ; it is my desire that they
should ; and I hope that nothing in your conduct or manners may
make their visits otherwise than agreeable. As I wish to guard
against all possible misunderstandings, I now state, that, if you in
any way be induced to originate or spread dissension, our con
nection must terminate ; — that I shall say this to my mother, and
that no appeal to her against such a necessity will be of any avail ; —
that I shall say the same to Mr. Thwing,* and inform him, if such a
case should arise, he must provide for you elsewhere. I do not
design that this arrangement shall make any change in the economy
or affairs of the house ; and you must expect nothing in the way of
style or display, which I consider will be inconsistent with my duty
and obligations to others. Under your present circumstances, I think
you must be aware of the propriety and even necessity (indeed
you have so expressed yourself to me) to avoid every unnecessary
expense, and I shall expect it from you. As respects your domestic,
I reserve to myself the right to dismiss her, if it shall at any time
appear that she has been an instrument in the hands of Mr. Brooks
or others, which the circumstances of her leaving this house ren
der possible.
If you feel that you can promise me a faithful compliance with
the spirit and tenor of this letter, I am ready, on my part, to fulfill
my expressed intentions ; and for this purpose and for reasons men
tioned before, I request you to affix your name below.
Yours truly,
JOHN W. BOOTT.
I have carefully read the foregoing letter, and I unreservedly
accede to all that is contained in it.
MARY LYMAN.
* Mr. S. C. Thwing was administrator of Mr. Lyman.

139
And these are the conditions, which have been so much
complained of, and made the theme of such reproach
to Mr. Boott ! Are they, considering that gentleman's
position, in themselves unreasonable, and are they
harshly expressed? Is the promise, "and should be
happy to do what I could to soothe and comfort you," con
sistent with Mr. Brooks's assertion, that " she was never
to see him " ? And does not the phrase, " you must
never mention their names in my presence," prove the
very contrary ? Is there any thing here to justify Mr.
William Boott's epithets, " insult," " outrage," " humUi-
ating conditions," " shameful conduct," " heartless op
pression," and a host of others, that I have before me in
his letters ?
It is certainly to be hoped, that Mr. WUUam Boott
labored under some " delusion" in respect to the con
ditions imposed upon Mrs. Lyman ; or that some evU-
disposed person had taken advantage of the facUe cre-
duUty of his nature.
It may be aUeged, that, if not in the written agree
ment, these conditions were then, or afterwards, pre
scribed in conversation. But, in the first place, con
ditions, not only not inserted, but absolutely contradic
tory to those which are inserted in the bond, are not
to be assumed without positive proof
The facts were these. Mr. Boott caUed upon his
sister in her affliction and need, expressed the deepest
sympathy, and gave her one half of all the money at
that time in his hands. She proposed to remove to her
mother's house, to which he consented. Finding, how
ever, that she had conceived an idea that Mrs. Wells

140

was not fiiendly to her, and was, moreover, apt to be
jealous of any attentions or affection shown by him to
other ladies of the fanuly, he thought it a necessary
precaution to provide against the breaking out of firesh
family dissensions in his mother's house ; and it was
with this view, that the above conditions were prepared.
I hold myself pledged to prove the accuracy of this
statement, if denied by Mrs. Lyman. I must, however,
do that lady the justice to say, that I am authorized to
contradict nearly every thing stated as on her authority
in Mr. Brooks's pamphlet, and, among other things, the
existence, in the agreement, of either of the two con
ditions, that she was to confine herself to her chamber,
and that she was never to see her brother.
I have said above, that conditions, not in the agree
ment and absolutely contrary to its tenor and spirit,
are not to be Ughtly assumed as having been insisted
upon in carr3dng it into effect. I have, indeed, direct
proof that no such conditions were enforced.
I am authorized to state, that, when Mrs. Lyman first
went to the house in Bowdoin Square, Miss Sarah
WeUs, who was residing there at the time, remembers
distinctly that Mr. Boott sent to his sister an invitation
to tea, and again, on the foUowing day, to dinner ; both
of which invitations she decUned.
Mrs. WeUs, also, remembers, that, at a later tune,
when Mrs. Ralston was residing with her brother, she
at Mr. Boott's request, or at least with his assent, went
up to Mrs. Lyman, and endeavoured to induce her to
come down ; but without effect.
Mr. WeUs, also, authorizes me to state, in his name,

141
that the whole story of Mrs. Lyman having been treat
ed by her brother with cruelty, &c., is an entire mis
representation ; and that he took every prudent meas
ure for her welfare and comfort.
I have, however, no need to resort to any other
authority, than that of Mrs. Lyman herself
In a letter now before me, addressed by her to Dr.
Boott, under date of May 15, 1844, are the foUowing
sentences : " He [Mr. Wright Boott] said he was wil
ling to receive me, — that I could have my mother's
room, where he should wish me to receive all my visif>
ers, — that neither his habits or dress disposed him to
be in society, — and that his afternoons and evenings
were passed in the parlour, where he should choose to
be undisturbed. Sometimes, in the mornings, he work
ed in the greenhouse ; and then, if I desired to use the
parlour, I might do so."
Mrs. Lyman, in this letter, is stating her grievances,
for it was written after she had begun to side against
him. I forbear, for obvious reasons, from producing
any passages iUustrating the state of her feeUngs at
that time and afterwards. She has, with great pro
priety, declined any participation in this posthumous
attack. My only object now, in aUuding to her then
existing feelings, and the purpose for which this letter
was written, is to show, that it is an ex parte statement ;
reading it as such, it is obvious that Mr. Boott gave
her the free use of the parlour in the forenoon (the
time of all ceremonious visiting), reserving to himself
a freedom from interruption by company in the after
noon and evening.

142

In the same letter Mrs. Lyman says : " I told him I
should take the room that he had assigned to me ; and,
as my feeble power of swallowing rendered it neces
sary for me to eat alone, and, as he desired me to see
my friends in mother's chamber, I would confine myself
to it."
Observe Mrs. Lyman's words, " I told him." In this
she is Uterally correct ; for, in a note to her brother,
now before me, dated on the Saturday evening before
her removal to his house, she says, "I shaU confine
myself to the room prepared for me, as my health is
infirm and my power of taking food very Umited."
Here, then, aU the aUeged unreasonable conditions,
with the coroUaries drawn from them, of " insult," " out
rage," " heartless oppression," " shameful conduct," &c.,
are, on Mrs. Lyman's written authority, exploded.
" My indignation," says Mr. WiUiam Boott, " is ex
cited to the utmost, when I learn that Mrs. Lyman's
confinement to her room is a voluntary thing on her
part, and so on."
I am glad to have it in my power to reUeve his
unpleasant emotions, by proving, from the highest
authority, that the statements which caUed forth this
indignation were UteraUy and strictly correct.
Indeed, in her testimony at the inquest, Mrs. Lyman
very properly told the jury, that her having confined
herself to her chamber, and her not having seen her
brother during the entire year she resided under her
mother's roof, was her own fault and not his. So Dr.
Putnam expressly states, and the expression is dis
tinctly remembered by the coroner, by Mr. Kirk Boott,

143

and by myself, as also by others to whom it was men
tioned on the day of the inquest.
I invoke a comparison of this letter of Mr. Boott to
his sister, with that of Mr. Brooks to Mr. WeUs, before
cited. Let the temper and spirit of the two be coUated ;
— and especiaUy Mr. Boott's forbearance when he says,
"I did got wish to influence you in these quarrels,
and desired you not to involve yourself in them," with
Mr. Brooks's alternative to Mr. Wells : " AU who con
tinue to frequent the house during his stay in it, and
uphold him in exclusive possession of what we have a
right to consider as common, I shaU look upon as siding
with him."
Mr. Boott's letter is to be brought forward as evi
dence of his insanity ; what then shaU be said of Mr.
Brooks ? I do not mean to intimate the slightest
¦doubt of Mr. Brooks's sanity, but to show how futUe
are the grounds of such a suspicion about Mr. Boott.
Nor do I mean to allege, that Mr. Brooks ever knew
the real state of the facts in relation to Mr. Boott's
treatment of Mrs. Lyman. A misrepresentation exists
somewhere. With whom it originated is a family
matter, to be settled among themselves. My only
object is to vindicate Mr. Boott against aspersions,
widely circulated, and commented upon with great
asperity. Such aspersions may answer a temporary
purpose ; fortunately they always vanish before the
first ray of Truth :
" No falsehood can endure
Touch of celestial temper, but returns
Of force to its own likeness."

144

The only remaining witness, adduced in the pamphlet
of Mr. Brooks, is Mr. Robert C. Hooper. This gentle
man is in the position of Mr. WilUam Boott so far as
this, that he is a witness in his own case. For he
allows to be pubUshed (p. 67) a part of a letter from
Mr. Wright Boott, evidently intended to provoke a
chaUenge, in which Mr. Boott complains of an insult
offered to him in the presence of an unconcerned audi
tor, on Sunday, the 11th* of December, 1842. Mr.
Hooper says, that on that day "there was not the
sUghtest circumstance of insult" towards Mr. Wright
Boott. There may have been none intended ; but, before
we decide that Mr. Boott's suspicion, that such an inten
tion existed, is proof of insanity on his part, it would
be satisfactory to know of what nature the aUeged
insult was, and what would have been the testimony
of the unconcerned auditor, aUuded to in the letter, on-
that point. Who was the unconcerned auditor ? Mr.
Hooper tells us, that it is his impression that Mr. WU
Uam B. WeUs dined with them that day. Did he
then take any pains to inquire what that gentleman
would say on the subject? He does not inform us;
and the presumption is, that he did not. Mr. Boott
undoubtedly did ; for he evidently intends to convey
the meaning, that he could estabUsh, by this uncon
cerned auditor, the fact of the insult.
Mr. Hooper says, that he did not answer this letter,
from a conviction of the writer's insanity. "In an-
* Mr. Hooper erroneously supposes it the 18th of December, 1842,
which was not the day indicated in Mr. Boott's letter, as the date of the
insult, but as the day when Mr. Hooper presented himself at the house
for the last time.

145

swer to a question from Mr. Lowell's counsel," says Mr.
Brooks, " the witness [Mr. Hooper] said, ' I did write Mr.
Wright Boott one letter afterwards — I think in June,
1844 — in reference to another subject — a particular
charge against myself, which I heard of as coming from
him.'" Mr. Brooks does not give this letter of Mr. Hooper,
but I have the original in my possession ; and, as my
only object is to discuss the question of Mr. Boott's
sanity, I shaU make no further use of it than to say,
that Mr. Hooper, having heard that some unfounded
charges had been made against his character, inquires of
Mr. Boott whether these charges emanated from him, and
whether he had made any statement which (to quote Mr.
Hooper's own words) "would reflect, in the sUghtest de
gree, upon my character as a man and a gentleman."
Is it to be credited, that, when Mr. Hooper wrote
this letter to Mr. Boott, he seriously beUeved that he
was writing to an insane man ?
I feel bound also to say, that Mr. Boott told me, that
Mr. WiUiam B. Wells was the person referred to by
him as present when he received the supposed insult
from Mr. Hooper, and that another person was also
present, Joseph Purcell, his servant ; — that Mr. Hooper
made no reply to his (Mr. Boott's) letter untU both
these witnesses were removed by the act of Provi
dence, — Mr. Wells by death, and PurceU by insanity;
— that his letter to Mr. Hooper bore date September
6, 1843 ; that Mr. WeUs died on the 26th of February,
1844 ; that Purcell was removed to the Insane Hospital
June 6, 1844, and that Mr. Hooper's letter to himself
bore date June 7, 1844.
19

146

I do not give these dates as having any importance
in my estimation ; but Mr. Boott has a right to be heard
in his own vindication ; and such coincidences have an
important bearing, when we are trying the issue of his
insanity, because they enable us to realize his posi
tion, and show the aspect in which events presented
themselves to his mind.
There remain to be considered a few points in Mr.
Boott's conduct and opinions, that are brought forward
as evidences of his insanity ; — such as, that he thought
certain persons to be leagued against him ; that he
suspected a tampering with his servants ; that he be
Ueved Mrs. Lyman to be acting the part of a spy upon
him ; and that he beUeved his letters at the post-office
to have been intercepted.
As to the first point; — what are Mr. Brooks's
letters to Mr. WeUs but attempts to induce that gen
tleman and his famUy to unite with the writer in just
such a league ? Mrs. Lyman, in one of her letters to
Dr. Boott, dated May 15, 1844, fiUed with complaints
of her brother, says : " Say as much or as Uttie of
this communication, to mother, as you please. Edward,
EUza, and WiUiam told me it was my duty to make it to
you." If these are not proofs of just such a combinar
tion, as Mr. Boott suspected, I do not know what proofs
could exist on such a point.
Another aUeged suspicion is, that his servants were
tampered with. In a letter of Mr. WUUam Boott to
Dr. Boott, of February 18, 1844, he says, "I have
not been inside the house at the Square since I took
lodgings ;" and, a few lines below, " One of the servants

