their opinions upon its constitutionality.  Jefferson replied promptly in a short, written opinion, not well considered or ably argued, as was his wont; denying the constitutionality of such an institution.  This opinion was handed to Hamilton, who pleaded public duties as the cause of delay on his part, for not furnishing an opinion.  It came at last, and was able and conclusive, as to its constitutionality.  But it was terrible in its slashing and exposure of the dogmatical sophisms of Jefferson.  From that time forward there were bitter feelings between these two eminent men.

Intellectually, Hamilton had no equal in his day.  It is ridiculous to compare him with Burr, which is often done by persons who should know better, because they have all the evidence upon which to predicate a conclusion.  The occasion was open to both, equally, to discover to the world what abilities they possessed.  They equally filled eminent positions before the nation, and at a time when she demanded the use of the first abilities in the land.  What each performed is before the world.

Men having talent will always leave behind some evidence of this, whether they pass through life in a public or private capacity.  Flippant pertness, with some wit, is too often mistaken for talent—­and a still tongue with a sage look, will sometimes pass for wisdom.  But wherever there is talent or wisdom, it makes its mark.

The evidences of Hamilton’s abilities are manifested in his works.  They show a versatility of talent unequalled by any modern man.  He was conspicuous for his great genius before he was fifteen years of age; he was chief-of-staff for General Washington before he was twenty, and before he was thirty, was admitted to be the first mind of the country.  As a military man, every officer of the army of the Revolution considered him the very first; as a lawyer, he had no equal of his day; as a statesman, he ranked above all competition; as a financier, none were his equal, and an abundance of evidence has been left by him to sustain this reputation in every particular.

What has Burr left?  Nothing.  He still lives, and what his posthumous papers may say for him, I cannot say; but I know him well, and consequently expect nothing.  As a lawyer, he was mediocre; as a statesman, vacillating and without any fixed principles; as an orator, (for some had claimed him to be such,) he was turgid and verbose—­sometimes he was sarcastic, but only when the malignity of his nature found vent in the bitterness of words.  His private conduct has, in every situation, been bad.  He was one of the Lee and Gates faction to displace Washington from the command of the army.  He decried the abilities of Washington.  He violated the confidence of General Putnam, when his aide, in seducing Margaret Moncrief, (whose father had intrusted her to Putnam’s care.) He violated his faith to the Republican party, in lending himself to the Federal party to defeat the known and expressed will