in the Senate, however, was such as to arouse strong opposition when, in 1881, his name was sent to that body to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
Admitting his abilities as a lawyer, it was argued that he had displayed such a lack of knowledge and judgment upon many important public questions as to make his elevation to the court of last resort highly injudicious and, many claimed, even dangerous. It was also felt in many quarters that his nomination by President Hayes for so high a judicial office was very unbecoming in view of Mr. Matthews's active participation in removing the objections to Mr. Hayes's inauguration. These objections, backed by the strong opposition of Senator Conkling, prevented a confirmation of the nomination. It was renewed by President Garfield soon after his accession. It was held under consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee for weeks, and on May 9 was reported adversely. Curiously enough, the only vote for a favorable report by the committee was said to have been cast by Mr. Lamar. Against confirmation were arrayed, it is said, Messrs. Edmunds, Logan, Ingalls, McMillan, Davis of Illinois, and Bayard. But when the report came up before the Senate in executive session, on May 12, the nomination was confirmed by a vote of yeas, 22; nays, 21. The affirmative and negative totals were about equally divided between the two political parties.
After his elevation to the bench, Mr. Matthews showed himself to be eminently possessed of all those qualities which go to make up the honest, conscientious, and impartial judge. Those who had most strongly opposed his appointment were forced in the end to acknowledge that there had been no mistake made. The tributes paid to his memory show the estimation in which he was held by those who were intimately associated with him. Senator Evarts says:—
"Stanley Matthews was a noble figure in all the affairs of public and common interest to the country. He was a noble figure in the dignity of his person and the grace of his demeanor. He was a noble figure in our great profession, upon whose power, upon whose intrepidity, such vast interests of society, of government, and of the administration of justice depend. He was a noble figure, although for so brief a period, in the soldiery of the people, a volunteer to fight his share in a great contest on which hung the fate of his country. He was a noble figure on the bench, to the profession and the lawyers of the country, and in every respect in which a lawyer is to be regarded. He was a noble figure in all the great interests and duties which permeate, enlighten, and purify our society, without which our numbers and our wealth will not continue our permanency among the nations of the earth. And in that greatest of all spheres, character, there was in him neither variableness nor shadow of turning."
Chief-Justice Fuller, in response to the resolutions presented to the Supreme Court by the Bar Association, thus sums up his estimation of his late associate:—
"Before he came to grace a seat upon this bench Mr. Justice Matthews had in high public place—political, professional, and judicial—acquired eminent distinction, and displayed the qualities which invite attention and command admiration and respect; while as a member of the bar his conspicuous ability, faithfulness, and integrity had given him a rank second to none, and the felicity was also his of having rendered his country gallant service as a soldier. He brought here the garnered wisdom of years of varied experience, and constantly added to it the fruit of cultivation in this exalted field of exertion, whose margin faded before him as he moved, growing in strength with exigencies requiring the putting forth of all his powers. In intercourse with counsel cordial but dignified; conscientious in investigation; honest and impartial in judgment; full of resource in supporting given conclusions by accurate and discriminate reasoning; ample in learning and comprehensive in scholarship; luminous in exposition and apt in illustration,—he demonstrated such fitness for this sphere of action that his removal in the midst of his usefulness cannot but be regarded as a severe loss to the bar, the judiciary, and the country.
"To the associates of years, of personal companionship in the administration of justice, that loss
