[ JBO Note: The best source of information about Emma Bocock is a sketch written in the 1930s by Mabel Law Atkinson, a granddaughter–which is almost completely transcribed here. But there are difficulties with this account. Part of the problem is that there is no family organization devoted to the Bocock sisters themselves, and in the case of Emma, only to the Law or Blanchard patriarchs who then become the “heroes” of their narratives. These stories come from the family of Francis J. (Frank) Law, Emma’s only surviving child by her first husband, Charles Law. Frank Law was a kind and generous brother to Medora Blanchard Hickenlooper, daughter of Emma Bocock and Alma Moroni Blanchard. He had good reason, as did Medora, to find much wanting in her father, Alma Moroni Blanchard. However, Frank Law was only three years old when his father Charles Law died and Frank would have lacked the discernment and understanding of an adult. It is understandable that Law’s children wanted to think well of him in all respects, but it is also true that the Bocock sisters all petitioned for temple divorces upon his death, and that Emma’s specific reasons were confided only through the women. The beginning paragraphs of the Autobiography of Elizabeth Bocock Weight offer a little counterbalance. Let me say only that neither of Emma’s husbands can be recommended. In my PAF Notes, I confine myself to saying that Emma was forced to marry her brother-in-law.
I have made minor corrections to names, dates, and places – an abbreviation for parish has been read as ‘Bar’ and incorporated in placenames. I have also made changes to improve flow and to remove ambiguities. I have left out parts that must be taken with many grains of salt. This sketch is based on oral sources – we would not have them at all otherwise – but it doesn’t use documentation. Checking passenger lists, for example, would have raised questions about a key story since it shows Maria Robinson Law and their children as passengers. Whether she also came West is probably another question, or if she did, whether she in fact stayed.]
Charles Law was born at South Hiendley, Felkirk, Yorkshire, England, the son of Isaac Law and Mary Grayson. He was christened 27 Jan 1833 at Felkirk. He married Maria Robinson 15 Oct 1854 in Sheffield, Yorkshire.
Charles was a shoemaker by trade. After marriage to Maria and the birth of two or three children, he did not make enough in the shoemaking business to satisfy him and became very restless (as he always did when not making much). He began traveling around selling tea. Tea was always in demand by the English people, so he did pretty well in selling.
In his traveling and selling, he chanced upon one of the street meetings conducted by the Mormon elders. He attended, became interested, and soon joined the Church. He was baptized 2 Dec 1855. His family disowned him, and his wife would have nothing to do with Mormonism. He tried to get her to see the beauties and value of the new religion he had embraced, but she would not listen at all.
Charles continued traveling selling tea and was so enthused over his new religion that he preached the Gospel also, so he was made a traveling elder. He went to the Bocock home in Broadfield parish to sell tea. Here he met three orphan girls, Hannah, Elizabeth, and Emma Bocock. He preached the Gospel to them. They believed and were baptized, 25 March 1857.
Their parents were William Bocock, born 27 December 1796 in Market Rasen, Lincolnshire, England and Sarah Brough who was born 5 April 1799 at Mansfield, Nottingham, England . William’s parents were John Bocock, christened 15 December 1771 at Snelland, Lincolnshire. His mother was Mary Maltby, christened 6 June 1768 at Market Rasen, Lincolnshire. Mary Maltby died soon after William was born and John married Mary Dove. William Bocock married first Hannah Dixon by whom he had five children, three boys and two girls. She died about 1827. A year later William married Hannah Winks and they had one son born in 1829 [William Winks Bocock]. Sometime after the death of Hannah Winks, William then married Sarah Brough. Her parents were James Brough and Jane Bowskill. James’ parents were John Brough and Alice, and Jane’s parents were William Bowskill and Sarah Palfreyman.
To William Bocock and Sarah Brough were born four daughters and one son. They named the first child Hannah after the two wives who were dead. Hannah was born 22 Feb 1831 at 1:20 pm in Balderton, England. Sarah, the next child, died in 1847. Then came Elizabeth, born 11 May 1837 at 12:32 am at Tinsley. The next child was Samuel who died in 1845. Emma was born 23 June 1843 at Broadfield, also called Sheffield. The father, William Bocock, died 13 May 1848. Their mother Sarah died 8 March 1852. Thus we see only three girls were left in the family, orphaned at the ages of 21, 15, and 8.
