The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-12-08

cordinE. His first call was made a. the
War Department. and ho tells us that. being
respectful. even reverential. by natural dis
position. he had in his Imagination formed
a high idea of what a grand parsonage the
War Minister Of this great republic must be.
He recalls that he was not disappointed.
MIR. Davis received him ~graciOusly. His
slender. tail and erect figure. his spare face.
keen eyes and fine forehead. not broad but
high and we'll shaped. presented the we'll
known strong American type. There was
in his bearing a dignity which seemed en-
tirely natural and unaffccted-the kind OF
dignity which does not invite familiar APP
proacb. but will not render one uneasy by
lofty assumption. His courtesy wal without
any co-ndescending air"
Mr.. Schurz's most vivid reminiscences or
Washington in 1854 are OF the Senate. The
most conspicuous figure in that body was
Stephen A. Douglas. who IL thus desoribed;
He was a man OF low stature. but broad
shouldered and big chested. His head.
sitting upon a stout, strong neck, was the
very incarnation of ROrceful combative-
ness; a square Jaw and broad chin; a rather
large. firm sot mouth: the nose straight
and somewhat broad; quick, piercing eyes.
with "A deep. dark. scowling. menacinG.
horizontal wrinkle between them; n broad
forehead and an abundance OF dark hair,
which at that period he wore rather long
and which when in excitement he shook
and tossed defiantly like a lions name.
The whole figure was compact. strongly
knit and muscular. as II made for constant
Fighting. He was not inaptIy called n
little giant by his partisans.' h auto
b~iographer goes on 60 record that Douglass
manner Of speech accorded exactly with
his physical appearance. His sentences
we're clear cut. direct. positive. They went
straight TO the mark like bullets and some
times like cannon balls. tearing and crash
ing. There was nothing ornate, nothing
imaginative in his language. no attempt at
beautiful speaking" At the same time
Mr.. Schurz comedies that 1T would he
difficult 70 surpass Douglass clearness
and force Of statement when his position
vas right; OF his skill in twisting logic or
in dark ening the subject with
unessential matter when he was wrong;
or his defiant tenacity when he was driven
to defend himself. or his keen and crafty
aIertness 10 turn his defence into attack.
so that even when overwhelmed with adj
verse he would issue from the
FRAY with the air Of the ~conQueTOr."
While for these reasons Mr.. Schurs Ii
far from calling Douglas an ideal debateT,
he Acknowledges that 10 never saw a more
formidable parliamentary pugilst. He eK-
plains that to call him a pugilst is not
unseemly because there was something In
Douglass manner which smacked strongly
Of the barroom. He was the idol OF the
rough element Of his party and his Oonvivial
association with that element left an UNI
mistakable imprint on his habits and his
department. He would sometimes outrags
the dignity Of the Senate by astonishing
conduct. Once at a night session Of the
Senate I saw him after a boisterous speech
throw himself upon the lap Of a brother
Senator and loll there, talking and laugh
ing, for ten or fifteen minutes, with his
arm around the neck Of his friend, who
seemed to be painfully embarrassed, but
couId or would not shake him Of. II 10
IN he said in extenuatiOn that in 1854 the
general tone Of the Senate was not so sober
and decorous as 10 Ia now.