Such was the reputation which the Chief Justice had now acquired for all the qualities of a great Judge, that all his old political enemies had become his greatest admirers. Mr. Clay had long ago, in the presence of Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of the Maryland bar, made a personal apology for the style of his remarks upon his nomination to the Senate, and paid the highest possible tribute to his great judicial abilities. And ever after, Mr. Clay, as his many letters to the Chief Justice show, seemed to strive for the generous forgiveness of the Chief Justice, by his courteous and kind bearing towards him. And the many instances in which Mr. Webster sought the counsel of the Chief Justice on matters of state, show his estimate of his great capacity and wisdom. And so high did he stand in the estimation of the whole country, that his judgment was counted as a sure measure of truth in all matters pertaining to justice and right. Mr. Senator William H. Seward, appreciating the weight of the Chief Justice's character, addressed to him the following letter: WASHINGTON, January 31, 1851. SIR-I am prepossessed with a belief that your convictions must be in favor of the justice of the claims of the American merchants for indemnities for French spoliations; and I am sure that these convictions, if known, would have great influence upon the public mind in favor of the law relating to that sub ject which has passed the Senate. I am desirous of the honor of inscribing my speech, recently delivered on that subject, to you, as well for the consideration I have already presented, as because it would be an expression of the high regard which, in common with the whole American people, I entertain for you as the head of the Judiciary Department. But I dare not take so great a liberty, without first obtaining your consent. I beg leave therefore to submit a copy of my argument, and to request your permission to use your name in the manner I have indicated. I am, dear sir, with high respect and esteem, WILLIAM H. SEWARD. The Hon. R. B. TANEY, Chief Justice, etc. To this letter, the Chief Justice responded as follows: WASHINGTON, January 31, 1851. SIR: I thank you for the copy of your speech on the claims of American merchants for indemnities for French spoliations which you have been good enough to send me, with a request for permission to inscribe it to me. Ever since I have been on the bench, I have felt very unwilling to have my name in any way connected with a measure pending before the Legislative or Executive Departments of the Government; and have studiously abstained from doing anything that might be construed into interference on my part. I have adopted this course from the belief that it would enable me to discharge my judicial duties more usefully to the public. And acting upon that opinion, I must beg leave respectfully to decline the honor you have proposed to do me. With great respect, I am, sir, Your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. R. B. TANEY. As this book is designed not only to be a memoir of Chief-Justice Taney, but also to show the working of the Federal Government, I will now give the correspondence between General Taylor, when he was about to take the oath of office as President of the United States, and Chief-Justice Taney. Though the President may have his official oath administered to him by any functionary competent to administer an oath, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States has always sworn in every President of the United States. This seems befitting the dignity and the solemnity of the occasion. The ancient kings of England, while the memories of the separate States of which the kingdom was composed had not yet died away, in order to secure themselves from sectional feelings in the suspicions of the people, before they took their official oath, turned to the East, and to the West, and to the North, and to the South, and then swore to govern according to law. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, from his high judicial position, can administer no sectional oath. He represents the Constitution and the laws over the East and the West, the North and the South. And without sectional difference he administers the oath to the President. WASHINGTON, D. C., March 3, 1849. SIR: Expecting to take, on the 5th instant, the oath of office as President of the United States, I have the honor to request, if it be agreeable to you, that you will attend for the purpose of administering the oath at the time and place indicated by the committee of the Senate. In soliciting the favor of your attendance, I not only comply with a long-established custom, but also give expression to the high respect which I entertain for the Supreme Bench and its august presiding officer. I have the honor to be, With the highest esteem, Your most obedient servant, His Honor ROGER B. TANEY, Z. TAYLOR. Chief Justice of the United States. To this invitation, Chief-Justice Taney responded: SIR: It will give me much pleasure to administer to you the oath of office as President of the United States, on the 5th inst. And the duty will be the more agreeable because the high trust to which you are called has been spontaneously bestowed by the American people upon a citizen already so eminently distinguished for the able and faithful discharge of great public duties. I have the honor to be, sir, Your obedient servant, General Z. TAYLOR, R. B. TANEY. President-Elect of the United States. As law reform has become an engrossing subject, it is important to know the opinion of Chief- Justice Taney on changes in common law pleading. I will therefore give a letter of his on the subject, which also shows, incidentally, his opinion on the importance of trial by jury. In 1852, a constituent convention met in the State of Maryland to change the Constitution of the State. Among other matters, an order was offered to incorporate into the Constitution a provision prohibiting the use of special pleading in the Courts of the State. As I well knew the confusion and increased expense any substitute for special pleading would bring into the administration of law in the State, I addressed an elaborate argument to the convention against such a provision, and suggested that provision be made to simplify common law pleading instead of abolishing it. This suggestion was adopted; and the first Legislature which met under the new Constitution appointed Mr. William Price, Mr. Frederick Stone, and |