ception he never mentioned his candidacy. It should be said in passing that his three subsequent elections to the Senate have been as a matter of course—without any effort on his own part and indeed without any opposition, personal or political. This Mr. Hoar attributes good naturedly to Massachusetts: but the fact is that had he not been the kind of man his career has shown him to be the Commonwealth would doubtless have made a different selection—• witness the case of his immediate prede cessor—the venerable and worthy ex-Sena tor Boutwell. After describing in a simple and unaf fected way his candidacy and various elec tions,1 Senator Hoar describes in a series of delightful chapters President Hayes, his cabinet, the Senate and its leaders in 1877, before taking up the thread of his senatorial life. Senator Hoar knew President Hayes inti mately and has a very high opinion of him as appears from the following quotation. "President Hayes was a simple-hearted, sin cere, strong and wise man. He is the only President of the United States who prom ised, when he was a candidate for office, not to be a candidate again, who kept his pledge. He carried out the principles of Civil Service Reform more faithfully than any other President before or since down to the accession of President Roosevelt." Mr. Evarts, Secretary of State, was з. near kinsman and intimate friend, but Mr. Hoar's account cannot be said to be col ored by either circumstance. He regarded Mr. Evarts as unequalled at the bar, and feels that his services in the State Depart ment were of the highest kind. He is equally certain that Sir. Evarts never gave his full measure in political life, and that he 'It is not amiss to add that Senator Hoar was twke offered the British mission,—by President Hayes and by President McKinley.
easily might have been not only leader of his party, but also President of the country had not his modesty and disinterestedness stood in the way. He likewise compares him to Sheridan and Sydney Smith for wit, and the recorded and floating specimens with which the public is familiar render the comparison not unlikely. His account of Carl Schurz is probably the most important of these various afterdinner portraits as they might not improp erly be termed; for a word of praise to Schurz seems by implication a criticism up on the genial biographer. Alike in funda mental views, other than on tariff matters, and in their devotion to public duty as they saw it, the careers of these two men are in vivid contrast. Mr. Hoar accounts for this difference in party esteem by the fact that Mr. Schurz opposed the corruption of the Republican Party from without, while he has opposed it betimes from within. The result was and is that Mr. Schurz lost caste and influence with the Republican organiza tion, while Mr. Hoar's occasional criticism has been almost forgotten or forgiven by the regularity of his vote. . On chante, mais on paie, said Mazarin, and after all the vote counts. Mr. Schurz's opposition to General Grant's reelection was bad enough, but General Grant was reelected so that Mr. Schurz's conduct on this occa sion may be condoned. But his action in supporting Mr. Cleveland and contributing what was in his power to the defeat of the Republican party on two occasions—a de feat which brought so much calamity to the Republic—is deeply and duly lamented by Mr. Hoar. The Senator does not instance the various calamities referred to in gen eral, but he could no doubt have supplied a partisan bill of particulars. Not a few think that Mr. Schurz's ability to place the public above the party is not his least claim to gratitude, and many feel that the great
