t I always have been for him." Still holding me by the button,
he said: "Who buys the carpets for the Treasury?"
I said: "Mr. Saville is the chief clerk, and he buys the carpets."
Mr. Stewart said: "Tell him to come to me; I will sell him carpets
as cheap as anybody."
When I repeated Mr. Stewart's message to the President he made no
reply, and he gave no indication that he was hearing what I was saying.
In regard to Judge Hoar's relations to President Grant, the public has
been invited to accept several errors, the appointment to the bench of
the Supreme Court of Justices Bradley and Strong, by whose votes the
first decision of the court in the Legal Tender cases was overruled,
and the circumstances which led to the retirement of Judge Hoar from
the Cabinet. First of all I may say that President Grant was attached
to Judge Hoar, and, as far as I know, his attachment never underwent
any abatement. Whatever bond there may be in the smoking habit, it
was formed without delay at the beginning of their acquaintance. While
General Grant was not a teller of stories, he enjoyed listening to good
ones, and of these Judge Hoar had a large stock always at command.
General Grant enjoyed the society of intellectual men, and Judge Hoar
was far up in that class. General Grant had regrets for the retirement
of Judge Hoar from his Cabinet, and for the circumstances which led to
his retirement. His appointment of Judge Hoar upon the Joint High
Commission and the nomination of Judge Hoar to a seat upon the bench of
the Supreme Court may be accepted as evidence of General Grant's
continuing friendship, and of his disposition to recognize it,
notwithstanding the break in official relations.
Judge Hoar's professional life had been passed in Massachusetts, and
he had no personal acquaintance with the lawyers of the circuit from
which Justices Strong and Bradley were appointed. Strong and Bradley
were at the head of the profession in the States of New Jersey and
Pennsylvania, and in truth there was no debate as to the fitness of
their appointment. Judge Hoar was not responsible for their
appointment, and I am of the opinion that the nomination would have
been made even against his advice, which assuredly was not so given.
Judge Strong, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,
had sustained the constitutionality of the Legal Tender Act, and it
was understood that Bradley was of the same opinion. As the Preside
|