Funding for the digitization of this title was provided by R.J. Taylor, Jr. Foundation.
About News & planters' gazette. (Washington, Wilkes County [sic], Ga.) 1840-1844 | View Entire Issue (May 20, 1841)
“ 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?
