Newspaper Page Text
“ You assure, then that they are gone?”
Esked ihe young man, with a sarcasm of
speech that made me tremble with fear.
“Quito sure,” I replied ; but there was
tu-di a tremor in my voice, I could plainly
sic lie doubted my information. Just at
this moment a boy came riding towards us
front the direction taken by the fugitives.
Mr. Gray hailed the urchin.
“ My fine sou,” said he, “ did you meet a
gentleman and a lady on the road ?”
“ A gentleman, and a young woman with
ever so many yellow goold buttons on her
ccat,” retorted the boy.
“ Tis she!—Which way did they go ?”
“ Straight towards M , and mighty
fast, at that.”
“ I thank you both for your information,”
said the young man. “ 1 will make havoc
with their schemes at every hazard!”—
ami putting the spurs to his horse, off he
rode.
I went in doors to rejoin Mr. Hazard and
.'lisa Gray. They had overheard the col
loquy between Mr. Gray and myself, and
were much gratified at the result. After
waiting a long time, Squire Docket ap
peared with his spectacles. I related to
him what had transpired during his ab
“ Well arranged !” he exciainlßppnd
now for fear of meeting more troublwsi we
had better yoke this fair couple on the
spot.”
“ ‘Ye are ready, sir,” said Mr. Hazard ;
“proceed with the ccremonv.”
The two stood up, and Squire Docket
soon had them joined in the holy bands of
wedlock. But the ceremony had scarcely
been over before Mr. Sydney re-appeared
and burst into the room. He cast a look
of dismay at the honest old justice.
“ Too late ! too late !” he exclaimed with
some irritation.
“Just a minute after the time, Sydney,”
said his brother-in-law.
“Well,the old man will be sorely
grieved.” he replied ; “but all is over now.
You were too many forme. Caroline you
may thank your buttons for your success.
The young lady whom I pursued did not
correspond with you exactly in size, and I
rather doubted her to be you, until I got
near enough to see some of the gilt buttons
on her dress, which satisfied me it was you;
hut upon overtaking her, my surprise was
great to find a different person from my run
away sister. But the deed is done, and 1
wish you all the happiness in the world, and
I promise to intercede with the old man for
j our forgiveness.”
Agnes and her companion soon after re
turned in high spirits. They had a great
deal of.sport in talking about their success
ful ruse.
“ I’ve a great mind to keep your riding
habit, Caroline. lam getting in love with
it, said Agnes, complacently viewing its
beauties in the large mirror.
“ I thought you would like it,” replied
the bride. “It will be excellent to catch
beaux with.”
“Indeed it will, Caroline. A soldier
like me, armed with such an array of splen
did buttons, is almost irresistible ! Oh,dear!
how sweetly they 7 glitter! I never thought
any body would see me with gilt buttons on
—but really there’s no giving them up now
—they’re too lovely.” And the romping
g'rl marched to and fro, across the floor.
The riding habit has acted a promi
nent part in our play to day,” said the bride
“and you shall keep it for your weddinjr
Agnes.”
“ I’ll do so, Caroline. But let us now
be merry.”
Our little party now no longer filled
with apprehensions, enjoyed ourselves to
our hearts content. Our guests next day,
started homeward. Mrs. Hazard left her
riding habit with Agnes, who frequently
wore it afterwards ; and although she re
placed its many buttons, as often as they
became tarnished, with new ones of dazzling
brightness, I have not heard that they 7 were
the means of her catching any beaux.
COCOA-NUT TREE.
