r not
approved by his political associates. He spoke in favor of the
amendment abolishing slavery, though he did not vote for it. By
instinct, education and association, especially by family ties, he
was against slavery. On all other questions of a political character
he was, by inheritance, and no doubt by conviction, a Democrat,
and faithfully followed the tenets of his party. I do not consider
this a fault, but a virtue.

We constantly forget in our political contests that the great body
of the questions we have to decide are nonpolitical. Upon these
we divide without feeling and without question of motives. On all
such matters Mr. Cox was always on the humanitarian side. He has
linked his name in honorable association with many humane, kindly,
and reformatory laws. If not the founder or father of our life-
saving service, he was at least its guardian and guide. He took
an active part in promoting measures of conciliation after the war.
He supported the policy of the homestead law against the veto of
Mr. Buchanan. He was the advocate of liberal compensation to letter
carriers, of reducing the hours of labor, and of liberal pensions
to Union soldiers. I doubt if there was a single measure placed
on the statute book, during his time, which appealed to sympathy,
charity, justice, and kindness for the poor, the distressed or the
unfortunate, which did not receive his hearty support. If kindness
bestowed is never lost, then Mr. Cox has left an inheritance to
thousands who will revere his memory while life lasts.

Perhaps his most pleasing trait was his genial, social manner.
Always gay, cheerful, and humorous, he scattered flowers on the
pathway of his friends and acquaintances. His wit was free from
sting. If in the excitement of debate he inflicted pain, he was
ready and prompt to make amends, and died, as far as I know, without
an enemy or an unhealed feud. I had with him more than one political
debate and controversy, but they left no coolness or irritation.
In our last conversation in the spring of 1889, we talked of old
times and early scenes more than thirty years past and gone, and
he recalled them only to praise those who differed with him. He
had malice for none, but charity for all. In that endearing tie
of husband and wife, which, more than any other, tests the qualities
of a man, both he and his wife were models of unbroken affection
and constant help to each other.

He was fond of trave