William Bocock had been a tollgate keeper at several different places that we know of – Middle Rasen, Newstead, Balderton, Tinsley, Oakwell, Carlton Lane, and Broadfield. He was either paid wages or else rented the gates and made all he could above the rent. A toll gate was very often right on a public highway. A company or private individuals would put a bridge over a stream and build a tollgate. People vehicles and animals were all charged to go over the bridge. The owners of sheep, swine, cattle, etc., paid toll either by the head, by the lump, or by weight. The bridge itself was a scale and was used thus when toll was charged by weight. Cattle and sheep men and traffic men would buy a book of tickets and get a discount by doing so. Francis J. Law, son of Charles and Emma, has in his possession, a part of a tollgate ticket, used at that time.
In England, everybody was supposed to learn a trade to have some means of making a living. The Bocock girls learned hatmaking and trimming. They received rather good educations, especially Hannah and Elizabeth, the older sisters.
After their father’s death, the three girls ran the tollgate and made a living in this way. Three years after their father’s death, they were tollgate keepers when Charles Law came to them with tea and the Gospel of Christ. They were all baptized just before they left England.
The main desire was to come to Zion and mingle with the Saints here. They soon began to make plans to leave their beautiful England and come to Utah. The Bocock girls brought dishes, plates, teacups and saucers, knives, forks, etc. with them from England.
Not far from the Bocock home were two springs of mineral water and one was stronger than the other. Anything placed in these springs would soon petrify. A few months before they left England, Emma, only thirteen, made four fancy little tarts. She made dough for crusts as for pies, put it in four fancy tart dishes, and put in filling. She put two in each spring. They petrified, and just before she left to come to Utah, she took them out and brought them with her. At least twelve years later, her son Francis J. Law remembered that she brought them out to show the neighbors. The ones put in the weaker spring were beginning to go back to dough, but the two that were put in the stronger spring were just like solid rock.
[Here’s something that requires checking: Charles Law took the two youngest children unbeknownst to his wife and intended to bring them with him. He knew he couldn’t very well get the two older ones to leave their mother. He had the two younger ones kidnaped, as it were, and had them on the ship ready to bring with him to American. They had broken out with an eruptible disease, most likely chicken pox or smallpox before the ship sailed and the ship’s officer would not let them remain on board. Charles had to send them back to their mother. Francis J. Law later said he thought his father went too far in taking the children and that it was in the providence of God that they were sent back to their mother. Of course, the father, knowing his wife’s bitterness, thought only of getting his children to Zion, where they could grow up in the Church.]
[Here’s an extract from the passenger list for the George Washington at the Mormon Historic Sites website [http://www.mormonhistoricsitesfoundation.org/projects/georgeWashington.h...
- BOCOCK, Hannah
- BOCOCK, Elizabeth
- BOCOCK, Emma
- LAW, Charles
- LAW, Maria
- LAW, Charles
- LAW, Elizabeth Ann
- LAW, Mary F.
So you see that Charles and Maria Law and three [?] children were on their way to Utah.]
They left Liverpool 28 March 1857 on the George Washington, bound for Boston where they landed 20 April 1857. They were led by James P. Park with Jesse B. Martin as one of his counselors. The passengers left the ship 23 April 1857. Most of the Saints left immediately for Utah. The wagon company of Jesse B. Martin arrived in Salt Lake City 12 September 1857.
[Questionable: Some of the Saints, however, remained in the East to get work enough to pay their fare to Utah. Evidently Charles Law and the Bocock girls were among those who remained. They came to Utah in the company of Captain William G. Young and arrived in Salt Lake City 26 September 1857. They traveled by horses in the wagon group, not ox team, for they could afford to buy horses. They also walked some of the time.]
[Perhaps Charles Law came by the above-mentioned company, but Elizabeth Bocock Weight wrote:
Started from Iowa City after a month camping there on the last day of June 1857 with a company of ox-teams, numbering about fifty wagons with Elder Jesse B. Martin as captain and an additional captain over every ten, all of them being returned Missionaries. I walked all the way from Iowa City camping ground to Salt Lake City, because of our heavily loaded wagon. I have walked many a day from twenty to twenty five miles in crossing the plains over mountains, sand ridges, wading creeks. And while wading across the South Fork of the Platte River leading a cow, I came near being drowned as it has a quicksand bottom.]