Os all the gifts which Providence has
bestowed on the oriental world, the cocoa
nut tree most deserves our notice. In this
single production of nature what blessings
are conveyed to man ! It grows in a state
ly column, from thirty to 50 feet in height,
crowned by a verdant capital of waving
branches, covered with long spiral leaves ;
under this foliage bunches of blossoms,
clusters of green fruit, and others arrived at
maturity, appear in mingled beauty. The
trunk, though porous, furnishes beams and
rafters for our habitations ; and the leaves,
when platted together, make an excellent
thatch, and common umbrellas, coarse
mats for the floor, and brooms ; while their
(inest fibres are woven into very beautiful
mats for the rich. The covering of the
young fruit is extremely curious, resemb
ling a piece of thick cloth, in a conical
form, close and firm as if it came from the
loom ; it expands after the fruit has burst
through its inclosure, and then appears of a
coarser texture. The nuts contain a deli
cious milk, and a kernel sweet as the al
mond ; this, when dried, affords abundance
of oil • and, when that is expressed, the
remains feed cattle and poultry, and make
a good manure. The shell of the nut fur
nishes cups, ladles, and other domestic u
tensils ; while the husk, which encloses it,
is of the utmost importance ; it is manu
factured into ropes, and cordage of every
kind, from the smallest twine to the largest
cable, which are far more durable than
those of hemp. In the Nicobar islands the
natives build their vessels, make the sails
and cordage, supply them with provisions
and necessaries, and provide a cargo of ar
rack, vinegar, oil, jaggree or coarse sugar,
cocoa-nuts, coir, cordage, black paint, and
several inferior articles for foreign mark
ets, entirely from this tree.
Many of the trees are not permitted to
bear fruit; but the embryo bud, from which
the blossoms and nuts would spring, is tied
up to prevent its expansion ; and a small
being then made at the end, there
V-es, in gentle drops, a cool pleasant li-
called tarco, or toddy, the palm'vine
of the poets. This, when first drawn, is
cooling and salutary ; but, when fermented
and distilled, produces an intoxicating spir
it. Thus a plantation of cocoa-nut trees
yields the proprietor a considerable profit,
and gonorally forms part of the government
revenue.
The cocoa-nut tree delights in a flat
sandy soil, near the sea, and must be fre
quently watered ; while the palmyras, or
bab trees, grow on hills and rocky moun
tains. Theso also abound in the Nicobar
islands, as well as the date tree ; but the
fruit of the latter, seldom attains perfection.
These trees are of the same genus, though
differing according to their respective class
es ; they all produce the palm wine, and
arc generally included under the name of
palms or palmettoes.— From Forbes’ Ori
ental Memoirs.
POLITICAL,.
From the New-York Express.
MR. WEBSTER AND THE LAST
WAR.
During the struggles of the last Election,
some parties appear to have explored the
Journals of Congress, during the war with
England, to find matter of accusation a
gainst Mr. Webster.
A letter was published, appearing to fur
nish the result of-such examination.—
Whether this was fair or not, few people
judge, as few have either the means, or the
leisure of going through so many volumes
of proceedings, and seeing whether the real
truth has been extracted, or not.
But a friend of ours, in this city, having
leisure sufficient, in these dull times, has
prepared a statement in answer to the char
ges in the letter aforesaid.
We now publish the letter, and the state
ment, and at the request of the. writer we
publish part of Mr. Webster’s speech in
reply to Mr. Calhoun, March 22, 1835.
We commend the consideration of these
papers not only to the friends of the last
Administration generally, but in an espe
cial manner to Governor Polk, of Tennes
see, who by newspaper accounts is already
“ on the stump,” as the Western phrase is,
for the next August election.
Instead of discussing subjects of present
interest, the worthy and venerable Govern
or seems to rejoice in discussions relating
to bye gone times. There appear to be
two objects, which most attract his Excel
lency’s attention ; one to abuse Mr. Clay
who supported the War, and the other to
abuse Mr. Webster, who he says opposed
it.
We hope his Excellency will not omit
some notice of the Berlin and Milan de
crees, the affair of the Chesapeake, and that
he will even take some notice of the quasi
War with France.
The venerable Governor will see how
important it is to enter into these matters,
when the questions before the American
people are, whether an exhausted Treasu
ry shall be replenished, whether the coun
try shall be defended, and whether any at
tempt shall be made by giving a sound Cur
rency to the country to revive business and
confidence, and restore public and private
credit.
