weakness of Senator Hoar is just this subordination of public to party, or rather the Senator's unwavering faith that his country's good is in some mysterious way locked up with the success of the Republican party. Mr. Schurz believes that a party recreant to the past and the needs of the present day should be chastened by defeat, and goes about to defeat it at the polls; Mr. Hoar, on the contrary, believes that the party should be chastened and reformed if possible, but kept in office. From the standpoint of the professional politician, Mr. Schurz is clearly wrong, as he has undoubtedly lost the confidence of his party, even although he has gained the respect and confidence of the nation at large. It can never be said of him that

"Born for the universe," he "narrowed his mind,

And to party gave up what was meant for mankind."

If it is indeed true, as Mr. Hoar claims, that the Republican party has heeded his voice from within in all important questions save only that of expansion-which he is pleased to regard as still open and unsettled-it is no less true that opposition such as Mr. Schurz's would appeal to many as more manly as well as more effective. Why make the blunder even although it be corrected later? Why not prevent the mistake at the time? Mr. Hoar's curious attitude in supporting Mr. McKinley in 1900, seems odd to the man in the street, and his yielding to the party whip in the Panama muddle seems strange to any one who remembers his ringing denunciation of the Government's attitude in the matter. The partisan can no doubt cry amen to the line

"His conduct still right, with his argument wrong,"

but men of an independent way of thinking would rather transpose conduct and argument.

But to pass again from the man to the book. The short chapter on the Senate in 1877 at the date of Mr. Hoar's entrance into that august body and its subsequent falling off in popular estimation gives ample food for reflection. The chapter following on the "Leaders of the Senate in 1877" is even more charming in its way than the corresponding chapter on the House of Representatives in 1869.

Mr. Hoar's relations with Senator Lamar were of the most friendly kind and he considered him an able judge, although he voted against Mr. Lamar's confirmation as Justice of the Supreme Court. Mr. Lamar's eulogy on Sumner kindled his liking into admiration and the two men, notwithstanding their radical differences on most if not all political matters, became genuinely fond of each other. Mr. Lamar's Biography gives evidence of an affectionate regard and Mr. Hoar's Autobiography is delightfully outspoken. His letter to Mrs. Lamar on the Judge's death is a delicate and beautiful tribute, and frequent utterances of Senator Hoar show how broad-bottomed and genuine was his sympathy. A single quotation will perhaps suffice. "He was, in his time, I think, the ablest representative, certainly among the ablest, of the opinions opposed to mine. He had a delightful and original literary quality, which if the lines of his life had been cast amid other scenes than the tempest of a great Revolution and Civil War, might have made him a dreamer like Montaigne; and a chivalrous quality that might have made him a companion of Athos and D'Artagnan."

Of Judge Jackson he was likewise very fond, and it was due to Senator Hoar that a Republican President appointed him to the Supreme Bench. This is perhaps the

strongest tribute that a political opponent could pay to another and it is very honorable to Senator Hoar. Although a keen partisan, there are not a few occasions on which the Senator has gone out of his way and his party to do a good turn to a Democrat. The cases of General Corse and Judge Putnam are additional instances.

The Judge did not live long to enjoy the honor, but the act of Senator Hoar was no less gracious and Judge Jackson was entirely worthy of the honor. As Senator Hoar says: "Howell E. Jackson had this ancient senatorial temperament. He never seemed to me to be thinking of either party or section or popular opinion, or of the opinion of other men; but only of public duty."

And no less a person than an Attorney General said of Mr. Justice Jackson: "He was not so much a Senator who had been appointed Judge, as a Judge who had served for a time as a Senator."

The chapters devoted to Mr. Hoar's service in the Senate from his taking the oath of office to the present day contain much interesting, even important matter; but they do not lend themselves to quotation.

The Senator would no doubt regard these various chapters and his part in them as of importance, else he would not have written them, and valuable they are. He has, however, himself singled out three incidents in his life work as of special moment, and to these the reader's attention may be briefly called. "If," he says, "on looking back, I were to select the things which I have done in public life in which I take most satisfaction, they would be, the speech in the Senate on the Fisheries Treaty, July 10, 1888; the letter denouncing the A. P. A., a secret, political association, organized for the purpose of ostracizing our Catholic fellow-citizens, and the numerous speeches, letters and magazine articles

against the subjugation of the Philippine Islands."

The question of the Newfoundland Fisheries is one of peculiarly local interest, but it has certainly risen at times to national importance. Mr. Hoar does not believe that any one argument, "certainly not my argument," he says, "caused the defeat of the Fisheries Treaty, negotiated by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain and Mr. Bayard during Mr. Cleveland's first administration." But Mr. Hoar does not underestimate the value of his argument, of which he says, in his outspoken and kindly way: "I discussed the subject with great earnestness, going fully into the history of the matter, and the merits of the Treaty. I think I may say without undue vanity that my speech was an important and interesting contribution to a very creditable chapter of our history." He is not, however, unjust to Mr. Bayard's motives, but he sincerely believed that Mr. Bayard was giving away much and getting nothing in return.

His second claim to remembrance is his "A. P. A." letter given in full (vol. II., pp. 278-293).

Mr. Hoar is right in singling this out as one of his achievements, and it is a great pity that this letter is not better known than it is; for it is manly from beginning to end and shows how keenly a moral question has always roused him to the full expression of his manhood.

Mr. Hoar's third claim to consideration is probably his strongest, and one which pos terity is not likely soon to forget. Whether we believe in colonial expansion or not, there is something pathetic as well as majestic in the Senator's championship of the Filipinos, for on this question his voice and his vote have not parted company.

