Calhoun as a Lawyer and Statesman. tried to identify this first cell, but found the task impossible. It seems clear that her first cell was one of the worst in the Conciergerie, and was in the worst part of the prison. The removal of the poor queen to somewhat better quarters was probably due to the humanity of the concierge. She spent seventy-six days in the Conciergerie, coming there from the Temple on the night of the 2nd of August, 1793, and leaving it for her execution on the 16th of October, 1793. Round the corner of the palace, in the eour du Mai, beside the great staircase which now leads upwards to the Courts of Justice, is the grated door through which prisoners emerged from the dreadful prison in order to mount the death carts. Barthelemy Maurice gives the number of
CALHOUN
AS
A
37'
persons sent from the Conciergerie to the guillotine as 2,742. Of these 2,742, 344 were women, 41 were infants, 102 were over seventy years of age, while one man was ninety-three years of age. Taine suggests that the numbers given are understated, and it is more than probable that such records, at least during the Terror, were badly kept, and are unreliable. There are now in the Conciergerie about sixty-three cells constructed in 1864. These are built on a concrete foundation, facing the large windows that look out on the river Seine, and are said to be among the finest in Europe. They are occupied by prisoners awaiting their trial at the courts, which are held in another part of the building.
LAWYER
AND
STATESMAN.
By Walter L. M1ller of the South Carol1na Bar. IV. AND now it is in order to inquire how . did Mr. Calhoun stand on some of the great, practical questions of that day, and, in their bearing, application, and pertinence, to a very considerable extent at least, of this day also. What were his views as to the wisdom and practicability of civil service re form? Did he believe in this doctrine, — to the victor belong the spoils? That was the favorite shibboleth during Jackson's admin istration. It was the rallying cry of his followers and it met with the cordial ap proval of their great leader. We find, how ever, that Mr. Calhoun was opposed to it — that he fought against it with all of his might and main. Were he living to-day, we have not the slightest doubt where we would find him on this question. He would be found standing side by side with Roose
velt and the other leading civil service re formers. Mr. Von Holst and Mr. Trent criti cise him because, though he opposed this doctrine and did his best to have the Exec utive stripped of its patronage and shorn of its power in this respect, yet he failed to anticipate an equal abuse of the same great power on the part of Congress and its mem bers. They maintain that he should have gone to the root of the evil, and have extir pated it entirely from our political system. They claim that the transfer of the patron age from the President to the members of Congress does not relieve matters — that it simply shifts the objectionable feature from one department of the government to an other, — and that Mr. Calhoun was to blame for not foreseeing that this would be the case. My reply is that he vigorously fought
