1889 History - Biography - Joel Eastman

Hon. Joel Eastman was a name in the central and northern portions of New Hampshire that for half a century was the theme of many a story and was heard by many thousands, nine tenths of whom never saw the stern, austere, commanding man by whom that name was borne. Jurors and witnesses attending court, who noted and admired his conscious strength before a jury and his original sentences and his terrible arraignment of those whom he regarded as guilty, and listened to his words of burning indignation as he related the story of their crimes or sufferings, would, as they were best able, tell their families or neighbors, sometimes in feeble language and sometimes with vivid likeness, of his remarkable doings and sayings. Hence his name became almost a household word. He was one of those men whose personality ought to be preserved in picture and story.

Joel Eastman was descended from a family of repute both in England and America. He was fifth in descent from Samuel Eastman, Esq.; the line being Samuel1, Thomas2, Edward3, Joel4, Joel5. Joel Eastman4, born November 22, 1760, in Kingston, died March 23, 1849. He married Betsey Pettengill, of Sandown; she was born April 23, I762, and died September 30, 1867, at the advanced age of one hundred and five years, five months, and seven days. She was a woman of remarkable natural endowments, and from her her son Joel inherited his strong vitality. He was born February 22, 1798, in Salisbury, and died in Conway, March 16, 1884, and was graduated from Dartmouth College in 1822, I believe, in the class with Chief Justice Perley and other New Hampshire men who afterwards became greatly distinguished. He was a relative and personal friend of Daniel Webster, whom he resembled. Mr. Eastman came to Conway and made his home there in 1826. He married, Ruth Gerrish Odell in December, 1833. About 1847 his nephew and namesake, Joel Eastman Morrill, became a member of his household, and the engraving which accompanies this sketch is his tribute to the memory of his honored uncle.

Joel Eastman once held the office of United States district-attorney for the district of New Hampshire, and for several years represented Conway in the legislature. He was supported for the office of United States senator in the legislature of 1854, which resulted in no election for any of the rival candidates; but the contest was really a victory for .Mr. Eastman's party, as it left two vacancies to be filled (in 1855), when John P. Hale and James Bell were elected United States senators. He was also judge of probate for Carroll county from 1856 to 1868, when he retired, having attained the age of seventy years. He was the oldest member of the national Republican convention that nominated General Garfield and supported Mr. Blaine until he was withdrawn. He was also a member of the national Whig convention in 1840 that nominated the first President Harrison. It is needless to say that all his official duties were discharged with commanding ability. Had he resided in Exeter or Concord there is scarcely a doubt but that he would have passed many years of his life in Congress.

Hon. James Bell, of Gilford, once said: "When Joel Eastman was admitted to practice it was believed that he would be the leader of the New Hampshire bar: but he went up to Conway, and being possessed of a delightful farm on the Saco, and becoming interested in farming and politics, he did not devote himself to his profession so entirely as to secure his largest development as a lawyer." However, he was well versed in the common and statute law, and in his power of construction was one of the first of lawyers. To analyze principles and throw his comprehensive common-sense into the analysis was a peculiarity of Joel Eastman. It is probable that Emerson or Batchelder were more ready with the changes and revisions of law, and in the extent and fulness of learning the older Josiah Hobbs, of Wakefield, was superior to Eastman, but his great strength lay in his convincing power as an advocate. Like strong men generally, he was not cunning. The lion-hearted King Richard could more easily cleave bars of steel and hearts of oak than sever the light scarf of silk with slight but dexterous stroke. Luther D. Sawyer, speaking of this distinguished advocate of New Hampshire, said: "I have listened with intense pleasure to Sullivan and Bartlett, Christie and John P. Hale, Frank Pierce, Thomas J. Whipple, and James Bell, but I never yet heard the lawyer that could beat and belt and thump and whack facts into a jury better than Joel Eastman."

If you would see him in his exalted mood, imagine him arguing facts to a jury wherein his convictions are in entire harmony with his duty and position. You see a man not above the middle height, his brow stern as the mountains of the north, his deep-set eye recalling the description that Barlow in his "Vision of Columbus" gives of John Adams when making the last great speech in favor of the Declaration of Independence: —

From all the guileful plots the veil he drew;
With eye retortive looked creation through.

His arm upraised and all gestures made with his clenched fist, his speech strong, indignant, and impetuous, court, lawyers, jurors, and spectators listening in silent wonder, and the advocate speaking thus, —

Look at the daily newspapers of the time and you will find the history of our country has become darkened and is one vast history of crime. Why is it so? Because American jurors have not the virtue to respect their oaths and render verdicts according to the facts proved. And so it will ever remain while jurors are so weak or so wicked as to love the criminal better than the victim, and, from personal or partisan prejudice, or from sympathy with crime, continue to violate their sacred oaths and prostitute official duty to allow the criminal to go "unwhipt of justice.'' If I had been attacked as my client has been, and should go before a jury of my countrymen and that jury should weakly or wickedly refuse to give me justice, I would curse the country that could produce such a jury. My client is a non-combatant; he would not fight. He is an aged man and could not fight; and this lawless villain knew that such were his principles and condition, and thus presumed upon the safety of an attack. If the lawless ruffian had attacked me as he did this old gentleman, I would have returned his assault, and with fist or, if it had been necessary, with bludgeon, by the God that made me, I would have felled him to the earth!

Contributed 2022 Jul 09 by Norma Hass, extracted from >History of Carroll County, New Hampshire by Georgia Drew Merrill, published in 1889, pages 266-268.