national Monetary Conference which met in Paris in April, 1881. The Conference was suggested by the governments of France and the United States. All of the principal gov ernments of Europe were represented. The United States was represented by William M. Evarts, late Secretary of State; Allan G. Thurman, late a United States Senator; Tim othy O. Howe, late a United States Senator, and Dana Horton, former delegate to the International Monetary Conference of 1878. Mr. Howe addressed the Conference upon the subject which had called the various governments to send representatives to it. Mr. Thurman, who was of an opposite polit ical faith to that of Mr. Howe, did not hesi tate to pronounce his speech the speech of the Conference. This is certainly high praise. It is no wonder that when a public man can think so clearly and profoundly upon great public questions, supplementing that thought, as he did, with great moral courage and absolute honesty of purpose, that Presi dent Grant should offer him the appointment of the Chief Justiceship of the Supreme Court of the United States. The position was one greatly desired by Mr. Howe. But the ac ceptance of the place would make a vacancy in the Senate which would have been filled by the election of a man of the opposite polit ical faith, that party being in the majority in the Legislature of his State at that time. And he believed, whether wisely or not, it is not for us to say, that the country's welfare de manded his presence in the Senate, or of another, of similar political antecedents. His refusal of the appointment for this reason, and for this reason only, caused General Grant to remark that he believed he was trie only man he ever knew in public life whom he thought would have so sacrificed himself. Yet his action in this case corresponds with his earlier public career. He could not stul tify himself, nor could he break faith with

those who had reposed confidence in him. It is doubtless true that Mr. Howe was never preeminent in the profession oi the law. His comparatively early and continu ous public career made that practically im possible. And there are those who are un charitable enough to say that he could have neither wanted or made himself fitted for the Supreme Court bench; that his early and later tastes were in keeping with a place in deliberative bodies, where he excelled. His own immediate relatives assure me that this is not the fact. One of them writes: "It was the only position he ever really wished for." And his early training, both before the bar and on the bench, as well as his long and varied experience in public life, well p^epared him for the discharge of the important judicial office, if he had chosen to accept it. It is not claimed for Judge Howe that he was particularly brilliant. But there were sterling qualities of head and heart which endeared him to men. As one has put it to the writer: "He was the soul of honor. He was, moreover, an exceedingly refined man, refined in manners, in thought, and in action. He had a marvellous fund of wit, clear, sharp and incisive. He was, essentially, a man of conviction. What he did. he did from prin ciple, not from policy." Timothy Otis Howe will be best remem bered for his distinguished public services. These were given his country in no un stinted manner. He serv.'d her well. And the nation may well feel proud to have en listed the wise counsels and active energies of such a man in its behalf. A noble pro fession, too, is to be congratulated to have had as one of its members an individual who has added something to the due administra tion of justice, and who was never known to cause that profession to be ashamed of him. As a lawyer, his abilities were eminently re spectable: as a publicist, his services to his country were preeminent.