EVARTS, CHOATE & SHERMAN

ALLEN W. EVARTS.
THOMAS T. SHERMAN.
HERBERT J. BICKFORD.
JOSEPH H. CHOATE, JR.

CABLE ADDRESS "EVARTS, NEW YORK"
TELEPHONE: 1652 JOHN.

JOSEPH H. CHOATE,
COUNSEL

60 WALL STREET, NEW YORK

April 29th, 1910.

Dear Russell:-

I have your letter of yesterday's date advising
me of the desire of the members of the Committee on Memorial
to Yale men who fell in the war between the States that
I should join the Committee and notifying me of the meeting
to be held at New Haven on Monday May 9th.

I very much appreciate the honor of being asked
to join this Committee with the spirit and purposes of which
I am in entire and hearty accord and, if chosen a member,
I shall be glad to place at its service such assistance as I
may be able to render.

Talcott H. Russell, Esq.,
Secretary, &c.,
42 Church Street,
New Haven, Conn.

EVARTS, CHOATE & SHERMAN

CABLE ADDRESS EVARTS, NEW YORK"
TELEPHONE: 1652 JOHN.

JOSEPH H. CHOATE,
COUNSEL

60 WALL STREET, NEW YORK

January 9th, 1911.

Talcott H. Russell, Esq.,
42 Church Street,
New Haven, Conn.

My dear Russell:-

I received your letter of the 6th instant relating to the matter of the memorial, and was able to call on Judge Howland last evening, when I saw the sketch and had a talk with him about the general situation. I am very much pleased with the general design and that we ought to have no trouble in raising the $50,000. more or less that would be needed to carry it out. I gathered from what Judge Howland said that he supposes that a committee should be authorized for the employment of Mr. French. I suppose that we ought to have soon a meeting of the committee, but I do not think we can rely upon Judge Howland being able to go to New Haven for some time to come, as he ought not to go now and will probably go south on the orders of his physician very soon. I suppose it would not be practicable to have a well attended meeting of the committee here before he should go away. But I do not think that it will be absolutely necessary that he should attend a meeting of the

EVARTS, CHOATE & SHERMAN

CABLE ADDRESS 'EVARTS, NEW YORK'
TELEPHONE: 1652 JOHN.

JOSEPH H. CHOATE,
COUNSEL

60 WALL STREET, NEW YORK

January 11th, 1911.

My dear Russell:-

I have your letter of yesterday and the
notification of the committee meeting on the 21st at Judge
Howland's house at 2 o'clock. I do not know that there is
anything in particular that I desired to discuss with you
before the meeting, but I had only thought that I would like
to have a talk with you in a general way about the general
situation. Probably if you are not down here before the
21st, it will not be worth while to arrange to take up our
time with having any conference.

E

EVARTS, CHOATE & SHERMAN

JOSEPH H. CHOATE,
COUNSEL

60 WALL STREET, NEW YORK

Feby 2, 1911,

Drar Russell

If your attention
has not already been called
to the discussion in this house
yesterday in the enclosed account
from this morning Sun
will I am sure, interest you
as it did me. It seems
to me as if this might be
regarded as determining the
question raised in our Com-
mittee on favor of the use of
the designation "Civil War"

The
South Carolina
Journal

YORK, THURSDAY, FEB

CIVIL WAR, NOT REBELLION

GEN. KEIFER AND BARTLETT OF
GEORGIA FIGHT OVER IT,

But Oratorically Only—Bartlett Wins by Vote of the House, and Then the Two Combatants Retire to the Cloak Room and Hold Hands for an Hour.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1.—The civil war was refought, oratorically with great vigor on the floor of the House to-day by Representative Bartlett of Georgia and Representative Keifer of Ohio.

Strangely enough, the outburst occurred during consideration of the driest imaginable bill—the Moon measure to revise the Judicial Code. But when that paragraph was reached referring to procedures before the Court of Claims in cases growing out of “the war for the suppression of the rebellion” Mr. Bartlett bounced out of his seat as if he had received an electric shock and offered an amendment substituting “civil war” for that objectionable language.

“What is to be accomplished by that?” inquired Gen. Keifer, who was an officer in both the civil war and the Spanish-American war.

“Good feeling; that is all,” interjected Representative Mann of Illinois, “but that is worth something.”

“The gentleman from Ohio,” said Mr. Bartlett, displaying considerable feeling, “is a representative of the people who fought on the other side, and we have got far enough away from that era in our history not to use the word re-

“It is used in the Fourteenth end-ment to the Constitution!” cried Gen. Keifer.

“Yes,” retorted Mr. Bartlett, “but that amendment was enacted right after the war, when sectional animosity and hate were rife.”

Gen. Keifer remarked in a bored tone that he did not see anything to be gained by the amendment.

“In the legislation we have had for years there has been no reference to the war of the Rebellion,” declared Mr. Bartlett.

“That is what it was,” Gen. Keifer persisted.

“I am a son of a Confederate officer!” cried Mr. Bartlett. “We differ as to whether it was a rebellion. It was no more a rebellion than was the Revolutionary war.”

The question was asked at a time it occurred,” said Gen. Keifer.

“Well,” said Mr. Bartlett, “it has been long enough after the cessation of hostilities to join in that spirit that now pervades the whole American people to endeavor to forget the animosities created by that struggle. It is not the part of a generous foe on the victorious side to suggest that the words used during the heat of the bloody conflict should be kept up. I am actuated solely by sentiment in offering the amendment.”

Gen. Keifer said that he did not propose to be lectured by Mr. Bartlett and that if a lecture was intended it came fifty years too late. Then the General told how considerate he had always been to Confederates and how he had many descendants of Confederates in his command during the Spanish-American war. He concluded by indicating that he loved everybody south of Mason and Dixon's line.

Then Mr. Bartlett, almost overcome by his emotions, told how he loved everybody north of Mason and Dixon's line and particularly his dear old friend and college chum, Gen. Keifer. Of course, he said, he had meant his lecture in merely a Pickwickian sense.

So the amendment substituting “civil war” for “war for the suppression of the rebellion” was adopted by a unanimous vote and the House proceeded with the reading of the bill.

For an hour afterward Mr. Bartlett and Gen. Keifer sat side by side in the Republican cloak room, holding hands and occasionally slapping each other's backs.