Sir,—l herewith send you the vote of
Daniel Webster on several occasions,while
a member of Congress during the War.
Ist. On the 7th of January, 1814, lie vo
ted against an appropriation for defraying
the expenses of the Navy.
2d. On the 19th January, 1814, he voted
against a ‘•proposition more effectually to
detect and punish traitors and spies.
3d. On the 25th March, he voted against
the bill to call forth the militia to execute
the laws of the Union, and repel invasion.
4th. On the Ist December, only a few
days before the setting of the Hartford Con
vention, he voted against a bill to provide
additional revenue for defraying the expen
ses of the government and maintaining the
public credit.
sth. On the 10th, he voted to postpone
indefinitely a bill authorising the President
of the United States to call upon the res
pective States for their respective quotas of
militia to defend the frontier against inva
sion.
oth. On the 13th, against the same bill.
7th. He also voted against a bill to pro
vide additional revenue for the support of
government, and the public credit, and also
against an appropriation for rebuilding the
Capitol, which has been destroyed by the
enemy.
The above is taken from the public rec
ords at Washington. I could give you
more, but the above is enough. Such is
the vote of a Tory, now called Whig. —
Sorry I am to find you in such company,
with such a leader.
(What follows is of a private nature.)
Respectfully yours.
A true and exact statement of the case, in
regard to each of these votes, as appears
from the Journals and the printed debates.
The charges are:
1. “On the 7th January, 1814, he voted
against an appropriation for defraying the
expenses of the Navy.”
This is exceedingly disingenuous for
two reasons:
Ist. Because the matter is not accurate
ly stated, nor the reason for the vote given,
as that now appears in the debate. A Bill
had passed the House of Representatives,
and without opposition, either on the ques
tion of its engrossment, or the question of
its final passage, “ making partial appro
priations for the service of 1814.” The
Senate inserted, as an amendment, an ap
propriation of one million of dollars for the
expense of the Navy. It was quite unu
sual at that time, and indeed it is believed
unprecedented, for the Senate to original ,
by way of amendment, such large grants ‘f
money for the public service.
On this ground, alone, the amendm 7 nt
was opposed by some who had been the
warmest friends of the Navy, from the time
of Gen. Washington. It was a question of
the regularity of proceeding, a question of
the order of business, merely. The record
shows that Natiianiei.Macon, and other
administration men, voted with Mr. Web
ster on that question against concurring
with the Senate with their amendment.
2d. Because’ it is well known that
throughout the whole war, Mr, Webster
was constantly urging upon Government
greater extension of our naval means ; and
augmented expenditure and augmented ef
forts on the sea. The navy had been ex
ceedingly unpopular with the party then in
power. This every body knows ; and Mr.
Webster was attempting to argue it into
popularity.
The Journal shows that, on the Bth No
vember, 1814, the House went into commit
tee, on the Bill from the Senate to author
ize the President to build twenty vessels of
war, to carry a certain uumber of guns.—
Mr. Reed moved to increase the number of
guns more than twO-fold for each ship. Mr.
Webster voted in the affirmative, but the
motion was lost, and the bill then passed
without opposition. Doubtless many other
votes of this kind may be found in the
Journal, for the debates show that Mr.
Webster constantly urged the increase of
our naval power, as the besUneans of meet
ing our enemy, the proudest maritime pow
er in the world.
In respect, then, to the vote here com
plained of, the fact is, that it was not a vote
against an appropriation to defray the ex
penses of the navy, but was a vote against
the assumption of the Senate to originate
by way of amendment, large appropriations
of money for military service.