147
told me, that some books had been laid out for me,"
&c. If Mr. WiUiam Boott was not living at the house,
and had not been there, how came he to be in commu
nication with one of the servants ? Certainly I have
no beUef that it was for any purpose of tampering with
their fideUty ; but is it to be set down as proof of in
sanity on the part of Mr. Wright Boott, that he, under
the excitement of a quarrel, should have suspected it ?
StiU another aUeged suspicion is, that Mrs. Lyman
was acting the part of a spy in the interest of his ene
mies. A hundred instances might be produced from
the letters to England, to show that Mrs. Lyman was
in the habit of daUy communicating with Mr. and Mrs.
Brooks, and Mr. WiUiam Boott, on topics connected
with these dissensions. Thus, in a letter of Mrs. Ly
man to her mother, dated October 31, 1844, she says :
" It is in vain to hope to induce Eliza, Edward, and
WUUam Boott, to sign the paper for the sale of the
house. They never wiU do it." And again: "The
more they know of Wright's proceedings, the more they
are strengthened in their resolve."
Now, no one of these parties, except Mrs. Lyman,
was at this time in communication with Mr. Wright
Boott, and there could be no proceedings, except those
towards herself, — a knowledge of which they derived
from her.
Agaui, Mr. WUUam Boott says, March 31, 1844 :
"His imputation of Mary's being guided by adverse
counsels is another instance of that mental aberration,
which has ruined him and broken up the family. A
stUl further proof of it is his havmg told Mary, that aU

148
the servants in the house are spies upon him." These
sentences prove that Mrs. Lyman was in concert with
them, and communicated all that passed. Where, then,
is the evidence of insanity in Mr. Boott's beUeving or
suspecting it ?
There is also good reason to beUeve, that Mrs. Ly
man, in secluding herself in her chamber and refusing
aU intercourse with Mr. Wright Boott, was acting un
der the advice of her brother WilUam. At least it is
certain, that, even before she left her lodgings and
went to the house in Bowdoin Square, she had commu
nicated to Mr. WilUam Boott the correspondence that
had passed between Mr. Wright Boott and herself, — in
one of the letters of which, as above cited, she an
nounced her determination to confine herself to her
chamber. For, in the letter of Mr. WiUiam Boott to Dr.
Boott, of March 31, 1844, he says : " I wish you to
return the letters between Wright and Mary. The day
before Mary left her lodgings, I asked her to give them
to me, which she did."
It wUl also be remembered, that Mr. WiUiam Boott,
in the passage above quoted from his letter of July 31,
1844, speaks of his brother's " attempts to make a
tool of a person [Mrs. Lyman] whom he beUeved to be
at his mercy." Mr. WUUam Boott is perfectly sane in
suspecting his brother of attempting to make a tool of
Mrs. Lyman, but Mr. Wright Boott is mad, beyond hope
of recovery, for entertaining the self-same suspicion of
the opposite party !
There is yet a fourth suspicion, on which more stress
is laid than on any of the others, namely, the appro-

149
hension in Mr. Boott's mind, that his letters had been
intercepted at the post-office. To the postmaster it no
doubt appeared to be a flagrant case of insanity, to
surmise that any such thing could have been perpe
trated in his office. But to those of us who have no
such official prepossessions, it is not enough to prove
such a suspicion to have been unfounded in fact, as, in
this instance, I have not a shadow of doubt that it
was ; — it must also appear, that Mr. Boott had not
such grounds for entertaining it, as might and would
influence a person of rational mind, under the excite
ment incident to violent and protracted dissensions.
The facts, as stated to me by Mr. Boott himself,
were these :
In the course of the autumn, he had written a letter
to a Mrs. Spencer, of Newburyport, remitting a small
dividend on some bank stock belonging to her, which he
had been in the habit of coUecting for her. Receiving
no answer, and fearing his letter had miscarried, he
wrote to her again, and got a reply, expressing her sur
prise at his not having received her acknowledgment,
as she had put it into the posf>office herself
About the same time, or soon afterward, two par
cels addressed to "Mrs. Freme, Brattleboro', care of
John W. Boott, Esq., Boston, per Nonantum," were
found by Mr. Boott on the table in his servants' hall.
As he then kept no man-servant, and no one went to
the post-office but himself, the circumstance surprised
him ; and upon inqmry he found, that Mrs. Lyman had
brought them from Mr. WUUam Boott's room at the
Albion. On the following day, he took the two parcels

150

to the posf>office, and inquired whether they had passed
through the office, and was told that they had, and
had been deUvered to some one who caUed for them.
To a man, feeUng as IVIr. Wright Boott must have
felt towards his brother WUUam, who, he thought, was
doing every thing in his power to injure him with his
famUy in England, such a circumstance was calculated
to awaken suspicions, unfounded, I am confident, yet
very natural in his position, and not tending to prove
any disorder of mind.
StUl later, and not long before his death, he received
a letter from his brother James, in which the latter said
that his mother was writing to him (Mr. Wright Boott)
by the same steamship. No such letter arrived by that
vessel. Under the pressure of these repeated coincidences, Mr.
Boott came to me to ask what measure he could adopt
to prevent a recurrence of such things. I endeavoured
to persuade him that the coincidences were accidental ;
but, finding him strongly impressed with the opposite
conviction, I went with him to the postmaster, and
effected an arrangement to change his box, as we found
that Mr. WilUam Boott's box was so near his, that an
accidental wrong deUvery might very naturaUy occur.
This circumstance seemed to satisfy Mr. Boott, and he
said no more to me upon the subject. Is there any
evidence of insanity in all this ? *
In the interview, at my own house, with Mr. Brooks
and Mr. WUUam Boott, after the inquest, I voluntarUy
stated to them these circumstances. Mr. Brooks ob-
* The missing letter from his mother, reached me, after Mr. Boott's
death, by a sailing vessel.

151
served, that he thought he remembered the parcels for
Mrs. Freme having been brought to his house by mis
take ; that they came by Harnden, and not by the
post-office ; and that he sent them down to Mr. WUUam
Boott's room at the Albion.
How parcels addressed to the care of John W. Boott,
came to be left at Mr. Brooks's house, or why he sent
them to Mr. WiUiam Boott's lodgings, instead of send
ing them to Mr. Wright Boott, in Bowdoin Square, he
did not explain.
The pamphlet gives a different account of it. In
Mr. WUliam Boott's statement (p. 76) it is said : " No
case had ever happened, to Mr. WUUam Boott's know
ledge, or recoUection, of any letter addressed to Mr.
Wright Boott coming to the Albion. It once hap
pened, that a package, directed to a lady, but addressed
to the care of Mr. Wright Boott, and not coming through
the post-office, was left, by mistake, at the Albion, and
this Mr. WiUiam Boott immediately sent, unopened, to
the house."
I have had occasion, more than once, to test the accu
racy of these self-constituted witnesses. In a case like
the present, where grave charges, affecting, whatever
may be pretended to the contrary, the integrity, as weU
as the sanity, of his own brother, are made the subject
of a pubUc appeal, after that brother has gone to his
last account, it peculiarly behoved Mr. WUliam Boott
to be sure of the accuracy of his memory, and to state
nothing, bearing on these issues, upon mere vague and
indistinct recoUections. I call especial attention to the
positive assertion, " not coming through the post-office."

152
I happen to have, in my possession, the original en
velopes of these two parcels, identffied by a memoran
dum in Mr. Wright Boott's handwriting ; and they each
have the Boston pos1>office ship-letter stamp upon them.
Before leaving the subject of Mr. Wright Boott's
sanity, I wUl present the opinion of two persons, every
way competent to judge, and whose intercourse with
Mr. Boott was precisely on the topics, that would
have eUcited his monomarua, had it existed.
The first of these persons, whose opinion I shaU offer,
is Mr. George Darracott, who, having purchased the
house in Bowdoin Square on behalf of the Mechanics'
Charitable Association, was brought into contact with
Mr. Boott at the moment, when the refusal of Mr. and
Mrs. Brooks and Mr. WUUam Boott to sign the deeds
was pecuUarly calculated to irritate him.
The other is Mr. Charles G. Loring, Mr. Boott's pro
fessional adviser, who of course had a better oppor
tunity than any other person, excepting myself, of
measuring the degree, and judging of the nature, of
the excitement of Mr. Boott's mind on the subject of
these unhappy differences.
This testimony is the more important, as it bears
directly upon the point of the relative degree of exas
peration of the two parties. Mr. Darracott distinctly
draws the comparison ; and Mr. Loring, I have reason
to know, made a simUar remark at the time. Is it not
without precedent, that the man, who mastered his feel
ings and preserved a calm and gentlemanly deportment
under a course of irritating opposition, should be charged
with insanity, whUe no such imputation is made against

153
his opponent, who had exhibited no simUar forbear
ance. MR. DARRACOTT's LETTER.
Boston, December 3, 1847.
John A. Lowell, Esq.
My dear Sir, — In compliance with the request made in your
note of the 30th ult., " Whether, during the negotiation with the
late John Wright Boott, for the purchase of the estate in Bowdoin
Square," I had any impression left on my mind, as to his being
perfectly sane, at that or any subsequent time ; — it is not now for
the first time, that I have expressed my opinion, that during
the whole of that (to me unpleasant) negotiation, the conduct
and bearing of Mr. Boott were frank, courteous, and gentle
manly in the highest degree, anxious to make any sacrifice of feel
ing, not involving his high sense of honor or personal integrity, to
enable him to complete the sale which he had made to the Me
chanic Association, in whose behalf I was, in connection with
others, acting. Stung to the quick by the imputations which were
made respecting his conduct as executor of the will of the late
Kirk Boott, he never lost his self-control, or allowed himself to use
language unbecoming a gentleman. And it was with much sur
prise, that I heard the allegation of Mr. Edward Brooks, that Mr.
Boott was insane, and had been so for years. It is true, that at
that time it did not make a very strong impression on my mind,
for Mr. Brooks was much excited, and used strong language.
I should not have brought Mr. Brooks's name into use in con
nection with this unpleasant affair, had I not named the subject to
you at the time it occurred ; and this, I presume, is the reason why
you have made these inquiries of me.
I am. Sir, with much respect, yours,
GEO. DARRACOTT.
Mr. Darracott has since sent me the following addi
tional note : 20

154 Boston, January 22, 1848.
John A. Lowell, Esq.
My dear Sir, — I have received a note from Mr. Edward
Brooks, requesting me to add to my note to you, of December 3d,
the conversation which took place between Mr. J. W. Boott and
myself at the time Mr. Brooks refused to sign the deed.
Mr. Boott said, it was what he had expected ; and then added,
with some considerable feeling, " Ours was always a united and
happy family until Brooks came into it."
This conversation, you may remember, I repeated to you at the
time ; and you then asked me if I, at any time, had noticed any
thing in Mr. Boott's manner to justify the remark, that he was in
sane. My answer was, that I never had, and that, in all the inter
views I had had with Mr. Boott, I had ever found him calm and
collected, while Mr. Brooks had been much excited ; and I believe
I laughingly added, that, if I was called upon to say which was the
insane man, my reply would be, not Mr. Boott.
I have, I believe, given, as near as I can recollect, the words
used at the time, and should not have volunteered this testimony,
had I not been particularly requested to do so.
With much respect, I am, dear Sir, yours, &c.
GEO. DARRACOTT.
The impression made upon Mr. Darracott's mind, of
the calmness and self-possession of Mr. Boott, as con
trasted with the excited language of Mr. Edward
Brooks, is very important. The remark, that, if caUed
upon to say which was the insane man, his reply would
be, " Not Mr. Boott," coincides almost in words with an
observation made at the time by Mr. Loring. Tet Mr.
Brooks says (p. 137) : " I cannot say that I was not
exceedingly provoked, nor that I did not sometimes
express myself with warmth, — not concerning Mr.
Wright Boott, of whose partial insanity I was at this

155
time thoroughly convinced, — but concerning some of
my wife's relatives," &c.
Now I have no doubt, that Mr. Brooks sincerely be
Ueves that he manifested great forbearance, at the time
referred to, in speaking of Mr. Wright Boott, — a belief,
as we have seen, utterly at variance with the fact. This
may afford a good Ulustration of the degree of confi
dence to be reposed in a gentleman's estimate of his
own calmness and moderation, when engaged in a quar
rel. Had not Mr. Brooks himself elicited this state
ment from Mr. Darracott, the assertion that he did not
express himself with warmth concerning Mr. Wright
Boott would have stood upon precisely the same ground,
as Mr. WiUiam Boott's narrative of his own calmness
and forbearance now stands, — that is to say, upon
his own uncontradicted authority. On what principle
is Mr. WiUiam Boott's self-commendation entitled to
more credence than Mr. Brooks's ?

