At the time of our acquisition of the country it was under the government of alcaldes or justices of the peace. By the laws of Mexico, then in force, _pueblos_ or towns, when once officially recognized as such by the appointment of munic.i.p.al magistrates, became ent.i.tled to four square leagues of land, to be measured off and a.s.signed to them by the officers of the government. Under these laws the city of San Francisco, as successor of the Mexican Pueblo, a.s.serted a claim to such lands, to be measured off from the northern portion of the peninsula upon which the city is situated. And the alcaldes, a.s.suming an authority similar to that possessed by _alcaldes_ in other _pueblos_, exercised the power of distributing these munic.i.p.al lands in small parcels to settlers for building, cultivation, and other uses.
When the forces of the United States took possession of the city, the alcaldes, holding under the Mexican government, were superseded by persons appointed by our military or naval officers having command of the place. With the increase of population which followed the discovery of gold, these magistrates were besieged by applicants for grants of land; and it was refreshing to see with what generous liberality they disposed of lots in the city--a liberality not infrequent when exercised with reference to other people"s property.
Lots, varying in size from fifty to one hundred varas square, (a measure nearly equal to our yard,) were given away as freely as they were asked, only a small fee to meet necessary charges for preparing and recording the transfers being demanded. Thus, for the lot occupied by the Lick House, and worth now nearly a million, only a few dollars, less I believe than twenty, were paid. And for the lot covered by the Grand Hotel, admitted to be now worth half a million, less than thirty-five dollars were paid.
The authority of the alcaldes to dispose of the lands was questioned by many of the new immigrants, and the validity of their grants denied. They a.s.serted that the land was part of the public property of the United States. Many holding these views gave evidence of the earnestness of their convictions by immediately appropriating to themselves as much vacant land in the city as they could conveniently occupy. Disputes followed, as a matter of course, between claimants under the alcalde grants and those holding as settlers, which often gave rise to long and bitter litigation. The whole community was in fact divided between those who a.s.serted the existence of a _pueblo_ having a right to the lands mentioned, and the power of the alcaldes to make grants of them; and those who insisted that the land belonged to the United States.
Early in 1850, after the State government was organized, the Legislature incorporated the City of San Francisco; and, as is usual with munic.i.p.al bodies not restrained by the most stringent provisions, it contracted more debts than its means warranted, and did not always make provision for their payment at maturity. Numerous suits, therefore, were inst.i.tuted and judgments were recovered against the city. Executions followed, which were levied upon the lands claimed by her as successor of the _pueblo_. Where the occupants denied the t.i.tle of the city, they were generally indifferent to the sales by the sheriff. Property of immense value, in some cases many acres in extent, was, in consequence, often struck off to bidders at a merely nominal price. Upon the deeds of the officer, suits in ejectment were inst.i.tuted in great numbers; and thus questions as to the existence of the alleged _pueblo_, and whether, if existing, it had any right to land, and the nature of such right, if any, were brought before the lower courts; and, finally, in a test case--Hart vs. Burnett--they found their way to the Supreme Court of the State. In the meantime a large number of persons had become interested in these sales, aside from the occupants of the land, and the greatest anxiety was manifested as to the decision of the Court. Previous decisions on the questions involved were not consistent; nor had they met the entire approval of the profession, although, the opinion prevailed generally that a Mexican pueblo of some kind, owning or having an interest in lands, had existed on the site of the city upon the acquisition of the country, and that such lands, like other property of the city not used for public purposes, were vendible on execution.
In 1855, after the sale in respect to which the test case was made, the Council of the city pa.s.sed "the Van Ness Ordinance," so called from the name of its author, the object of which was to settle and quiet, as far as practicable, the t.i.tle of persons occupying land in the city. It relinquished and granted the right and interest of the city to lands within its corporate limits, as defined by the charter of 1851, with certain exceptions, to parties in the actual possession thereof, by themselves or tenants, on or before the first of January, 1855, if the possession were continued to the time of the introduction of the ordinance into the Common Council in June of that year; or, if interrupted by an intruder or trespa.s.ser, it had been or might be recovered by legal process. And it declared that, for the purposes of the act, all persons should be deemed in possession who held t.i.tles to land within the limits mentioned, by virtue of a grant made by the authorities of the pueblo, including alcaldes among them, before the 7th of July, 1846,--the day when the jurisdiction over the country is deemed to have pa.s.sed from Mexico to the United States,--or by virtue of a grant subsequently made by those authorities, if the grant, or a material portion of it, had been entered in a proper book of record deposited in the office or custody of the recorder of the county of San Francisco on or before April 3d, 1850. This ordinance was approved by an act of the Legislature of the State in March, 1858, and the benefit of it and of the confirmatory act was claimed by the defendant in the test case.