They arrived in Salt Lake just ahead of Johnston’s army. Emma was then only thirteen. After reaching Salt Lake City, Charles Law was married to Hannah Bocock and then sealed 17 January 1858 and on 31 January 1858 he was also sealed to Elizabeth. Charles Law and his wives and Emma were among those who went to Springville, Utah where Charles Law soon got possession of a half block which meant an acre and a quarter. At first they lived in covered wagons or tents. Charles Law and his wives worked and lived together. They knew what hard times were, yet did not get discouraged.
Later Charles Law was also sealed to Emma Bocock 13 March 1859. On 31 Aug 1861, Charles Law took his wives to the Endowment House and had them sealed to him again for time and all eternity. They were all endowed on this date. He had three children by Hannah: Hannah Mariah, born 28 June 1858; Frederick William, born 21 Nov 1859; and Isaac, born 18 May 1861. By Elizabeth he also had three children: Charles Orson, born 30 Nov 1858; Sarah Elizabeth, born 7 July 1860; and Jacob Theodore, born 14 Nov 1861. Sarah Elizabeth died 11 June 1861 and Jacob Theodore 7 Oct 1862.
By his youngest wife, Emma, he had two children, Francis Jacob, born 7 Apr 1859; and a girl born 1862 who died Oct 1862 at the age of six months [Theodora Emma]. All of these children were born in Springville, Utah. Emma’s first child, Francis, was born in a chicken coop. It had been thoroughly cleaned and made comfortable and Emma took it for her maternity room for convenience sake.
Charles soon fixed up a home for his wives and family. In England the Laws and Bococks were considered rather well-to-do, especially the Bococks. They were not of the poorer class. They were used to nice things in England and soon had things rather nice here as well. The home they built was of adobe and faced south. All three wives lived in the same home, but each had her own private room and place for her children. Then they had one large fathering room, as they called it, that they all used together. They also had a cooperative kitchen at the back. Charles also had his workshop in the home. It was big enough to hold his bed and shoemakers bench and a few more articles of furniture, etc. At this time they used homemade bed-cord beds. They were made with four posts and cross boards. The ropes were then tightened [“sleep tight”] and sprinkled and how they’d tighten up. They were pretty good beds, at any rate.
Charles Law worked at his trade to make a living for his family. He was very skillful and proficient. He could look at a fancy shoe and then imitate it and make one just like it. But everything he used in his trade required money, leather, thread, etc. Money was hard to get. People mostly paid for their shoes and repair work in produce. He would have been very successful if he could have obtained enough money to buy the materials he needed. He found it rather hard to manage with three wives bearing children and not much coming in, but he was willing to obey the commandments of God, for not President Brigham Young told them to enter into plural marriage to people the desert. At this time the people, all told, didn’t raise enough foodstuff to live on, and he didn’t raise any but had to get his from others for the work he did. He made shoes for the entire family and for many of the people of Springville. He taught his wife Emma to make shoes also. At first when he was rushed with work, she would measure the person’s foot and put down what was necessary. Then he would cut out and she would sew, and then he would sole the shoes. Later she would cut out also, and in time she learned to do it all. After her husband’s death, she made several pairs of shoes for different people.
Times were hard. It was hard to get money, and money was necessary in order to make shoes, to get food. Charles Law became restless, as he always did when he couldn’t keep busy and see that he was getting ahead. When the gold rush was on in California, he sold some of the wares that were brought from England, to get money, and went to California in hopes of getting more money. From reports that came out of California, he thought he could get a place to half-sole shoes and get about five dollars a pair for doing so. Reports said that “that price was not considered too much in California.” He intended to just put in a summer there and then to return. Some say he went to find his brother William, who had come to America before him. Others think his real reason was to get enough money to go back to England and again try to get his wife and children there, to see the light, and bring them to Zion. In this instance, as is always the case, no good comes from disregarding the advice of the Lord’s Prophet. Brigham Young had told his people to stay at home and promised them, if they did so, they would be better off than if they went to California. Not heeding, however, Charles Law went. He did not find the utopia he expected. His health gave way, and he returned home a broken-down man and died about a year later of consumption. The night before he died, he fixed a pair of shoes for “Old Lady Blanchard,” as she was called [Eunice Elizabeth Thompson Blanchard]. (Her son [Alma Moroni] later married Emma.) Charles Law died 20 Sep 1862 and was buried in Springville, Utah.
