[21] Judge Bradley's peculiar if not exclusive responsibility for counting Mr. Hayes instead of the candidate chosen by the people into the Presidency is more clearly set forth in a communication of the writer entitled, "The Supreme Court and the Electoral Commission: An Open Letter to the Hon. Joseph H. Choate," first published in the New York _Sun_, on the 19th July, 1903, and later in a pamphlet by G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York. DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN JUDGE FIELD'S LETTER [_Justice Bradley to the Newark "Daily Advertiser" and the Electoral Commission._] The _Sun_ gives Bradley's letter in full as follows: "'STOWE, VT., _September 6_. "'EDITOR "ADVERTISER." "'SIR,--I perceive the New York _Sun_ has reiterated its charge that after preparing a written opinion in favor of the Tilden electors in the Florida case and submitting it to the electoral commission, I changed my views during the night preceding the vote in consequence of the pressure brought to bear upon me by Republican politicians and the Pacific Railroad men, whose carriages, it is said, surrounded my house during the evening. This, I believe, is the important point of the charge. Whether I wrote one opinion or twenty in my private examination of the subject, is of little consequence and of no concern to anybody. The opinion which I finally gave was the result of my deliberations without influence from outside parties. The above slander was published some time since, but I never saw it until recently, and deemed it too absurd to need refutation. But as it is categorically repeated, perhaps I ought to notice it. The same story about the carriages of leading Republicans and others congregating about my house was circulated in Washington at one time, and came to the ears of my family only to raise a smile of contempt. The whole thing is a falsehood. Not one visitor called at my house that evening, and during the whole sitting of the commission I had no private discussion whatever of the subjects at issue with any person interested on the Republican side, and but few words with any persons. Indeed, I zealously sought to avoid all discussion outside the commission itself. The allegation that I read my opinion to Judges Clifford and Field is entirely untrue. I read no opinion to either of them, and have no recollection of expressing one; if I did, it could only have been suggestively, or in a hypothetical manner, and not for committal of my final judgment or action. The question was one of great importance to me, of much difficulty and embarrassment. I earnestly endeavored to come to a right decision, free from all political or extraneous considerations. In my private examination of the principal question, about going behind the returns, I wrote and rewrote the arguments and considerations on both sides as they occurred to me, sometimes being inclined to one view of the subject and sometimes to the other, but finally I threw aside these