That case was most elaborately argued by able and learned counsel. The whole law of Mexico respecting _pueblos_, their powers, rights, and property, and whether, if possessing property, it was subject to forced sale, the effect upon such land of the change of sovereignty to the United States, the powers of alcaldes in disposing of the property of these munic.i.p.alities, the effect of the Van Ness Ordinance, and the confirmatory act of the Legislature, were all discussed with a fullness and learning which left nothing unexplained or to be added.
For weeks afterwards the judges gave the most laborious attention to the questions presented, and considered every point and the argument on both sides of it with anxious and painful solicitude to reach a just conclusion. The opinion of the court, prepared by Mr. Justice Baldwin, is without precedent for the exhaustive learning and research it exhibits upon the points discussed. The Court held, among other things, that, at the date of the conquest and cession of the country, San Francisco was a pueblo, having the rights which the law of Mexico conferred upon such munic.i.p.al organizations; that as such pueblo it had proprietary rights to certain lands, which were held in trust for the public use of the city, and were not subject to seizure and sale under execution; that such portions as were not set apart for common use or special purposes could be granted in lots to private persons by its ayuntamiento or by alcaldes or other officers who represented or had succeeded to its powers; that the lands, and the trusts upon which they were held, were public and munic.i.p.al in their nature, and since the organization of the State were under its control and supervision; that the act of the Legislature confirming the Van Ness Ordinance was a proper exercise of the power of the State, and vested in the possessors therein described, as against the city and State, a t.i.tle to the lands mentioned; and that the city held the lands of the pueblo, not legally disposed of by its officers, unaffected by sheriff"s sales under executions against her.
This decision was of the greatest importance both to the city and the occupants of land within its limits. The Van Ness Ordinance had reserved from grant for the uses of the city all the lots which it then occupied or had set apart for public squares, streets, sites for school-houses, city hall and other buildings belonging to the corporation, and also such other lots as it might subsequently select for public purposes within certain designated limits. All these were by the decision at once released from any possible claim by virtue of sales on executions. All persons occupying lands not thus reserved were by the decision quieted in their possession, so far as any claim of the city or State could be urged against them. Property to the value of many millions was thereby rescued from the spoiler and speculator, and secured to the city or settler. Peace was given to thousands of homes. Yet for this just and most beneficent judgment there went up from a mult.i.tude, who had become interested in the sales, a fierce howl of rage and hate. Attacks full of venom were made upon Judge Baldwin and myself, who had agreed to the decision.
No epithets were too vile to be applied to us; no imputations were too gross to be cast at us. The Press poured out curses upon our heads.
Anonymous circulars filled with falsehoods, which malignity alone could invent, were spread broadcast throughout the city, and letters threatening a.s.sa.s.sination in the streets or by-ways were sent to us through the mail. The violence of the storm, however, was too great to last. Gradually it subsided and reason began to a.s.sert its sway. Other words than those of reproach were uttered; and it was not many months before the general sentiment of the people of the city was with the decision. A year did not elapse before the great good it had conferred upon the city and settler was seen and appreciated. Since then its doctrines have been repeatedly re-affirmed. They have been approved by the Supreme Court of the United States; and now no one doubts their soundness.
After that decision there was still wanting for the complete settlement of t.i.tles in the city the confirmation by the tribunals of the United States of her claim to the lands. The act of Congress of March 3d, 1851, creating the Board of Land Commissioners, provided that all claims to land in California, by virtue of any right or t.i.tle derived from the Spanish or Mexican government, should be presented to the board for examination and adjudication. Accordingly, the city of San Francisco, soon after the organization of the board, in 1852, presented her claim for four square leagues as successor of the _pueblo_, and asked for its confirmation. In December, 1854, the board confirmed the claim for a portion of the four square leagues, but not for the whole; the portion confirmed being embraced within the charter limits of 1851. The city was dissatisfied with this limitation, and appealed from the decision of the Commissioners to the District Court of the United States. An appeal was also taken by the United States, but was subsequently withdrawn. The case remained in the District Court without being disposed of until September, 1864, nearly ten years, when, under the authority of an act of Congress of July 1st of that year, it was transferred to the Circuit Court of the United States. Whilst the case was pending in the District Court, the population of the city had increased more than four-fold; and improvements of a costly character had been made in all parts of it.
