the "Statement" I have, with the author's consent, quoted largely from a letter of Senator George F. Hoar, of Massachussetts, refuting the charge that President Grant had, by the appointment of Judges Bradley and Strong, "packed" the Supreme Court for the purpose of securing the reversal of the Court's decision in the case of Hepburn vs. Griswold, otherwise known as the "Legal Tender" case.

The second occasion referred to-the Electoral Commission-is briefly touched on by himself in the accompanying volume. But his account gives little idea of the bitterness of feeling then existing, and the severe ordeal through which he passed and of which I have personal knowledge. Having attended the Columbian Law School, in Washington, during the winter of 1876 and 1877, I was fully aware of the suppressed

NOTE.-Prof. Woodrow Wilson, having had his attention called, by the editor, to the inaccuracy of his statement, wrote the following very manly and satisfactory acknowledgment:

PRINCETON, N. J., December 20, 1900.

MR. CHARLES BRADLEY, Newark, N. J.:

MY DEAR SIR:-I very much appreciate your letter of the sixteenth. I have for some time been convinced of the unfair imputations of the passage to which you refer in my "Congressional Government," but I have never had an opportunity of revising the text since its publication. It has many times been reprinted, but no change has been made in any part of it since its original appearance. Stereotyped plates are regarded by publishers as a very rigid finality. The change necessary in that passage would be very considerable, and I have never had a chance to make it. I very much hope that before very long I shall be allowed to revise at least that part.

Thanking you again for thus taking it for granted that I wished to know and speak the truth,

Very sincerely yours,

WOODROW WILSON.

excitement which pervaded all classes, and when finally my father was chosen to complete the organization of the commission, he, as well as all of his family, keenly regretted that the lot had fallen to him, thereby becoming (unjustly), in a sense, the final arbiter. I say unjustly because he was by belief, by association, by past history, as staunch a Republican as any of those members of the Commission who were deliberately selected by reason of their known political predilections. And yet, he alone was expected to sink all political bias and act the judge merely. He realized fully the delicate position he occupied, and foresaw that whatever course he took would subject him to criticism. But that he would be assailed with all the venom of a serpent, that he would be charged openly with corruption, that he would be threatened with bodily injury, aye, even to the taking of his lifethis he did not forsee nor believe possible. And yet such was the case. As the proceedings of the commission advanced and the probable outcome was seen, the fury of the Democratic press, led by that scorpion of journalism, the New York Sun, knew no bounds. And this continued vilification soon affected the excitable minds of irresponsible individuals, until he was inundated by a flood of vulgar and threatening communications which would have unnerved a less brave and courageous man.

He soon ceased to either read the press or his mail and absolutely declined to see or converse with the horde of callers at his house. As a matter of fact, he was practically a hermit from the hour he left the sittings of the commission one day until it met the next, even his family seeing him only at meals. As

an inmate of his house during the whole period of the commission's existence, I speak with authority when I say that the reports of his consultations with prominent Republicans and members of the commission are false false not only as to the fact, but the inferences which have been drawn from these false reports, and especially that venomous statement that he had read an opinion favorable to Mr. Tilden in the Oregon case to one or two of his Democratic associates, but that over-night he had been closeted with Republican magnates and came into Court in the morning and voted and read an opinion in favor of Mr. Hayes. This statement having been credited to Judge Field, whether correctly or not, he called upon that judge to either prove it or retract it. Judge Field, then in California, wrote him saying that his remarks had been misinterpreted and exaggerated, and that he had said "nothing derogatory to his honor or integrity."

That he gave the most conscientious consideration to every point raised, and that his conclusions were irresistibly correct, is best evidenced by his opinions elsewhere printed in this volume. That he exhibited a courage not surpassed by any battle-field hero can only be appreciated by those who knew personally the bitterness of the time. That the threats against his life were not idle, and that the anxiety of his family for his personal safety was not exaggerated, became evident when we found that detectives, without solicitation or his knowledge, had been detailed by the then Secretary of the Navy to guard his house and his person. Fearless in the execution of the trust reposed in him, he had the satisfaction of living long enough to see his conduct approved by all fair-minded

men and receive the sanction of popular opinion in the condemnation of Mr. Tilden's "cypher despatch" methods and that gentleman's permanent retirement to private life. But amongst the many evidences of endorsement received by him from all over the country, none appealed to him more than a testimonial of confidence and approval tendered him by the leading professional and business men of his old homeNewark, N. J. (Note). Blessed with great vigor of body and mind, he rounded out his long career with fullness and satisfaction, ever growing in judicial strength and reputation.

The death of his eldest son, William H. Bradley, in 1889, at the time an active lawyer in his old home at Newark, N. J., was a great blow, but he showed no weakening of his powers until in the spring of 1891, when an attack of "la grippe" left him much enfeebled. He failed to recuperate his strength that summer and returned to Washington in October much debilitated. He took his seat on the Bench, however, at the opening of Court, but in a few weeks was compelled to retire by a general breaking up of his system. Fully realizing his approaching end, he calmly prepared himself and his affairs for the inevitable, and finally, peacefully passed away early on the morning of January 22, 1892, surrounded by all his family. Had he lived till March 14, he would have been 79 years old.

A man of the strongest personality-of deep feeling, tho' undemonstrative-his friendships were sincere and binding, and his family relations were most delightful.

And so ended a useful Christian life. May we emulate his sterling worth and character and strive to make as good an American citizen.

(NOTE.)

66

NEWARK, N. J., March 7, 1877.

"HON. JOSEPH P. BRADLEY,

"Justice U. S. Supreme Court.

"DEAR SIR:-Your friends and neighbors in this community have given you their sincere sympathy in your discharge of the duties imposed upon you as the arbiter of the Electoral Commission.

"No weightier responsibility was ever incurred by any citizen than rested upon your casting vote, but your course has been watched by us with more of affectionate interest than of anxiety.

'We had a life-long assurance that whatever of so-called political bias you might make manifest would be only the expression of deep-rooted convictions of the true interpretations of the Constitution and of devotion to republican government in its essence and purity.

"We offer you our heart-felt congratulations, mostly for this, that it has given to you to distinguish a just line between the power and right of the States to choose a President and the unholy claim of one branch of Congress to usurp that power.

"We are aware that in your action you have incurred virulent partisan censure. The road to fictitious greatness, to pretense instead of reality, lay in the other direction, The trial must have been severe, as the temptations you avoided, and the difficulties in your path were great, we the more congratulate ourselves that Newark and New Jersey, in the persons of yourself and Senator Frelinghuysen, have had so large and noble an office in the adjustment of a controversy so solemn as that of the right of a State to vote for the Presidency by its own methods and independent of the dictation and surveillance of Congress. The tendency of the House of Representatives to usurp judicial and executive functions is a danger far greater than any mere change of party rule.

But it is not our purpose to discuss the great issue you have already adjucated. We only desire to say to you in deep sincerity, that here at your home, where you have gone in and out before the people for many years, the old love and respect are builded up stronger by a new admiration of firmness in judgments that will be historic as they are heroic, and mark an era in the Constitutional law of our beloved country.