MB. LOEING S LETTER.
To John A. Lowell, Esq.
Mr DEAR Friend, — As it is needless to assure you, so I trust
it would be equally so to assure Mr. Brooks, of my friendship for
whom you are aware, that it is with extreme reluctance that I
reply to your note of November 30th, as appearing to take any
part in this unhappy controversy.
But in a public appeal, so deeply affecting your character, and
the memory of one who reposed in me confidence as his profes
sional adviser and friend, and relating to proceedings on your part
and his, some of which were under or in accordance with my pro
fessional advice and sanction, it appears to me a plain dictate of
imperative duty not to withhold any information sought for, which

156

may tend to throw light upon the propriety of them, or be of any
moment in reference to your or his reputation.
My personal acquaintance with Mr. Boott, before I was retained
as his counsel, in June, 1844, though of many years' duration, was
very slight, and afforded no means of judging of his character or
habits of mind, farther than as illustrated in the dignity and exqui
site refinement of manner peculiar to him, and of which the most
casual observer could not be unconscious.
When thus first applied to, I was not, as I believe, informed of
the nature or extent of the difficulties subsisting between him and
members of his family, farther than that the settiement of the
accounts as executor of his father's estate was matter of contro
versy and required professional aid.
And, if my memory is faithful, the first knowledge I had of
the painful details was from Mr. Brooks, in an interview had in
reference to the desire which I entertained and had expressed of
being useful as a mediator, or for the purpose of communicating
to me the views of the other party, to enable me to form a fair
opinion of their respective merits.
I very soon afterwards had the interview with Mr. Boott and
yourself, in which were discussed the state of his affairs as execu
tor, the history of his proceedings in regard to the property which
came to his hands as such, and of his separate estate ; his connec
tion with, and liabilities for, Messrs. Lyman & Ralston ; the distri
bution of portions of the assets among the several children of his
father ; the appropriation of the income belonging to his mother ;
and the means that existed of tracing the property and ascertain
ing the amount of income, and the principles upon which the
investigation should be conducted and the accounts stated ; and the
proofs and vouchers, that would be requisite to sustain them. And
in all the subjects, involving necessarily constant recourse to mem
ory and judgment, and requiring complex explanations, and many
minute details, and a free discussion of questions of equity, Mr.
Boott evinced the most perfect self-possession and coolness, an en
tirely clear perception of the relations, legal and equitable, bet ween
himself and the members of the family, and a most conscientious
desire and. determination, that, let the result be as it might to him-

157
self, he would do all that the strictest justice and honor required
towards them. ALnd,in the conversation that ensued upon the per
sonal controversies of the family, in which most of those stated in
Mr. Brooks's pamphlet and some others were discussed (which
were unavoidably of a painful and exciting nature), he exhibited the
same entire self-possession, — narrated many of the causes and
incidents of the alienations with minute particularity, and explained
the circumstances with the most distinct perception of their rela
tions to each other, without any perceivable excitement in manner or
language, although with very decided expressions of his sense of
the injustice under which he considered that he was suffering.
Justice to the dead requires of me to say, that I left him at the close
of that interview profoundly impressed with the dignity, self-pos
session, intelligence, and manly forbearance which he had ex
hibited. Nothing occurred in the subsequent interviews which tended in
any wise to change the impressions then made, nor any thing, that
I remember, material, until the last evening which we passed in dis
cussing the account, after it was made up and prepared for pre
sentation at the probate office. The course pursued in arriving
at the results stated, the proofs that could be adduced in its sup
port, and the principles of law and equity that were supposed per
tinent, were all considered, and the result was discussed in reference
to its justice to the parties interested. Mr. Boott expressed his firm
conviction, that, if he had charged all that he had expended for the
heirs, and could exhibit a detailed statement of his appropriations
of the property in his hands, a larger balance would be found due
to him ; but he seemed disposed to relinquish any claim for that
exhibited, under the pressure of the circumstances in which he was
placed by his inability to render detailed accounts, and the imputa
tions made upon him of abuse of his trust. And this is the more
deeply impressed upon my memory by the fact, that, in reply
ing to him upon that subject, I designated the course he proposed
as " Quixotic," and felt constrained to apologize for the phrase,
from a sense of its seeming impropriety as used towards one of
the mild and dignified deportment which he had uniformly ex
hibited.

158

In conclusion, I have only to add, that, whatever may have been
the state of Mr. Boott's mind, at previous periods, or at other
times, I had, and now have, no more doubt of his entire sanity
throughout these interviews with me, than I have of my own, or
of that of any other person living.
Yours, ever faithfully,
CHARLES G. LORING.
December 10, 1847.
Ashburton Place.
The manly forbearance on Mr. Boott's part, in dis
cussing matters of such painful interest, was not con
fined to his interviews with INIr. Loring. Dr. Boott
says, in his letter to Mr. WilUam Boott of AprU 15,
1845, that in aU his brother Wright's correspondence
with his friends in England, during those sad disputes,
he " cannot remember any harsh epithet."
One other point, indirectly associated with this sub
ject, I wiU briefly advert to. It is the letter written
to me by Mr. Boott the evening before his death.
Great stress is laid throughout the book upon my
unwillingness to exhibit this letter. ItaUcs innumera
ble are made use of to convey the impression, that some
mysterious motive must have governed me in this
refusal The proceedings before the probate court are
stated by Mr. Brooks (p. 159) to have had no other
object, than to compel its production ; and there was a
bUl of discovery served upon me from the Supreme
Court, with the same view. And, though I distinctly
stated to Mr. Brooks that the letter contained no indi
cation of aberration of mind, — though I repeated the
same thing to Mr. Dexter, adding that there were

159
topics in it of a confidential character, — though I made
an affidavit to the same effect before the probate court,
— yet all this only confirmed Mr. Brooks in his sur
mise, that my motive must be an apprehension that
the letter, if produced, would tend to prove the writer's
insanity. In my interview with Mr. Franklin Dexter on the
Sunday preceding Mr. Boott's funeral, he stated to me
the determination of his clients to have an inquiry
instituted into the question of Mr. Boott's sanity. I
replied, that I did not see how that could be done un
less ex parte, or unless it were by disputing the probate
of Mr. Boott's wUl, of which I was the executor. When
soon afterward Mr. Dexter proposed that I should write
to Mr. Brooks, stating that I had not shown, and would
not show, the letter, and that it had produced no effect
upon my own mind, I answered, that if I were assured it
was not the design of Mr. Brooks and Mr. WUUam Boott
to place me in an antagonistical position to them, by dis
puting the probate of a wUl, which it would be my
duty to defend, I would wilUngly give to Mr. Brooks
the assurance proposed ; — otherwise I must decUne.
Mr. Dexter replied, that in this he thought me quite
right, but that he had no idea that his cUents enter
tained any such intention. This is the simple expla
nation of what appears to Mr. Brooks so singular. I
think it wUl satisfy every impartial reader, that no
thing could be more natural than that the idea of an
intention to break the wiU should have been suggested
to me by Mr. Dexter's declaration of his clients' inten
tion of having an investigation into the question of Mr.

160

Boott's sanity. To Mr. Brooks it seemed a very suspi
cious circumstance ; for
" trifles, light as air.
Are, to the jealous, confirmations strong
As proofs of holy writ."
My motives for withholding the letter were twofold.
I entertained at that moment sincere hopes, that the
differences existing in the famUy would soon die out
for lack of aUment ; and there were passages in this let
ter tending to irritate the parties, and which, for that
reason, I was desirous to withhold. My other motive
was, that the letter contained matter of a strictly coiffi-
dential character, not relating in any way to these dis
putes, which I did not feel at Uberty to disclose. I
accordingly politely, but steadily, declined to exhibit it.
Circumstances occurring before the probate court
compelled me to show the letter to my counsel, Messrs.
Choate and B. R. Curtis, which I had never done before
to any one, not even to Mv. Loring, under whose advice
I had at first acted. I am now enabled to present their
confirmation of the character I had ascribed to the
letter of being written with great calmness, as befitted
the occasion, and evincing no aberration of mind.
LETTER FROM MESSRS. CURTIS AND CHOATE.
Court Street, December 3, 1847.
John A. Lowell, Esq.
Dear Sir,
We were of counsel for the probate of the late Mr. J. W. Boott's
will, both in the probate court, and on the appeal taken by the
party opposing the probate of the will.

161

After a oall had been made on you in the probate court to -pro
duce a letter from Mr. Boott to yourself, in which his will was said
to have been inclosed, you showed the letter to us as your legal
counsel. The reasons for showing us the letter were, that we might ad
vise you whether the letter was a testamentary paper, and to be
produced as such and placed on file in the probate court ; and that
we might form an opinion, whether the letter, if produced, would
tend to prove the insanity of the writer, and adopt such meas
ures in the conduct of the cause as its production should make
necessary, in case the judge of probate should order you to
produce it.
We read the letter in your presence, and advised you that it was
not a testamentary paper, and that, in our opinion, it did not evince
unsoundness of mind.
We thought the letter would be evidence of the sanity of the
writer, and that if there were not insuperable objections to its pro
duction, arising from the nature of its contents, it would help the
cause at issue, to produce it. We have no doubt, that,, if it had
been left to our discretion to use the letter or not to use, it on trial
of the issue of Mr. Boott's sanity, having regard to nothing but the
success of our client's cause, we should have decided, to use it in
proof that he was sane.
It was by our advice that you resigned the executorship of Mr.
Boott's will.
. Our reason for advising your resignation was, that we feared, if
you remained executor, the party opposing the will might file a
bill of discovery against you, as a party to the record, and compel
yod to answer such specific questions as might be thought favorable
to the appeal, allowing you no opportunity to say any thing beyond
a categorical answer to those questions^
We thought it proper, that you should place yourself in a situa
tion, where, if you testified at all, you would be able to tell the
whole truth.
If we remember aright, but a few weeks elapsed, before the
21

162

filing of a bill of discovery against you proved the soundness of
our advice. With great respect,
Your obedient servants, B. R. CURTIS,
RUFUS CHOATE.
It wUl thus be seen that the letter in question had
the character which I had aU along ascribed to it ; — and
I have no doubt, that men of high honor, and refined
feeUng, wiU appreciate my motives in withholding it.
It is said, in Mr. Brooks's pamphlet, that I at
one time entertained serious doubts as to Mr. Boott's
sanity. This is strictly true, — but my opinion was
founded on ex parte statements that Mr. Boott was
deeply offended with several of his relatives without
any apparent cause ; — and I stated this opinion to
Dr. James Jackson. On meeting and conversing after
wards upon these dissensions with Mr. Brooks and Mr.
WiUiam Boott, I found such a degree of exasperation
against Mr. Wright Boott, as appeared to me totaUy
inconsistent with a heartfelt beUef in his insanity.
When I heard, some months afterwards, that my name,
and that of Dr. Jackson, had been used in England to
confirm the aUegation of Mr. Boott's insanity, I felt
it to be my duty to caU on Dr. Jackson, and present to
him this new aspect of the case. I did so, nearly
in the words, as I beUeve, employed by me in the
above statement. Dr. Jackson concurred with me in
the view I now entertained of the matter, and said, that,
as oral opinions were Uable to misconstruction, he

163
would send me a note upon the subject. He did so,
and it was as foUows :
Mt Dear Sir,
I wish to make a statement to you respecting our friend Mr. J.
Wright Boott, of which you will make any use you may think
proper. When you mentioned to me, several months since, the state of
Mr. Boott's mind and feelings with respect to some of his friends,
I expressed an opinion that be was affected with a species of mono
mania. By this I meant a state in which one idea had taken so
firm a possession of the mind, as to exclude the influence of all
rational argument in opposition to that idea. When applied to by
some of Mr. Boott's friends, I gave the opinion I had formed
respecting him.
During the past winter I have had occasion to be at Mr. Boott's
house very often, on professional business. I availed myself of
the opportunity to observe him, in consequence of the anxiety
respecting him, which this opinion had created ; but I did not dis
cover any thing in his mind indicating disorder. There was not,
however, between him and me, nor in my presence, any allusion
to the subjects connected with what I had regarded as his mono
mania. Since the statement which you made to me two days since, I
have altered the opinion, which I formerly adopted and expressed.
I do not pretend to decide what the facts are ; but, on the statement
you last made to me, I should judge that there was not any evi
dence of monomania in Mr. Boott's case.
I do not regard my opinion as important to any one ; but so far
as an erroneous one has had any influence, I wish to counteract
that by this statement. I am, my dear Sir, your faithful friend, J. JACKSON.
Pemberton Square, April 9, 1844.
Mr. Brooks complains, in his pamphlet, that he does
not know what my statements to Dr. Jackson were.

164

That is his own fault ; for I repeated them distinctly
to Mr. WiUiam Boott, and Dr. Jackson would no doubt
have readily satisfied him on this point, had he asked
him. They were substantially the same as I made to
Dr. Francis Boott in the following letters, copies of
which were also shown by me to Mr. William Boott.
Boston, April 10, 1844.
Francis Boott, Esq., London.
My dear Friend, — As I have been told, that my opinion has
been quoted to you on the subject of the state of your brother
Wright's mind, I think that it would be unfair, both to him and to
you, if I allowed such a statement to be made without the proper
qualification. I have never seen any thing in my intercourse with him, that
would have induced such a suspicion.
It is true that, upon an ex parte statement from others, that he had
taken great offence, without any provocation, against members of
his own family, — and had proceeded to personal violence against
one of them, — I became apprehensive that constant seclusion was
producing unhappy effects upon his mind ; and I did confidentially
consult Dr. Jackson, whether it might not be well to induce him,
by a change of scene, to dispel any ideas that might be taking too
strong possession of his imagination.
Since that time, I have found, in my intercourse with other
parties, a degree of exasperation against him, that gives to the
whole matter, much more than I had supposed, the aspect of an
ordinary quarrel, in which both sides may have given and endured
provocation without impeachment of the moral or physical sanity
of either, and I must say, that this exasperation is quite inconsist
ent with a conscientious belief, however they may persuade them
selves, that so near a relative has been afflicted with this greatest
of human misfortunes.
You will not understand me, my dear friend, as taking any part,
or expressing any opinion, on the original matters in dispute. I
have carefully avoided hearing any statements from either side.

