So he applied the principles of law to the transactions of men with great clearness and precision.  He was a close reasoner.  He reasoned by analogy, and enforced his views by apt illustration.  His mode of speaking was generally of a plain and unimpassioned character, and yet he was the author of some of the most beautiful and eloquent passages in our language, which, if collected, would form a valuable contribution to American literature.  The most punctilious honor ever marked his professional and private life.”

The Hon. Thomas Drummond, for many years Judge of the United States District Court at Chicago, said:  “It is not necessary to claim for Mr. Lincoln attributes or qualities which he did not possess.  He had enough to entitle him to the love and respect and esteem of all who knew him.  He was not skilled in the learning of the schools, and his knowledge of the law was acquired almost entirely by his own unaided study and by the practice of his profession.  Nature gave him great clearness and acuteness of intellect and a vast fund of common-sense; and as a consequence of these he had much sagacity in judging of the motives and springs of human conduct.  With a voice by no means pleasing, and, indeed, when excited, in its shrill tones sometimes almost disagreeable; without any of the personal graces of the orator; without much in the outward man indicating superiority of intellect; without great quickness of perception,—­still, his mind was so vigorous, his comprehension so exact and clear, and his judgments so sure, that he easily mastered the intricacies of his profession, and became one of the ablest reasoners and most impressive speakers at our bar.  With a probity of character known to all, with an intuitive insight into the human heart, with a clearness of statement which was itself an argument, with an uncommon power and facility of illustration, often, it is true, of a plain and homely kind, and with that sincerity and earnestness of manner to carry conviction, he was perhaps one of the most successful jury lawyers we have ever had in the State.  He always tried a case fairly and honestly.  He never intentionally misrepresented the testimony of a witness or the arguments of an opponent.  He met both squarely, and, if he could not explain the one or answer the other, substantially admitted it.  He never misstated the law according to his own intelligent view of it.  Such was the transparent candor and integrity of his nature that he could not well or strongly argue a side or a cause that he thought wrong.  Of course, he felt it his duty to say what could be said, and to leave the decision to others; but there could be seen in such cases the inward struggle in his own mind.  In trying a cause he might occasionally dwell too long or give too much importance to an inconsiderable point; but this was the exception, and generally he went straight to the citadel of a cause or a question, and struck home there, knowing if that were won the