continued from Part V…

of Africa, and the whole souled and generous Taft reigns in his stead. At the last the papers spoke quite kindly of Roosevelt, who will long be remembered for the great good he did, while his eccentricities will gradually be forgotten. I still consider him one of our greatest presidents.

Taft has made a fine start and bids fair to become very popular. I consider him an idea man for the presidency, but who knows what a year may bring forth? The Senate is trying hard to find out how not to do it, and will probably do nothing toward a substantial revision of the tariff. Truth is, this country is given over to protection, and the Dems are about as bad as the Reps. The next House is quite likely to be Democratic, and I should not regret it. The fact is, the consumer is nobody.

I have taken Arthur Parker's house in Detroit for the summer, though I can't take possession until July 10, as I am booked to read a paper before the Maryland Bar Association on the 7th. I fear I shall miss you and Pond, who will probably be off on your vacations by that time. I have not visited Detroit, except for a few days, for nearly twenty years, and want to spend a season there. I am really very fond of the place, and don't want to lose touch with it entirely, though most of my old friends are in Elmwood. I understand you spent some time in Bermuda this spring,, and I'd like to know how you fancied it.

Glad you met the Harlans at Murray Bay. They are an interesting, popular, and distinguished looking family. The judge is getting pretty old (seventy-six), but has no intention of retiring. Strange how they all dislike it. Chief Judge Cullen has been here submitting to an operation upon his eyes. I regard him as an unusually fine character. I met Governor Hughes several times last winter, and was much surprised by his sterling character. He seems to be as much loved by the people as he is hated by the politicians. Wish we had more such men in public life.

I think we are soon coming face to face with a new political problem in the possible alliance with England as against Germany. The English are getting badly scared at German's naval preparations, and are looking about for friends. I think it would be a terrible thing for us if the Kaiser succeeded in wresting from her the sovereignty of the seas; this I really do not think there is much danger of. Do not believe we are called upon to act at present, but if a war should break out and an invasion of England be seriously threatened, our action would become of the utmost importance. The difficulty with the English is that they have not the capacity for making friends, but are adept in the gentle art of making enemies. The humblest of us hate to be patronised.

Kirchner spent an evening with us a few weeks ago, and we enjoyed a very pleasant chat over Detroit people.

I hope you are enjoying your years as well as I am. I have something to do every day, and never allow myself to be bored with anything. If threatened with ennui I go to the Club and generally find intellectual companionship.

With regards to Mrs. Kent, who left behind her here a most pleasant impression, believe me,

Your attached friend,

H. B. BROWN.

WASHINGTON, D. C.,

June 10, '09.

My Dear Kent:

Thank you for the season ticket to the "Old Club." Never heard of it before under that name, but it seems to be at the Flats, which are always pleasant in summer.

Shall take great pleasure in revisiting them. The doctor has been cutting me out of so many of the dietary pleasures of life of late, that I am beginning to ask myself whether, after all, life is worth the living. But, thank heaven, he has not placed a ban upon whitefish.

Loyally yours,

H. B. BROWN.

I read your admirable article upon Lothrop the other day. It is a most worthy tribute to a great man, who ought really to have been a greater in the estimation of the world.

WASHINGTON, D. C.,

January 21, '10.

Dear Brother Kent:

I see our old friend Pond has finally paid the debt of nature, and from what I have learned of his condition, I imagine that death could not have been an unwelcome visitor. I hope you will write a memorial of him and send me a copy, as he was certainly an eminent lawyer, and his offhand opinions were as good as those of any man I ever knew. I think he would make a good subject for a biographical sketch.

I read your criticism of "President Hadley's Constitutional Views," in which you seem to have made a good point against him, although his error is a natural one for a layman to make.

Hannis Taylor, a lawyer of this city, who is unearthing some new propositions which no one has ever heard of before, has recently discovered that Congress exceeded its power in retroceding to Virginia that part of the District lying south of the Potomac upon the ground that the original cession constituted a tripartite contract between the United States, Maryland and Virginia which could not be broken by two of the parties. Guess the Supreme Court will make short work of his proposition after sixty years of acquiescence.

Hope you are as well and contended as I am. Have never enjoyed life more than this winter. I am "out" somewhere every day, participating in much of the gaiety with a consciousness that I am leaving no work undone to worry me. In fact I don't allow anything to worry me.

Are you going South this winter? Should love to have you give us another call.

With kind regards to Mrs. Kent, I am,

Sincerely yours,

H. B. BROWN.

WASHINGTON, D.C.,

October 30, '10.

Dear Brother Kent:

I was very glad to receive your letter -- indeed, was going to write you myself as soon as I received a certain paper, which I am going to send you when I get it.

