on coming into the Union, by which act she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution to be for her the supreme law of the land. The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status." The foregoing is submitted, not for its mat ter, but for its manner of treatment of a great political and Constitutional question of that time. His exposition of the subject, is unique and ingenious. It is more. The grasp of the problem is masterful and left little to be said by the friends of the Union. It was then for Congress to act in accordance with the reason which had convened it in special session. That this was 'done is already a matter of history. It has already been said that Lincoln was the true type of an American. There seems to be no disposition to question this estimate. It is also conceded that he was great, great as a man of letters, and greater still in the world of achievement. Some definite testimony has been offered to show this greatness. It is also claimed that a fair in terpretation of the judgment of contempora ries, a judgment that is never reversed, gives Lincoln the foremost place in the history of his country. Do the facts warrant the mak ing of the claim? Can it withstand the strong sunlight of unprejudiced investigation and comparison? It is true that the name of Washington is close to the hearts of his countrymen. It may be admitted that he towered far above all of the men of his time. He had no competitors. The gratitude of his countrymen rebuked all rivalries and all jeal ousies. He was made the President by a practically unanimous vote. He was sup ported -in the discharge of his duties by a confidence not confined by the boundaries of the Republic. He was easily the most prom inent American of his time. He had been in the public mind for more than a quarter of a century. His loyalty to the cause of the Col onies was above suspicion. Still, he imbibed
the strong aristocratic notions and tendencies of his time. He was in strong contrast to the democratic Jefferson. He was. essentially and naturally, a man for a class rather than for the great mass. He was far from being close to the common people. How stands the case with Lincoln? When nominated for the Presidency he was not widely known. Many would say 'he was practically an unknown public man. His public duties up to the time of his nomination had not been numerous or verv important. He was not believed to have been personally very popular. The party he represented was not numerically very strong. His success at the polls was due to a division among his opponents. He was not the choice of the majority of the voters of the country. Of course, both Lincoln and Washington were called to the highest office in the land at a critical period of our national life, the one to preserve, and the other to make it. It may be freely granted that each was great in his time. But there must be, and is, some unfaltering test by which it can be deter mined with reasonable certainty, who was the greater man. To ascertain this it is not nec essary to detract from the fame which is se curely Washington's. It is necessary, per haps, to indicate and emphasize the qualities which make Lincoln pre-eminent. Ralph Waldo Emerson has said: "Lincoln was a plain man of the people. He had a face and manner which disarmed suspicion, which inspired confidence, which confirmed good will. He was a man without vices. He had a strong sense of duty which it was very easy for him to obey. He had a vast good nature which made him tolerant and accessible to all. His broad good-humor, running easily into jocular talk, in which he delighted and in which he excelled, was a rich gift of this wise man. It enabled him to keep his secrets, to meet every kind of man, and every rank in