His own party has turned a deaf ear to his arguments; the Democratic party has hardly dared to rise to the question, and his

countrymen, while they have listened to his eloquent warnings, have not, it would seem, shown any inclination to insist that that liberty and self-government won by the sword, shall be the peaceful and blessed heritage of an alien and inferior people. Stripped of argument and rhetoric, his attitude is simply this: that every nation or people has an inalienable right to govern itself in its own way and according to its own lights; that Our very origin and the Declaration of Independence forbid us of all people from holding an alien race in subjection; that our duty in the light of our origin and traditions, is to enable such alien people to obtain the blessings of liberty and self government, not to annex and govern them, and that our failure to raise ourselves to the full height of this duty will eventually and inevitably blunt our own moral consciousness and lead us away from the primitive ideals for which two generations lived and died. To the plea that our government is in all probability better than any government that the Filipinos would or could organize at this time, he would reply that it is not their government. To draw an illustration from British history: the supporters of the Stuart pretender urged that Hanoverian George spoke only German, while the Pretender spoke a perfect English. To this Sir Richard Steele gave the unanswerable reply that he did not care to be tyrannized over by any man even although he spoke the best English in the world.

The Senator's noble and disinterested attitude has not as yet converted his own countrymen, but "Every Filipino," he informs us, "is in favor of his policy." The consciousness of this appreciation has consoled him in his loneliness and isolation, and he says, in speaking of it: "I would rather have the gratitude of the poor people of the Philippine Islands, amid their

sorrow, and have it true that what I may say or do has brought a ray of hope into the gloomy caverns in which the oppressed peoples of Asia dwell, than to receive a Ducal Coronet from every monarch in Europe, or command the applause of listening Senates and read my history in a nation's eyes."

Enough has been said to prove, it is hoped, that the Autobiography of Seventy Years is a delightful book which throws a constant flood of light on its gentle and genial author. It is full of deeply interesting passages; it teems with anecdotes of men distinguished in public life, and records many and precious observations of manners in his early days at home and expressions of people and customs in his various journeys to and wanderings through the old home, as he is pleased to call England. It also throws light on public affairs in his beloved Massachusetts and in the nation at large; but it cannot be said, as previously stated more than once, to offer much to the student of affairs, or to the historian of the period of his public activity. It touches the surface of many things, but Senator Hoar never uncovers the troubled and inward currents that go to make up our history. It is rather a book to make one love the man, and the picture it gives of the kindly author, his likes, which are many, and of his dislikes, which are few; of his weaknesses, which are mainly personal and somewhat akin to childlike simplicity; of the sources of his strength, which are manly and pure in every detail, make this record a singularly delightful and at times a fascinating work. It were indeed well for the country if every man were like George Frisbie Hoar.

Since the above was written Senator Hoar has departed this life, but the reviewer has been unwilling to recast th article in

THE must be in

HE idea that jurors must be in abject

ignorance of the facts of the case on which they are drawn, in order to be able to render an impartial verdict, no longer prevails in this country. Indeed, it is seriously doubted if such persons have the requisite. qualifications to fit them for legal jury service. Time was, when the modern newspaper was unknown and the means of disseminating intelligence was in a primitive. state, that few of the facts of important cases could, with difficulty, reach the masses. Then it was that the rule of ignorance had greater force.

We all know that the early theory of the jury system was, that the jurors were neighbors and friends of the parties litigant, and so could supplement, from their own knowledge, much of the testimony that is now presented in the shape of evidence of character. Jurors, or compurgatores, as they were then termed, were thus, to some intents, witnesses as well as judges. But the development of the jury system led to the complete separation of both these characters. "This," it has been well said, "no doubt, is the perfection of trial by jury. Every person that knows anything material connected with the case should not only give his evidence in open court, but also subject to the test of cross-examination." In this way, it is possible to ascertain what are the facts, and to discover the fraud and falsity of the witnesses. It is true that the jury is not likely to be wholly ignorant of the nature of the case submitted to them. But the more intelligent they are the more apt they are to render a verdict, not on what they may believe to be the fact of guilt or innocence of the accused, but upon the evidence as sworn to before them.

The sentiment in favor of intelligence in the jury box is growing in this country.

Even the defense in capital cases find that they do not need to fear intelligence so much as bigotry, bias and prejudice. And the latter qualities are always present where ignorance has full sway. While admitting its prevalence in the past, it does not impress us as true today, that in criminal cases "the possession of intelligence seems to be more and more becoming an insuperable disqualification for service as juror from the standpoint of the defense." (Lesser, History of the Jury System, pp. 181 and 182.) And the tendency of recent legislation is to discourage challenges, except for opinions which have been formed and which the juror believes unfits him for honest jury service, opinions which the proofs would not be apt to disturb. In some States, as in Florida and Georgia, the statutes require that the person selected to serve in the jury box shall be well informed and intelligent. In other States, as in Illinois and Michigan, in addition to the foregoing qualifications, they are required to read and write in the English language. So in the city of New York, "no person shall serve as a juror unless he shall be an intelligent man, of sound mind and good character, free from legal exception, and able to read and write the English understandingly." (Proffatt, Jury Trial, Sec. 118.)

Mr. Lesser suggests in a note in his History of the Jury System that the excess to which exclusion from jury service on the ground of bias or pre-conceived opinions is carried, may in some measure be remedied by reenacting elsewhere Section 189 of the Oregon Code, which provides that although a person summoned to act as a juror "has formed or expressed an opinion upon the merits of the case, from what he may have read or heard, such opinion of itself shall not be sufficient to sustain the challenge (to