Mr. Fessenden, but it may well be doubted whether in the
qualities named he ever had a superior in that body. His personal
character was beyond reproach. He maintained the highest standard
of purity and honor. His patriotism was ardent and devoted. The
general character of his mind was conservative, and he had the
heartiest contempt of every thing that savored of the demagogue in
the conduct of public affairs. He was never swayed from his
conclusion by the passion of the hour, and he met the gravest
responsibilities with even mind. He had a lofty disregard of
personal danger, possessing both moral and physical courage in a
high degree. He was constant in his devotion to duty, and no doubt
shortened his life by his public labors.*

UNITED-STATES SENATORS.

Mr. Sumner, though five years the junior, was senior in senatorial
service to Mr. Fessenden, and had attained wider celebrity. Mr.
Sumner's labor was given almost exclusively to questions involving
our foreign relations, and to issues growing out of the slavery
agitation. To the latter he devoted himself, not merely with
unswerving fidelity but with all the power and ardor of his nature.
Upon general questions of business in the Senate he was not an
authority, and rarely participated in the debates which settled
them; but he did more than any other man to promote the anti-slavery
cause, and to uprear its standard in the Republican party. He had
earned, in an unexampled degree, the hatred of the South, and this
fact had increased the zeal for him among anti-slavery men throughout
the North. The assault, made upon him by Preston S. Brooks, a
South-Carolina representative, for his famous speech on Kansas,
had strengthened his hold upon his constituency, which was not
merely the State of Massachusetts but the radical and progressive
Republicans of the entire country.

Mr. Sumner was studious, learned, and ambitious. He prepared his
discussions of public questions with care, but was not ready as a
debater. He presented his arguments with power, but they were
laborious essays. He had no faculty for extempore speech. Like
Addison, he could draw his draft for a thousand pounds, but might
not have a shilling of change. This did not hinder his progress
or lessen his prestige in the Senate. His written arguments were
the anti-slavery classics of the day, and they were read more
eagerly than speeches which p