the third place, he was a man of vaulting am bition and untiring industry. Then besides he knew how to grasp great principles. He was in the habit of going to the bottom of questions. He was never content with a mere surface view. The nice distinctions of the law, — discriminating one case from an other — would have been to him a delight, nor would the investigation of authorities have been distasteful to him. Now these are the very qualities that go to make up a great lawyer. And then, too, he had another and higher quality still that would have helped to command for him success at the bar. He was a man of unusually high char acter. Clients would not have been afraid to trust him. Sometimes, however, a young lawyer may have all these qualities and yet not succeed, because he never has an oppor' tunity to show what is in him. But this was not the case with Mr. Calhoun. He had already come before the public and made a good impression. In his case everything pointed to high success at the bar. Did Mr. Calhoun act wisely in leaving the bar and branching out into the wider field of politics? It seems to me that he did. It is hardly probable that he could have won a more splendid reputation as a lawyer than he did as a statesman. All of his tastes and inclinations ran in the direction of politics and statesmanship. From his boyhood he had been fond of history. He delighted in investigating the principles of government and in making nice discriminations therein. He had in an eminent degree a logical cast of mind. And then, too, he excelled as an orator and as a writer. Besides he was an indefatigable student. Says Mr. Von Holst: "He was a born leader of men, and nature had destined him for a political career. While at college the exciting questions of the day had engrossed his attention, and the in telligence and earnestness with which he dis cussed them proved that he would try to have a hand in shaping the events of the future." The bent of his mind, the character
of his gifts, the trend of his thoughts, and the inclination of his tastes, all carried him, where he properly belonged, into the field of politics and statesmanship. Might he not, however, have united the law and politics? I doubt very much if such a course would have been wise. The law is proverbially a jealous mistress. Except in rare instances, she requires of her votaries their undivided attention. It is true some men have succeeded in both departments. Mr. Webster was not only a great lawyer but a splendid statesman. The Dartmouth College case alone attested his high rank as a lawyer. He was, however, a man of va ried attainments and diversified gifts. It is true also that Henry Clay attempted to com bine law and politics; but, though he at tained some prominence at the bar, still we are told by Mr. Schurz, his biographer, that he never rose to the dignity of being re garded one of the great lawyers of the country. And even if he had been so re garded, still his case would have been an exceptional one, for he was a magnificent orator and a man of magnetic power. Mr. Calhoun's case differed from both of these. He was so constituted that whatever he en gaged in received his entire attention. He was a man of concentration of thought and attention. He did not attempt to do two things at once. Thoroughness was one of his leading characteristics, and this, in the absence of varied gifts, necessitated a specialty. In studying his life, we find that, when he entered politics, though he was elected to the legislature at the head of the ticket, still there was a prejudice against lawyers at the time. This prejudice existed away back in colonial times, and even yet it has not all been dissipated. We find it true also in other States. In reading the history of Virginia, we learn that there was at one time in that State also a strong prejudice against the legal profession. After all, I suppose it is nothing more than we can reasonably