The magnitude of the interests which had thus grown up demanded that the t.i.tle to the land upon which the city rested should be in some way definitely settled. To expedite this settlement, as well as the settlement of t.i.tles generally in the State, was the object of the act of July 1st, 1864. Its object is so stated in its t.i.tle. It was introduced by Senator Conness, of California, who was alive to everything that could tend to advance the interests of the State. He felt that nothing would promote its peace and prosperity more than giving security to its land t.i.tles, and he labored earnestly to bring about that result. In framing the act, he consulted me, and at my suggestion introduced sections four, five, and seven, which I drafted and gave to him, but without the exception and proviso to the fifth section, which were added at the request of the Commissioner of the Land Office.[4] The fourth section authorized the District Court to transfer to the Circuit Court cases pending before it arising under the act of March 3d, 1851, affecting the t.i.tle to lands within the corporate limits of a city or town, and provided that in such cases both the District and Circuit Judges might sit. By the fifth section, all the right and t.i.tle of the United States to the land within the corporate limits of the city, as defined by its charter of 1851, were relinquished and granted to the city and its successors for the uses and purposes specified in the Van Ness Ordinance. The exceptions incorporated at the suggestion of the Commissioner of the Land Office related to parcels of land previously or then occupied by the United States for military, naval, or other public purposes, and such other parcels as might be subsequently designated for such purposes by the President within one year after the return to the land office of an approved plat of the exterior limits of the city. The holders of grants from the authorities of the _pueblo_ and the occupants of land within the limits of the charter of 1851 were thus quieted in their possessions. But as the claim of the city was for a much greater quant.i.ty, the case for its confirmation was still prosecuted. Under the fourth section it was transferred to the Circuit Court, as already stated; and it was soon afterwards brought to a hearing. On the 30th of October, 1864, it was decided. For some reason I do not now recall, the District Judge was unable to sit with me, and the case was, therefore, heard before me alone. I held that a pueblo of some kind existed at the site of the present city of San Francisco upon the cession of the country; that as such it was ent.i.tled to the possession of certain lands to the extent of four square leagues; and that the present city had succeeded to such rights, following, in these particulars, the decision which had previously been made in the case of Hart vs. Burnett, by the Supreme Court of the State, in which I had partic.i.p.ated. I accordingly decided that the city was ent.i.tled to have her claim confirmed to four square leagues of land, subject to certain reservations. But I also added that the lands to which she was ent.i.tled had not been given to her by the laws of the former government in absolute property with full right of disposition and alienation, but to be held in trust for the benefit of the whole community, with such powers of use, disposition, and alienation as had been or might thenceforth be conferred upon her or her officers for the execution of the trust. The trust character of the city"s t.i.tle was expressed in the decree of confirmation. The decision was rendered on the 30th of October, 1864, as stated, and a decree was soon afterwards entered; but as a motion was made for a re-hearing, the control over it was retained by the Circuit Court until May of the following year. Upon the suggestion of counsel, it was then modified in some slight particulars so as to limit the confirmation to land above ordinary high water mark, as it existed at the date of the acquisition of the country, namely, the 7th of July, 1846. On the 18th of May, 1865, the decree was finally settled and entered. Appeals from it were prosecuted to the Supreme Court both by the United States and by the city; by the United States from the whole decree, and by the city from so much of it as included certain reservations in the estimate of the quant.i.ty of land confirmed.
In October following I proceeded as usual to Washington to attend the then approaching term of the Supreme Court, and thought no more of the case until my attention was called to it by a most extraordinary circ.u.mstance. Just before leaving San Francisco Mr. Rulofson, a photographer of note, requested me to sit for a photograph, expressing a desire to add it to his gallery. I consented, and a photograph of a large size was taken. As I was leaving his rooms he observed that he intended to make some pictures of a small size from it, and would send me a few copies. On the morning of the 13th of January following (1866), at Washington, Mr. Delos Lake, a lawyer of distinction in California, at one time a District Judge of the State, and then District Attorney of the United States, joined me, remarking, as he did so, that the arrival of the California steamer at New York had been telegraphed, and he hoped that I had received some letters for him, as he had directed his letters to be forwarded to my care. I replied that when I left my room my messenger had not brought my mail; but if he would accompany me there we would probably find it.
