‘He who of old would rend the oak,Dreamed not of the rebound.’Mr.Clay’s election to the senate of the United States was for one session only—the unexpired portion of general Adair’s term, who had resigned his seat. Immediately after his initiation into his new office, he engaged actively in the senatorial business. He found the senate discussing the merits of a bill providing for the erection of a bridge over the Potomac. Its erection was strongly desired by the inhabitants of Washington and Alexandria, and as strongly deprecated by those of Georgetown. Many efforts were made by both parties to secure his services in aid of their particular predilections, but nothing definite could be ascertained respecting his views in relation to the bill, and he refused to commit himself by pledging his support or opposition to it. He was not, though, indifferent to the proposed measure, but diligently employed himself in settling in his own mind the question of its constitutionality, and in deciding on its expediency. The result of his investigations was the conviction that it was sanctioned by the constitution, and a judicious measure of internal policy. He so regarded it in a speech which he made in its favor, by which he succeeded in producing a similar conviction in the minds of all the members who had not pledged themselves to oppose it, and thus secured its passage. This speech, although never reported, is represented as one of his happiest efforts, distinguished for satire and humor, aswell as gravity and sound logical argument, indeed, as embodying all the characteristics of a perfect specimen of eloquence. From the ground there taken, and the first time publicly, as to what he deemed true governmental policy, in relation to internal improvement, he has never in a single instance receded. With proud satisfaction may the friends of that system of which he has been justly styled ‘the Father,’ point to this unparalleled example of unwavering adherence and fidelity to principles since demonstrated to be the only permanent source of our national prosperity. In what an interesting attitude do we behold their originator and vindicator—a youth from Kentuckian wilds, rising up in the midst of grave senators and hoary-headed sages, and stretching out a timid, yet patriot-nerved arm, towards the shrine of Liberty. He plucks from her altar a burning brand and applies it to those inflammable materials which his genius and talents had collected around him. The flame that followed, though bright, he did not suppose would be seen and felt far beyond the precincts of her home. The utmost stretch of his fancy could not present to him the cheering vision, of the deepest recesses of the woody wilds he had left, illumined by its benign beams—that they were destined to play around the summits of the Alleghanies, glance across the broad prairie, blaze over the lake, and flash along the river, penetrating every department of industrial life, with their developing, moulding, and preserving power, until the broad breast of our vast republic should beam bright and beautiful as the ‘brow of night.’An anecdote is related ofMr.Clay, aptly illustrating his ability to encounter opposition, in whatever manner presented. A senator from Connecticut had endeavored to inspire the younger members of the senate with a respect for him, nearly allied to awe, and to this end was accustomed to use towards them harsh and exceedingly haughty language, but especially to make an ostentatious display of his attainments and his supposed superior knowledge of the subject under discussion.Mr.Clay could ill brook his insolent looks and language, and haughty, overbearing manner, and took occasion in his speech to hit them off, which he did by quoting the laughable simile of Peter Pindar’s Magpie:‘Thus have I seen a magpie in the street,A chattering bird we often meet,A bird for curiosity well known,With head awry,And cunning eye,Peep knowingly into a marrow bone.’It would be difficult to say which was the greater, the merriment which this sally caused, or the chagrin of the senator mentioned.During the session an attempt was made to clothe the executive with power to arrest and confine colonel Burr, if deemed necessary by him, without experiencing the delays often consequent on theuncertain operations of law.Mr.Clay did not take an active part in the discussion that ensued, but barely recorded his vote against it. He regarded the suspension of the act of habeas corpus, by which alone this power could be conferred, as highly dangerous, and which could be justified in the greatest emergency only. He thought it, however, unadvisable to mingle in the discussion in consequence of having acted asMr.Burr’s counsel. The measure passed the senate, but was defeated in the lower house.In the month of February of the same year,Mr.Clay exerted himself to procure an appropriation for the purpose of constructing a canal in Kentucky, having presented a resolution to that effect. The subject was referred to a committee, to whom as chairman he submitted a lengthy and able report. He also brought forward a resolution to improve the navigation of the Ohio river, which was favorably received by the senate, and adopted with unanimity. The secretary of the treasury also was called upon to obtain all the information he could impart and report the same, relative to constructing canals and making such other internal improvements as might come legitimately within the sphere of congressional action. With what deep interestMr.Clay regarded the prosecution of these and kindred works, may be learned from the phraseology of the resolutions which he introduced recommending them. In the report before mentioned there is the following passage.