public opinion was not prepared to entertain the propositions contained in it, and also asked why Mr. Stuart had not signed his name to it. General Echols replied that Mr. Stuart had authorized him to say that he could be referred to as the author. The objections of the editor still seemed not to be removed and no definite promise was given to publish it. General Echols then visited the office of the Richmond Whig, where objections were made to its publication similar to those raised by the Dispatch. He next submitted the letter to the Examiner, and the editor promptly declined to publish it under any circumstances. On his return to the hotel in the late afternoon, General Echols sought out Colonel W. T. Sutherlin, and informed him of the result of his visits to the three newspapers. The latter volunteered to accompany General Echols to the home of Mr. Alexander Mosely, editor of the Whig, and try to induce him to reconsider the matter and publish the letter. They visited Mr. Mosely, and after a full and free discussion of the paper, Mr. Mosely finally agreed that he would publish it in the Whig on the following conditions: Mr. Stuart should be referred to as the author; the editor should not be held committed to the proposition contained in the paper and the Dispatch should agree to publish it simultaneously on the same conditions. This the Dispatch consented to do, and the publication was made in both papers on December 25th, 1868.

The difficulty in getting the letter published indicates how unprepared the public mind was to accept Mr. Stuart's proposition of "universal suffrage and universal amnesty.' A storm of opposition and ridicule was raised against the proposition, and many of the most prominent men in the State denounced it in the bitterest terms. Undaunted, Mr. Stuart met the issue. He was convinced that the welfare and prosperity of Virginia depended upon carrying into effect his plan of compromise, and to this end he directed his whole thought.

While disturbed by the delay in the publication of his letter, nevertheless he lost no time but conferred with lead

ing citizens of Staunton, informed them of the contents of his letter and urged them to unite with him in organizing opposition to the passage by the Senate of the House Bill approving the Underwood Constitution. The most prominent of those consulted were Thomas J. Michie, Judge Hugh W. Sheffey, Nicholas K. Trout and Major H. M. Bell. Colonel Baldwin was absent from home at the time of this conference and, therefore, could not be consulted.

A few days later, on December 25th, these gentlemen with General Echols and Colonel Baldwin met at Mr. Stuart's office to consider the best means of promoting the object they had in view. The whole subject was fully discussed, and all agreed that it was necessary to secure the co-operation of as many leading and influential men of the State as possible. They, therefore, decided to issue, at once, invitations to prominent men in all parts of the State to meet in Richmond on December 31st, 1868, to confer and decide what measures should be adopted to save the State from the dangers of the Underwood Constitution. The invitation was prepared and all present signed it, except Judge Sheffey, who was judge of the Circuit Court, and it was deemed best that he should not sign. As soon as the invitations were printed, they were mailed to such men in various parts of the State as it was thought would co-operate in the movement. On December 30th, 1868, Mr. Stuart, Mr. Michie, General Echols, Major H. M. Bell and Mr. N. K. Trout left for Richmond to attend the meeting which was to take place the next day.

The meeting was well attended, and assembled at noon on December 31st at the Exchange Hotel. It was organized by electing Mr. Stuart chairman and C. C. McRay secretary. The chairman explained the object for which the meeting had been called. After a good deal of discussion, it was determined that a committee of eight (of which Mr. Stuart was made chairman by the meeting) should be appointed to report suitable business for the consideration of the meeting. The chairman was authorized to appoint the other members of the committee, and thereupon

named Messrs. George W. Bolling, of Petersburg, Thomas S. Flournoy, of Halifax, John L. Marye, Jr., of Fredericksburg, D. C. DeJarnette, of Caroline, Frank G. Ruffin, of Chesterfield, B. H. Magruder, of Albemarle, and James Johnston, of Bedford. The meeting then adjourned to the next day to receive the report of the committee. Pursuant to the adjournment, the meeting reassembled the next day and the committee submitted its report in which they declared:

"While the convictions of the undersigned and, as they believe, of the people of Virginia generally remain unchanged, that the freedmen of the Southern States, in their present uneducated condition, are not prepared for the intelligent exercise of the elective franchise and the performance of other duties connected with public affairs, and are, therefore, at this time, unsafe depositaries of political power; yet, in view of the verdict of public opinion in favor of their being allowed to exercise the right of suffrage as expressed in the recent elections, the undersigned are prepared, and they believe the majority of the people of Virginia are prepared, to surrender their opposition to its incorporation into their fundamental law, as an offering on the altar of peace, and in the hope that union and harmony may be restored on the basis of universal suffrage and universal amnesty.