165
I have said to both of them, that there was no sacrifice, of time or
feeling, that I would not make, to bring about a reconciliation ;
but that, if there was no hope of success as a peace-maker, I was
determined not to become involved in the matter.
My only object now is to prevent improper inferences being
made from a supposed expression of opinion on my part, — an
opinion originally founded on hypothetical statements, and which
I now see what I think good reason to withdraw.
I mclose a letter from Dr. Jackson on the same subject.
I remain yours very truly,
J. A. LOWELL.
And again, a few days later :
Boston, April 19, 1844.
Francis Boott, Esq., London.
My dear Friend, — I wrote to you a few days since, inclosing
a letter from Dr. Jackson, intended to remove any unfair impres
sion that might have arisen in your mind from the opinion attribu
ted to him, as to the state of your brother's mind. I have since
seen Wright on business connected with these unhappy differences,
and am fully persuaded that he is as self-possessed and rational as
you or I are.
As I have said to you before, 1 have no knowledge, nor do I
wish to have, of the causes of these dissensions, nor do I blame
any one. Misunderstandings will arise among the most honorable
and high-minded men, and the interference of friends frequently
proves unavailing.
But I do know much, — more, perhaps, than any other person, —
of the history of this property and its management ; and I am very
sure, that, with many and very grave errors of form, substantially
the whole matter stands right ; and I do earnestiy desire, that a
pure, generous, and high-minded man, whom I have known as
such for nearly thirty years, should be shielded from the conse
quences of merely technical omissions.
I am, dear sir, very truly yours,
J. A. LOWELL.

166

Let the reader judge how far these letters bear out
the theory of Mr. Brooks's book, that I was perpetu
ating the misunderstandings and keeping aUve the
resentments of the Boott famUy. It is not, however,
surprising, that one, who could view Mr. Wells's mUd
suppUcation to be aUowed to remain neutral, as a
declaration of war, should feel deeply incensed with
me, when my fideUty to the memory of my friend
brought me into direct antagonism with those views,
which he thought it for his interest or reputation to
establish. Whether it arose from this tendency of his mind to
hold every one who was not his aUy, as an enemy, or
whether it was to create an excuse for the publication
of his pamphlet, certain it is, that, from the moment of
Mr. Boott's death, Mr. Brooks has lost no opportunity
of endeavouring to fasten a quarrel upon me. When
foiled in one direction, he has eagerly sought for
another. I had stated to Mr. Brooks, and afterwards to Mr.
Dexter, immediately after the inquest, that I had not
shown, and did not intend to show, to any one the
letter written to me by Mr. Boott on the evening
before his death. A day or two afterwards, Mr. Dex
ter wrote to me to say, that he had learned from the
coroner, that I had exhibited to him that letter, that
he had read the greater part of it, and had not been
restricted from reading the whole. Mr. Dexter added,
that, under the present aspect of the case, his cUents,
Messrs. Brooks and WUUam Boott, must decline pledg
ing themselves to any course in regard to Mr. Wright
Boott's wUl.

167
It wUl be remarked, that here is an imputation,
that I had falsely represented myself as not having
shown Mr. Boott's letter, and that a course of action is
indicated as the consequence of the discovery of the
misrepresentation. I was exceedingly astonished at such a charge,
conscious as I was that the letter had never been read
to any one. I immediately called upon Mr. Loring,
who suggested the propriety of at once sending for
the coroner, which was accordingly done. At the
interview which ensued, beside Mr. Loring and myself,
Mr. Webb, a student in Mr. Loring's office, was present,
and he took notes. The coroner, in reply to Mr. Loring's
question as to what had passed, and without any inti
mation of what Mr. Dexter's note contained, or of any
point between the parties, stated as follows (I copy
fi-om Mr. Webb's notes, App. p. 62) :
" Mr. Pratt said, that he had received three or four calls
on this matter, from Mr. Dexter, Mr. Robert C. Hooper,
and others, and was asked whether he had seen Mr.
Boott's letter ; that he answered, that he did see it ;
that Mr. Lowell opened the letter in his presence, and
read to him some extracts, or repeated some portions
of it; that the letter stated that he #ade Mr. LoweU
his executor, gave some directions about the distribu
tion of his effects, and aUuded to the intention of self-
destruction. " That they asked him whether he had heard or seen
any thing in the letter about Mr. Edward Brooks, and
that he answered. No !
"That he had told them that something had been heard

168

by him about difficulties in the famUy, but he could
not say whether he got the idea from the letter or not.
That at the inquest, the jury asked the coroner
whether he had seen the letter, and he told them that
it was opened in his presence ; that he then inquired of
Mr. LoweU if the letter aUuded to the suicide, and he
said it did." "That Mr. Dexter was mistaken in saying
that he (Mr. Pratt) said that he saw or heard the
greater part of the letter; that it was a very long
letter, and very Uttle was read to him.
"And at the close of the conversation, he added
that he did not know untU this moment that Mr.
Brooks's name was mentioned in the letter ; and that Mr.
LoweU had never mentioned Mr. Brooks's name in his
presence, excepting in reply to the question who were
the members of Mr. Boott's family, and has no idea,
now, whether the allusions are favorable or unfavorable."
This is explicit enough ; and there can be no doubt
that this is precisely what Mr. Pratt said, taken down,
as it was, from his lips, and in the presence of Mr.
Loring and myself
One of these two things, therefore, must have oc
curred ; either Mr. Dexter must have misapprehended
what the coronef had said to him (and, though I should
repose as much confidence in Mr. Dexter's exactness
as in that of any one, this obviously may have been
the case) ; or else the coroner made two statements
within twenty-four hours, on the same point, diametri
cally at variance with each other. In either case, the
imputation against me falls to the ground ; in the first
case it is refuted ; in the second, one statement of the

169

coroner neutralizes the other, and my own remains un
contradicted. It then became the bounden duty of
Mr. Brooks and Mr. WiUiam Boott, as gentiemen and
men of honor, to tender to me an apology for having
doubted my word. They not only did not do this, but
they proceeded, at once, to take the very course, with
respect to the probate of Mr. Boott's wUl, which had
been indicated by Mr. Dexter as a consequence of the
discovery of my supposed misstatement. It is per
fectly obvious, that they shut their ears to any justifi
cation of the course I had pursued ; and this could
have arisen only from a necessity of having some
ostensible antagonist, in assailing whom they might
less invidiously attack the memory of Mr. Boott.
From that moment forward, Mr. Brooks lost no oppor
tunity of evincing his hostUity to me ; he retired from
several boards of which we were both members, on the
avowed ground that he could not be associated with
me ; and he entirely ceased speaking to me. AU this
I cared very little for, and never, in a single instance,
retaUated. At the same time, Mr. WilUam Boott was writing to
Dr. Boott, in London, concerning me, in such a strain
as to caU forth from his brother the foUoAving cutting
reproof I extract it from a copy, in Dr. Boott's hand
writing, of a letter from himself to Mr. WUliam Boott,
of AprU 15, 1845.
" But you seem," he says, " to be animated by the
same spirit of animosity " [as during Mr. Wright Boott's
Ufetime], " and, having lost one object of resentment,
to turn with even embittered rancor upon another."
22

170

Again : " Tou write with a fierce enmity towards
Mr. LoweU," &c.
Again : " Mr. LoweU has her [his mother's] confidence,
and wiU be the friend to whom she wiU refer in aU
things connected with her property. Tou cannot ex
pect her to act in opposition to her own judgment,
merely because you differ from her. Mr. LoweU has aU
the just claims of his own high character, his early
association with my father, and he has the para
mount claim as poor Wright's steadfast Mend, and he
has the confidence of James, Mrs. WeUs, and Mrs. Ral
ston. Tou much mistake your position, if you suppose
that you and Mrs. Brooks can outweigh these names.
I do not hesitate to say, I confide in Mr. LoweU, and
that I shall write him to express my feelings."
I wUl adduce a single instance to show the temper
in which these letters of Mr. WUUam Boott to Eng
land were written. To make the passage intelUgible,
it is necessary to premise, that Mr. Wright Boott
died on the 6th of March, 1845 ; that the house in
Bowdoin Square had been sold, and was to be delivered
to the purchasers on the 1st of AprU ; that, conse
quently, there was not time to request and receive any
instructions from Mrs. Boott, in London, before it would
be necessary to dispose of her furniture ; that she had
given directions with regard to this point to Mr.
Wright Boott ; and that Mr. Wright Boott, the even
ing before his death, had written to his sister, Mrs.
Ralston, requesting her to come to Boston and attend
to this matter for him.
Under these circumstances, it became my duty to

171
take upon myself, however reluctantly, the task of
fulfilling, so far as the altered circumstances would
permit, the expressed intentions, both of Mrs. Boott
respecting her effects then in the house, and of Mr.
Wright Boott concerning his. For I was the private
trustee of Mrs. Boott, and special administrator (the
wUl being disputed) of Mr. Wright Boott. I did not
shrink from this unpleasant responsibility; and Mrs.
Ralston, under written instructions from me, proceeded
to prepare Mrs. Boott's furniture for sale. A few arti
cles were selected by different members of the family
as keepsakes ; and I offered to Mr. WUliam Boott, and
through him to Mrs. Brooks, the opportunity of a simi
lar selection, which was declined.
My written directions were as foUows :
Boston, March 28, 1845.
My dear Mrs. Ralston,
By your father's will, the whole of his household furniture,
plate, watches, wine, and liquors of all sorts, were given and be
queathed to your mother.
She was also appointed residuary legatee of all property not
bequeathed otherwise. This clause would convey the books and
all other personal effects.
The approaching delivery of the house makes it necessary, that
some disposition should be made of the books, plate, furniture,
pictures, &c. Your mother's letters to Wright, and some to my
self, express her wishes that these things should be sold, with cer
tain exceptions. These exceptions refer chiefly to articles she
wished Mm to keep, and are of course superseded by his death.
If time permitted, we should certainly ^pply to her for renewed
instructions ; but, as that cannot be done, we must conform as
nearly as may be with the spirit of those given before.
As the legal representative of Wright, and the private trustee of

172

your mother, it seems to devolve upon me to assume this responsi
bility, and I will endeavour to correspond with what I think would
be her views.
I do therefore hereby authorize and request you to reserve from
the furniture, plate, books, and other effects, any articles, which any
of her children may wish to retain ; and to cause to be inventoried,
and prepared for sale at the earliest day, the remainder.
As I have no legal authority to represent Mr. James Boott,
though I have reason to suppose he has made me his executor, I
think it would be wise to keep all his property distinct, safely
packed, and deposited at Mr. Wells's, or some other place of
safety, till his instructions can be received.
I am yours very truly,
J. A. LOWELL.
London, April, 1845.
I approve of the above disposition of my furniture and effects.
MARY BOOTT.
The above letter wUl show the caution, and iUustrate
the spirit, with which I acted on that occasion.
The following commentary I extract from a letter of
Mr. WUUam Boott to his brother James, March 31, 1845 :
" The Ralstons are here, and, with J. A. LoweU and
young Kirk Boott, sacking the house, — prying into
every corner, — burning and dividing the plunder."
Dr. Boott, in his letter to Mr. WUliam Boott of AprU
15, 1845, answers this charge : " What he [Mr. Lowell]
and Mrs. Ralston have since done, they had fuU power
to do, and it has met with my mother's sanction."
Mrs. Ralston, thus unceremoniously spoken of, is Mr.
William Boott's own sister, — a lady universally ad
mired and beloved for the dignity, grace, and gentle
ness of her deportment, and one whom Mr. Brooks de
scribes (p. 82) as a person who " was always amiable."

173
How Mr. WiUiam Boott came to be so intimately
acquainted with what was going on in the mansion-
house does not appear. But, whether his information
was derived from Mrs. Lyman, or from the servants, it
throws some Ught upon the question of Mr Wright
Boott's " insanity," when he suspected him of having
secret modes of obtaining intelligence.
At the same time that Mr. WUUam Boott was writing
about me, in so amiable a strain, to England, Mr. Robert
C. Hooper (who, it wiU be remembered, is named by the
coroner as one of the persons who made themselves
busy in interrogating him about the letter received by
me from Mr. Boott,) was endeavouring to do me a Uke
favor in a letter to Mr. James Boott.
" I am very sorry," he says, under date of March 31,
"that a certain person (J. A. L.) has acted with so
much indeUcacy and uncharitableness ; and I have no
hesitation in expressing my opinion, that, had it not
been for his recent interference, the family difficulties
would ere this have aU been settled, and those irritating
feeUngs have aU been aUayed."
Mr. James Boott was just about as much affected by
Mr. Robert C. Hooper's opinion, as Dr. Boott had been
by Mr. WiUiam Boott's.
I had been in possession of all these letters nearly
eighteen months before Mr. Brooks opened the cor
respondence with me, which forms the theme of his
recent strictures. I took no notice of them at the
time, nor should I now, but for the duty I owe to the
memory of my friend. I hope, however, that I shall
not incur the imputation of insanity, if I surmise that
these gentlemen were in a "conspiracy" against me.