When you were in North Carolina last spring, I was probably in Augusta, Georgia, a delightful place where I met several Detroit people, including Mrs. Governor Baldwin and the Hutchings. It is upon these little outings I depend for much of the health and happiness I now enjoy.

Last summer we spent in Europe -- landing at Genoa -- proceeding thence by rail and private carriage over the Alps and northward to The Hague, where I spent a few days with the Tribunal, and enjoyed its hospitality. We spent a month travelling in England, largely by carriage, which is our favourite method of locomotion. When I say that during the summer we slept at forty different hotels, you can judge that our halts were not long.

I returned home with three pretty distinct impressions. (1) That the expense of living in Europe is from one-half to two-thirds of what it is at home, except perhaps in London and Paris. This is largely the cause of the immense exodus to Europe every year.

(2) That the Kaiser is a constant menace to the peace of the world, and that he would like to be a medieval despot if he dared. He is thought by some of his subjects to be unbalanced mentally. It is not so much what he does that causes fear, as what he is constantly preparing to do, and compelling other nations to do.

(3) That The Hague Tribunal has practically insured a continued peace between England and America, though with little effect upon the politics of Europe. Don't think it has saved any country a dollar of expense in preparing for war.

The decision in the fisheries case was most fortunate, as both parties claim to be victorious. The Court was a very handsome and imposing one to look upon, and the members impressed one with their dignity.

At home politics seem to me in a very confused condition, and I should not be surprised if there were a Democratic landslide next week, nor should I regret it much. I am out of all patience with Roosevelt, who is evidently talking himself to death. He is suffering the usual effects of flattery and adulation. And can you wonder at it? Whitelaw Reid told me there were three kings in his house at one time to call on him. Nothing like it since Napoleon's day, and I fear he may yet find his St. Helena.

Per contra, Taft seems to me to grow finer every day, and I hope for his re-election. Don't think there is any danger of Roosevelt's renomination. He should have kept quiet for a year or two at least.

I have read a few short articles upon psychical researches, but have not taken up the books you spoke of, though I intend to do so yet. I am busier, perhaps, than you think writing something every day, though to little purpose. I do not desire any continuous employment, and am as happy as a man can be at my age. I know that my work is done, that I have lost all ambition and am living only in the present and the past. I am as fond of society and of dinners as ever, and occasionally appear at a public banquet. I made a specialty last summer of seeing something of the Pilgrim country, visiting Scrooby, Boston and Leyden as preliminary to the Mayflower banquet. I might easily rust out, but I will not permit myself to do so, if I can avoid it. I have company at my house all the time (four guests at present) to keep me cheerful, and if you go South next winter, I want you to repeat your visit here, if I can make things "jibe" to suit me. My first guest was a Scottish M. P., whose peculiarities amused us much. He was not above the average Congressman in appearance and conduct.

May you live many years yet, and happily. I have a selfish interest in your surviving me, as I want you to write a memorial which I have already skeletonised for your benefit.

With kind regards to Mrs. Kent, I am still

Your loyal old friend,

H. B. BROWN.

P. S. I am afraid that I am somewhat of an epicurean -- getting all the pleasure I can out of life, and (I hope) contributing a little something to the pleasure of others. Well! it will soon be over, for the night cometh when no man can work.

WASHINGTON, D. C.,

January 1, 1912.

Dear Brother Kent:

I have delayed answering your letters in order to procure and send you the Congressional Record containing the debate upon the Abrogation of the Russian Treaty, -- which I have done to-day under separate cover.

In my former letter I gave you my reasons for thinking that the conditions annexed to Section I applied only to the laws and ordinances prevailing in Russia, which I think is emphasized by the fact of the particular mention of the regulations in force concerning commerce. It seems through the debates that the first Section is the only one considered to be in dispute. (See Senator Smith, 476.)

I confess I had overlooked the last clause of Article X.

This Article deals with the distribution of personal and real property bequeathed or conveyed to American citizens, and provides that they shall be entitled to the same upon payment of legal dues. The final sentence is that "this Article" -- not this Treaty -- shall not derogate in any manner from the force of laws already published, etc., to prevent the emigration of his subjects. In view of the fact that the laws already prohibited the emigration of Russian subjects, it seems to me that it was intended to provide by this sentence that, in case the Government should see fit to sequestrate the estates of emigrants, this sequestration should override as much of the Article as provided for the distribution of estates to American citizens.

Both Senators Root and Lodge regard this as recognizing the doctrine of indefeasible allegiance, and to constitute another ground for the abrogation of the Treaty as obsolete, in view of our laws. This may be so, but I do not think the final clause of this Article should be construed as limiting the express agreement contained in the first Article providing for the admission of American citizens.