"To give effect to this purpose, and to spare no effort to effect a speedy and permanent restoration of union and harmonious relations between the portions of our country which have for some years past been alienated, the undersigned will appoint a Committee of Nine from different parts of the State, and reflecting, as far as may be practicable, the public sentiment of the State, whose duty it shall be at an early day to proceed to Washington and be authorized to make known the views and purposes hereby declared to the Congress of the United States, and to take such other measures as they may think proper to aid in obtaining from that body such legislation concerning the organic law of Virginia as Congress, in its wisdom, may deem expedient

and best under all the circumstances. The delegation so to be constituted may fill vacancies, and are authorized to enlarge their number in their discretion."

After elaborate discussion of the report, it was adopted, and the meeting requested Mr. Stuart to serve as chairman of the committee of nine persons to visit Washington for the purpose indicated in the report, and authorized the chair to appoint a committee of three to recommend the names of eight other gentlemen, who with Mr. Stuart, should constitute the Committee of Nine. The chair named Messrs. John Echols, F. G. Ruffin and James D. Johnston, who made their report recommending Messrs. John L. Marye, Jr., James F. Johnston, W. T. Sutherlin, Wyndham Robertson, W. L. Owen, John B. Baldwin, James Neeson and J. F. Slaughter, and they were unanimously elected.

As soon as the meeting adjourned, Mr. Stuart issued a summons to his associates on the Committee of Nine to assemble in Washington on January 8th, 1869. In the meantime, he was active in advancing the movement in many ways. He wrote to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, with whom he had had a personal acquaintance many years before the war, informing him of the proceedings of the Richmond meeting and of the appointment of the Committee of Nine to visit Washington and endeavor to secure a compromise of the Underwood Constitution on the basis of universal suffrage and universal amnesty, and asked him, if possible, to meet the Committee in Washington and give them his assistance in accomplishing their object. Greeley promptly replied by a letter addressed to Mr. Stuart at Washington in which he stated that he could not come there, but that he would try to make himself felt in New York, meaning through the columns of the Tribune, and enclosed an editorial on the subject which had just appeared in that paper. Mr. Greeley begged Mr. Stuart to confer directly with General Grant, and advised him especially to call on Senator Sumner. Greeley made good his promise, and his paper contained many leading editorials which produced a favorable effect upon mem

bers of Congress. Acting upon the suggestion of a letter received from John L. Marye, Jr., Mr. Stuart secured the active co-operation of George W. Bolling, of Petersburg, and through him of Gilbert C. Walker, of Norfolk. They both attended the meetings of the committee in Washington and rendered valuable service.

The first meeting of the committee was held in Washington on January 8th, 1869. Every member was present; the proceedings were informal and no record of them was kept. It was decided that the committee should meet daily, or oftener, for conference and interchange of ideas and information, and that they should invite the co-operation of Bolling, Gilbert C. Walker and his brother, Jonas Walker, and of all citizens of Virginia who might be in Washington, in promoting the work of the committee. It was agreed that the committee would, in a body, call on President Andrew Johnson to pay their respects, but as the close of his term of office was near at hand and his relations with Congress were of such an unfriendly character, it would be useless to ask assistance of him. The committee also decided that they would seek an interview with General Grant, the President-elect, explain to him fully the grievances of which they complained, and invoke his aid, and that the members of the committee, individually, and all who proposed to co-operate with them, should proceed, without delay, to seek conferences with the leading members of the two houses of Congress, and seek their aid.1

Soon after the committee met in Washington two delegations from Richmond appeared there. One consisted of Franklin Stearns and others, men of intelligence and education, whose purpose was not to make captious opposition to the relief proposed by the committee, but to look after the interests of the Conservative Republicans. The other delegation was headed by Governor H. H. Wells, and was composed of white and colored men who were in favor of the constitution without any change.

1Stuart, Restoration of Va., pp. 34-35.