been elected to the Senate by that
Legislature for that was unquestionably an Ames Legislature. It is
true Pease was defeated for renomination for State Superintendent of
Education by the Convention that nominated Ames, still he loyally
supported the ticket and after the election he was looked upon as one
of the friends and supporters of the Ames Administration. As such and
for that reason he was elected as one of the administration Senators.
I was a member of Congress at that time and, therefore, had occasion
frequently to confer with Senator Pease. If he were opposed to Ames, I
am sure that both Mr. Rhodes and his expert will admit that I would
have known it; and yet I do not hesitate to say that Senator Pease
never did by word, act or deed cause me to entertain the slightest
suspicion that he was not a loyal friend and supporter of the Ames
Administration.

In regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court, the expert simply
makes the declaration that the statement made by me that the failure
of Reconstruction was due to unwise judicial interpretation need not
be considered. In the first place, it is not true that I admitted that
Reconstruction was a failure. On the contrary, those who will
carefully read what I wrote will not fail to see that my contention is
that in its important and essential particulars that policy was a
grand and brilliant success and I instanced the ratification of the
14th and 15th Amendments, neither of which could have otherwise been
ratified, as a vindication of the wisdom of that legislation even if
nothing else had resulted from it. It is admitted that some of the
friends and supporters of the Congressional plan of Reconstruction
have been disappointed because those governments did not and could not
stand the test of time. To this extent and for this reason some
persons claim that the policy was a failure. I am not one of that
number, the reasons for which the readers of the article referred to
will see. But the inability of those governments to stand the test of
time I accounted for under three heads, one of which was several
unfortunate decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, the result, in my
opinion, of two unwise appointments made by President Grant in the
persons of Chief Justice Waite and Associate Justice Bradley. I do not
assert that those two judges, or any others, for that matter, were
appointed with reference to their attitude upon any public question,
still I am satisfied th