‘How far is it the policy of the government to aid in works of this kind when it has no distinct interest?Whether indeed in such a case it has the constitutional power of patronage and encouragement, it is not necessary to be decided in the present instance. The resolution directing the secretary to procure information, is as follows. ‘Resolved, that the secretary of the treasury be directed to prepare and report to the senate at their next session a plan for the application of such means as are within the power of congress, to the purposes of opening roads and making canals, together with a statement of undertakings of that nature, which as objects of public improvement may require and deserve the aid of government, and also a statement of works of the nature mentioned, which have been commenced, the progress which has been made in them, and the means and prospect of their being completed, and all such information as in the opinion of the secretary shall be material, in relation to the objects of this resolution.’ This resolution passed almost unanimously.At the expiration of his senatorial term the citizens of Fayette county gave him their suffrages again for the state legislature, to which he was elected by a majority much larger than his most sanguine friends expected. In consequence of the partMr.Clay had performed in the affair of colonel Burr, his popularity sustained some diminution, which, however, was only temporary. His enemies attempted to excite similar feelings of odium towards himwith whichMr.Burr was visited, and partially succeeded, but which were dissipated by an address made byMr.Clay, in relation to his connection with him, and succeeded to such an overwhelming extent in turning the tide of calumny directed towards him, against his enemies, that it would have been exceedingly hazardous for any one, in the presence of his friends, to repeat the slanderous charges. He was elected speaker of the assembly at the next session, although opposed by a very popular member as a candidate for the same office. In this station he was distinguished for zeal, energy, and decision, exhibited in discharging its duties. He would sometimes engage in the debates of the house when a subject of unusual interest was before it. An attempt was made during this term worthy of the dark ages—an attempt to prohibit the reading of any British elementary work on law, and reference to any precedent of a British court. Contrary to what might have been expected, this monstrous proposition, this antinomian attempt found favor in the eyes of more than four-fifths of the members of the house, and had notMr.Clay rushed to the rescue, the whole system of common law, so far as Kentucky was concerned, would have been destroyed. His timely interference averted the catastrophe. The prohibition was advocated on the ground that it was inexpedient for an independent nation to derive any assistance in the administration of justice, from the legal decisions of a foreign court; especially from those of the one in question. It cannot be doubted that the friends of the prohibition were stimulated by ardent though somewhat bigoted patriotism. Those deep seated feelings of repugnance towards the nation at whose hands we had received such oppressive treatment but a few years previous, had not yet subsided, and very naturally extended to every thing pertaining to that nation. This fact partially apologizes for that intemperate and inconsiderate zeal with which more than four-fifths of the house set about demolishing what it was vitally important should be incorporated with the fabric of our liberties, and become a constituent part of the same. They desired to be removed as far as possible from Great Britain, in legal as well as in other respects, without carefully considering the effect of that removal. This law, viewed through the distorted medium of prejudice and hatred, seemed a huge excrescence on the body of our institutions, whose incumbency exerted a crushing instead of a sustaining influence, draining their energies, instead of imparting to them no inconsiderable portion of their vitality, and instantly the axe of judicial reform was seized by these sapient legislators for its amputation. Against this fratricidal attempt,Mr.Clay raised his powerful arm. He had witnessed with feelings of unfeigned regret, this rash attempt to lay violent hands on that system with which was associated every thing valuable and venerable in jurisprudence. That system which might justly be styled the legal Thesaurus ofthe world, founded by the hand of social exigency amid fearful convulsions, and reared by the united efforts of the most eminent jurisconsulats the world ever saw, he endeavored to shield against the ruthless assaults of this legislative vandalism. He was aware