In trembling anxiety lest the hounds, which had been carefully tied up by the servant, might still give an alarm, or that some other mischance should betray them, the frightened girl sprang into the carriage, and they drove silently down the avenue. Apprehensive of pursuit, they fancied they heard noises behind them. They did not pause to open the avenue-gates, but pressed the horses against them, and burst them outward. Hurrying down the road, the turnpike-gate was closed and fastened. They dared not call the keeper, lest his suspicions should be aroused. A rush from the horses burst this new obstacle. Midnight had chimed from the old town-clock on Market-street Hill, when they drove into Wilmington.. A light in the window of a familiar dwelling signalled the wet and trembling girl. An intimate female friend, who had been apprised of the intended flight by a brief note in the course of the day, was patiently waiting for her. On the breast of her companion she sobbed her relief. So far, all was safe.

Mr. Whitney was expected to come by the steamboat from Baltimore. He would land, on the river-side, at New Castle, five miles away. At daylight, Myra set out to intercept him. Not meeting him, she took the boat for Baltimore, hoping she might see him there. Instead of that, he had set out at the same time she did, and they unknowingly crossed each other's paths. Fortunately, her friends at New Castle detained him, when he arrived; and on her prompt return, they happily met.

The guardian's anger spent its force. He learned that the lovers were about to be married, in Philadelphia. Myra was of age. He had much to lose by declining a reconciliation. He offered her his home for her wedding; and she gladly accepted.

Early in the autumn, when (as one of the bridesmaids, at this distance of thirty-six years, tells us), the fires were lighted on the hearths, the wedding took place.

The Genius of the Romantic seemed still to be the ruling spirit. The even

ing was already far spent, and all was ready for the ceremony, when it was discovered that no license had been procured. The bridegroom was annoyed, the bride trembled, the bridesmaids fluttered with additional tremors of excitement. A messenger was despatched, to ride with all speed, upon the swiftest horse in the stables, to Wilmington, to procure the license. But a stupid servant gave him, instead, an old blind animal, who stumbled and blundered along in the rain and mud. Finding a magistrate with difficulty, it was ten o'clock before he returned and the

ceremony could proceed.

Just as it was over, says the old lady, who was then the fair young bridesmaid, the storm, which had prevailed during all the evening, ceased. The wind fell, the night calmed, and from among the scattered clouds the moon shone with peaceful rays across the lawn.

Was it a premonition for the bride?

Mr. Whitney took his wife to New York, and they dwelt for perhaps two years at Binghamton, the home of his family.

It was a season of rest before a lifetime of labor; two years of peace before thirty of contention and struggle.

Mrs. Whitney had learned her parentage. From Davis himself she gathered that she had been deceived, during all her girlhood. Little by little, she pieced together the fragments of evidence, till at last the Truth burst upon her-that the wealth of her father, Daniel Clark, of New Orleans, who died twenty years ago, was justly hers!

This Truth took possession of her life. It was her inspiration. It absorbed her faculties, and gave but one color to her thoughts. She took it up as the index to a life of exertion. Seized by this conviction, she has been, since that moment, only the embodiment of a Purpose, fixed, resolute, mad. She has been a thousand times thwarted; she has never failed. Against opposition, over difficulties, in spite of obstacles, she has accepted no result but Success, and never doubting that she would at

Seven times, now, has her case claimed the attention of the highest court of law. First there was a decision in 1839, which did not assist her. Again in 1841; this was technical, but favorable. Again in 1844, with similar result. In 1847 she first gained decided success. Justice Wayne, her steady friend, almost her advocate, declared for the Court that her claim to property in New Orleans, now occupied by parties whose title came from Relf and Chew, executors of the will of 1811, was valid. He decided that she was the legitimate daughter of Daniel Clark, and consequently, under the laws of Louisiana, could not be dispossessed entirely, as the will of 1811 assumed to do. She must be "forced heir" to a portion. In this case, Chief-Justice Taney did not sit, a near family relative being interested; Justice McLean did not; and Justice Catron, being indisposed, did not. It was the first decided success.

In 1851 came adversity. Judge Catron pronounced the opinion of the Court, unfavorable to every claim which Mrs. Gaines set up. A bill in equity, claiming the share to which her mother (Zulime) would, as the legal wife of Daniel Clark, be entitled by the Louisiana law, in spite of the will of 1811, was summarily dismissed, on the ground that she was not the legitimate child of Daniel Clark.

To this, of course, Judge Wayne, joined by Judge Daniel, dissented.

But again, in 1860, there was a new decision. In the interim, the destroyed will of 1813 had been admitted to probate, and this probate, upon appeal, sustained in the Louisiana courts, its contents being established by the recollections of those who heard it read by Clark. This important point, gained in 1856, had claimed victory from the jaws of defeat. The whole case-law, fact, technicalities, side-issues, every thing was reviewed, and upon every point decided in favor of Mrs. Gaines, Justice Wayne once more speaking for the Court. Justice Catron again differ

VOL. II.-14

est through his relative seems to have ceased), and Judge Grier, joined him. Catron's opinion is most unfriendly, and reviews with caustic severity the apparently weak points in the claimant's case. In summing up, he said:

"If the decision in 12th Howard [his own opinion of 1851] be overthrown, ruin must be the consequence to very many who have had confidence in its soundness."

