sive himself, the dignity and gentleness of his character
repelled it in others. The consequence was, that he passed through life
without strife with his fellow-man, while Colquitt was frequently in
personal conflict with those as impetuous as himself. The open
frankness and social nature of Colquitt won him many friends, and of
that description most useful to politicians--friends who were devoted,
who felt for, and preferred him to any other man. His features were
versatile, and variable as an April day, betraying every emotion of his
mind--especially his eyes, which were soft or fierce, as the passion of
the heart sprang to view in them, and spoke his soul's sensations. His
oratory was playful, awakening wild mirth in his auditors, and again it
was impetuous and sarcastic, overwhelming with invective and
denunciation.

Charles J. Jenkins, a compeer of Lumpkin and Colquitt, was essentially
different from both in many of the features of his character. His mind
was more logical, more analytical, and capable of deeper research. He
had little ambition, and whenever he was before the people, it was when
his friends thrust him there. The instinctive morality of his nature,
like that of Lumpkin, would never permit the compromise of conscience
or dignity of character so often the case with men of ardent natures
and intense ambition. Eminently cool in debate, he never made any
attempt at forensic display, but confined himself exclusively to the
logic of his subject. He clearly saw his way, and carefully went along,
spurning ornament or volubility, and only compelling into service words
which clearly and succinctly conveyed his ideas, and these only
elucidated the subject-matter he was discussing. Strictly honest, and
equally truthful, he never deviated, under any circumstances, from what
he believed his duty. Only for a short time was he in the Legislature,
and then he displayed in most exciting times the great virtues of his
nature.

Upon one occasion, the party with which he acted determined, to defeat
a certain measure, to leave the chamber in a body, and break the
quorum. It was the only means in their power to prevent a measure which
they deemed wrong in principle and injurious to the public interest.
Jenkins thought such extreme measures wrong, and entirely
unjustifiable. Though as much opposed to the views of the majority as
any member of his party, he refused to participate in their action, and
was the only member of