It was then, and is now, thought by ma
ny, exclusively the legitimate office of the
House of Representatives to originate all
the principle grants of money for the sup
port of Government. Would it be consid
ered fair to charge Nathaniel Macon and
others, the friends of Mr. Madison and dis
tinguished supporters of the war, with a
disposition to withhold the means of defend
ing the country, because be, and they, vo
ted against the extraordinary amendment
of the Senate ? Certainly not, and there
fore, the same charge now made against
Mr. Webster with voting with Nathaniel
Macon on that question is unfair, if not ri
diculous.
11. “ On the 10th January, 1814, he vo
ted against a proposition more effectually to
detect and punish traitors and spies.”
This is absolutely untrue.
On the 10;h January, 1814, Mr. Wright,
of Maryland, moved the following resolu
tion :
“ Resolved, That the Committee of the
whole House be insti ucted to inquire into
the expediency of extending the second sec
tion of the act for the government of the U
nited States relative to spies, to citizens of
th” United States.
The effect of extending the rules and ar
ticles of war, relative to spies, to citizens of
the United States, would have been to ex
pose every American citizen, visiting the
encampment of the American Army, to he
charged with being a spy, nnd have that
charge tried and determined by a drum
head court-martial, and that trial followed
tiy death.
It would have withdrawn from our own
citizens, that great shield of American Lib
erty—the right of trial by jury ; and pla
ced the whole country, and alt our citizens
at once under martial law. So thought
Mr. Webster, and he voted against it. So
thought Mr. Cheves and Mr. Farrow, of
South Carolina, Mr. Duvall, Mr. Onnsby
and Mr. Clark, of Kentucky. Mr. Eppes, of
Virginia, Mr. Kent of Maryland, Mr. Sey
bert, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Fisk, of Ver
mont, (or New-York,) Mr. King, of North
Carolina, (now Senator from Alabama, and
late President of the Senate,) Mr. Richard
son, (late C. J. of New-Hampshire,) Mr.
Robertson, of Louisiana, and many others
of the warmest supporters of the Adminis
tration of Mr. Madison ; and they voted
with Mr. Webster; and there is no more
truth in this charge against Mr. Webster,
than in the same charge, should it be made,
against Mr. Eppes, the Chairman of the
Committee of Ways and Means, son-in-law
of Mr. Jefferson, and leader of the then De
mocratic party in the House of Represen
tatives.
111. “On the 25th of March, he voted a
gainst the bill to call forth the Militia to
execute the laws of the Union and repel
invasion.”
This is wholly a mistake, or mis-state
ment. The Journal of the 25th of March
shows no such question voted upon, or pen
ding.
IV. “On the Ist of December, only a
few days before the meeting of the Hart
ford Convention, he voted against a bill to
provide additional revenue for defraying
the expenses of the Government and main
taining the public credit.”
The reference to the Hartford Convention
is merely for effect, and to make unfair and
false impressions, as it is known to all who
are not wilfully ignorant, that Mr. Webster
had nothing to do with the Hartford Con
vention.
The opponents of Mr. Webster have
been, again and again, challenged in vain,
to the proof, that he was in any manner
connected with the Hartford Convention, its
origin, or proceedings. No such proof has
been, or can be, presented. And yet, the
charge, so falsely made, and often reflected,
continues to be repeated.
As for the rest of the fourth allegation, it
only appears that Mr. Webster was in a
very small minority against a Bill laying
taxes on various articles, to some of which
taxes there were very serious objections,
however important the object, while money
could be raised in other modes.
This Bill proposed a direct tax upon va
rious articles. I; laid duties upon sales at
auction, on the postage of letters, on licenses
to retail wines, on licenses to retail spiritu
ous liquors, and foreign merchandize, on
carriages for the conveyance of persons,
and on plate, harness, &c. It is but fair
to ascribe Mr. Webster’s vote against this
hill to his objection to the form of some of
the ta.\e6, because the Journal shows that a
few days before, he voted in the affirmative
on a proposition to increase other taxes.
