ithout blot or breath against him. As a
lawyer, though admirably equipped for the profession, he can scarcely be
said to have entered on its practice. The few efforts he made at the bar
were distinguished by the same high order of talent which he exhibited
on every field where he was put to the test; and, if a man may be
accepted as a competent judge of his own capacities and adaptations, the
law was the profession to which Garfield should have devoted himself.
But fate ordained otherwise, and his reputation in history will rest
largely upon his service in the House of Representatives. That service
was exceptionally long. He was nine times consecutively chosen to the
House, an honor enjoyed probably by not twenty other Representatives of
the more than five thousand who have been elected, from the organization
of the government, to this hour.

"As a parliamentary orator, as a debater on an issue squarely joined,
where the position had been chosen and the ground laid out, Garfield
must be assigned a very high rank. More, perhaps, than any man with whom
he was associated in public life, he gave careful and systematic study
to public questions, and he came to every discussion in which he took
part with elaborate and complete preparation. He was a steady and
indefatigable worker. Those who imagine that talent or genius can supply
the place or achieve the results of labor will find no encouragement in
Garfield's life. In preliminary work he was apt, rapid and skillful. He
possessed in a high degree the power of readily absorbing ideas and
facts, and, like Dr. Johnson, had the art of getting from a book all
that was of value in it by a reading apparently so quick and cursory
that it seemed like a mere glance at the table of contents. He was a
pre-eminently fair and candid man in debate, took no petty advantage,
stooped to no unworthy methods, avoided personal allusions, rarely
appealed to prejudice, did not seek to inflame passion. He had a quicker
eye for the strong point of his adversary than for his weak point, and
on his own side he so marshalled his weighty arguments as to make his
hearers forget any possible lack in the complete strength of his
position. He had a habit of stating his opponent's side with such
amplitude of fairness and such liberality of concession that his
followers often complained that he was giving his case away. But never
in his prolonged participation in the proceedings of the House did he
give his