that the popular opinion considered this system as unnecessarily voluminous—an immense mixture of superfluities, prolixities, and absurdities, unadapted to, and unneeded by, our institutions. These erroneous apprehensions and long existing prejudices, he combated and corrected. He demonstrated its utility by a lucid exposition of the beauty, symmetry, and simplicity of its fundamental principles, and its necessity, by depicting in most glowing colors the disastrous consequences which would inevitably follow its destruction. Fearing, however, that the resolution would pass, he met its supporters in the spirit of compromise, and moved so to amend it, that the prohibition should extend to those decisions only, that had been given since the fourth day of July, 1776. His reasons for permitting those to remain, which were given previous to that period, were as convincing as they were sensible. He argued that up to the time of the declaration of independence, the laws of the one nation were those of the other, and that therefore the adoption of the primary resolution would be in effect abolishing our own laws. He is said to have given on this occasion, one of the most splendid specimens of elocution ever witnessed. A gentleman who was present describes it as a perfect model. ‘Every muscle of the orator’s face was at work; his whole body seemed agitated, as if each part was instinct with a separate life; and his small white hand, with its blue veins apparently distended almost to bursting, moved gracefully, but with all the energy of rapid and vehement gesture. The appearance of the speaker seemed that of a pure intellect, wrought up to its mightiest energies, and brightly glowing through the thin and transparent veil of flesh that enrobed it.’ His control over his auditory was most absolute and astonishing—now bathing them in tears, and now convulsing them with laughter, causing them to alternate between hope and fear, love and hate, at his bidding. When he concluded, scarcely a vestige of opposition remained, and the amended resolution was adopted almost by acclamation. While the prominence, which this and similar efforts gaveMr.Clay, was a source of satisfaction to him, and gratification to his friends, it was attended with the unpleasant effect of exposing him to the keenest shafts of his political enemies. In the year 1808 he was most violently assailed by Humphrey Marshall, an ultra federalist, a man of talents and eloquence. He let no opportunity pass unimproved to give vent to his rancorous feelings towardMr.Clay, and indeed towards all the prominent supporters ofMr.Jefferson’s administration. He had repeatedly attackedMr.Clay through the press, but now, being a member of the legislature, was enabled to make them in person.Mr.Clay’s friends, desirous of bringing them together, made arrangements to this effect, by not re-electing him speaker.Mr.Marshall seemed anxious to measure weapons withMr.Clay; following him in all his movements, and opposing him at every turn.In the early part of the session,Mr.Clay placed several resolutions before the house, relating to the embargo and British orders in council, remonstrating against the arbitrary demands of that nation, and pledging Kentucky to action,conformableto the decisions of the general government in relation thereto. They recognizedMr.Jefferson’s policy as sound, approved his measures, and pronounced him entitled to the thanks of his country, for the ability, uprightness, and intelligence which he displayed in the management, both of our foreign relations and domestic concerns.Mr.Marshall endeavored to procure their amendment, so as to condemn the embargo, and reprobate, without stint or measure,Mr.Jefferson’s administration. Their rejection was most emphatic, by a vote of sixty-four to one—he voting in their favor,—andMr.Clay’s were adopted by the same vote. But the vials ofMr.Marshall’s fiercest and most vituperative wrath were reserved for the occasion whenMr.Clay stood up in defence of his favorite policy, of affording protection to domestic industry, by introducing a resolution, declaring that it was expedient for each member of the house, for the purpose of giving unequivocal evidence of his attachment to this principle, to clothe himself in fabrics of domestic manufacture. This patriotic attempt was not only denounced by his foe as demagogic, and prompted by motives of the most inordinate and grasping ambition; but leaving the resolution, he attacked its author in genuine billingsgate style. Utterly regardless of every rule of gentlemanly courtesy, parliamentary propriety, or common decency even, he exhausted the vocabulary in search of opprobious and insulting epithets, which he applied in the spirit of the most liberal abuse. Such foul and unmerited treatment could not be quietly borne by a person ofMr.Clay’s ardent and sensitive temperament, and he rebuked him in language deservedly harsh, and calculated to sting him to the quick. The quarrel progressed until it reached that stage whereMr.Clay considered himself bound, according to Kentuckian interpretation of the law of honor, to challengeMr.Marshall to meet him and settle it in single combat. It was accepted, and the parties, pursuant to appointment, met and exchanged two or three