II THE RESIGNATION OF MR. MEREDITH AS COUNSEL WILLIAM MORRIS MEREDITH, of Philadelphia, accepted the office of Counsel, 5 September, 1871, and resigned on account of his health, 17 October, 1871. Publicity having been given to a statement that the real cause of his resignation was a dissatisfaction with the Case (presumably because of the inclusion of the "Indirect Claims"), it is proper to say that the statement appears to have been without foundation. The error (which may easily be accounted for) deserves to be corrected, for this is the sole instance, I believe, of a blemish on the record of those distinguished men, Hamilton Fish and John Chandler Bancroft Davis, in their arduous and successful work of preparing the papers, and arranging the documentary evidence to sustain the charges brought by the United States against the Government of Great Britain. It is reasonably certain that Mr. Meredith's withdrawal was due entirely to the consideration of health. The American Law Register for April, 1907, contains the following statement: "Mr. Meredith was selected by General Grant as one of the Counsel to present and argue the Case of the United States, before the Geneva Tribunal. He accepted the duty and took an active and efficient part in the preparation of the Case and of the briefs presented. The ultimate decision of the Case in favor of the United States is stated to have been essentially upon the basis of the Argument Mr. Meredith prepared. It is certain he strongly dissented from the portion of the Case and Argument which was overruled by the Tribunal." This is substantially an extract from a paper read before the Pennsylvania Bar Association, 26 June, 1901, by Richard L. Ashhurst. If Mr. Meredith, as a matter of fact, wrote a brief, I feel quite sure that it was not used by our Counsel in Paris, in the preparation of the Argument. Nothing in this statement indicates that Mr. Meredith resigned because he was dissatisfied with the Case. Indeed, Mr. Ashhurst continues: "It would have been almost too much to hope that he could in the condition of his health have been able to make the voyage and conduct the argument, and his relinquishment of the journey to Geneva was undoubtedly wise, though a great disappointment to Pennsylvania." The Honorable J. Hubley Ashton, formerly an Assistant Attorney-General of the United States, and a lawyer of distinction at Washington, wrote to me, 1 February, 1901, just before his death, on the subject of Mr. Meredith's resignation, as follows: "I send you a copy of the interesting paper of my friend Ashhurst, on William M. Meredith, whom I knew myself very well in Philadelphia. Judge Black, who knew of course all the great lawyers of the country in his day, said to me that Meredith was on the whole the greatest lawyer he had ever come in contact with. My own impression is that he had more genius, in the general sense of the term, than Mr. Binney, who preceded him in the leadership of our Philadelphia Bar. I may mention, too, in this connection that Mr. Fish held him in high and affectionate regard as one of the great leaders of the old Whig party of their day, who had been of incalculable service to the country during the War. There is no difficulty, therefore, in accounting for his selection as one of the Counsel of the United States under the Treaty of Washington. "It has always been my understanding that Mr. Meredith was one of the three gentlemen first chosen by the President, through Mr. Fish, no doubt, to represent the United States as its Counsel before the Geneva Tribunal, and that he was formally tendered the appointment, but was unable to accept it on account of the state of his health, which would not permit him to make the proposed journey to Paris, which was to be the headquarters of the representatives of the Government in Europe. I remember that he called to see me, during a visit to Washington, after the ratification of the Treaty of Washington; and my recollection is that I understood from what he then said, in conversation, that he had declined, or would be obliged to decline, the proposed service for the reason I have mentioned. He had never been abroad, and no doubt a long sea voyage was to him a very formidable undertaking, at that time of his life, and in the infirm condition of his health, especially as it was uncertain how long he might be obliged to remain in Europe, away from his family and home. I remember that I was extremely sorry to hear what he said in that conversation, especially, perhaps, as I had been particularly anxious, quite early, that he, as the great lawyer of Philadelphia, should not be overlooked by Mr. Fish and the President, when the time came to select our Counsel in the case against Great Britain. "Mr. Ashhurst states, as I understand his paper, that Mr. Meredith in fact acted as one of the Counsel in the Case, at home; but I was not aware of that at the time of the Arbitration. "My friend, Chief Justice Mitchell, of Pennsylvania, in an address he delivered in commemoration of the Centennial of the Law Association of Philadelphia, a year or so ago, stated that Mr. Meredith at first accepted the appointment tendered to him by the President, and afterwards declined it, owing to his dissatisfaction with the Case as prepared for the United States; but I do not think that can be an entirely correct account of his action in respect to the matter, and it seems to be inconsistent with what Mr. Ashhurst states in his Memoir. "I understood from what Judge Curtis said to me, at the time, that he was obliged to decline the proposed service on account of his prior professional engagements, especially in the Supreme Court, which could not be disregarded, or arranged for satisfactorily to himself and his clients." Mr. Ashton was in a position to know the facts; and the accuracy of his recollection will not for a moment be questioned by any one who ever knew him. A diligent search has been made at the Department of State for the original letter of Mr. Meredith of 17 October, 1871 (for which I thank the several officials), but it cannot be found. I am happy to testify that my friend, the Chief Justice of Pennsylvania, has generously been at great pains to go into the subject anew, in the hope of reaching the exact truth in the premises. I quote from his letter to me of 27 November, 1907: "I have seen Mr. Ashhurst, and learned from him that his statement in regard to Mr. Meredith was based on information from Mr. Meredith's family, particularly his nephew, the late Cadwalader Biddle. On reading what he, Mr. Ashhurst, said, I find that he does not put the matter as strongly as I did, though he agrees with me that that was the general belief of the Bar at the time. I find also that he gives the condition of Meredith's health more weight than I was disposed to. I had supposed that Mr. Meredith was merely asthmatic, but it seems that he had serious cardiac trouble and tendency to dropsy. |