a big
audience, he would divide them into two parts--those who got up to leave
with indignation, and those who remained to frown. He was often, during
a lecture, bombarded with bricks and bad eggs. But he liked it. He could
endure anything in an audience but silence, and he always had a secure
following of admirers.

He told me once that in some of the back country towns of Pennsylvania
it nearly killed him to lecture. "I go on for an hour," he told me,
"without hearing one response, and I have no way of knowing whether the
people are instructed, pleased, or outraged."

He enjoyed the tempestuous life. His other life was home. It was
dominant in his appreciation. He owed much of his courage to that home.
Lecturing in Boston once, during most agitated times, he received this
note from his wife: "No shilly-shallying, Wendell, in the presence of
this great public outrage." Many men in public life owe their strength
to this reservoir of power at home.

The last fifteen years of his life were devoted to the domestic
invalidism of his home. Some men thought this was unjustifiable. But
what exhaustion of home life had been given to establish his public
career! A popular subscription was started to raise a monument in
Boston to Wendell Phillips. I recommended that it should be built within
sight of the monument erected to Daniel Webster. If there were ever two
men who during their life had an appalling antagonism, they were Daniel
Webster and Wendell Phillips. I hoped at that time their statues would
be erected facing each other. Wendell Phillips was fortunate in his
domestic tower of strength; still, I have known men whose domestic lives
were painful in the extreme, and yet they arose above this deficiency to
great personal prominence.

What is good for one man is not good for another. It is the same with
State rights as it is with private rights. In '83-'84, the whole country
was agitated about the questions of tariff reform and free trade. Tariff
reform for Pennsylvania, free trade for Kentucky. New England and the
North-west had interests that would always be divergent. It was absurd
to try and persuade the American people that what was good for one State
was good for another State. Common intelligence showed how false this
theory was. Until by some great change the manufacturing interests of
the country should become national interests, co-operation and
compromise in inter-state commerce was necessary. No one section