174
Mr. Brooks, by putting the correspondence of De
cember, 1846, at the beginning of his book, produces
the impression that this was our first intercourse upon
the subject. Had he narrated events in their chrono
logical order, it would have been apparent that he had,
by his own course of conduct, forfeited aU right to caU
upon me for an explanation.
He says (p. 162): "I hold him [Mr. LoweU] not
excused, as a gentleman, for refusing to inform me
what his testimony was, when asked for the declared
purpose of enabling me to correct erroneous impressions
produced by it to my serious detriment."
Mr. Brooks forgets, that, nearly two years before, he
had put himself in the position of having doubted
my word, and, when the evidence, on which that doubt
rested, had been, if not refuted, entirely neutraUzed, of
having offered no apology for so insulting a doubt.
There cannot be two opinions, among men of honor,
as to his having forfeited the right of claiming any
explanation from me. A desire of preventing, if stiU
possible, the pubUc disclosure of these disgraceful
feuds, and a lingering tenderness towards him, alone
prevented me from treating his appUcation as it de
served. Long before Mr. Wright Boott's death, Mr. WUUam
Boott had shown a disposition to resent any expression
of opinion on my part favorable to his brother, as if it
conveyed by implication a censure upon himself
In June, 1844, he addressed to me the foUowing
letter :

175 Boston, June 22, 1844.
Dear Sir,
I have, with great surprise, lately learned from England, that
you have been writing to my mother about the difficulties existing
in her family, and that your opinion or advice has had an influence
in determining her conduct towards some of her children.
Will you have the kindness to send me a copy of what you have
written to her, and to give me the reason for your interference ?
I have also learned, at second hand, from Dr. J. Jackson, that you
made a statement to him last year, upon which he gave an opinion
that my brother Wright was of unsound mind ; that you afterwards
made a second statement to him, which led him to reverse his opin
ion ; and that he, at your request, gave you this second opinion in
writing. If these things so happened, will you oblige me by informing me
when your second statement was made, — what it was, — why the
precaution was taken of getting Dr. Jackson to write his opinion, —
and whether, at the time of making your second statement, you
had inquired for, and were possessed of, the facts necessary for
forming a correct judgment upon the point in question ?
With many apologies for this trouble,
I am, Dear Sir,
Yours very truly,
WILLIAM BOOTT.
J. A. Lowell, Esq.
As I had most carefully avoided all interference and
any expression of opinion in these dissensions, I was
much surprised at the tone of the above letter, to which
I sent the foUowing answer :
Boston, June 24, 1844.
William Boott, Esq.
My dear Sir,
I am willing to believe that your note of Saturday, though some
what peremptory in form, was not intended to be disrespectful or
unfriendly. On that belief I will answer it.

176

I never wrote to your mother in my life. I never gave, directly
or indirectly, any opinion or advice that could influence her con
duct towards her children.
I never made any statement of facts to Dr. Jackson, except such
as referred to the state of feeling between the parties, — facts suffi
ciently notorious.
I did not request of him to reduce his opinion to writing.
I will only add, that many dissensions and family quarrels, espe
cially with persons of a naturally reserved temperament, have their
origin in the hasty adoption of second-hand rumors.
I did write to Frank on the subject of the state of his brother's
mind. If you are disposed to call at my office in a spirit of friend
liness, I will read you that letter with pleasure.
I am. Dear Sir,
Yours very truly,
J. A. LOWELL.
Mr. WiUiam Boott accordingly caUed at my office,
and I read to him my letters to Dr. Francis Boott
above transcribed.
It is not true, that I ever took any part, or attempted
to influence any one, in these family dissensions, untU
my position as Mr. Boott's executor compeUed me to act
on the defensive. Though the theory of Mr. Brooks's
book is, that all the opinions of the Boott famUy were
swayed by me, it is wonderful what sUght proof, even
of that gossamer kind that serves his purpose, he has
been able to adduce of any such influence. There is a
faint attempt to make it out, that I had written to jMts.
Boott prior to the 24th of June, 1844, which I certainly
never did. But the phrases quoted from Dr. Boott's
letters to prove it (p. 141), — " letters received hy my
mother, from Dr. J. and 3Ir. L." and again, '¦' appeals made
to her, simultaneously, from^ Mr. Lowell [who inclosed

177
a mte to Mm from Dr. Jackson,) " &c., — sufficiently iden
tify the supposed letters with those to himself, tran
scribed by me above, in which I did inclose Dr. Jack
son's note to me, and which related to Mr. Boott's sanity
only, and expressed no opinion upon the merits of the
quarrel. Mr. Brooks's motive, in aUeging that I had so written
to Mrs. Boott, appears to be, to throw doubt upon the
accuracy of my statement to Mr. WiUiam Boott (App.
p. 41), that I had never, at that time, June 24, 1844,
" written to his mother in my life." But Mr. WiUiam
Boott was then, and for a year afterwards, in correspond
ence with his friends in England, and might easily have
ascertained whether my statement was true or not.
In fact he did write to his brother, Dr. Boott, by
the next steamer, June 30, 1844, quoting these very
words of mine. Did he ever receive from England any
contradiction of what I had affirmed ? He certainly did
not ; and it was impossible that he should, as I never
had written to Mrs. Boott, or given, " directly or indi
rectly, any opinion or advice, that could influence her
conduct towards her chUdren." Tet Mr. Brooks does
not hesitate to intimate, that I had so written ; and,
with respect to my letters to Dr. Francis Boott, he
says (p. 98), " But the contents of the letter I am not
fiiUy informed of"
Mr. WUliam Boott was fuUy informed of the contents
of both of the above letters, Avhich I read to him ; and
he expressly says in his letter, above mentioned, to
his brother, "He [Mr. LoweU] gave no opinion about
the dissensions in which Wright has placed the family."
Mr. Brooks further says (p. 98) : " Mr. LoweU read
23

178
to him [Mr. WUliam Boott], at the same time, a draft
of a letter to Mrs. Boott, which it was understood had
not yet been sent — but Mr. WUUam Boott is unable
to recollect the contents of these letters, except that
they went to explain the circumstances under which
the property of the estate had come to IVIr. LoweU's
hands, as security for Mr. Wright Boott's note, which
he took and held as a trustee, without fault on his own
part ; and also were calculated to convey an impression
that Mr. Wright Boott's state of mind was not one of
insanity." Supposing this to be true, how does it bear out the
aUegation, that I was " the responsible source of opin
ions formed in London, unfavorable" to Mr. WilUam
Boott and Mr. Brooks ? (p. 141.)
But it is not true, that I read to Mr. WUUam Boott the
draft of any such letter to his mother^ This sufficiently
appears by the postscript to his above-mentioned letter
to Dr. Boott, in which he says, " I omitted to state that
Mr. L. told me that he had a letter from mother by the
last steamer, which he should reply to," without any
intimation that I had prepared, or read to him, any
draft of a reply. The express object of his letter is to
comment on mine to Dr. Boott, but no aUusion is made
even to the subject-matter of my supposed letter to his
mother. It is certainly true, that I had then received,
for the first time in my Ufe, a letter fi-om his mother ;
but its object was to request me to induce Mr. Wright
Boott, if the house were sold and the establishment
broken up, to accept from her certain articles of neces
sary furniture, which it seemed that she had offered to
him, and which he had declined.

179
Six months later, Mrs. Boott, at Mrs. Brooks's re
quest (App. p. 49), asked my opinion on certain points ;
which, thus requested, I freely gave ; and it was the
draft of the letter containing that opinion, which, in
January, 1845, 1 read to Mr. WiUiam Boott.
It will not escape observation, that I was so far from
desiring or permitting any influence, that might chance
to attach to my opinion, to operate silently, in London,
to the disadvantage of these gentlemen, that I commu
nicated to Mr. WiUiam Boott himself the only letter,
expressing any opinion, which I had written previously
to Mr. Wright Boott's death.
With the above exception, absolutely nothing is ad
duced to prove any influence exercised by me, except
the foUowing, which is so curious as to deserve a mo
ment's notice.
In the autumn of 1843, Mrs. Kirk Boott, on a visit
at my house in Roxbury, inquired of me with some
solicitude, whether there was any truth in a rumor,
that had recently been put abroad, that the trust fund,
on the income of which her mother-in-law depended for
support, was rapidly wasting away, and that there was
danger of its being totally lost. Such an inquiry
struck me with perfect astonishment; it was within
my own knowledge, as it was equally so within that of
Mr. Brooks, with whom I had frequently conversed on
the subject, that the property remained in precisely the
position, that it had been in for a long term of years.
I so stated to Mrs. Boott ; and authorized her to use
my authority to contradict the rumor, whenever it
should reach her ears. She asked me nothing about

180

any other matters, relating to the early management
of the property ; had she done so, I should doubtless
have told her, substantiaUy, what I now say, on that
subject, in this Reply.
Mr. Brooks's commentary is as foUows (p. 143):
" Now, although Mr. Lowell was guarded enough to
confine the use of his name to a statement relating
only to Mrs. Booties property, and only to its comparor
tive condition then and twelve years before (which just
went back to the time of Mr. Wright Boott's extrication
from the business of the Iron Foundery, in 1831), yet
the ladies, who had this piece of information, would not
be likely to measure language with the same exact
ness." Mrs. Boott's question related exclusively to the
$100,000 trust fund for Mrs. Boott, senior, and to that
straightforward and simple question, I gave an equaUy
simple and straightforward answer. Did not Mr.
Brooks know, when he wrote this paragraph, that Mrs.
Boott's trust fund was the only subject spoken of? He
certainly did ; for these are the words of Mr. WeUs's
letter, from which he derived his information: "Mr.
LoweU stated to her, that, having heard it reported,
that Mrs. Boott's property had been materiaUy dimin
ished, he could say this was not the case^ — it remained
as it was twelve years ago." (p. 142.) The only inac
curacy in this, though passing through the Ups of two
ladies, Mrs. WeUs and Mrs. Kirk Boott (the italics
are Mr. Brooks's), and one gentleman, is, that it was
Mrs. Kirk Boott, and not myself, who had heard the
report, and that my statement was in answer to an
inquiry from her, and not volunteered.

181
Mr. Brooks complains, in the above paragraph, not
only that I confined myself to Mrs. Boott's property
(the only subjectrmatter of the conversation), but fur
ther, that I limited my answer to a period of twelve
years. Now he teUs us himself (p. 41), that it was in
1831 that I was consulted about the affairs of Mr.
Wright Boott. I had never had any opportunity of a
personal acquaintance with his affairs or management
between 1824 and 1831. Nor had my intervention in
1831 any relation whatsoever to his accounts as execu
tor, nor to his management of his father's estate, or of
the trust funds, but was simply and exclusively directed
to extricating him from his connection with Messrs.
Lyman & Ralston, whose bankruptcy was at that time
apprehended, although it never took place. I therefore
submit, that I very properly confined my reply to the
subject-matter inquired of, and to the Umit of time
within my personal knowledge and observation.
These facts are as well known to Mr. Brooks as to
myself. Are his inferences fair towards me ?
Mr. Brooks goes on to complain further :
" Mr. LoweU did not inform Mrs. Kirk Boott, that, a
very little more than twelve years before, the whole of that
property came near being lost, in Mr. Wright Boott's
private speculations; nor, that a great part of it
was lost ; nor, that more than half of aU that was
left (the mansion-house excepted) stood pledged, at that
very moment, to himself, for Mr. Wright Boott's per
sonal debts ; nor that, during the twelve years spoken of,
Mr. Wright Boott had paid, in principal and interest,
aiout $60,000 of his own debts, out of Mrs. Boott's
property."

182

Now these are the very points at issue between
]\lr. Brooks and Mr. Wright Boott. If jNIr. Brooks has
made them out, he has estabUshed his case as between
himself and Mr. Boott ; but he has no right to make
use of them to my injury, as he does in the above
extract, until he has proved, which he has never yet
attempted to do, that I knew, or had opportunity to
know, — that I beUeved, or had reason to beUeve, —
the truth of these aUegations, when I made the state
ment to Mrs. KUk Boott in the faU of 1843.
The truth is, that, with the exception of a portion of
the property being pledged to me, I do not believe one
word of any of these aUegations now, nor do I believe
the pubUc wUl, on a candid perusal of the foregoing pages.
What is more to the purpose of Mr. Brooks's fauness in
bringing the charge against me above cited, it was not
within my knowledge in 1843, at the time of my con
versation with Mrs. Boott, that any such aUegations
had ever been made against Mr. Wright Boott, or that
any human being believed in them, or had ever ven
tured to assert them.
With the exception of this answer to a plain and
direct question of Mrs. Kirk Boott as to the existing
state of the property, ^Ir. Brooks has utterly faUed to
show that I in any way influenced the opinions of the
Boott famUy. The letters I wrote to Dr. Boott were
forced from me by my name having been used in Eng
land to countenance the opinion of Mr. Wright Boott's
insanity, and were written, I think it wUl be admitted,
with great fairness and impartiality.
That I had always endeavoured so to act, while
doing my duty towards my friend and former partner,

183
as to interfere as Uttle as possible in mere personal
disputes, wiU be apparent from Mr. Lormg's letter to
Mr. Dexter, pubUshed by Mr. Brooks (App. p. 63) :
"I hardly need assure you, that I have a very hearty
friendship for Mr. Brooks, and should rejoice to be use
ful in terminating any unhappy feelings that he may
entertain towards my friend, whom I now represent,
and who I know has sedulously endeavoured to avoid
getting entangled in the controversy in Mr. Boott's
famUy, and to mitigate the excitement on either side,
feeling a constantly expressed regard for all, and an
unwUUngness to hear the accusations of either. He is
now, however, placed in a peculiar position, as the rep
resentative of the deceased, whom he most highly
respected and dearly loved, and must pursue the course
demanded by that respect and affection ; while he
trusts that it wUl cause no further uneasiness, or any
unkindness on the part of those who may differ from
him in opinion."
It wUl be remembered that Mr. Loring, as counsel
for Mr. Boott, had been in the position that enabled
him best to judge of my feeUngs and statements.
The same caution and, I may be aUowed to add,
delicacy, I continued to exercise after Mr. Boott's
death. If I took immediate measures for having an inquest
held, it was, as Dr. Jackson and Mrs. Lyman well know,
that the fact of Mr. Boott's suicide might be estabUshed
before any vulgar rumors should assign another cause
for his violent end. Mr. Brooks declined being pre
sent (p. 146) "from motives of delicacy" (p. 169),

