[Footnote 1:  The story of the gift of ten thousand dollars in token of admiration of the 7th of March speech, referred to by Dr. Von Holst (Const.  Hist. of the United States) may be found in a volume entitled, In Memoriam, B. Ogle Tayloe, p. 109, and is as follows:  “My opulent and munificent friend and neighbor Mr. William W. Corcoran,” says Mr. Tayloe, “after the perusal of Webster’s celebrated March speech in defence of the Constitution and of Southern rights, inclosed to Mrs. Webster her husband’s note for ten thousand dollars given him for a loan to that amount.  Mr. Webster met Mr. Corcoran the same evening, at the President’s, and thanked him for the ‘princely favor.’  Next day he addressed to Mr. Corcoran a letter of thanks which I read at Mr. Corcoran’s request.”  This version is substantially correct.  The morning of March 8 Mr. Corcoran inclosed with a letter of congratulation some notes of Mr. Webster’s amounting to some six thousand dollars.  Reflecting that this was not a very solid tribute, he opened his letter and put in a check for a thousand dollars, and sent the notes and the check to Mr. Webster, who wrote him a letter expressing his gratitude, which Mr. Tayloe doubtless saw, and which is still in existence.  I give the facts in this way because Mr. George T. Curtis, in a newspaper interview, referring to an article of mine in the Atlantic Monthly, said, “With regard to the story of the ten thousand dollar check, which story Mr. Lodge gives us to understand he found in the pages of that very credulous writer Dr. Von Holst, although I have not looked into his volumes to see whether he makes the charge, I have only to say that I never heard of such an occurrence before, and that it would require the oath of a very credible witness to the fact to make me believe it.”  I may add that I have taken the trouble not only to look into Dr. Von Holst’s volumes but to examine the whole matter thoroughly.  The proof is absolute and indeed it is not necessary to go beyond Mr. Webster’s own letter of acknowledgment in search of evidence, were there the slightest reason to doubt the substantial correctness of Mr. Tayloe’s statement.  The point is a small one, but a statement of fact, if questioned, ought always to be sustained or withdrawn.]

He showed the same indifference to the source of supplies of money in other ways.  He took a fee from Wheelock, and then deserted him.  He came down to Salem to prosecute a murderer, and the opposing counsel objected that he was brought there to hurry the jury beyond the law and the evidence, and it was even murmured audibly in the court-room that he had a fee from the relatives of the murdered man in his pocket.  A fee of that sort he certainly received either then or afterwards.  Every ugly public attack that was made upon him related to money, and it is painful that the biographer of such a man as Webster should be compelled to give many pages to show that his hero