United States Bank. To each of these, when the
charter of the bank was before him, he addressed a note requesting
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