shots, resulting in a slight wound to each. The duel was terminated by the interference of the seconds, who protested against its further procedure.In 1809, a case of contested election came before the legislature, in the settlement of which,Mr.Clay acted a conspicuous part. The electors of Hardin county had given four hundred and thirty-six votes for Charles Helm, three hundred and fifty for Samuel Haycroft, and two hundred and seventy-one for John Thomas, twoof whom were entitled to seats. It appeared thatMr.Haycroft, at the time of the election, held an office, which, according to the constitution of Kentucky, rendered him ineligible to a seat in the general assembly.Mr.Clay submitted his views of the case, in a report prepared by him, as chairman of a committee appointed in accordance with a motion made by him to inquire whetherMr.Haycroft was entitled to a seat, and if not, to decide on the claims ofMr.Thomas to one. This report was adopted unanimously, and has since constituted the rule in similar cases in Kentucky. Its doctrines are so sound, and at the same time so simple, that we cannot forbear inserting an extract. ‘The fact being ascertained thatMr.Haycroft held an office of profit under the commonwealth at the time of the election, the constitutional disqualification attaches and excludes him; he was ineligible and therefore cannot be entitled to his seat. It remains to inquire into the pretensions ofMr.Thomas. His claim can only be supported by a total rejection of the votes given toMr.Haycroft, as void to all intents whatever. It is not pretended that they were given by persons not qualified according to the constitution, and consequently, if rejected it must be not for any inherent objection in themselves, but because they have been bestowed in a manner forbidden by the constitution or laws. By an act passed18thof December, 1800, it is required that persons holding offices incompatible with a seat in the legislature, shall resign them before they are voted for; and it is provided that all votes given to any such person prior to such resignation shall be utterly void. This act, when applied to the case in question, perhaps admits of the construction that the votes given toMr.Haycroft, though void and ineffectual in creating any right in him to a seat in the house, cannot affect in any manner the situation of his competitor. Any other exposition of it is, in the opinion of your committee, wholly inconsistent with the constitution, and would be extremely dangerous in practice. It would be subversive of the great principle of free government that the majority shall prevail. It would operate as a deception of the people, for it cannot be doubted that the votes given toMr.Haycroft were bestowed upon a full persuasion that he had a right to receive them. And it would infringe the rights of this house, guarantied by the constitution, to judge of the qualifications of its members. It would, in fact, be a declaration that disqualification produces qualification—that the incapacity of one man capacitates another to hold a seat in this house. Your committee are therefore unanimously and decidedly of opinion that neither of the gentlemen is entitled to a seat.’ This act closed his career in the legislature of Kentucky, to which he tendered his resignation soon after. He was elected to the senate of the United States for two years—the unexpired portion ofMr.Buckner Thurston’s term, who had resigned his seat in that body. DuringMr.Clay’s continuance inthe legislature, he had produced the deepest impression of his ability and talents, and won the favor of his associates, to what extent may be determined from the fact of their selecting him for the office before named, by a vote of two thirds. He retired, accompanied with their expressions of sincere regret for his loss, and high estimate of his services. The annals of Kentucky present no brighter spot than that which in imperishable characters records his name. It is the oasis of her history, verdant and beautiful, begirt with the wreath of his noble deeds, brilliant with the gems of benevolence, philanthropy and patriotism.The manner in which he discharged his duties while connected with her legislature, is forcibly described by one intimately acquainted with him. ‘He appears to have been the pervading spirit of the whole body. He never came to the debates without the knowledge necessary to the perfect elucidation of his subject, and he always had the power of making his knowledge so practical, and lighting it so brightly up with the fire of eloquence, and the living soul of intellect, that without resorting to the arts of insidiousness, he could generally control the movements of the legislature at will. His was not an undue influence; it was the simple ascendency of mind over mind. The bills which originated with him, instead of being characterized by the eccentricities and ambitious innovations which are too often visible in the course of young men of genius suddenly elevated to power and influence, were remarkable only for their plain common sense, and their tendency to advance the substantial interests of the state. Though he carried his plans into effect by the aid of the magical incantations of the orator, he always conceived them