Neither of the Senators who spoke on the subject attempted to connect the two Articles in any way, or to insist that the final sentence of Article X limited the right of American citizens to enter under Article I. If it did, then it would be possible for Russia to forbid the re-entrance of all Russians, Jews or Christians who had become naturalised under our laws. This would be a total refusal to recognise our power to naturalise Russian subjects.

My own view is expressed, as I stated in my former letter, in two articles, from this week's Outlook, which I enclosed, both of which assume that there is a debatable question under the Treaty which is clearly "justiciable" by The Hague Tribunal. It seems to me -- and such, I understand from one of your articles is the opinion of Andrew White, as it certainly is of Roosevelt and of the Outlook -- that the dignified way would have been to submit the case to The Hague Tribunal, obtain their decision on it, and I now think it would have been in our favour -- leaving the defeated party to terminate the Treaty by giving notice. We are now terminating it without any assurance that it has been violated. Considering that Russia and ourselves were the principal signatories and originators of The Hague Tribunal, it does not seem to me to look well to take this step without submitting the matter first to the tribunal we have done so much to establish.

All of this tends to reinforce my original proposition -- that arbitration treaties are of little value when the feelings of either side become enlisted in an international question. To insist upon the adoption of the two treaties with Great Britain and France without amendment, and in the teeth of this notice, looks to me, as Roosevelt says, very much like hypocrisy.

To adopt these treaties would be yielding to current popular sentiment, but as all wars involve the repudiation of treaty obligations, I see no reason why an arbitration treaty may not be repudiated as well as any other. I hope you will let me know when you intend to pass through Washington, as I want to arrange to have a visit from you here, if possible. I did intend to go South, but hardly think that I shall do so, though I get a little tired of the frivolities of society here.

With kind regard to Mrs. Kent, and wishes for a happy New Year, I am

Your old friend.

H. B. B.

Trouble with Sulzer is that he represents one of the slum districts of New York City and relies largely on Jewish votes.

WASHINGTON, D. C.,

February 29, 1912.

My Dear Kent:

Just as I was upon the point of answering your letter of January 25 from Atlantic City, I was suddenly knocked out by an attack of "edema of the lungs" (sounds well, doesn't it?), and for three or four days was in great danger, although the doctors did not tell me so. With a consulting doctor from Baltimore, two trained nurses, and a cylinder of oxygen, things looked very squally for a few days.

At present I am officially well -- no pain, no suffering, no new or acute disease -- but practically a wreck -- too weak to walk and too inert to be much interested in anything. I read a little, drive a little, sleep a good deal, but make very little headway. Much as I have enjoyed life the past few years, I surrender it without reluctance, the thread by which we hold it after seventy-five becomes so very slender. I am thinking of going South as soon as I can get away, but not yet; too weak -- too helpless.

I am writing one other article which I will send you if I ever live to finish it. You will see that I am somewhat depressed to-day, but by no means unhappy. I may yet live to ride down Pennsylvania Avenue in the Roosevelt band wagon.

Your loyal old friend,

H. B. B.

CAMDEN, S. C.,

March 22, 1912.

My Dear Kent:

I have purposely delayed answering your letter of March 2 until I could come South, where I was sure of plenty of leisure. My last birthday was the first within my memory where I did not note my excellent health, but my seventy-sixth was too much for me. I am slowly recuperating and have regained my appetite, but am still weak and inert. I feel that I have grown old (which was quite unnecessary), and am more decrepit. I thought a month ago I was going to give you a job "right off," but I may hold on a little yet. One lesson I have learned from this experience -- never to spend another winter north of the Potomac. I doubt whether I shall spend another anywhere.

After much doubt and hesitation we concluded to come here, and are much pleased with the experiment. Camden is a high class old Southern village in the usual state of unthrift but with some find old mansions. The hotel, originally a planter's home, is excellent, and we have rooms directly over the front, and overlooking a fine old garden with a pine forest near by for strolling purposes. Among the guests are the Fletchers, Mr. and Mrs. Williams, Mrs. Maynard, Mrs. Freer, Mr. Atwater, all of which makes it agreeable for me. If you are ever in search of an "intermediate" resort, I recommend it highly. The house is full, but the end of the season is near.

The weather, which changed the very day we came down, could not be finer. Garden full of flowers and singing birds and much to delight the eye. We hope to remain here until April 7, and then return home. My wife did receive your letter, but, as I was well enough, handed it to me and I did not notice it was addressed to her.

I fully sympathise with your remarks about death, which, if one has lived long enough to have honourably completed his work, I consider as great a blessing as life. Only think if the power to die were completely suspended for only a decade. The world would be filled with a lot of incompetent, useless people whom the next generation would be obliged to support. They would probably do as the savages used to -- kill us all. Death, which seems so horrible at twenty-five, loses all its terrors at seventy-five, and ought to be welcomed rather than feared. And these last years can be made so interesting picking up and disposing of the tangled threads of a lifetime.

