peared that Mr. Estabrook had been called out of town by illness in his family, and that as soon as he found he could not attend the trial had sent to Governor Farwell a messenger from Baraboo, who failed to reach Madison in time.'

After three years upon the bench Judge Hubbell resigned to recommence the practice of law. In 1864 he represented the Milwaukee district in the assembly, and in 1869 applied to Governor Fairchild for an appointment as circuit judge to succeed Judge Arthur McArthur. He had secured a considerable endorsement from his circuit, but the governor refused to make the appointment, much to Hubbell's disappointment, as he had regarded this as a chance for vindication. In 1870 he was appointed United States district attorney for Wisconsin, holding that position until 1875, dying the following year as the result of an accident.

So far as any evidence has shown, the trial of Judge Hubbell was an isolated episode in Wisconsin history. It may be that a wider and more intimate acquaintance with the history of the time would explain matters connected with the trial, and show its connection with the politics of the day. But the affair was very largely personal, and there are no indications that partisan, political, or local influence affected its course.

Judge Hubbell appears to have been a man of strong feeling, who made close friends and bitter enemies.3 While the impeachment was directed by personal animus it could not have taken the course it did if he had filled his office in a judicial manner. While neither dishonest nor corrupt, his ideals were not high and he was not careful, as is now expected of our judges, to hold himself so as to avoid even the slightest appearance of evil. It seems questionable if a conviction would have

1 Milwaukee Sentinel, Aug. 22, 1853; affidavits on file in case.

2 See article by E. E. Bryant in Green Bag, ix, p. 68. Bryant was private secretary to Governor Fairchild.

8 "He has more bitter personal enemies as well as more warm personal friends than most other men in the state."-W. H. Watson, in Milwaukee Sentinel, Jan. 31, 1853.

been warranted by the evidence, although much was brought out that placed Hubbell in an unpleasant light. But, however he erred, the impeachment even without a verdict of guilty, was of itself a punishment, and never since has a Wisconsin assembly felt called upon to make similar charges.

John Scott Horner: a biograph

ical sketch

By Edward Huntington Merrell, D. D.1

In the early years of our nation's history Dr. Gustavus Brown was a celebrated physician, and became surgeon-general of the Revolutionary army. This fact is of interest in the present connection, for the reason that he was the patron and educational guide of Dr. Gustavus Brown Horner, the father of the subject of the present sketch. The acquaintance of the two men had this beginning: Surgeon-General Brown was, by the special order of General Washington, inspecting the Maryland troops and enrolling the names of the able-bodied men, when he discovered the youth Gustavus Brown Horner, and recognized him as his nephew. He took this nephew from the ranks, educated him in his marquee, or surgeon's tent, and made him an associate and assistant during the entire Revolutionary War. Thus, enlisting as a patriot soldier at the age of seventeen, young Horner soon achieved success in the medical profession, and in 1778 received from the continental congress a commission as surgeon's mate. Connected with the army in the North, he was for a time stationed at Valley Forge. During an illness of the Marquis Lafayette, the general was placed under his especial care.

Soon after the close of the war (1783), Horner emigrated to Virginia and settled at Fauquier Court House (now Warrenton), where he married Frances Harrison Scott, a daughter of Captain James Scott, a Revolutionary officer. Scott had