184

which I could weU appreciate, and which would apply
with at least equal force to Mr. WiUiam Boott. It
never occurred to me, that either of them would dream
of being present.
In this view of the case, I am confirmed by Dr.
Francis Boott, who says, on this very point, to his
brother WUliam, in his letter of April 15, 1845: "I
would have done the same in his [Mr. LoweU's] posi
tion. Tou forget the language you had used."
I distinctly stated to Mr. Brooks, that the inquest
would be held that afternoon, and as early as possible,
from respect to Mrs. Lyman's feeUngs, and that the
jury might see every thing as nearly in its original
condition as possible. I offered to inform Mr. WUUam
Boott, not of the inquest, but of the suicide ; and this
was from a kind motive, to save him from the shock of
being abruptly informed of it by a stianger.
That this was understood, at the time, to be the mo
tive for my offering to meet Mr. WUliam Boott at the
cars, appears from his own letter to Dr. Boott of March
10, 1845, in which he says : "Mary and Edward both
expressed their apprehensions at the effect that the
news might have on me, if abruptly communicated.
Mr. LoweU pledged himself, that he would take care
of that, and that he would go himself to the cars to
meet me." *
I have already explained how I was prevented from
executing that intention. Mr. Brooks was fuUy ad
vised of my opinions on the subject of Mr. Boott's
insanity, both by my letters to Dr. Boott, above cited,
which I had read to Mr. WUUam Boott, and by my

185
conversation with himself that morning, in which I
refused to assent to his inference on that point from
the suicide. My receiving the letter afterwards could
make no difference in the course that it was my duty
to pursue, except that it made it imperative upon me,
as the representative of Mr. Boott, to take upon my
self (what kindness to the parties, and a desire to
spare their feelings, had already induced me to as
sume,) the labor and responsibiUty of the inquest and
the funeral, — and that it rendered it indispensable that
I should appear as a witness, being the only person in
formed by the deceased himself of his intended self-
destruction. I have already shown, that having received
Mr. Boott's wUl could have no bearing upon my con
duct, nor involve any necessity of notifying the inquest
to Mr. Brooks or to Mr. William Boott, because the ver
dict of a jury of inquest not only is not final, but has
not any legal bearing, on the issue of insanity. In fact,
an opinion on that subject is, in this country, rarely
embodied in their verdict, unless at the special request
of friends, and was not, in fact, in this instance ex
pressed at all. I should have given no opinion on that
point, if it had not been called out by a direct question.
Mr. Brooks complains (page 171), that " Mrs. Lyman,
without any notice to her of the existence of a will,
then in Mr. Lowell's possession, cutting her off from
any share of her brother's property, was used as a wit
ness to establish the sanity of the testator, and stopped,
by him, from testifying what would have had a contrary
tendency." Was ever any thing more unfair ? In the
first place, I had not seen Mrs. Lyman, ^fter I had
24

186

received the wUl, till I saw her on the stand. Secondly,
the verdict of the jury had no effect to prevent her
from appeaUng, as in fact she afterwards did appeal,
against the probate of the wUl. Thirdly, 1 did not
interrupt Mrs. Lyman at aU, and she did proceed to
state the manner in which she had Uved in the house ; —
that she had not had any intercourse with her brother
for the whole period of her residence there. This, at her
request, was not recorded. She further added, as Dr.
Putnam says, and, as is weU remembered by Mr. Kirk
Boott, by the coroner, and by myself, that this non-inter
course arose from her own fault.
But, after aU, what does Mr. Brooks mean to inti
mate ? That Mrs. Lyman would have testffied differ
ently, if she had known, or thought, that she had some
pecuniary interest at stake ? I wUl do her the justice
to say, that I believe no such thing. I never saw a
human being more deeply moved than she appeared to
be at that moment, or more desirous of atoning for
what she felt to have been unkind treatment of her
brother. That Mrs. Lyman's conduct and feelings on that
melancholy occasion made a simUar impression upon
the mind of so competent an observer as Dr. James
Jackson, wUl appear by the foUowing letter :
Pemberton Square, January 26, 1848.
My dear Sir, — In accordance with the wish you expressed
this morning, I will state to you what I recollect in respect to Mrs.
Mary Lyman's conduct on the day of the death of her brother,
Mr. J. Wright Boott.
On that day, about one o'clock, you came to my house, and

187
showed me a note signed " Mary Lyman," or " M. Lyman," I forget
which. The note was written without the usual formalities, and
every thing about it showed that the writer was under great agita
tion. You expressed doubts as to the person who wrote it, but I
felt persuaded that it was from the sister of Mr. Boott. The note
begged you to go directly to her, and to take me with you. We
went accordingly to Mr. Boott's residence in Bowdoin Square.
On our arrival, Mrs. Lyman met us in the entry, and led us to
Mr. Boott's chamber ; but did not, I think, state to us what had
occurred, though her conduct and appearance suggested what the
sad event was. We found Mr. Boott's corpse lying on the bed,
under such circumstances and with such accompaniments, as
showed that he had died by his own hands.
Mrs. Lyman seemed to be deeply agitated and afflicted ; yet
she had the full control of herself, and gave us a detailed state
ment of what she knew, and had learned from the servants, re
specting Mr. Boott's movements the preceding evening. She also
stated, that she and the servants of the house had first wondered,
and afterwards had been alarmed, at Mr. B.'s non-appearance
below stairs in the morning ; that the servants had repeatedly
knocked at the door ; and that at a late hour they thought it proper,
with Mrs. Lyman's advice, to enter the chamber, when they found
the body as we saw it. It was soon after that, as I understood,
she wrote the note which you had received.
Mrs. Lyman expressed the most poignant grief at the loss of
her brother, and spoke of him in terms of the warmest affection,
hanging over his body and kissing him. She passed the highest
eulogium on the purity and nobleness of his character. She spoke
of the sufferings he had undergone as very great.
After a time I suggested the propriety of having a coroner's in
quest; at which she manifested some reluctance, and asked if such
a measure was necessary. I said, that, if it were not taken, some
question might afterwards be raised, whether Mr. B. died by his
own hands or those of another, a point which any jury could
decide then by seeing what we saw.
This conversation led to a question as to Mr. Boott's insanity.
On this point Mrs. Lyman spoke with a great deal of vehemence.

188

utterly denying that he had ever been insane. She went on to say,
that he had been treated most cruelly ; clearly intimating, if she did
not distinctiy assert, that the result which we witnessed was from
that treatment. She did not, however, so far as I remember, name
the persons from whom, in her opinion, this treatment had been
received. These statements and remarks were not elicited or
drawn out from Mrs. Lyman by any questions or remarks by others
in respect to the treatment Mr. Boott had received. They were
occasioned only by some suggestion, above referred to, in respect
to his sanity, or insanity, which arose in discussing the question of
a coroner's jury.
In a note which I had occasion to write to you several weeks
since, I spoke of Mrs. Lyman's having joined us, on the occasion
above described, in seeking for a note or letter in Mr. Boott's room ;
as we thought it probable that he would have left something of the
sort. There were also, no doubt, other things said and done by her
which I cannot now call to mind. The things which I have stated
impressed my mind strongly at the time, and I have often recalled
them since then ; though I have not been in the habit of talking of
them, nor of the subject with which they are connected.
I am, dear Sir, yours truly,
J. A. Lowell, Esq. J. JACKSON.
Mr. Brooks most unjustly charges me with having
been a self-caUed witness at this inquest. Literally
I, no doubt, was so ; but that I was so for any other pur
pose than one of kindness to him and Mr. WilUam
Boott, and to obey the clear dictate of duty, is whoUy
untrue. " How came he to be a witness ? Who sum
moned him ? " asks Mr. Brooks (p. 167). " Mr. LoweU
then, in effect, calls himself to the stand." (p. 171.)
I was, as Mr. Brooks weU knows, the only person
who had, in Mr. Boott's own handwriting, evidence
of his intention of suicide. What would Mr. Brooks,
with his predisposition to impute to me base and dis-

189
honorable motives, have said, if I had, by voluntarily
absenting myself, suppressed this evidence ?
If Mr. Brooks is to be beUeved, I not only endeavour
ed to mfluence the verdict of the jury by my own tes
timony, and by suggesting questions to be put to the
other witnesses, but I also managed to get Dr. Putnam
put upon the jury. " One," says Mr. Brooks (p. 26),
" who had not been originaUy summoned for the pur
pose, was at the house, by the invitation, I believe, of
Mr. LoweU, and was put upon the jury, by Mr. Lowell's
suggestion to the coroner, as I am informed. This was
Dr. Putnam, a brother-in-law of Mr. LoweU."
This paragraph, it was hoped, would answer the
double purpose of throwing a suspicion of unfair
management upon me, and of discrediting beforehand
the testimony of Dr. Putnam. Who Mr. Brooks's
informant was, we are not told; it seems, however,
from Mr. Loring's memorandum of December 19, 1846,
above cited, that the coroner had distinctly assured
Mr. Brooks that the suspicion was unfounded. The
fact was this : The coroner told me that it would be
necessary to have a medical man in attendance, and
asked me to procure one. Dr. Jackson expressed
a reluctance to attend, and I called upon my family
physician. Dr. Putnam. Neither he, nor I, had the
slightest expectation that he would be put upon the
jury, nor did either of us make any suggestion to
that effect. I think the impartial reader wUl hardly
fail to ask, what there is in Dr. Charles G. Putnam's
character or position, that authorizes Mr. Edward Brooks
to hazard the innuendo, that, in the capacity of a juror.

190

he would not appreciate the solemnity of the obUgation
upon him, or could be swerved from the strict and con
scientious performance of his duty.
I have said enough, perhaps too much, of that part
of the pamphlet that is personal to myself It is so
apparent, on the face of it, that the issues with me are
not the true ones, but are mere pretexts for caUing in
the public, as arbiters in Mr. Brooks's quarrel with Mr.
Boott, that it would, perhaps, be wise to confine myself
to the latter. There is, however, one other subject of
complaint preferred against me of so extraordinary a
character, as to deserve a passing notice. I refer to
the alleged use of Mr. Brooks's name in the signature
of a release, on behalf of a trust held by him and myself
jointly, under the wUl of the late Kirk Boott, of LoweU.
The facts are briefly these :
When Judge Warren brought to me a proposition
from Messrs. Brooks and WiUiam Boott, which was
rejected, he had taken the precaution of providing
himself with a release, diUy executed by them, of aU
demands on Mr. Boott as executor and trustee, to
be handed to me in case the offer were accepted.
Although this contingency had not happened, he yet
left the paper with me, but I was not to use it without
his previous authority.
On a subsequent day, I accidentally met Mr. Brooks
and had a conversation with him, Avhich led to the final
settlement. He said, that if 1 would write him a letter
embodying the substance of what I had said to him, he
thought they should agree to a settlement on that basis.

191
I did so in a letter dated December 10, 1844, of which
the opening sentence was as foUows :
Boston, December 10, 1844.
Edward Brooks, Esq.
Dear Sir, — I do not know why I should be worrying myself
about other people's affaii-s ; but the kindness that I experienced in
early life from Mr. and Mrs. Boott has endeared to me all of the
name, and I would fain do something to alleviate the dissensions
existing among their children.
I then proceeded to detaU the plan for the future
management of the trust fund, which had formed the
subject of our conversation in the morning. The next
day I received from Mr. Brooks the foUowing reply :
Boston, December 11, 1844.
John A. Lowell, Esq.
Dear Sir, — I have shown Mr. William Boott your letter. We
have conferred together upon it, and find nothing to except to.
We have fixed on Mr. Charles G. Loring as the new trustee.
From what Judge Warren said last week, we infer that this gentle
man will be agreeable to you, and he is entirely so to us.
With great regard, your obedient servant,
EDWARD BROOKS.
Not one word, it wiU be observed, about any reluct
ance to consent to this arrangement as joint trustee
with me under the wUl of Mr. Kirk Boott. The letter
is a full and cordial assent to the proposed arrange
ment, without reservation.
I immediately showed this letter to Judge Warren,
and procured his consent to make use of the release he
had left with me, which I sent to Cambridge, to be ex-

192

ecuted by Mr. and Mrs. Wells, and also executed my
self, in behalf of the trust under the wUl of Kirk Boott,
and in the usual form of such signature. This I never
doubted that I was fully authorized to do by Mr.
Brooks's note, above cited. On the following probate
day, Monday, December 16, 1844, (the dates are here
important,) this paper was exhibited to the judge of
probate, in evidence that the opposition to the passage
of the accounts, formerly notified to him, was with
drawn, and the accounts were accordingly on that day
passed. Mr. Boott, the next week, when he presented
his thUd account, which was one of mere form, left all
his discharges for record.
Now Mr. Brooks's complaint is, that I used his name,
not only without any authority from him, but with
express notice of his dissent, (p. 125.)
" What is to be said," says Mr. Brooks, in another
place (p. 172), " of his assuming m my name, as weU
as his own, to execute a release of our joint claim on
the executor as trustees for the famUy of Mr. Kirk
Boott, without authority from me, and without my
knowledge, and after I had positively decUned being
in any way instrumental in releasing any claims which
I held as a trustee for others."
To show how eagerly, and how bUndly, Mr. Brooks
grasps at any excuse for throwing blame upon me, I
have only to call attention to the fact, that the letter
from him to me, pubUshed in his pamphlet (p. 126), as
evidence that he had notffied to me his dissent, is dated
December 17, 1844, that is to say, the day after the
account had been passed at the probate office !