I am still interested in reading about politics, though, of course, without mingling in its activities. I feel positively humiliated at the way Roosevelt is conducting himself. It illustrates how impossible it is for a man who has once been a popular idol to content himself with a private life. His boom is collapsing even quicker than I expected. His only salvation now is to endorse Taft and take the stump himself; it is not too late for that. His defeat in North Dakota this week by such a man as La Follette must have been especially mortifying.

I am still strong in my confidence in Taft, though I regret the modern habit of presidents taking the stump in their own behalf. It lacks dignity, and their place of duty is Washington.

I read your paper on Direct Government and agree to its main propositions, but the remedy you suggest on page 9 for getting rid of corrupt judges by a commission of experts strikes me as cumbersome as impeachment. I am myself a believer in the Massachusetts doctrine of removal by the Governor upon the address of both Houses of the Legislature. This I believe has always worked well, and while in practice it may be abused, it has never been so. A judge who cannot command a majority of at least one House ought to be removed on general principles. I take it no one would be removed without some chance of being heard, though no formal provision is made.

I am curious to know where you will spend the summer, and will try to see you. I have written one paper myself this season which will probably be out early in the summer. Give kind regards to Mrs. Kent.

Well, good-bye, old boy. May we both of us find something to console and amuse us in the evening of our days, and when the inevitable guest arrives I hope we may be able to meet him with cheerful countenance, and as he knocks at the door for admission to reply as did Colonel Newcomb, "Adsum."

Your loyal and affectionate old friend,

H. B. B.

Camden, S. C.,

April 2, '12

My Dear Kent:

Thank you for your letter. I learned that you were at Tryon within an hour or two after I had posted my letter, but too late to recall it. I knew it would be forwarded to you. I fear the scheme of dropping on our way home to visit Tryon is impracticable, as I have already bought and paid for my tickets, and engaged space in the sleeper for next Sunday night.

Besides, while we are not far apart as the crow flies, we are quite distant as man travels. There are changes to be made, and delays and discomforts to be encountered, that would consume an entire day. I have found travelling in the South most annoying and trains never on time.

Our prospect of meeting at Seal Harbor next summer seems much brighter. I am planning to spend a part of the season somewhere on Mount Desert Island, and if when your plans are perfected you will let me know, I think I can arrange to meet you. I have two or three places there in contemplation.

I see Roosevelt has given up his recall of judges and now comes out the Massachusetts plan of removal by address. As I wrote you, I believe this is sound, and have long a advocated it. But his campaign seems to be degenerating into mere bluster.

I fear the Senate has made a grave political mistake in failing to oust Lorimer and Stephenson from their seats. If the people become satisfied not only that senators are corruptly elected, but that the senators will stand in together to keep them there, it will give a tremendous impetus to the movement for popular election. I confess it has shaken me considerably. I regard the Senate as now on trial itself. I am afraid it has blundered.

With kind regards to Mrs. Kent,

Your loyal friend,

H. B. BROWN.

WASHINGTON, D. C.,

May 20, '12.

Hello! Hello! Here I have been bracing myself for a fortnight to write you, when your letter was handed in this morning. And now about our summer plans.

We intended to leave here June 17, spend a day in New Haven attending our last class meeting, then cruise about the neighbourhood until after July 4, when we shall go up to the Samoset at Rockland for a week or two, when we thought to meet you at Seal Harbor, where the widows of Bishop MacKay Smith and Justice Matthews are also going, but that second flight of stars looks as formidable to me as it does to Mrs. Kent.

So our plans at present do not reach beyond the Samoset, where we'd be very glad to meet you. I don't imagine it is any more fashionable there than at other first class hotels on the coast, not so much so as at Bar Harbor. I never did fancy roughing it much, and in my old age have got to be somewhat of a Sybarite.

Am going to postpone discussing the political situation till after the Ohio election to-morrow.

Wednesday.

Well, I'm afraid the election in Ohio eliminates Taft as a presidential candidate. A man who can't carry his own State could hardly be considered an available man. I'm very, very sorry, because Taft is really a splendid fellow. How glad he'd be to take a seat on the Supreme Bench.

Roosevelt, whose boom I thought had collapsed, is certainly a marvellous politician. His victory in Illinois was a revolution for him, and I have ceased to predict.

But, after all, what boots it to us? I have no fear for the safety of the country even with T. R. or Bryan. We are with our modern nostrums passing through the chicken-pox, measles, and scarlet fever stage, and will ultimately emerge into a healthy manhood. I am no …

please proceed to Part VII, pp. 121-end