Charles Law was a slim-built, narrow-shouldered man, about five feet eight inches tall. His eyes were an ordinary clear blue, his hair an auburn brown, inclined to be curly. Just to look at him, one would say his whiskers were black, but let the sun shine on them and they were then seen to be chestnut or deep cherry brown. He had a very fair skin. One man who saw him after he came to Utah said he was the whitest-faced, black-whiskered man he’d ever seen. He stood up straight, but was rather droop-shouldered, not square. In his prime, he would never have weighed over one hundred forty pounds. He was quick as lightning in his movements.
Charles was a very energetic, industrious man. He couldn’t stand idleness. At one time his son Francis met an old settler who knew his father, so, just to draw him out, he said, “I suppose my father was just about as lazy as a fellow could be.” The old settler fired right up and said, “There never was a more energetic man lived than your dad.” This trait of industry is shown in the incident his children and grandchildren refer to as “Grandfather Law’s stent.” In Springville, one still finds pieces of the old fort wall that was built during Indian troubles for protection. This wall was built along two sides of Springville and was to be ten feet high and four feet wide on the top. People were to donate their time and work to get the wall built. As is generally the case, there was much loafing in donation work. Charles Law was no loafer. He went to the foreman, who was the Bishop, and said, “Lay out my stent, will you? Give me the amount you think I should do in a day, and if it is all right with you, I’ll do it and then go home.” The Bishop thought he was a sort of “fusser,” so gave him a larger stent than he thought he could do in a day’s time. Charles set to work shoveling and he was thrugh by the middle of the afternoon, then went home. Some of the men complained and said it was unfair for Brother Law to go home so early. The Bishop told them that if they wanted, he would assign a certain amount of work for them also. The next day one man wanted his stent “the same as Law had.” As on the day before, Charles Law was through and went home in the middle of the afternoon. The man by him was still at work when the others quite work for the day, and he finally went home without finishing his stent. After that, no one wanted a stent along with Brother Law.
When seriousness was required, Charles Law was as serious as anybody, but he was naturally of a hopeful, uplifting disposition. Before he attempted to do anything, he would figure out just what it would cost and whether he could make things go or not.
He had a very strict trait. His word was law in his family, but when enjoying pretty fair health, he was very reasonable in his demands. He didn’t want anyone disputing or disobeying him. He never haggled, but let his children understand what was what and had them live up to it. He always saw that they obeyed. [Keep in mind that the oldest of these children was no more than four years old when he died!] There was a pollywog pond in the street in front of his home. At one time he caught his children wading and playing the pond, as most children will. He told them he didn’t want them playing in it anymore. He told them they got their clothes all nasty and pollywogs were nasty to play with anyway. Children always do and will forever wonder why grownups talk that way about things the children love to do. Later, he caught three of them in the pond and, of course, he had a settlement with them. The two oldest, who were old enough to understand they were disobeying, he punished, but the youngest (Francis) he let go untouched.
In Springville, he took an active part in the Church and the community life until his death. He would still keep going when he had to stop walking and rest awhile to get his breath, his lungs were so bad.
It was the aim of Charles Law to build a comfortable cooperative home for all his wives and children, and after his death, his wives lived and worked together and had things in common. A great love always existed between the three sisters. The children of one wife were taught to obey the other two who almost seemed like mothers to them also. Hannah taught school, and the others did sewing and hat making. If one sister was rushed with her work, the other two helped out. All three were skillful in cutting and sewing and hat making and hat trimming. All three could do almost any kind of work with the needle.
They lived together in love and harmony until they married again when they divided up their things and each went her way. Emma received Charles Law’s Bible which he brought from England. Her son Francis has this Bible now.
Hannah married John James Humpherys 1 Jul 1864, and Elizabeth married Frederick Weight 1 July 1865. Emma married Alma Moroni Blanchard 13 May 1864. He was a rather brilliant man in many ways. Some of his poems have appeared in print. He was a sort of doctor and dentist. Later he was known as a bicyclist. In his later years he was quite a tramp, tramping around and seeing the country. He had a striking personality.
Emma had a hard life with him, poor girl, for she was only twenty-one when she married him. Her life from now on was one hard struggle, yet she remained calm and beautiful through it all. She had her children fast and had to make most of the living as well. Her son Francis, her mainstay, says her children would have starved to death is she hadn’t been such a skillful, energetic woman. She had six children by this second marriage, four of whom survived infancy. The names of her children are Isora, born 5 Feb 1865 (died in infancy); Medora, born 23 Feb 1866; Lenora, born 25 Sep 1867 (died in infancy); Alma Moroni, born 15 Oct 1857; Sarah, born 2 Sep 1870; and Byron, born 3 Feb 1872. On 21 Mar 1873, she died in childbirth, her baby never delivered. She had been very ill, but it was thought she was better, when she began taking convulsions. She took one after another until she died. All of her children were born in Springville and her three infants were buried there. She was buried beside them 23 Mar 1873.
