any intercourse
with the Secretary of State outside of official business. Such a
condition of affairs is always a hindrance in the way of good
government, and it may become an obstacle to success. Good government
can be secured only through conferences with those who are responsible,
by conciliation, and not infrequently by concessions to the holders of
adverse opinions. The time came when such a condition was no longer
possible between Mr. Sumner and the Secretary of State.

The President and his Cabinet were in accord in regard to the
controversy with Great Britain as to the Alabama Claims. Mr. Sumner
advocated a more exacting policy. Mr. Motley appeared to be following
Mr. Sumner's lead, and the opposition to Mr. Sumner extended to Mr.
Motley. It had happened that the President had taken on a prejudice
to Mr. Motley at their first interview. This I learned when I said
something to the President in the line of conciliation. The President
said: "Such was my impression of Motley when I saw him that I should
have withheld his appointment if I had not made a promise to Sumner."
My acquaintance with Mr. Motley began in the year 1849, when we were
members of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, and I had a
high regard for him, although it had been charged that I had had some
part in driving him from politics into literature.

When we consider the natures and the training of the two men, it is
not easy to imagine agreeable co-operation in public affairs by Mr.
Sumner and General Grant. Mr. Sumner never believed in General Grant's
fitness for the office of President, and General Grant did not
recognize in Mr. Sumner a wise and safe leader in the business of
government. General Grant's notion of Mr. Sumner, on one side of his
character, may be inferred from his answer when, being asked if he
had heard Mr. Sumner converse, he said: "No, but I have heard him
lecture."

As I am to speak of Mr. Sumner in our personal relations, which for
thirteen years before his death were intimate, I shall use some words
of preface. Never on more than two occasions did we have differences
that caused any feeling on either side. Mr. Sumner was chairman in the
Senate of the Committee on the Freedmen's Bureau, and Mr. Eliot was
chairman of the Committee of the House. A report was made in each
House, and each bill contained not less than twenty sections. Each
House passed its own bill. A committee of conference was appoin