The ayes and noes given in the Journal,
show, that the vote on the tax bill referred
to was not, by any means, a test of parties,
or a party vote. Most of the leading op
position members having voted in the affir
mative. The Journal of the 26th October,
1814, shows that Mr. Webster proposed,
and voted for, some of the taxes provided
for by this bill, but, as he disapproved of
other taxes contained in it, he voted against
the whole bill.
V. “ On the 10th, he voted to postpone
indefinitely, a Bill authorizing the Presi
dent of the United States to call upon the
several States for their respective quotas of
Militia to defend the frontier against inva
sion.”
VI. “ On the 13th, he voted against the
same bill.” ? fj
The answer to these stands on th®krheS
ground as those to some of the prcclH|Hf
The reason is not given, but the derate
shows a reason, fair and honest, at least,
whatever may be thought of its strength
and validity. Mr. Webster never gave a
vole against defending the country, against
repelling invasion, or against executing the
laws, lie was as ready to defend the
country, as the warmest patriot, and we
have seen stated, what is no doubt true, that
when Portsmouth, the town in which he
then lived, was supposed to be in danger of
an immediate attack by the enemy, he was
placed, on the nomination of John Lang
don, at tiie head of a committee raised for
its defence.
In Mr. Webster’s speech 21st March,
1838, in reply to Mr. Calhoun, he challen
ged that gentleman to show that he ever
gave an unpatriotic vote, during the war, or
any other time. He admitted that, with
Mr. Calhoun, he had preferred to carry on
the war with England on the ocean, and had
indicated that preference by his vote, as
had Mr. Calhoun, and others. It is well
known that on the occasion referred to, Mr.
Calhoun, who has served with Mr. Webster
for nearly thirty j 7 ears in Congress, and
who well knew what his votes were during
the war, was perfectly silent when this
challenge was made.
VII. “He also voted against a bill to
provide additional revenue for the support
of Government and the public credit, and
also against an appropriation for rebuilding
the Capitol, which had been destroyed by
the enemy.”
The answ'er given to the fourth charge is
the answer to the seventh, except that un
der the 7th head is contained, also, a very
disingenerous charge—that Mr. Webster
voted also against a bill to provide for the
rebuilding of the Capitol after it had been
destroyed by the enemy ”
The unfairness and falsity of this charge
are shown by an examination of the record.
The Journal shews the following legisla
tion in respect to rebuilding the Capitol.—
It is to be remembered, however, that in
consequence of a domestic calamity, Mr.
Webster did not take his seat in Congress
in 1814, until the 15th day of October. On
the 26th September, Mr. Fisk, of New-
York, a distinguished friend of the adminis
tration of Mr. Madison, moved for a com
mittee “ to inquire into the expediency of
removing the seat of Government during
the session of Congress to a place of better
security and less inconvenience.” The
motion prevailed, ayes 72, noes 51. This
was not a party vote, as the record shows.
On the 3d October, the committee report
ed “ that it w 7 as inexpedient, at this time, to
remove the seat of Government,” but Mr.
Fisk, himself, moved to amend the report
by striking out the word “ inexpedient,” and
substituting “ expedient.” On this motion
the vote stood 68 to 68, and the Speaker
(Mr. Cheves) declaring himself for the a
mendment, it u 7 as adopted, and the amend
ed resolution was referred to a committee of
the whole House.
October 4. The order of the day on this
subject being called for, Mr. Newton mov
ed its indefinite postponement. This was
negatived, yeas 61, nays 77—and not a
party vote, as the Journal shows.
October 6. The report of the committee
having been reported back to the House
from the committee of the whole House,
was taken up, and on the question to agree
to it, the vote stood ayes 72 and 71 noes
So the report, recommending the removal
of the seat of Government from Washington
to some more convenient place was agreed
to, and a committee was appointed to bring
in a bill.
October 13. Mr. Fisk reported a Bill for
the temporary removal of the seat of Gov
ernment.