Emma was a small woman, five feet tall. She was rather plump and round. Her flesh was firm and a healthy color. She had clear blue eyes and dark, glossy brown hair, which was long and beautiful. She could tip her head back a little and sit on her hair. She was straight as could be and a little square-shouldered for a woman, full-breasted, and when she walked, she appeared to be a little sway-backed she stood so straight. She was a perfectly built woman of her type and all who knew her remarked about her beauty. She was very active. She was very healthy in her youth. Once in her prime, she said, “I can carry all I can lift and if it be so heavy, I can just put one foot ahead of the other and then rest a few minutes and feel as well as ever again.” Later in her life, when her health began to fail, she was always tired.
Her beautiful hair was always set smoothly about her head. She generally combed it in two braids and wound it around the back of her head. She wore it parted in the middle, as at that time there could be nothing masculine about a woman’s hair. Sometimes she had it in one and sometimes two bobs. She appeared in public with her hair done up in several different ways. She was quick to imitate all that was beautiful and good, and when she saw actors or actresses on the stage with their hair combed becomingly, she would fix hers that way. When undone, her hair hung in beautiful glossy waves.
She always wore dresses with high necks, long sleeves, and long skirts. The only time she wore a low-necked dress was when her second husband had her do it and have her picture taken showing her beautiful neck and shoulders, with her hair hanging down. She was modest and did not like to dress this way, but her husband insisted, and so her picture was taken thus.
She wore hoops when they were in style, and her children say that three or four women with large hoop skirts would take up one side of the dance hall, and when they sat down, the rest had to stand up. For everyday dress, she wore good substantial dresses, mostly dark, as was customary at that time. She wanted the best there was for dressy wear.
Emma, as I have stated, was a hat maker and hat trimmer. She now used this art to help feed and clothe her children. She made many hats for different people. They would give her an idea or sketch of the kind of hat they wanted and she’d make it. Sometimes women would take her to Provo to see hats they especially liked, but which were too expensive. She’d take one look at them and go back and make hats like them at a much cheaper price.
She would gather her own straw. She would go in the harvest field with a pair of scissors and get the straw she wanted. She’d split each straw into four strands with straw splitters and braid it, sew it together, and make beautiful hats of any size and shape. She knew how to braid straw flat, found, or three-cornered. She would make ornaments and trimmings out of straw also. She could imitate anything on earth she saw in the straw line. She’d also trim straw hats, clean, and whiten them as well. She would take a hat that was all out of shape, soiled, and yellowed, moisten it, and iron it in the shape she wanted, then set it in a sulphur box, as she called it, and burn sulphur in some manner for a certain length of time, then take the hat out as nice and white as could be. Sometimes she had so many hats to clean that she’d run out of boxes and tell people to bring their own boxes and she’d be able to whiten their hats for them. She made straw hats for boys also. She would have a “big run,” as we say today, when boys wanted hats for harvest. When there was a lull in business, she’d braid straw and roll it up on a roller of some kind and use it as she needed it later on.
One harvest, rye straw was mixed with the wheat. The grain was cut with the cradle and the heads all lay one way and the straw the other. Emma wanted rye straw for hats; it being especially good for that purpose, so her son Francis, fathered it, and she clipped the heads off and put the straw in bundles and stored it and had enough straw for the hats for two or three years. Rye grows taller than what, so it was very easy to go along and pull it out.
Later on, Emma made hats out of velvet and other materials. She was adept at cutting and sewing, and she did sewing for money also.
In the summer and fall, she’d dry sacks and sacks of peaches, apples, pears, etc., and in the winter, she would trade them for wheat. Of course, she always dried and preserved plenty of fruit for her own use, including ground cherries. Bottling fruit was not know then. She would also grade molasses for sugar, clothing, and other food for her family. They raised their own sugar cane and had it made into molasses in the Springville molasses mill.
