h actually came
which has been predicted to me, that that child should be remembered."

Always desirous of being just and merciful, Morse writes to Vail on May
1: "Rogers is here. I have had a good deal of conversation with him, and
the result is that I think that some circumstances which seemed to
inculpate him are explicable on other grounds than intention to injure
us."

But he was finally forced to give him up, for on August 7 he writes: "You
cannot tell how pained I am at being compelled to change my opinion of R.
Your feelings correspond entirely with my own. I was hoping to do
something gratifying to him and his family, and soon should have done it
if he would permit it; but no! The mask of friendship covered a deep
selfishness that scrupled not to sacrifice a real friendship to a
shortsighted and overreaching ambition. Let him go. I wished to befriend
him and his, and would have done so from the heart, but as he cannot
trust me I have enough who can and do."

The case of Rogers was typical, and I have, therefore, given it in some
detail. It was always a source of grief to Morse when men, whom in his
large-hearted way he had admitted to his intimacy, turned against him;
and he was called upon to suffer many such blows. He has been accused of
having quarrelled with all his associates. This, of course, is not true,
for we have only to name Vail, and Gale, and Kendall, and Reid, and a
host of others to prove the contrary. But, like all men who have achieved
great things, he made bitter enemies, some of whom at first professed
sincere friendship for him and were implicitly trusted by him. However, a
dispassionate study of all the circumstances leading up to the rupture of
these friendly ties will prove that, in practically every case he was
sinned against, not sinning.

A letter to James D. Reid, written on December 21, will show that the
quality of his mercy was not strained: "You may recollect when I met you
in Philadelphia, on the unpleasant business of attending in a court to
witness the contest of two parties for their rights, you informed me of
the destitute condition of O'Reilly's family. At that moment I was led to
believe, from consultation with the counsel for the Patentees, that the
case would undoubtedly go in their (the Patentees') favor. Your statement
touched me, and I could not bear to think that an innocent wife and
inoffensive children should suffer, even from the wrong-doing of their
proper pro