with the coolness and discretion of a philosopher. No subject was so great as to baffle his powers, none so minute as to elude them. He could handle the telescope and the microscope with equal skill. In him the haughty demagogues of the legislature found an antagonist who never failed to foil them in their bold projects, and the intriguers of lower degree were baffled with equal certainty whenever they attempted to get any petty measure through the house for their own personal gratification or that of their friends. The people, therefore, justly regarded him as emphatically their own.’In the winter of 1809–10, soon after he took his seat the second time in the senate, his attention was turned towards a subject kindred to that to which it had been directed when he first became a member of that body—that of domestic manufactures. It is a remarkable fact, that the first two subjects which demanded and secured his aid on entering congress, were those of primary importance to the welfare of the republic—subjects subsequently shown, in the unillusive light of experience, to be not only as intimately connected with private as with public prosperity, but as constituting the verylungs of Liberty herself, generating and diffusingcopious alimental streams to every organ and member of her body, thus producing that health and vigor whereby she was enabled to extend proper encouragement and protection to all her children. Up to this period but little thought, and less action had been bestowed by government upon the subject of domestic manufactures, and the light duties imposed on articles of foreign growth and manufacture, were for the purpose of raising a revenue, and not intended to afford any protection or encouragement to any branch of domestic industry. Our country, instead of putting her young, muscular hands vigorously forth, and from her own inexhaustible resources constructing such articles as she needed, sat still in the same supine attitude of abject dependence on Great Britain which she was in when the war of the revolution commenced, stretching them out to foreign artificers, and receiving those articles at their hands. How long she might have remained in this inglorious position, it is difficult to determine, had not her relations with that nation assumed an aspect so threatening and belligerent, as to alarm and induce her to withdraw and employ them in her own protection. Now the increasing prospect of war served in some degree to arouse the nation from that lethargic state of indifference in which it had so long slumbered. At least it was deemed advisable to anticipate such an event, by making provision for the materials usually needed in such an emergency. Accordingly a bill was introduced to appropriate a sum of money to purchase cordage, sail cloths, and the ordinary munitions of war, and so amended as to give preference to articles of domestic growth and manufacture, provided the interests of the nation should not suffer thereby.Mr.Lloyd, a senator from Massachusetts, moved to strike out the amendment granting the preference, and supported his motion by a long and powerful speech. A general and interesting discussion ensued, in which the policy of extending direct protection by the government to domestic manufactures was considered.Mr.Clay was among the first to avow himself decidedly in favor of the policy, and by his speech made at the time proved both its expediency and wisdom. His remarks were plain and practical, chiefly confined to statements of facts, with brief comments, yet so philosophically and skilfully arranged as to produce their intended effect. In the course of his observations, he alluded to that preference generally given in our country to articles of foreign production, by saying, that ‘a gentleman’s head could not withstand the influence of the solar heat unless covered with a London hat; his feet could not bear the pebbles or the frost unless protected by London shoes; and the comfort and ornament of his person was consulted only where his coat was cut out by the shears of a tailorjust from London. At length, however, the wonderful discovery has been made that it is not absolutely beyond the reach of American skill and ingenuity to produce these articles, combiningwith equal elegance greater durability. And I entertain no doubt that in a short time the no less important fact will be developed, that the domestic manufactures of the United States, fostered by government, and aided by household exertions, are fully competent to supply us with at least every necessary article of clothing. I, therefore,for one, (to use the fashionable cant of the day,) am in favor ofencouraging them; not to the extent to which they are carried in England, but to such an extent as will redeem us entirely from all dependence on foreign countries.’Mr.Clay exposed the fallacy of the specious reasoning ofMr.Lloyd and other members hostile to the measure, who based their opposition on the ground of the bad practical tendency of a system of domestic manufactures fostered by government; and in illustration of which they cited the wretched and most famished condition of the operatives of Manchester, Birmingham, and other manufacturing cities of Great Britain. They maintained that the introduction