Accordingly, we proceeded to my room, where on the centre-table lay my mail from California, consisting of a large number of letters and papers. Among them I noticed a small package about an inch and a half thick, three inches in breadth, and three and a half in length. It was addressed as follows, the words being printed:
[Ill.u.s.tration: Per steamer.
[Three postage stamps.]
Hon. STEPHEN J. FIELD, Washington, D.C.]
It bore the stamp of the San Francisco post-office upon the address.
My name had evidently been cut from the California Reports, but the words "Washington, D.C.," and "Per steamer," had been taken from a newspaper. The slips were pasted on the package. On the opposite side were the words in print:
[Ill.u.s.tration: From GEO. H. JOHNSON"S Pioneer Gallery, 645 and 649 Clay street, SAN FRANCISCO.]
As I took up the package I remarked that this must come from Rulofson;--no, I immediately added, Rulofson has nothing to do with the Pioneer Gallery. It then occurred to me that it might be a present for my wife, recollecting at the moment that the mail came by the steamer which sailed from San Francisco about Christmas time. It may be, I said to myself, a Christmas present for my wife. I will open it just far enough to see, and, if it be intended for her, I will close it and forward it to New York, where she was at the time. I accordingly tore off the covering and raised the lid just far enough to enable me to look inside. I was at once struck with the black appearance of the inside. "What is this, Lake?" I said, addressing myself to my friend. Judge Lake looked over my shoulder into the box, as I held it in my hand, and at once exclaimed, "It is a torpedo.
Don"t open it." I was startled by the suggestion, for the idea of a torpedo was the last thing in the world to occur to me. I immediately laid the package on the sill of the window, where it was subjected to a careful inspection by us both, so far as it could be made with the lid only an eighth of an inch open.
Soon afterwards Judge Lake took the package to the Capitol, which was directly opposite to my rooms, and to the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, and showed it to Mr. Broom, one of the deputies. They dipped the package into water and left it to soak for some minutes.
They then took it into the carriage way under the steps leading to the Senate Chamber, and shielding themselves behind one of the columns threw the box against the wall. The blow broke the hinge of the lid and exposed the contents. A murderous contrivance it was;--a veritable infernal machine! Twelve cartridges such as are used in a common pistol, about an inch in length, lay imbedded in a paste of some kind, covered with fulminating powder, and so connected with a bunch of friction matches, a strip of sand-paper, and a piece of linen attached to the lid, that on opening the box the matches would be ignited and the whole exploded. The package was sent to the War Department, and the following report was returned, giving a detailed description of the machine:
WASHINGTON a.r.s.eNAL, _Jan. 16, 1866_.
_Gen. A.B. Dyer, Chief of Ordnance, Washington, D.C._
SIR: Agreeably to your instructions, I have examined the explosive machine sent to this a.r.s.enal yesterday. It is a small miniature case containing twelve copper cartridges, such as are used in a Smith & Wesson pocket pistol, a bundle of sensitive friction matches, a strip of sand-paper, and some fulminating powder. The cartridges and matches are imbedded in common glue to keep them in place. The strip of sand-paper lies upon the heads of the matches. One end has been thrown back, forming a loop, through which a bit of thread evidently pa.s.sed to attach it to the lid of the case. This thread may be seen near the clasp of the lid, broken in two. There are two wire staples, under which the strip of sand-paper was intended to pa.s.s to produce the necessary pressure on the matches.
The thread is so fixed that the strip of sand-paper could be secured to the lid after it was closed.
The whole affair is so arranged that the opening of the lid would necessarily ignite the matches, were it not that the lower end of the strip has become imbedded in the glue, which prevents it from moving. That the burning of the matches may explode the cartridges, there is a hole in each case, and all are covered with mealed powder.
One of the cartridges has been examined and found to contain ordinary grain powder. Two of the cartridges were exploded in a closed box sent herewith. The effect of the explosion was an indentation on one side of the box.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, J.G. BENTON, _Major of Ord. and Bvt. Col. Comdg._
Between the outside covering and the box there were two or three folds of tissue-paper--placed there, no doubt, to prevent the possibility of an explosion from the stamping at the post office, or the striking against other packages during the voyage from San Francisco to New York.
On the inside of the lid was pasted a slip cut from a San Francisco paper, dated October 31st, 1864, stating that on the day previous I had decided the case of the City against the United States, involving its claim to four square leagues of land, and giving the opening lines of my opinion.
The Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton, immediately telegraphed in cypher to General Halleck, then in command in San Francisco, to take active measures to find out, if possible, the person who made and sent the infernal machine. General Halleck put the detectives of his department on the search. Others employed detectives of the San Francisco police--but all in vain. Suspicions were excited as to the complicity of different parties, but they were never sustained by sufficient evidence to justify the arrest of any one. The instrument, after remaining in the hands of the detectives in San Francisco for nearly two years, was returned to me and it is now in my possession.[5]
It has often been a matter of wonder to me how it was that some good angel whispered to me not to open the box. My impetuous temperament would naturally have led me to tear it open without delay. Probably such hesitation in opening a package directed to me never before occurred, and probably never will again. Who knows but that a mother"s prayer for the protection of her son, breathed years before, was answered then? Who can say that her spirit was not then hovering over him and whispering caution in his ear? That I should on that occasion have departed from my usual mode of action is strange--pa.s.sing strange.
* * * * *
As already stated, the fifth section of the act of Congress of July 1st, 1864, which granted the interest of the United States to the lands within the charter limits of 1851 to the city and its successors, in trust for the benefit of possessors under the Van Ness Ordinance, among other things provided for certain reservations to be subsequently made by the President, within one year after an approved plat showing the exterior limits of the city had been filed in the land office. No such map was filed nor were any reservations made. The case on appeal in the meantime was not reached in the Supreme Court, and was not likely to be for a long period.
Ascertaining from General Halleck that the Secretary of War would not recommend any further reservations to be made from the munic.i.p.al lands, and that probably none would be made, I drew a bill to quiet the t.i.tle of the city to all the lands embraced within the decree of confirmation, and gave it to Senator Conness, who being ready, as usual, to act for the interests of the city, immediately took charge of it and secured its pa.s.sage in the Senate. In the House Mr. McRuer, Member of Congress from California, took charge of it, and with the a.s.sistance of the rest of the delegation from the State, procured its pa.s.sage there. It was signed by the President and became a law on the 8th of March, 1866. By it all the right and t.i.tle of the United States to the land covered by the decree of the Circuit Court were relinquished and granted to the city, and the claim to the land was confirmed, subject, however, to certain reservations and exceptions; and upon trust that all the land not previously granted to the city, should be disposed of and conveyed by the city to the parties in the bona fide actual possession thereof, by themselves or tenants, on the pa.s.sage of the act, in such quant.i.ties, and upon such terms and conditions, as the Legislature of the State of California might prescribe, except such parcels thereof as might be reserved and set apart by ordinance of the city for public uses.
Not long afterwards both the appeals to the Supreme Court were dismissed by stipulation of parties. The litigation over the source of t.i.tle to lands within the limits of the city, not disposed of by independent grants of the government previous to the acquisition of the country, was thus settled and closed. The t.i.tle of the city rests, therefore, upon the decree of the Circuit Court entered on the 18th day of May, 1865, and this confirmatory act of Congress. It has been so adjudged by the Supreme Court of the United States.--(See Townsend vs. Greely, 5 Wall., 337; Grisar vs. McDowell, 6 Wall., 379.)
The t.i.tle of the city being settled, the munic.i.p.al authorities took measures, under the provisions of the confirmatory act, to set apart lands for school-houses, hospitals, court-house buildings, and other public purposes, and through their exertions, instigated and encouraged by Mr. McCoppin, the accomplished and efficient Mayor of the city at that time, the Ocean Park, which looks out upon the Pacific Ocean and the Golden Gate, and is destined to be one of the finest parks in the world, was set apart and secured to the city for all time. As the grounds thus taken were, in many instances, occupied by settlers, or had been purchased from them, an a.s.sessment was levied by the city and sanctioned by the Legislature upon other lands conveyed to the occupants, as a condition of their receiving deeds from the city; and the money raised was applied to compensate those whose lands had been appropriated.
[1] Mr. Justice Clifford.
[2] Cornwall vs. Culver, 16 Cal., 429.
[3] Van Reynegan vs. Bolton, 95 U.S., 33.
[4] See Exhibit J, in Appendix.
[5] See Exhibit K, in Appendix.
HOSTILITY TO THE SUPREME COURT AFTER THE CIVIL WAR.--THE SCOFIELD RESOLUTION.
The irritations and enmities created by the civil war did not end with the cessation of active hostilities. They were expressed whenever any acts of the military officers of the United States were called in question; or any legislation of the States or of Congress in hostility to the insurgents was a.s.sailed; or the validity of the "Reconstruction Acts" was doubted. And they postponed that cordial reconciliation which all patriotic men earnestly desired.