She would keep her son Francis in the house, day in and day out, to take care of the babies, as they came along, while she worked at different things to make a living. When her health began to fail, she would hire a woman to wash for her, doing a little more sewing or hat trimming to pay for it. At one time, a Mrs. Hatfield had been washing for her. Unintentionally, she let it out that she didn’t have bread for her children’s supper. Emma went to the bread box and took out enough bread for supper and breakfast and gave it to her. The woman broke down and cried, she was so overcome with gratitude. Thus we see Emma had a big heart. She could never see anyone in need as long as she could supply that need.
She was a natural homemaker and mother, and she did wonderfully well in those capacities, in spite of the fact that she had to spend so much time providing for her family. She always did her work for a livelihood, in her home as much as possible so as to be near and look after her children. She found odd moments to sit and talk to them or instruct them, tell them stories of her home in England. She could them of that beautiful country with its fine pastures, with the hills not dry, like the ones in Utah, but green and beautiful. I wonder, if sometimes she did not sigh as she thought of the comparatively easy and carefree life she lived there and yet with her knowledge of the Gospel and her love for her children, she had no regrets. Sometimes she longed for the refined foods she had been used to in England and she never could get accustomed to the butter here. As she sat down to the table and buttered her bread, she’d say, “If I could have some of the good old English butter and spread it on the bread and scrape it off again, it would taste better than this.”
She prized the dishes and other wares she brought with her from England. She would tell her children the stories that were in the pictures on the dishes. Her son Frank remembers distinctly, a kind of blue-flowered pictured plate (Blue Willow) with the picture of a man with a whip in hi8s hand, chasing his daughter and her love. London Bridge was in the distance and if the two could get over the bridge, the father couldn’t touch them. Emma would tell her children this story in a little verse form.
These dishes were kept for special occasions. Emma often had acquaintance-gatherings, as she called them, in her home. Her old English friends would come and talk over old times. She had several friends, who came over on the same ship as she did, and how they would enjoy an afternoon of chatting and lunching together. At these socials, the precious dishes from England were brought out and used. Two families of Cleggs, old English friends, came to visit and then the dishes were always used. To distinguish these two families, they called “Clegg the Poet” and “Clegg the Clogmaker,” denoting their lines of work.
The ideal of this hardworking woman was to have a good beautiful home and each year she added a little more to make the home attractive. She had the values of life straight. She knew her vocation, yet she had to spend so much time on her side issues, that she had to make every turn count in her vocation of motherhood and homemaking, yet she must have succeeded in this, for today, her children adore and bless her memory.
She was naturally a religious woman, but no fanatic. She had great faith in the Lord. When left alone, and a child took suddenly sick, she would take the oil and anoint and bless the child. She would go as far as she could with the priesthood. More than once, she came out victorious and her children were relieved of their pain and healed.
She was a fine singer and how she loved to sing! Her children in their memories can still hear her beautiful alto voice as she sang about her work in the home and in the church choir, of which she was a member for ten years.
Emma was a great hand to face the present problem and leave the trouble of the past behind her. She would look her trouble square in the face and if there was a remedy, she’d fight for it; if not, she’d just let things go and put her efforts on something else.
Years after his mother’s death, when he was a mature man, one of her sons, A.M. Blanchard, wrote to his father and asked him certain questions concerning his mother Emma. Here are the questions and answers in full. They summarize the character of this lovely woman.
Was Mother a hard worker?
“Yes, all of her short life.”
Was Mother fairly well learned?
“Yes, in a general way. Apt at figures.”
Was Mother pleasant or cross?
“She was pleasant, affable, kind and benevolent.”
Was Mother of a nervous temperament?
“Yes, but she was evenly balanced.”
How was her judgment on finances?
“Good, quite above average for a woman.”
Was she naturally religious?
“Yes, with veneration large?”
Was she timid or bashful?
“Modest, but not shy, reticent.”
Was she saving or wasteful?
“One of the most provident of women.”
Was she easily overcome by grief?
“Yes, she has seen much sorrow.”
Was she gifted in any way?
“Romantic, poetic, a very good singer. She was for ten years in the choir.”
Was her judgment good, in general?
“Yes, remarkably so. Very intuitive, great foresight and good forethought.”
Did she realize she was going to die, and did she make any requests?
“Yes, but she only requested that she be buried beside her children.”
Was she generally liked by all who knew her?
“Yes, she was beloved by all.”
Her other living son, Francis J. Law, now nearly seventy-six years old, pays her tribute in these words: “She was a clean, sweet, beautiful woman.” Surely this is enough to say of anyone.