of such a system into America would be attended with the same sad consequences—that these were the natural results of such a system, surrounded by such governmental encouragement, and inseparably connected with it.Mr.Clay in reply declared that this was anon sequiter—that although such consequences might be, and doubtless wereincidentalto such a system, it by no means followed that they were unavoidably and inevitably consequent upon it under all circumstances. The case instanced, he said, furnished no proof to that effect,—that the deplorable condition of the manufacturing districts of Great Britain had not been, neither could be satisfactorily accounted for in the manner attempted. It was not attributable to the fact of their being manufacturing districts—to the existence of that system which they were then considering, butto the abuse of that system. That it would be just as philosophical and logical, in view of the excruciating sufferings of the gormandizer, to conclude that the invariable tendency of food when introduced into the stomach is deleterious, as to adduce the squalor and wretchedness of England’s manufacturing population as proof positive of the pernicious tendency of the system under which they operated. This was not sufficiently restricted. It was too grasping—intended to make her the manufacturing monopolist of the world, and so shaped as to shut out effectually all rivalry. To this grand, distinctive feature of that system the evil in question could be directly traced—an evil that would be seen attendant on any vast, artificial establishment similarly conducted, whether encouraged by public or private patronage. That the objections, therefore, of opposing members lost all their validity when directed towards the system itself, which they possibly might possess when directed towards the feature mentioned, if it were not known that this was merely conventional, and not inherent, which might be retained or rejected at pleasure.It had not been, indeed it could not be denied, that to this system, badly as it was organized, England was materially indebted for that extensive developement of her natural resources which she had made, and especially for her maratime importance. That her literary and scientific institutions owed their permanence and eminence mainly to it, which had diffused also streams of beneficial influence through every part of her vast dominions. In the case of England, throwing the broad shield of her protection around this system, two results were witnessed, the satisfaction of her own and the world’s wants in relation to manufactures. But it was not intended nor desired to imitate her in this respect by carrying the principle of protection so far. The public aid solicited for the American manufacturer was moderate, just sufficient to enable him to supply the domestic demand for his fabrics. The measure, even then, was most obviously one of expedience and wisdom, and doubtless always would be; but there were indications to render it certain that it would soon become one of necessity. There was a strong prospect of our being deprived of our accustomed commercial intercourse, in consequence of the arbitrary and illegal proceedings of the belligerent nations of Europe, and that we should be obstructed by military power from an exercise of our right to carry the productions of our own soil to the proper market for them. The circumstances that then surrounded the country rendered it imperiously incumbent upon her to look to herself, and in herself, and from her inestimably valuable raw materials make for herself such articles as were requisite for her prosperity in peace, and protection in war. In short, to take such measures as to forever obviate the necessity of resorting to the workshops of the old world for them.Mr.Clay referred to our immense natural resources, scattered in rich and varied profusion over the land, as furnishing an argument in favor of the policy he was advocating. In contending for our manufacturing interests, it by no means followed, as had been intimated, that he deemed them of paramount importance to the nation. He did not hesitate to admit that on the culture of the soil her happiness and wealth chiefly depended;—that here lay the mine from which her treasury must be replenished by the hand of agriculture, if she would have an overflowing one, and expressed his decided belief that commerce was, and ought to be more indebted to it than to manufactures. He did not desire the department of the plough and sickle to be encroached upon by that of the spindle and shuttle; yet he contended that it was proper that we should supply ourselves ‘with clothing made by our own industry, and no longer be dependent for our very coats upon a country that was then an envious rival, and might soon be an enemy. A judicious American farmer in the household way,’ said he, ‘manufactures whatever is requisite for his family. He squanders but little in the gewgaws of Europe.He presents in epitome what the nation ought to bein extenso. Their manufactures should bear the same proportion, and effect the same object in relation to the whole community, which the part of the household employed in domestic manufacturing bears to the whole family.’ The view taken byMr.Clay was so enlightened, sound and practical, as to commend the bill to their most favorable consideration, and induce them to adopt it as amended. The salutary effects that flowed from it soon became apparent. The public purveyors immediately succeeded in making arrangements for the specified articles with American capitalists, on most advantageous terms, so that when the storm burst upon us, as it did soon after, though not perfectly prepared for its encounter, we were not as defenceless as we should have been, had our dependence been placed exclusively on foreign nations. The impetus given to domestic manufactures was astonishing, resulting in their increase during the following year over those of the year previous, to the amount of more than fifty millions of dollars. Of this increase,Mr.Madison, in his message to congress the following session, makes most favorable mention, by declaring that he felt particular satisfaction in remarking that an interior view of the country presented many grateful proofs of the extension of useful manufactures; the combined product of professional occupation and household industry. He expressed his conviction that the change which had introduced these substitutes for supplies heretofore obtained by foreign commerce, might, in a national view, be justly regarded as of itself more than a recompense for those privations and losses resulting from foreign injustice, which first suggested the propriety of fostering them. Here then, from that system, while yet in the germ, was gathered an antepast of that immense fruition, which it was destined to yield, when its stately trunk had towered in symmetry and majesty toward heaven, imparting prosperity and security to millions of freemen, dwelling beneath its branches. But let it not be forgotten that it is to the persevering and unremitting exertions of Henry Clay that we are indebted for the planting and the growth of that goodly tree.He had scarcely ceased from his efficient labors in procuring the adoption of the bill before mentioned, when another opportunity presented itself for the exercise of that expansive patriotism for which his every public act is distinguished, and one which he embraced with his characteristic eagerness and promptitude. There was strong prospect that the United States would be dismembered of a portion of her territory—the large and fertile district included between the Mississippi and Perdido Rivers, being the present states of Mississippi and Alabama, and the territory of West Florida, or the greater part of it. To prevent this,Mr.Clay came boldly forth, triumphing over all opposition, and clearly vindicated her right to it. The United States became possessed of it in 1803,when it was ceded to her by France, with every thing appertaining just as she had received it from Spain, who formally acquiesced in the cession in 1804. The United States, from conciliatory motives partly, and partly in consequence of events which they could not control, suffered it to remain in the possession of Spain, who temporarily exercised authority over it. But her authority was now being subverted, a large portion of the inhabitants of the province refusing to submit to it. Reports also were rife that agents despatched by the king of England, were actively engaged in endeavoring to induce the people to come under British government. In this emergency, president Madison, thinking that longer delay in taking possession of it would expose the country to ulterior events which might affect the rights and welfare of the Union, contravening, perhaps, the views of both parties, endangering the tranquillity and security of the adjoining territories, and afford fresh facilities to violations of our revenue and commercial laws, issued his proclamation, directing that immediate possession should be taken of the said territory.Mr.Claiborne, governor of Orleans territory, was instructed to take immediately the requisite steps for annexing it to that over which he presided, and to see that the laws of the United States were rigidly enforced, to which he yielded prompt obedience. At this conjuncture the cry that came up from the party opposing his administration was loud and long. They attempted to prove that this measure was not only impolitic and uncalled for, but extremely unjust toward Spain, intended to involve us in a war with England, who, as her ally, would take umbrage on account of it, and that it was also unconstitutional. The federalists, through the press, and in legislative assemblies, represented the country as already surrounded in circumstances of great peril in consequence of this procedure. A warm debate ensued in congress on a bill reported by a committee to whom the proclamation was referred, which declared that the laws then in force in the territory of Orleans, extended and had full force to the river Perdido.Mr.Pope, one of the committee, in a speech made at the time, explained the grounds which induced them to make the report, and was followed byMr.Horsey, a senator from Delaware, in opposition. He pronounced the title of the United States invalid, thought it inexpedient to take possession of the territory by force, and questioned the right of the president to issue his proclamation to that