him for the Senate of the United States: "In my opinion, it [slavery agitation] will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this Government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the farther spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States-old as well as new, North as well as South." It was a thing impossible, that the South could see the triumph of such a party at the coming election, without feeling that the polity of the United States was to be moulded, sooner or later, so as to discriminate between local self-government in the different sections of the country.

With calm judgment and serene dignity, ChiefJustice Taney foresaw, in the signs of the times, the coming storm. He felt now, more than ever, the importance of the Judicial Department of the Government, and the high function of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. To keep clear of the defiling influences of politics had always been the fixed purpose of his judicial life. No tempter could beguile him from the path of his duty as a Judge.

Each party was now using, in the canvass for the Presidency, every available influence to promote the election of their candidate. A communication appeared in a newspaper, stating that Chief- Justice Taney was favorable to the election of Mr. Douglas, to influence, as it was said, the Roman Catholic vote in his favor. George W. Hughes, an intimate friend of the Chief Justice, and a Democratic representative in Congress from Maryland, called the attention of the Chief Justice to the statement, with a request that he be permitted to contradict it, as he knew that the Chief Justice did not prefer Mr. Douglas. The Chief Justice wrote the following letter in answer:

WASHINGTON, August 22, 1860.

MY DEAR SIR:- I received your kind letter yesterday, with Mr. M's to you inclosed, and should have answered immediately, had not the calls of friends prevented me from writing until after the mail was closed. And I must now answer briefly, as I am not strong enough to remain long at my desk without fatigue.

In regard to Mr. M's suggestion, I answer that I cannot take any notice of such an anonymous publication myself, nor authorize any one else to take the slightest notice of it; and for the following

reasons:

Whatever I might say or authorize to be said in this matter would be regarded as said not merely by an individual, but by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and I must neither say, nor authorize to

be said, anything that it would not become the Chief Justice to say.

Now, it would be most unseemly in that officer to take any notice in any way of anonymous publications in newspapers, upon exciting political questions, in which his name is improperly used.

In the second place, every one whose opinion is worth anything knows that, since I have been on the Bench, I have carefully abstained from taking any part in political movements or elections; and that I have done this from a sense of duty, and under the firm conviction that any other course would destroy the usefulness of the Supreme Court, and create the belief that it was a mere party body, and acting for the interests of a party. And no one will place the least confidence in the anonymous statement Mr. M-speaks of; and it will be forgotten in a week, unless public attention is called to it, and a factitious importance attached to it by a formal or authorized contradiction.

And if such a contradiction was made, by authority from me, to such a publication, it would naturally be regarded as a mere pretext on my part, and as an excuse for entering into the political campaign. The publication has, it seems, not been thought worthy of notice, even by the newspapers; for I have never seen it noticed in any one, although I am accustomed to look over papers on every side of this mixed-up and confused election.

And in addition to the insuperable objection as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, any sort of contradiction authorized by me would get up dis

cussions about me among all the small-fry politicians; and I should be constantly annoyed by seeing my name mixed up in the slavery discussions, and speeches, and publications, by that class of politicians who are always appealing to some unworthy passion or supposed prejudice, instead of discussing the great principles of government which are in issue in the election.

I never speak upon political issues of the day in public, nor in mixed companies; nor do I enter into any argument, or ever express an opinion to friends. who I know differ from me, or who I think may be so inconsiderate as to repeat what I say, in a way to involve my name in public discussions as one who is taking part in the canvass, and supporting or opposing a particular candidate. To my intimate and confidential friends, as you know, I speak freely and without reserve. And I do this because I know them well enough to be quite sure that they understand the nature of these conversations and guard them as you have done.

Pardon me for saying that I was sorry to see the remarks in Mr. M's letter pointing to the class upon whom he expects my opinion to operate; and I fear he has, unconsciously to himself, imbibed some of those deep-rooted prejudices which gave rise to the 'Know-Nothing" clubs. I say this without any feeling of unkindness to him. But his remark implies that the Irish Roman Catholics vote from religious bigotry, and blindly follow leaders because they happen to be Roman Catholics. I presume he has had but little association with that class, and forms his opinion of them from sectarian books, and not from

his own observation. For if he would look at the Catholics of Baltimore and the Irish Catholics, he would see that they are as much divided as other churches, and vote as independently of leaders. And if they for a moment supposed that an appeal was made to their supposed bigotry in an election, they would resent it, and it would recoil upon the party who sought to use it. I know them better than Mr. M—; and if he attempts to exercise that sort of influence, he will find himself detected by those whom, I have no doubt, he thinks too ignorant and bigoted to be influenced by reason.

I have made this letter much larger than I had intended. But its length will show you how sincerely I respect your opinion, and how anxious I am to prove to you that I am right.

When we are able, few things would give me more pleasure than to pass some days at Tulip Hill, not only on account of its present occupants, but the memories of the past that the place would bring so freshly back to me. Best regards to Mrs. Hughes. Ever, dear Sir, truly and

Respectfully your friend,

Hon. G. W. HUGHES, Tulip Hill.

R. B. TANEY.

The above letter, like all the other private letters of the Chief Justice published in this Memoir, was procured by letters of general inquiry addressed by me to persons with whom I knew the Chief Justice to be on terms of intimacy. It shows with what stu