On the 15th October, Mr. Webster took
his seat for the first time for that season,
and on this day the question was taken
upon a motion to reject the Bill, and it was
negatived, ayes 76, noes 79. Mr. Web
ster voting in the negative—that is to say
he voted against the rejection of a Bill
(brought in by a leading friend of the Ad
ministration, and on which there had been,
in no stage of it a party vote) providing for
the removal of the seat of Government from
Washington. The Bill not being rejected,
was read a second time and committed to
a Committee of the whole House. Being
reported back from the committee to the
House, it was moved to amend the Bill by
inserting a section which provided, that the
President’s House and the Capitol should
be rebuilt on their former sites, in the city
of Washington, which was rejected, with
out a division.
In the committee of the whole, the Bill
had been amended, and one of the amend
ments was to name the place to which the
Government should be removed. (The
place does not appear on the Journal, but
is believed to have been Lancaster, Penn.)
The question then being put upon the en
grossment of the EJill, it passed in the nega
live, ayes 74, nays 83, and so the Bill was
lost. Mr. Webster voted in the affirma
tive. This was not a party vote ; the North
ern men, generally voting to remove the
Government to Lancaster, and the South
ern men were against it.
The next proceeding that appears upon
this subject took place on the 20th October,
when Mr. Lewis, of Virginia (whom Mr.
Jefferson called the residuary legatee of all
the federalism of the State of Virginia,)
moved for a committee to enquire into the
expediency of rebuilding the President’s
House and the Capitol, and the necessary
expense for that purpose. The resolution
was adopted without objection ; and a com
mittee appointed, which reported on the
21st November, and on that day Mr. Lewis
obtained leave to bring in a Bill making an
appropriation for repairing or re-building
in the city of Washington.
It does not appear that any further pro
ceedings took place in the House in regard
to the Bill introduced by Mr. Lewis; but
on the Bth of February a bill from the Sen
ate, to provide for the re-building of the
President’s house and the Capitol, being un
derconsideration in the House of Represcn
.talives, it was moved that no part of the
[money should be expended until the Presi
‘dent laid before Congress a report stating
the principles upon which the Capitol.
President’s house and the Post Office,
should be re-built, with an estimate of the
cost. This motion was rejected. Then
Mr. Stamford, of North Carolina, an ardent
supporter of the Aministration, moved “that
the Bill be re-committed with instructions
to report such change and plan of construe
lion ofthe public buildings as shall com
port with the convenience of the Govern
ment. This motion was lost. Mr. Eppes,
of Virginia, as appears by his vote, was of
opinion the money ought not to be voted
without some kind ofehange in the old plan
of construction, nor without some plan being
laid before the House to shew what the con
struction was to be, and the expense of it.
Mr. Webster was of this opinion also, and
on the third reading ofthe Bill, there were
67 y 7 eas and 55 noes, and the Bill passed.
Mr. Webster voted in the negative; and
this is the crime he is accused of. Mr.
Eppes, the Democratic leader of the House
and Chairman of the Committee of Ways
and Means voted with him. Mr. Fatrow
ofS. C. voted with him, Mr. Kerr, of Va.
Mr. Udree, ofPa. Mr. Taylor, of N. York,
Mr. Ingham, of Pa. Mr. Munfree, of N. C.
Mr. Williams, of N. C., Conard, of Pa
Mr. Stanford, of N. C. and other staunch
democrats, voted with Mr. Webster, and
many of Mr. Webster’s political friends
voted for the Bill.
The truth is, it was no party proceeding
and there was no party vote on it; and all
that can be made of it is that Mr. Webster
was not willing to vote away the money of
the People, until he knew how it was to be
laid out and expended, any more than Mr.
Eppes.
Every public man knows—all fair min
ded men admit, that justice! can be done to
no man by picking out a vote here and a
vote there, and publishing them w ithout
their proper connection, without accurate
ly stating the occasion, and without giving
the reason on which they W 7 ere founded.
Persevering efforts of this kind have been
made against Mr. Webster many times and
by different hands, but thus far without suc
cess. The way in which Mr. Webster has
himself met them, may be learned by the
following rxtracts from his speech in reply
to Mr. Calhoun, on the 22d March, 1838.
