An Autobiography of Seventy Years. weakness of Senator Hoar is just this sub ordination of public to party, or rather the Senator's unwavering faith that his country's good is in some mysterious way locked up with the success of the Republi can party. Mr. Schurz believes that a party recreant to the past and the needs of the present day should be chastened by defeat, and goes about to defeat it at the polls; Mr. Hoar, on the contrary, believes that the party should be chastened and reformed if possible, but kept in office. From the standpoint of the professional politician, Mr. Schurz is clearly wrong, as he has un doubtedly lost the confidence of his party, even although he has gained the respect and confidence of the nation at large. It can never be said of him that "Born for the universe, he narrowed his mind, And to party gave up what was meant for mankind." If it is indeed true, as Mr. Hoar claims, that the Republican party has heeded his voice from within in all important questions save only that of expansion—which he is pleased to regard as still open and unset tled—it is no less true that opposition such as Mr. Schurz's would appeal to many as more manly as well as more effective. Why make the blunder even although it be cor rected later? Why not prevent the mistake at the time? Mr. Hoar's curious attitude in supporting Mr. McKinley in 1900, seems odd to the man in the street, and his yield ing to the party whip in the Panama muddle seems strange to any one who remembers his ringing denunciation of the Govern ment's attitude in the matter. The parti san can no doubt cry amen to the line "His conduct still right, with his argument wrong,"
717
but men of an independent way of think ing would rather transpose conduct and argument. But to pass again from the man to the book. The short chapter on the Senate in 1877 at t'le date of Mr. Hoar's entrance intov that august body and its subsequent falling off in popular estimation gives ample food for reflection. The chapter following on the "Leaders of the Senate in 1877" is even more charming in its way than the corre sponding chapter on the House of Repre sentatives in 1869. Mr. Hoar's relations with Senator Lámar were of the most friendly kind and he con sidered him an able judge, although he voted against Mr. Lamar's confirmation as Justice, of the Supreme Court. Mr. Lamar's eulo gy on Sumner kindled his liking into admi ration and the two men, notwithstanding their radical differences on most if not all political matters, became genuinely fond of each other. Mr. Lamar's Biography gives evidence of an affectionate regard and Mr. Hoar's Autobiography is delightfully out spoken. His letter to Mrs. Lámar on the Judge's death is a delicate and beautiful tribute, and frequent utterances of Senator Hoar show how broad-bottomed and gen uine was his sympathy. A single quota tion will perhaps suffice. "He was, in his time, I think, the ablest representative, cer tainly among the ablest, of the opinions op posed to mine. He had a delightful and original literary quality, which if the lines of his life had been cast amid other scenes than the tempest of a great Revolution and Civil War, might have made him a dreamer like Montaigne; and a chivalrous quality that might have made him a companion of Athos and D';Artagnan." Of Judge Jackson he was likewise very fond, and it was due to Senator Hoar that a Republican 1 "resident appointed him to the Supreme Bench. This is perhaps the
