the law reports. Judge O'Neall was a great friend and admirer of Colonel Preston." The incident pertaining to O'Neall and Mr. Preston's funeral, to which Mr. Hemphill refers, I find noted in Richardson's reports as follows: "O'Neall, C. J., absent at the hearing, attending Colonel Preston's funeral." Is it possible that political prejudice could have had anything to do with the action of the court on this occasion? I know that politics at that time were at fever heat in South Carolina, and that Mr. Preston enter tained views on some of the questions of the day which did not meet with the popular approbation. I will take the more charitable view, however, and assume that the majority of the members of the court were influenced in their action by other and higher consider ations — possibly by a press of business, or some other urgent necessity. Mr. Preston's reputation as a lawyer, ora tor and statesman, certainly merited every honor and mark of respect. As we have already seen, the bar of the State and the courts — notably those in Charleston — were conspicuous in honoring Mr. Preston's memory and in paying to him high tributes. I will conclude this reference by remarking that Judge O'Ncall's course in this matter was eminently characteristic, and, taken in connection with his fondness for Mr. Preston and his high appreciation of him, exceed ingly creditable. Mr. Preston was a man of wide and varied reading. I am disposed to think that he had read broadly rather than deeply. From what I have been able to learn, he was not what we term an accurate scholar. He did not excel in the exact sciences. I imagine he would have had no fondness for plodding away to see if he could solve some difficult mathematical example. Neither like Mr. Calhoun would he have cared to spend much of his time endeavoring to analyze into its elements some deep question of philosophy; or like Dr. Thornwell, in trying to unravel some intricate question of metaphysics.
He was distinctively a man of letters. Po lite literature was his favorite department, and here he reigned almost without a rival. It accorded best with his talent, tastes and inclination. He roamed the fields of litera ture far and wide, and culled from them beauties on every side. History, fiction, poetry and legend, — all brought their offer ings and laid them at his feet. He had a classically trained mind. Indeed, I may well adopt the succinct and forceful expression which Col. John P. Thomas, in speaking of him, uses, and say that he was fairly " satu rated with the classics." While his knowl edge of the Latin and Greek was not critical, yet it was full, and he had imbibed deeply of their literatures. He was particularly well versed in the French language and literature. So accomplished a French scholar was he that the remarks which he tells us an accomplished woman made to Mr. Legare, might well have been applied to himself— "he was only too Attic to be an Athenian. He was familiar with the Bible, and drew from it some of his most beautiful illustra tions, finest examples and happiest utter ances. Indeed, he excelled in choice expressions, apt phrases, and happy quota tions. He was familiar with the poets and the best authors. While he was not desti tute of logical ability, yet he did not arrive at his conclusions so much by constructing a chain of syllogisms as by irrtpulse and in stinct, so to speak, — and he usually carried his audience with him. He sometimes, how ever, paid the penalty by adopting and act ing on unsafe deductions. He had a keen sense of humor, could tell a joke and relate an incident well, and was an adept at repartee. Senator Hoar, in those beautiful remi niscent articles which he has been writing for the magazines lately, says that Mr. Web ster sometimes in his speeches would try one word after another, until he would get the right one — he seemed to be hard to please, and would keep repeating synony
