[_Justice Bradley to the Newark "Daily Advertiser" and the Electoral
Commission._]
The _Sun_ gives Bradley's letter in full as follows:
"'STOWE, VT., _September 6_.
"'EDITOR "ADVERTISER."
"'SIR,--I perceive the New York _Sun_ has reiterated its
charge that after preparing a written opinion in favor of the Tilden
electors in the Florida case and submitting it to the electoral
commission, I changed my views during the night preceding the vote
in consequence of the pressure brought to bear upon me by Republican
politicians and the Pacific Railroad men, whose carriages, it is
said, surrounded my house during the evening. This, I believe, is
the important point of the charge. Whether I wrote one opinion
or twenty in my private examination of the subject, is of little
consequence and of no concern to anybody. The opinion which I
finally gave was the result of my deliberations without influence
from outside parties. The above slander was published some time
since, but I never saw it until recently, and deemed it too absurd
to need refutation. But as it is categorically repeated, perhaps I
ought to notice it. The same story about the carriages of leading
Republicans and others congregating about my house was circulated
in Washington at one time, and came to the ears of my family only
to raise a smile of contempt. The whole thing is a falsehood. Not
one visitor called at my house that evening, and during the whole
sitting of the commission I had no private discussion whatever of
the subjects at issue with any person interested on the Republican
side, and but few words with any persons. Indeed, I zealously
sought to avoid all discussion outside the commission itself. The
allegation that I read my opinion to Judges Clifford and Field
is entirely untrue. I read no opinion to either of them, and
have no recollection of expressing one; if I did, it could only
have been suggestively, or in a hypothetical manner, and not for
committal of my final judgment or action. The question was one of
great importance to me, of much difficulty and embarrassment. I
earnestly endeavored to come to a right decision, free from all
political or extraneous considerations. In my private examination
of the principal question, about going behind the returns, I wrote
and rewrote the arguments and considerations on both sides as
they occurred to me, sometimes being inclined to one view of the
subject and sometimes to the other, but finally I threw aside these
lucubrations, and as you have rightly stated, wrote out a short
opinion, which I read in the Florida case during the sitting of the
commission. This decision expresses the conviction to which I had
arrived, and which after a full consideration of the whole subject
seemed to me a satisfactory solution of the questions; and I may
say that the more I have reflected since, the more satisfied have
I become that it was right. At all events, it was the result of my
own reflections and consideration, without any suggestions from
any quarter, except the arguments adduced by counsel in the public
discussion and by members of the commission in private consultation.
As for the insinuation contained in a recent article published in a
prominent periodical by a noted politician, implying that the case
was decided in consequence of political conspiracy, I can only say
that from the peculiar position I occupied on the commission I am
able positively to say that it is utterly devoid of truth, at least,
so far as the action of the commission itself was concerned. In that
article the writer couples my name with the names of those whom he
supposes are obnoxious to the public odium. The decencies of public
expression, if nothing more, might well have deterred so able a
writer from making personal imputations which he did not know to be
well founded.
"'Yours respectfully,
"'JOSEPH P. BRADLEY.'
"NEW YORK, _September 6th_.
"The _Sun_ regards Bradley's letter as a confession, and calls for
his impeachment.
"JUDGE BRADLEY HEARD FROM
"An explanation has at last been offered in behalf of Judge Bradley
respecting his alleged misconduct as a member of the electoral
commission. It is found in the columns of the Newark _Daily
Advertiser_, a journal with which he is known to maintain relations
of unusual intimacy, and is in the following language:
"'It is just as well that the full fact should be known as a
matter of history. Judge Bradley had already decided, in the
Florida case, that he could not go behind the returns of the
State officials. In the Louisiana case, he finally, and, after
anxious thought, held to the same opinion, but of two sets of
returns he chose the one he thought most authentic and legal.
That elected Hayes. As to the doubt whether Judge Bradley
could have prepared a written opinion on one side while he
was expressing different opinions orally on the other, the
facts are worth telling, and we dare to assert them without
any other authorization than our challenge that they cannot
be contradicted. The morning before the opinion was given,
Senator Edmunds had guessed out Judge Bradley's decision, but
he did not know it. Up to that time, as we understand, the
opinions delivered had been oral. There may have been one or two
exceptions. At the session next day, Senator Edmunds whispered
to Judge Bradley that as the opinion he was to give was to be
decisive, it ought to be in writing. The argument had not then
closed. Bradley accepted the suggestion, and, sitting at his
place, dashed down the decision on paper within an hour, in
the presence and during the debate of his colleagues. He was
subsequently urged to enlarge the argument, but it stands in the
printed report just as it was then written. And therefore Judge
Field is very correct in saying that Judge Bradley did not, at
any time before, "read" to him an opinion.'"