193
He says, himself, (p. 165) that it is placed beyond
doubt, that the account was passed and allowed " be
cause no one objected, and because releases were filed
from aU parties interested ; " and yet he now pretends,
that his letter of December 17th was a seasonable
notice not to sign on his behalf a release, which was
exhibited at the probate court, signed by all the par
ties interested, on the 16 th ! This contempt for chro
nology is, as I have already had occasion to show,
characteristic of Mr. Brooks's mind.
This is not all. His letter to me, of December 17th,
had no reference whatever to any release, but to a
deed of the estate in Bowdoin Square, which required
our joint signature ; which signature Mr. Brooks, in
that letter, very capriciously, as it seemed to me, re
fused on his part. I immediately went to his office and
persuaded him to sign it. Mr. Brooks says (p. 127),
that in that conversation, he repeated his " determina
tion not to sign any paper, releasing claims in behalf of
Mrs. K. Boott, and her famUy ; to which Mr. Lowell
repUed that it ivouldnot be necessary ;" emphasizing these
words to intimate, I suppose, some deception on my
part, — whereas, if I had made any such remark, it
would have been the most natural one in the world,
as the account had been passed the day before ! I
wUl not dwell on the absurdity of a trustee allowing
accounts, that he believes to be fictitious, to be passed,
no one appearing to object to them, and the next day
refusing, on the plea of conscience, to sign merely pro
forma discharges.
Another anachronism, precisely similar in its nature
25

194

to the one just commented upon, occurs on page 123d
of Mr. Brooks's pamphlet.
I had understood the final agreement for the passage
of Mr. Boott's accounts to be based upon a proposition
previously made to me by Judge Warren, that so
much of a dividend of the Merrimack Company, just
declared, should be retained by the trustee as capital,
as should be found necessary, upon appraisement of
the stocks, to make good the original amount of the
trust funds, namely, $100,000. The sum of $4,560.45
was retained accordingly.
It appears that Mr. Brooks and Mr. WUliam Boott
did not wish to insist on that condition, and addressed
a joint note to Mr. Loring requesting him to consider
the whole of that dividend as income, and to pay it as
such to Mrs. Boott. " Whether this has been done or
not," says Mr. Brooks, " we have not been informed ;
but I infer othervnse from the fact, that a new paper,
designed apparently to ratify the actual settlement,
seems to have been sent out to London, I presume by
Mr. Lowell, immediately after the settlement was com
pleted, and to have been signed there February 1,
1845, by Mrs. Boott, Dr. Francis Boott, and jNIi'. James
Boott." The joint note of Mr. Brooks and Mr. WiUiam Boott
to Mr. Loring (App. p. 57) bears date February 3, 1845 ;
so that in plain English it amounts to this, that Mr.
Brooks considers a release executed in London on the
1st of February, 1845, as warranting the inference
that we were unwUling to comply with a request
made in this country tu'o days afterwards ! I wonder

195
that he did not characterize our reluctance as obstinate
and protracted.
There is no point that Mr. Brooks has labored more
in his pamphlet, than the question whether he was jus
tified in caUing for a settiement of Mr. Boott's accounts,
with a view of causing the property to be placed in
other hands. It is not wonderful, that he should have
felt weak upon that point ; for he had himself drawn up
a paper, which was executed by aU the heirs in 1833,
two years after the final closing of the business on the
MiUdam, discharging Mr. Boott from aU claims in his
capacity of executor. This was equivalent to an act
of amnesty for the past, so far as there was any thing
to forgive, and a pledge of confidence for the future.
If any movement was to be made to inquire into the
past, it should have been made then; if any action
was meditated for a change of trustee, then was the
moment to make it. To wait eleven years, during
which time the trust funds had not been diminished one
doUar, and, at the end of that long period, to demand
an account and propose the removal of the property,
was a step that certainly required an explanation. Mr.
Brooks attempts to give it by saying that the sale of
the house would put a new sum of $46,000 into Mr.
Boott's hands. What then ? He was now engaged in
no mercantile business, nor in any hazardous enter
prises; he had safely kept one hundred thousand
dollars for twelve years, and there was no reason to
apprehend that property in his hands would not be
entirely safe. Knowing that all the family, now alive,
save one, are at variance with him on the propriety of

196

this step, he invokes the assumed opinion of Mr. Kirk
Boott, now deceased. He tells us, that, from his inti
mate acquaintance with that gentleman's views, he feels
assured that, if aUve, he would have sustained him.
Mr. Brooks will haTdly claim a more intimate ac
quaintance with Mr. Kirk Boott's views and feelings than
I enjoyed ; and I hereby protest against the authority of
his name being used for any such purpose. Mr. Kirk
Boott was the very soul of honor ; and would he, with
a full knowledge of the facts, have recommended Mr.
Wright Boott for employments of such trust as the
offices of Treasurer of the Lawrence Manufacturing
Company, and of the Suffolk Manufacturing Company,
and for a confidential mission to England for the Lowell
Railroad, and yet have been unwilling that he should
be entrusted with $46,000 of the trust funds of his
own family?
But, after all, was the expected receipt of this
money the true motive for caUing for Mr. Boott's
account ? ^Ir. Brooks distinctly says so, both for him
self and Mr. WilUam Boott, and argues it very much
at length. " When the question arose about the heirs
joining in a deed of the house, Mr. WilUam Boott
thought it, under all circumstances, a proper occasion
for him to have an account of the trust property stated,"
&c. (p. 94.)
The sale of the house was made in April, 1844, and
Mr. WilUam Boott's call for the accounts in June, 1844.
This coincidence gives a plausibility to the motive
as.signed by Mr. Brooks. But I shall show that this is
a mere after-thought.

197
In Mr. WiUiam Boott's letter to Dr. Boott, March 31,
1844, he says : " In law, my father's estate belongs to his
chUdren, subject to mother's life-estate in it. By this,
every chUd has an interest in the good management of
the property, and can caU upon the judge of probate to
remedy any abuses. If the judge's attention is caUed to
this estate, he wUl find that no accounts have ever been
rendered by the executor, and wUl immediately order
him to bring them in, and, on further inquiry, will take
the estate out of his hands, and take such other meas
ures as his duty prescribes to him. An appeal to the
judge has long been in my mind, as a step that ought
to be taken, and is the harsher remedy hinted at
above." And again, in his letter of May 1, 1844: "I men
tioned to you in my last letter, that I should possibly
apply to the judge of probate, and have an account
rendered by Wright of his executorship, and have
the estate entrusted to a more competent person. It
now appears that the heirs of my father must sign
the deed conveying the house in the Square to the pur
chasers. I shall not sign it to convey $46,000 into
Wright's hands ; and, as he will be unable to give a
deed, he may find it best to give up the trust. This
is as effectual a way of effecting my purpose as a direct
application to the probate office."
Again, May 14, 1844 : " They have placed Eliza and
me in such a position, that we must put ourselves right
in the estimation of our friends. Mary, too, wants some
one to protect and justify her. The only way in which
this can now be done is by taking from Wright the
power he has abused."

198

The motive here assigned, it wiU be observed, is,
not the fear of loss in putting more property into Mr.
Wright Boott's hands, but the necessity of justifying
himself, Mrs. Lyman, and Mrs. Brooks in the estima
tion of their friends, and of providing a protector for
Mrs. Lyman.
Again, in the same letter : " I have not yet gone to
the probate office, to make appUcation for another ex
ecutor, simply because it has been decided that the
heirs must sign the deed of sale of the house, and my
refusal to sign wiU bring the question to a settlement
as effectually."
Again, November 15, 1844 : "Tou may believe that
I long for an exhibition of the accounts, that every one
may see what sort of a person Wright ever has been."
What becomes of Mr. Brooks's plea, that the leading
motive of the caU for Mr. Boott's accounts was a fear of
the safety of the $46,000 to be placed in his hands by
the sale of the mansion-house ; — and that they " were
acting from the truest regard to the best interests of aU
concerned, and without the slightest feeling of hostility
towards Mr. Wright Boott, whose errors they, at this
time, set down to a cause not under his own control"?
(p. 83.)
These same letters of Mr. WUliam Boott throw some
light on another point, which Mr. Brooks, by insinua
tion at least, makes matter of charge against me.
He quotes a passage of one of Dr. Boott's letters to Mr.
WiUiam Boott, in which he says : " When you consider
that your own accusation of mental unsoundness came
with an inevitable feeUng of compassion, and a conse-

199
quent sense of harshness, at the idea of a public expo
sure, and putting him [Mr. Wright Boott] on trial be
fore a judge, as if his integrity were questionable, you
cannot be surprised that my mother condemns you'.'
(p. 141.)
One would think it pretty obvious that Dr. Boott
was here referring to letters received from Mr. WiUiam
Boott, in which such a remedy was hinted at ; but what
says Mr. Brooks?
" This idea of a pubUc trial was a mere misapprehen
sion ; but it must have arisen from a misrepresentation,
or, at least, an erroneous statement, by somebody. I
do not mean to say that it came from Mr. Lowell. I
have never seen his letters ; and impute to him nothing
more than the evidence discloses. But, that his state
ments and representations, whatever they may have
been, were the responsible source of opinions formed in
London, unfavorable to Mr. WiUiam Boott and myself,
on account of the course we were pursuing, or were
supposed to be pursuing, to effect some safe settlement
for the famUy, is a point which Dr. Boott's letters dis
tinctly prove."
If Mr. WiUiam Boott's expressed determination, above
quoted, to appeal to the judge of probate, who " wiU
take the estate out of his [Mr. Wright Boott's] hands,
and take such other measures as his duty prescribes to
him," is not a direct threat of bringing his brother to
" a trial before a judge," and to " pubUc exposure," and
was not " the responsible source of opinions, formed in
London, unfavorable to Mr. WiUiam Boott," I am igno
rant of the purport of language. According to Mr.
Brooks, I am to be held accountable, not only for my

200

own words and actions, not only for the words and
actions of aU the famUy who sided with Mr. Wright
Boott, but even for the words and actions of Mr. WU
liam Boott !
Mr. Brooks, partly, it would seem, to excuse himself
for opposing the probate of Mr. Boott's wUl, and partly
to make out his allegation of insanity, has devoted much
labor to an analysis of the wUl itself He begins, for
some reason best known to himself, by attempting to
show that it could not have been drawn up by !Mr.
Boott, though he admits that it expresses precisely
the feelings and intentions which governed his mind
at the time. If the object of this be to convey an im
pression that I drew it up for him, I can only say that
I never saw or heard of it till after his decease. I
believe Mr. Boott to have been fully competent to
drafting it himself; and if not, he may have got the
technical forms from some other wUl, or from the
books on conveyancing. A more serious question is
the propriety and justice of the provisions of the wUl
itself j\lr. Boott left a mother, who was amply pro
vided for, seven brothers and sisters, and the represent
atives of an eighth. Of these, Mrs. Brooks, from her
position, is of course out of the question as a legatee.
Without improperly enlarging upon the private affairs
of others, I may say that it is known to me, and was so
to JMr. Boott, that his brother. Dr. Boott, was to be
taken care of from another source, and that neither
he, nor INIrs. WeUs, nor the family of J\Ir. Eark Boott,
nor Mr. James Boott, Avould stand in as much need of
his assistance, when his wUl should take effect, as
would iMrs. Ralston. I mean, that, after recei^dng the

201
property bequeathed to each of them by their father
and by Mr. Wright Boott, Mrs. Ralston would, in aU
human probability, have less property than any of them.
With respect to Mr. WUUam Boott, it is not neces
sary, after the above extracts from his correspondence,
to aUude to him as a probable legatee of his brother ;
and, if I do not apply the same argument to the only
remaining sister, Mrs. Lyman, it is from the motives
of forbearance already aUuded to.
As, however, Mr. Brooks has enlarged especiaUy
upon her case, and on the ground of her losses and
sacrifices at the time of the MiUdam settlement, I wUl
simply show the state of the partnership accounts be
tween Messrs. Lyman & Ralston.
Mr. WiUiam Lyman owed the firm on the
31st of December, 1830, for money taken
up by him for his famUy expenses and
other purposes, 34,372.48
And received a credit for Mrs. Lyman's share
in her father's estate, coming from the trust
funds, of $24,904.44 (being one half of
the estimated value of Mr. Boott's share
in the Foundery, purchased by Messrs.
Lyman & Ralston with the reversions of
their wives) ; the value of each reversion,
when reaUzed, wiU be only about $16,000:
When the partnership was finally dissolved
in AprU, 1833, the balance against Mr. Ly
man, for personal advances to him, was 10,991.07
which was forgiven to him by Mr. Ralston.
In addition to this, Mr. Ralston took it upon
26

202

himself to pay the outstanding debts of
the firm, amounting, after deducting aU
assets, to $111,188.22. Mr. Lyman's half
of these would be 55,594.11
Add the debt forgiven him, as above, 10,991.07
$66,585.18
making a total of sixty-six thousand dollars that Mr.
Ralston had lost by Mr. Lyman.* Tet Mr. Edward
Brooks makes it matter of impeachment against Mr.
Boott's memory, that he left the bulk of his property
to Mrs. Ralston, and this on the extraordinary ground
of Mrs. Lyman's sufferings in the Milldam transactions.
The whole of that settlement was based on the anxiety
of all parties to save Messrs. Lyman & Ralston from
bankruptcy ; and INlr. Boott was wiUing, as few men
would have been, to sacrifice his own private property
to avert that catastrophe. In this he only acted in
conformity with that disinterestedness of character and
" high, I may say even chivalrous, sense of honor,"
which Mr. Brooks has attributed to him. Mrs. Lyman
and Mrs. Ralston were, on their side, willing to sacrffice
their own future independence to attain the same end.
It is impossible not to admire, even if we should not
have advised, such acts of devotion ; and it is unpardon
able that they should be turned, without the consent of
these ladies, into weapons of attack on the memory of
* It is also notorious, that it was from his connection with this firm in
the business of the Milldam Foundery, and not from any mismanagement
of his own, that Mr. Boott suffered the loss of a large part of his private
fortune.