Relying upon it as conclusive, an immense amount of the disputed property had changed hands, and become vastly improved, in the intervening nine years. He added (this is directly denied by Judge Davis in the decision of 1868) that Clark was a ruined man at his decease. "His failure was very large; his estate was wholly insolvent. The purchasers have in fact paid his debts to a large amount. Many of them are yet unpaid." The property claimed, he said, "has probably increased in value five hundred-fold since 1820," the date of Relf and Chew's sales, whence the defendants derived their title.

Judge Grier was scarcely less pronounced in his views. He closed his dissent with these vigorous words:

"I wholly dissent from the opinion of the majority of the Court in this case, both as to the law and the facts. But I do not think it necessary to vindicate my opinion by again presenting to the public view a history of the scandalous gossip which has been buried under the dust of half a century, and which a proper feeling of delicacy should have suffered to remain so; I therefore dismiss the case, as I hope, for the last time, with the single remark, that if it be the law of Louisiana that a will can be established by the dim recollections, imaginations, or inventions of anile gossips, after forty-five years, to disturb the titles and possessions of bona fide purchasers, without notice, of an apparently indefeasible legal title, Haud equidem invideo, miror magis." (I do not indeed envy your position, but rather wonder at it.)

The particular case decided was

against Duncan N. Hennen, of New Orleans, who held title for a square of ground, bounded by Phillippi, Circus, and Poydras Streets. This had come into his hands through the following transfers:

1820. Sold by Relf and Chew, executors of Daniel Clark, and attorneys in fact for Mary Clark, to Azelic Lavigne.

1836. Azelic Lavigne to J. Hiddleston.

1836. J. Hiddleston to New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad Co.

1844. N. O. & C. R. R. Co. to D. N. Hennen.

After twenty-six years' possession, nine of which had been in confirmation of a decision of this Court, Hennen was dispossessed by this decree.

The decision of 1860 would seem to be conclusive and final. It was so intended to be. But Mrs. Gaines was still resisted. Once more, in 1868, her claims have been confirmed. Her old friend Judge Wayne, and her old-can we say opponent ?-Judge Catron, are off the bench. Judge Davis spoke the opinion of himself, Chief-Justice Chase, and Associates Nelson, Clifford, and Field, while Judges Grier, Swayne, and Miller dissented.

This decision-seventh mandate from the Supreme Court of the United States -is surely final. Opening it, Judge Davis said:

"It was supposed, after the decision in Gaines vs. Hennen (24 Howard), that the litigation, pursued in one form or another for over thirty years by the complainant, to vindicate her rights in the estate of her father, was ended."

And in conclusion, he asked: "Can we not indulge the hope that the rights of Myra Clark Gaines in the estate of her father, Daniel Clark, will now be recognized?"

Such is the outline of the progress of the Gaines Case through thirty-four years of law. The legal reader can turn to the books, and study the reports at leisure. Our sketch will be completed with a brief reference to the moving spirit of the long effort.

Married in 1832, learning her true

history, though not fully, soon after, commencing her suits in 1834, Mrs. Whitney was left, amid the pestilence of New Orleans, a widow in 1836. The yellow-fever struck down her husband in a few hours. She was alone, with three little children, a slender fortune, few friends, in the midst of actual enemies, for her bold claims had produced the most bitter opposition. A fearful Duty stood before her.

Somewhat later, she met General Gaines. He was warmly interested in her history; and he could not, doubtless, resist the winning eloquence of her address, or her piquant charms of person. They were married, and thence till now the heroine of the story is not Myra Davis, Myra Clark, nor Myra Clark Whitney, but Myra Clark Gaines.

The law's delays were fearfully expensive. The little fortune received at her marriage soon melted-she had spent the whole of her husband's estate. She had borrowed of his family, and she had borrowed of every one who was bold enough to listen to her persuasive voice, for she "talked the money out of their pockets." Nobody could listen fifteen minutes to her without sharing in her enthusiasm and perfect conviction of ultimate success. She had feed the ablest lawyers in the land with princely retainers, when she had money; and she had more than once plead her own case when money could not be obtained. She knew the law perfectly. She had mastered details as well as principles. She knew precedents, and did not stumble upon quibbles. Once, it is said, she spoke two hours and a half to a jury, and won her case.

Once more with a friend and partner in her struggle, she fought forward. General Gaines devoted his time and his fortune to the work. For ten years the gallant old General and his beautiful young wife planned and executed their campaigns together. She had youth, fire, and energy; he had wealth, position, and a chivalrous devotion to her cause.

Should you search over the files of some old newspapers, about 1841, you