The insurrection was overthrown after a contest which, for its magnitude and the number and courage of the belligerents, was without a parallel in history. The immense loss of life and destruction of property caused by the contest, and the burden of the enormous debt created in its prosecution, left a bitterness in the hearts of the victors which it was difficult to remove. The a.s.sa.s.sination of Mr.
Lincoln added intensity to the feeling. That act of a madman, who had conceived the idea that he might become in our history what Brutus was in the history of Rome, the destroyer of the enemy of his country, was ascribed to a conspiracy of leading Confederates. The proclamation of the Secretary of War, offering a reward for the arrest of parties charged with complicity in the act, gave support to this notion. The wildest stories, now known to have had no foundation, were circulated and obtained ready credence among the people of the North, already wrought up to the highest pitch of excitement. They manifested, therefore, great impatience when a doubt was cast upon the propriety or validity of the acts of the government, or of its officers, which were taken for the suppression of the rebellion or "the reconstruction"
of the States; and to question their validity was almost considered proof of hostility to the Union.
By those who considered the union indissoluble, except by the common consent of the people of the several States, the organization known as the Confederate States could only be regarded as unlawful and rebellious, to be suppressed, if necessary, by force of arms. The Const.i.tution prohibits any treaty, alliance, or confederation by one State with another, and it declares on its face that it is the supreme law of the land. The Confederate government, therefore, could only be treated by the United States as the military representative of the insurrection against their authority. Belligerent rights were accorded to its armed forces in the conduct of the war, and they thus had the standing and rights of parties engaged in lawful warfare. But no further recognition was ever given to it, and when those forces were overthrown its whole fabric disappeared. But not so with the insurgent States which had composed the Confederacy. They retained the same form of government and the same general system of laws, during and subsequent to the war, which they had possessed previously. Their organizations as distinct political communities were not destroyed by the war, although their relations to the central authority were changed. And their acts, so far as they did not impair or tend to impair the supremacy of the general government, or the rights of citizens of the loyal States, were valid and binding. All the ordinary authority of government for the protection of rights of persons and property, the enforcement of contracts, the punishment of crime, and the due order of society, continued to be exercised by them as though no civil war had existed.
There was, therefore, a general expectation throughout the country, upon the cessation of actual hostilities, that these States would be restored to their former relations in the Union as soon as satisfactory evidence was furnished to the general government that resistance to its authority was overthrown and abandoned, and its laws were enforced and obeyed. Some little time might elapse before this result would clearly appear. It was not expected that they would be immediately restored upon the defeat of the armies of the Confederacy, nor that their public men, with the animosities of the struggle still alive, would at once be admitted into the councils of the nation, and allowed to partic.i.p.ate in its government. But whenever it was satisfactorily established that there would be no renewal of the struggle and that the laws of the United States would be obeyed, it was generally believed that the restoration of the States would be an accomplished fact.
President Johnson saw in the inst.i.tution of slavery the princ.i.p.al source of the irritation and ill-feeling between the North and the South, which had led to the war. He believed, therefore, that its abolition should be exacted, and that this would const.i.tute a complete guaranty for the future. At that time the amendment for its abolition, which had pa.s.sed the two Houses of Congress, was pending before the States for their action. He was of opinion, and so expressed himself in his first message to Congress, that its ratification should be required of the insurgent States on resuming their places in the family of the Union; that it was not too much, he said, to ask of them "to give this pledge of perpetual loyalty and peace." "Until it is done," he added, "the past, however much we may desire it, will not be forgotten. The adoption of the amendment re-unites us beyond all power of disruption. It heals the wound that is still imperfectly closed; it removes slavery, the element which has so long perplexed and divided the country; it makes of us once more a united people, renewed and strengthened, bound more than ever to mutual affection and support."
It would have been most fortunate for the country had this condition been deemed sufficient and been accepted as such. But the North was in no mood for a course so simple and just. Its leaders clamored for more stringent measures, on the ground that they were needed for the protection of the freedmen, and the defeat of possible schemes for a new insurrection. It was not long, therefore, before a system of measures was adopted, which resulted in the establishment at the South of temporary governments, subject to military control, the offices of which were filled chiefly by men alien to the States and indifferent to their interests. The misrule and corruption which followed are matters of public history. It is no part of my purpose to speak of them. I wish merely to refer to the state of feeling existing upon the close of the civil war as introductory to what I have to say of the unfriendly disposition manifested at the North towards the Supreme Court and some of its members, myself in particular.