“ But sir, before attempting that, he has
something else to say. He had prepared, i;
seems, to draw comparisons himself. He
had intended to say something, if time had
allowed, upon our respective opinions and
conduct with regard to the war. If time
had allowed ! Sir, time does allow—tim<
must allow. A general remark of that kind
ought not to be, cannot be, left to produce its
effect, when that effect is obviously intended
to be unfavorable. Why did the gentleman
allude to my votes, or my opinions, respec
ting the war, at all, unless he had some
thing to say ? Does he wish to leave an
undefined impression that something was
done, or something said by me, not now
capable of defence or justification? some
thing not reconcilable with true patriotism?
He means that or nothing. And now, Sir,
let him bring the matter forth : let him take
the responsibility of the accusation : let him
state his facts. lam here this day to an
swer. Now is the time, and now is the
hour. I think we read, Sir, that one of the
good spirits would not bring against the
arch enemy of mankind a railing accusa
tion : and what is railing but general re
proach—an imputation without fact, time
or circumstance ? Sir, I call for particu
lars. The gentleman knows my whole
conduct well: indeed the journals show it
all, from the moment I came into Congress
till the peace. If I have done, then, Sir,
anything unpatriotic—any thing which as
far as love of country goes, will not bear
comparison with his or any man’s conduct
—let it now be stated. Give me the fact,
the time, the manner. He speaks of the
war ; that which is called the late war,
though it is now twenty-five years since it
terminated. He would leave an impres
sion that I opposed it. How? I was not in
Congress when war was declared, nor in
public life, any where. I was pursuing
my profession, and keeping company with
judges, sheriffs and jurors, and plaintiffs
and defendants. If I had been in Congress
and had enjoyed the benefit of hearing the
honorable gentleman’s speeches, for all I
can say, I might have concurred with him.
But I was not in public life. I never had
been for a single hour ; and was in no sit
uation therefore, to oppose or support the
declaration of war. lam speaking to the
fact sir ; and if the gentleman has any fact
let us know it.
Well, Sir, I came into Congress during
the war. I found it waged and raging.—
And what did I do here to oppose it ?
Look to the journals. Let the honorable
gentleman tax his memory. Bring up any
thing, if there be any thing to bring up—
not showing error of opinion, but showing
want of loyalty or fidelity to the country.
I did not agree to all that was proposed,
nor did the honorable gentleman. I did not
approve of every meusure, nor did he.
The war had been preceded ‘Si the re
strictive system and embargo. AS a pr’
vate individual, I certainly did not think
well of these measures. It appeared to mi
the embargo annoyed us as much as £
enemies, while it destroyed the bushr,..
and cramped the spirits of the People.
In this opinion 1 may have been right or
wrong, but the gentleman was himself of
the same opinion. Ho told us the other
day, as a proof of his mdepemJcnce of partv
on great questions, that ho differed with his
friends on the subject of the embargo. Ho
was decidedly and unalterably opposed to
it. It furnishes, in his judgment, there
fore, no imputation either on my patriotism
or the soundness of my political opinions,
that I was opposed to it also. I mean op
posed in opinion ; for I was not in Congress
and had nothing to do with the act creating
the embargo. And as to opposition to mea
sures for carrying on the war, after I came
into Congress, I again say, let the gentle
man specify—let him lay his finger on any
thing, calling for an answer, and he shall,
have an answer.
