could not be disturbed; he had the tact of a woman, and an intellect which was active and equal to all ordinary occasions.  But even in society his range was a narrow one, and he seems to have been successful mainly because he avoided positive effort.  It is usual to speak of him as a remarkable conversationalist; but if by that term we mean to describe, a person who is distinguished for his eloquence, grace of expression, information, force and originality of thought, Burr was not a good converser.  A distinguished gentleman, who, while young, was much noticed by Burr, being asked in what his personal attraction consisted, replied, “In his manner of listening to you.  He seemed to give your thought so much value by the air with which he received it, and to find so much more meaning in your words than you had intended.  No flattery was equal to it.”  We think that this anecdote reveals the entire power of the man.  He was strong through the weakness of others, rather than in his own strength.  Therefore he was most attractive to young or inferior people.  He was not on terms of intimacy with any leading man of his time, unless it was Jeremy Bentham, and the precise nature of their relations is not understood.  The philosopher, who could not then boast many disciples, was favorably disposed toward Burr, because the latter had ordered a London bookseller to send him Bentham’s works as fast as they were published.  Upon acquaintance, he must have been pleased with a gentleman with whom he could have had no cause for dispute, who could supply him with information as to new and interesting forms of society and government, and whose adventurous and romantic career differed so widely from his own life of study and thought.

Burr’s conduct in his various public situations affords a perfect measure of his abilities.  As a soldier, he was brave, a good disciplinarian, watchful of details, and an excellent executive officer.  At the head of a brigade he would have been useful; but he did not possess the foresight, the breadth of mental vision, nor the magnetism of nature awakening the enthusiasm of armies, which are necessary to a great commander.  He was an adroit lawyer, an adept in the fence of his profession, skilful to avail himself of the errors of an opponent, and to play upon the foibles of judge or jury; but he had not the faculty for generalization and analysis, nor the nice discrimination in the application of general principles to particular instances, which must be combined in a great lawyer.  He cannot by any figure of speech be called a statesman.  As a politician, he was one of the first to discover and one of the most skilful in the use of those unworthy arts which have brought the pursuit of politics into disrepute; but we doubt whether he could have succeeded upon the broader field of the present day.  Perfectly competent to manage a single city, he would have failed in an attempt to govern a party.  His talents were well defined by Jefferson, who spoke of him as a great man in little things, and a small man in great things.