cal Society; fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and corresponding member of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences. He served as an overseer of Harvard university, 1874-80, 1896 and 1900-04. He received the honorary degree of LL.D. from the College of William and Mary in 1873; from Amherst college in 1879, from Yale university in 1885, from Harvard university in 1886, also from Dartmouth, and he was president of the Association of the Alumni of Harvard 1900-04. His tribute to his father's worth is: "In everything that related to his own conduct he was controlled by a more than Puritan austerity. He seemed to live for nothing but duty. Yet he was a man of strong affections, unlike what is generally deemed to be the character of the Puritan. He was gentle, tolerant, kindly and affectionate. He had all his life a large professional income, but he never seemed to care for money. In that respect he was like one who dwelt by the side of a pond, ready to dip up and give its waters to any man who might thirst. He never wasted money or spent it for any self indulgence, but he was ready to share it with any deserving object. Starr King said of him that 'he lived all the beatitudes daily.’" His faith in the perpetuity of free government was voiced on the occasion of an address on the assassination of President McKinley as follows: "If every Republican were to-day to fall in his place as William McKinley has fallen, I believe our countrymen of the other party, in spite of what we deem their errors, would take the Republic and bear on the flag to liberty and glory. I believe if every Protestant were to be stricken down by a lightning stroke, that our brethren of the Catholic faith would still carry on the Republic in the spirit of a true and liberal freedom. I believe if every man of native birth within our borders were to die this day, the men of foreign birth who have come here to seek homes and liberty under the shadow of the Republic, would carry it on in God's appointed way. I believe if every man of the North were to die, the new and chastened South would take the country and bear it on to the achievement of its lofty destiny."
Senator Hoar's public life illustrates the possibility of a statesman differing from his party on questions affecting human rights and constitutional limitations, and advancing arguments in support of his belief while engaged in debate, and yet maintaining his party fealty by voting apparently contrary to his expressed convictions, when a policy the contrary of his own is thought to be desirable by his con-