Mr. President, you were yourself in the
House during a considerable part of the
time. The honorable gentleman may make
a witness of you. He may make a witness,
of any body else. He may be his own wit
ness. Give us but some fact, some charge,
something capable in itself either of beii.
proved or disapproved. Prove any thing,
not consistent with honourable and
and patriotic conduct, and l am ready to
answer it. Sir, lam glad this subject has
been alluded to in a manner which justifies
me in taking public notice of it; because
1 am well aware, that, for ten years past,
infinite pains have been taken to find some
thing, in the range of these topics, which
might create prejudice against me in the
country. The journals have all been po
red over, and the reports ransacked and
scraps of paragraphs and half sentences
have been collected, put together in the
falsest manner, and then made to flare out,
as if they had been some discovery. But
all this failed. The next resort was to sup
posed correspondence. My letters were
sought for, to learn if, in the confidence of
private friendship, I had never said any
thing which an enemy could make use of.
With this view the vicinity of my former
residence has been searched, as with a
lighted candle. New Hampshire has been
explored, from the mouth ofthe Merrimack
to the White Hills. In one instance a gen
tleman had left the State gone five hundred
miles off and died. His papers were ex
amined, a letter was found, and I have un
derstood it was brought to Washington, a
conclave was held to consider it, and tiie
result was, that if there w 7 as nothing else a
gainst Mr. Webster, the matter had better
be left alone. Sir, I hope to irftFke everv
body of that opinion who brings against mo;
a charge of want of patriotism. Errors e
opinion can be found, doubtless on many
subjects; but as such conduct flows from
the feelings which animate the heart, I
know that no act of my life has had its or
igin in the want of ardent love of country 7 .
Sir, when I came to Congress, I found
the honorable gentleman a leading mem
ber of the House of Representatives. Well,
sir, in what did we differ? One of the
first measures of magnitude, after I came
here, was Mr. Dallas’s proposition for a
bank. It was a war measure. It was ur
ged as being absolutely necessary to ena
ble Government to carry on the war. Gov
ernment wanted revenue—such a bank it
was hoped would furnish it,and on that ac
count it was warmly pressed and urged on
Congress You remember all this Mr-
President. You remember how much some
persons supposed the success of the war,
and salvation of the country depended on
carrying that measure. Yet the honorable
member from South Carolina opposed that
bill. He now takes to himselfa good deal
of merit—none too much, but still a good
deal ofmerit, for having defeated it. Well,
sir, I agreed with him. It. was a mere pa
per bank—-a mere machine for fabricating
irredeemable paper. It was anew form
for paper money ; and, instead of benefit
ting the country, I thought it would plunge
her deeper and deeper in difficulty. I
made a speech on the subject; it has o,ften
been quoted. There it is; let
pleases read and examine it. I am not
proud of it for any ability it exhibits ; on the
other hand, I am not ashamed of it, for the
spirit which it manifests. But, sir, I say
again, the gentleman himselftook the lead
against this measure—this daring meas
ure of the Administration. I followed him ;
if I was seduced into error, or into unjusti
fiable opposition, there sits my seducer.
What sir, were other leading sentiments,
or leading measures of that day ? The
gentleman has adverted to one and’ a -Most
important one; I mean the Navy. He
says, and says truly, that at the commence
ment of the war the Navy was unpopular.
It was unpopular with his friends* who then
controlled the politics of the country. —
But he says he differed with his friends ;
in this respect ho resisted party influence
and party connection, and was the
and advocate of the Navy. Sir, I com
mend him forit. He showed his wisdom.!
That gallant little navy soon fought itself
into favor, and showed that a man who had
placed reliance on it, had not been disapJ
pointed.
Well, sir, in all this, I was exactly of the
same opinion as the honorable gentleman.
Sir, I do not know when my opinion,of
the importance of a naval force to the Uni
ted States had its origin. I can givg noj
date to my sentiments on this su!> /t> ~i be-]
cause I never entertained differen C/ iert||
ments. I remember, sir, that immedjiteUi
after coming into my profession, at a period
when the navy was most unpopular, when
it was called by all sort of hard names, aai
designated by many coarse epithets, on one
of those occasions, on which young men *4*
dress their neighbors, I ventured topu* fort®
a boys hand in defence of the Nays’- J foJ
sisted on its impor’ance. its jyi-ption ot*r?