203
their own brother, as if he had not been injured, instead
of benefited, in his pecuniary circumstances by his con
nection with their husbands.
It was, then, not only natural, but highly proper,
that Mr. Boott should endeavour, by his wUl, to com
pensate Mrs. Ralston, in part, for the losses her husband
had sustained by his connection with Mr. Lyman.
But Mr. Brooks impeaches the wiU of Mr. Boott on
a different ground ; — that, if it were really his wiU in
September, 1844, yet his pecuniary circumstances had
undergone so great a change by the passing of his
account in December, that a new act of publication on
his part would seem to be necessary, not in law, but in
common equity, to establish it as his real wiU in March,
1845. Such new act of publication, Mr. Brooks says
(p. 88) I assert to have taken place by his inclosing
his wiU in a letter to me on the evening of his decease ;
and that I take the responsibUity upon myself, that
such was the fact, when I refuse to produce that letter.
This is perhaps the most ingenious of aU the devices
Mr. Brooks has resorted to, to compel the production
of a letter which I told him from the beginning I felt
in honor bound not to produce, except under legal
compulsion. But even this will not answer. Mr. Choate and Mr.
B. R. Curtis have seen the letter in question, and are
ready to avouch, that it did inclose, and thereby repub
lish, the writer's wUl.
If it had not, however, it would have been utterly
immaterial. For the whole criticism is founded on that
old delusion, that Mr. Boott's accounts show a balance
due to him of $25,000, for advances made to the heirs.

204

whereas they show only $3,700 so advanced, and, of
course, with a property of his own of $48,000, such an
addition would hardly be motive enough for making a
new will.
It may be asked, why, if Mr. Boott viewed the debt
due to me for the estate of Jonathan Amory, as secured
by stocks lawfully in my possession, and as a debt,
moreover, which the heirs were in honor bound to pro
tect, he should have provided by his wUl, that I might
pay myself that debt out of his reversionary property.
The reason was probably this :
It had come to his knowledge, that Mr. Brooks had
so far forgotten himself, as pubUcly to assert that I had
no legal claim to that debt, on the ground of the form
in which it stood secured, — a form existing solely in
virtue of his own interposition in May, 1831.
I find that Mr. James Boott sent to Mr. Wright
Boott a letter from Mrs. Brooks to Dr. Francis Boott,
dated July 15, 1844, in which she says : " The debt to
Mr. LoweU is, or was three weeks ago, stUl unpaid,
and fifty shares of the Merrimack Company are stUl
pledged to Mr. LoweU as security, whilst in fact Mr. L.
cannot legally * recover one cent. Edward has never
tUl lately mentioned these circumstances to any one,
and had no disposition to make any trouble on that
account, if the rest of the heirs were satisfied."
" No disposition to make any trouble " about an ar
rangement many years before proposed, nay, insisted
upon, by himself, and in which Mr. Boott and I had
merely acquiesced !
* Whenever words are italicized in my quotations, they are so in the
original document.

205
Mr. Boott expressed to me his indignation at What
he was pleased to designate as the unparalleled base
ness of these mtimations .with respect to my debt,
ithough he did not teU me that he had taken measures to
avei^ any possible Ul consequences to me, by his wiU.
The readers of Mr. Brooks's pamphlet wiU remember
that, in the Appendix (p. 47), is inserted a letter
fi-om Mrs. Brooks to her mother, dated December 11,
1844. In this she says, in reference to the same sub
ject : " Mr. Chadwick met Mr. Brooks, and told him
that Mr. Lowell had reconveyed them [the manufac
turing stocks] to Mr. Boott ; thus publicly acknow
ledging he had no right to hold them." Mrs. Brooks
authorizes and requests her mother to communicate
what she has asserted to me. Mrs. Boott accordingly
sent that letter out to me. I was, however, so anxious
to do every thing in my power to soothe, rather than
exasperate, the feeUngs of the parties towards each
other, that I never informed Mr. Boott, that I had
received such a letter, or that I had vindicated him
from the aspersions it contained.
I have now, I beUeve, answered all the charges de
serving of notice, brought against the memory of my
friend. How stands the case between Mr. Brooks and Mr.
Boott? There are two leading aUegations which make up the
basis of Mr. Brooks's attack.
1. The charge of mismanaging and wasting the
property. 2. The charge of insanity.

206

It is remarkable that, on each of these points, a fuU
and fair inquiry, before the competent and legaUy
established tribunals, has been tendered, by Mr. Boott
in the one instance, and by myself in the other, and
has been declined. I say tendered, with a fuU appre
ciation of the import of that word.
L With respect to the accounts. Mr. Boott had
received and put on record, many years before, a fuU
discharge by the heirs of all demands upon himself as
executor of his father's wiU. He had nothing, there
fore, to do, when summoned to render his accounts, but
to exhibit this discharge, and show his investment of
the trust funds, and his mother's acknowledgment that
she had received, or authorized the expenditure of, the
income. His position would have been thus perfectly
impregnable. But he had been charged, behind his
back, with having mismanaged and wasted the estate ;
a mere technical immunity would not suit his lofty
spirit; his honor was implicated, and it was dearer
to him than Ufe. He chivalrously threw aside the
segis of his discharge. He tendered a fuU account of
his stewardship. He defied his assailants to the proof
The gauntlet, thus thrown down, Messrs. Brooks and
William Boott did not see fit to take up.
I am aware that this is alleged to have been the
result of a compromise. I do not know what sort of a
compromise that is, Avhere one side gives up every
thing and the other nothing, — literally nothing ; for,
as to Mr. Boott's declining, as he did, to accept the
trusteeship, I had said to Mr. Loring, before the ac
counts were presented at the probate office, that I
should advise Mr. Boott, as soon as they were passed.

207
to give up aU charge of the property in order to avoid
any future collision.
It is also said, that this cpmpromise was made by
them for the sake of peace. Was this indeed so ? Is
there a breathing of the gentie spirit of peace in Mr.
WUliam^Boott's letters above quoted, or in Mrs. Brooks's
letter (for the facts of which Mr. Brooks teUs us he is
himself responsible), addressed to her mother, December
11, 1844, (App. p. 47) the very day, be it remarked, of
the settlement, as appears by Mr. Brooks's letter to me
above quoted? {ante, p. 191.) At the very hour when
her husband was yielding so much, if we may believe
him, for the sake of peace, Mrs. Brooks was penning
these sentences about her own brother, addressed to his
and her mother : " And how has Mr. Boott fulfiUed the
sacred trust of a dying father ? By wasting the eState
he toUed so hard to earn ; by heaping insults and inju
ries on the family, and, when we could no longer submit
to his wrongs, as for your sake we had done for years,
he sets us at defiance, and forbids our entering our
father's house, even to see in her own room a widowed
sister, in her state of destitution and sorrow."
WUl any one, after reading the above sentences,
written on the very day of the supposed compromise,
and recurring to Mr. William Boott's expressions a
month before, " Tou may beUeve how I long for an ex
hibition of the accounts, that every one may see what
sort of a person Wright has ever been," — wUl any one
believe, that, feeUng and writing thus, they would not
have disputed Mr. Boott's accounts to the utmost, if
they had entertained the slightest hope of doing it
with success ?

208

Contrast this fear of approaching that investigation,,
with Mr. Boott's conduct in throwing aside the protec
tion of a discharge, and voluntarUy tendering his ac
counts to their scrutiny. Would he have so acted,
unless under the perfect confidence that the accounts:
were true, and could be estabUshed ?
Would they, on the other hand, after repeatedly charg
ing Mr. Boott with having squandered his father's estate,
have allowed an account to be passed, showing not only
that he had accounted for aU he had received, but that
he was under an advance to the heirs of $3,700? StUl
more, if they believed the advance he claimed, to be,
as they now interpret it, $25,000 ? Would they have
aUowed it on any ground, consistent with the principles
of human action, but that of sheer necessity ?
If^ however, it had been a compromise, and for the
sake of peace, was it not the basis of that compromise;
that Mr. Boott's accounts should not be disputed?
Whence then does Mr. Brooks derive authority, in the
court of conscience, to dispute them now ? Does he
suppose, that to Mr. Boott, with his high feeUng of
honor and quick sensitiveness, it was the material
result of the accounts, the paltry $3,700 he claimed as
his due, that was of interest ? Was it not rather to
wipe off the imputation on his character, that he now
claimed investigation, because "to bear a brand of
dishonor, he could not contemplate with composure?"
It was indeed to Mr. Boott a question of more than
money ; -^ it was a question of Ufe. And by every prin
ciple of honor, and humanity, and fair dealing, he
was as much entitled to the benefit of that compromise,
if compromise it were, at the bar of public opinion, and

209
after his death, as when aUve and claiming the final
aUowance of his account before a court of probate.
2. On the question of Mr. Boott's sanity, I have said
that I tendered to Mr. Brooks and Mr. WilUam Boott
that issue before the competent tribunal.
On the hearing before the probate court, after the
judge had ruled the points, there raised, in my favor,
the learned counsel, who appeared for the remonstrants,
stated that he would withdraw aU further opposition ia
their behalf individually, and enter an appeal to the
Supreme Court in the name of Edward Brooks, trustee
under the wUl of Mr. Kirk Boott, of LoweU. This
announcement was certainly an astounding one. Mr.
Kirk Boott died eight years before his brother, and of
course could not be one of his heirs-at-law. Was this
a blunder ? It certainly seemed to me hardly credible
that it was so, after several months of preparation, with
the aid of counsel, whose learning and astuteness are
weU known. Was it not rather a nominal appeal, of
which it was expected that I should take advantage to
defeat them at the trial ? It might then have been said,
that they had been ready to meet the question before
the Supreme Court, and that I had evaded it on merely
technical grounds. A better apology might thus have
been afforded for Mr. Brooks's appeal to the public.
However this may have been, I had it evidently in
my power to secure the estabUshment of Mr. Boott's
will, by simply allowing them to appeal, in the form
they had themselves proposed. But I remembered what
Mr. Boott himself would have wished me to do under
such circumstances ; and, following his own precedent,
27

210

I threw aside the immunity thus offered to me, and
informed the court, that the appeal in that form would
not lie. The appeal was then entered in the name of
Mrs. Mary Lyman.
I thus voluntarUy tendered to Mr. Brooks and Mr.
WUliam Boott, the trial of the issue of Mr. Wright
Boott's sanity, before the Supreme Court, where each
party would have had the benefit of compeUing testi
mony and cross-examining witnesses.
Mr. Brooks and Mr. WiUiam Boott constituted them
selves witnesses by assigning their interest in Mr.
Boott's property to Mrs. Lyman ; and I did the same
thing by resigning the executorship, and assigning my
legacy of books and plants to the residuary legatee,
Mrs. Ralston.
I never had, however, any belief that they would
meet the investigation. All the proceedings before
the probate court had satisfied me, that the object
aimed at, was to coerce me to produce Mr. Boott's letter,
and that no serious expectation was entertained of
disturbing the wUl. The same influence (that of Mr.
Brooks himself and Mr. WiUiam Boott) (p. 11) that
had induced Mrs. Lyman to place herself in so very
false a position, as to be the appeUant on the probate
of her brother's wUl, on the ground of insanity, after
having sworn, at the inquest, that she did not believe,
and never had beUeved, him to be insane, — that same
influence would be abundantly competent, at the proper
moment, to induce her to withdraw.
Mr. Brooks denies having, " on his own part," advised
her to do so ; whether Mr. WilUam Boott advised it

211
or not, we are not informed; but it is not material;
for, whether I was right or wrong in the grounds of
my expectation, Mrs. Lyman did withdraw her appeal
before the case came on for trial. Whatever might
have been her motives, — whether she took this step
of her own free motion, or not, — one thing is cer
tain, that I offered to meet this question, in the
most unexceptionable form, and before the tribunal
pointed out by law for determiiung it. It is equally
certain, that it was in the power of the adverse party
to meet it, if they had seen fit. For Mr. Brooks
and Mr. WiUiam Boott might have made the appeal in
their own names, and so have controlled the question of
its final hearing. And, if it was deemed essential to their
case, that Mr. WUUam Boott should constitute himself
a witness against the memory of his own brother, Mr.
Brooks might have appealed alone.
They have voluntarily thrown away these opportuni
ties ; and every principle of common sense and right
feeling wUl pronounce them to be as completely barred
fi?om chaUenging an inquiry before the pubUc, as the
principles of law and equity pronounce them to be
barred from a further hearing before the tribunals of
their country.

YALE UNIVEHSITY i

3 9002 01309 8638