effect. He declared that document bothwar and legislation, inasmuch as it authorized occupancy by military force, and invested a governor with all the authorities and functions in regard to the province in question, that he legitimately possessed in presiding over his own. His sympathies seemed to be strongly enlisted in behalf of the king of Spain, whose prospective loss he deplored in language of deep commiseration. His speech was in many respects able, but it had been much more appropriately deliveredin Madrid at the foot of the Spanish monarch’s throne, and in the presence of his court, than at Washington, beneath the ægis of liberty, and surrounded by patriotic and intelligent freemen.Mr.Clay regarded with feelings of deep regret as well as surprise, this anti-republican effort, this unnatural attempt by a son of Freedom to support the unfounded pretensions of a foreign prince to a portion of her own blood-bought soil,—that soil from which he drew his sustenance, and on which were reared those institutions that constitute it an appropriate asylum for the down-trodden of every other nation beneath the canopy of heaven. Although laboring under a severe indisposition, he could not, while he possessed the power of utterance, sit tamely still and listen to such sentiments promulgated in the very temple of liberty. He rose to reply in that graceful, dignified manner, so peculiar to himself. As he drew up his tall form into that commanding attitude which he was accustomed to assume as preliminary to a mighty parliamentary effort, it could be easily discovered in his countenance, what was the nature of his feelings, and how deep the fountain of eloquence had been stirred within him, whose effusions, directed with unerring precision, were soon to bear his auditory away on their resistless tide, to the goal on which his keen eye was fixed. This speech ofMr.Clay may justly be regarded as one of the most finished specimens of argumentative eloquence, profound investigation, purity of diction, and logical reasoning, that the records of any legislative body can furnish. It evinced by its demonstrative and inferential character, the most thorough and patient examination of the subject, in all its minute details, and indicated most clearly his main design to be, not a brilliant and striking display, calculated to please and captivate the fancy, but to array before the senate a formidable front of facts, to hem in the whole house with a wall of adamantine argument, which could be neither scaled nor sapped; and he was completely successful. He commenced by a brief exordium of the most caustic irony, which fell like molten lead upon the heads of his opponents. He expressed his admiration at the more than Aristidean justice which prompted certain gentlemen, in a question of territorial title between the United States and a foreign nation, to espouse the cause of the foreign, presuming that Spain in any future negotiations, would be magnanimous enough not to avail herself of these voluntary concessions in her favor in the senate of the United States. He said he would leave the honorable gentleman from Delaware to bewail the fallen fortunes of the king of Spain, without stopping to inquire whether their loss was occasioned by treachery or not, or whether it could be traced to any agency of the American government. He confessed that he had little sympathy for princes, but that it was reserved forthe people, the great mass of mankind, and did not hesitate to declare that the people of Spain had it most unreservedlyand most sincerely. He went into a minute and circumstantial history of the territory in dispute, and proved by a chain of reasoning the most clear and satisfactory, that its title was in the United States. In doing this he adopted that mode which the nature of the subject suggested, by a critical examination of all the title papers, transfers, and all other documents in any way relating or appertaining to it. He examined the patent granted by Louis theXIVto Crozat in 1712, which patent covered the province in question, and declared that it was at that time designated by the name of the Province of Louisiana, and was bounded on the west by old and new Mexico, and on the east by Carolina. This document he regarded as settling the question beyond all doubt, that the country under consideration was embraced within the limits of Louisiana. He proved that it originally belonged to France, who claimed it by virtue of certain discoveries made by La Solle and others during the seventeenth century; that she ceded it to Spain in 1762, who retroceded it to France in 1800, by the treaty ofSt.Ildefonso, and that it belonged to the United States by purchase from her as a portion of Louisiana in 1803. After the most thorough investigation, considering all the ambiguous expressions unintentionally incorporated with the treaties relating to the territory, and applying to them the most impartial and rigid rules of construction, he presented the title of the United States to it as most indefeasible, and as standing on a basis which all the sophistry, and ingenuity, and ill-directed sympathy of the opposition could not shake. He then proceeded to inquire if the proclamation directing the occupation of property thus acquired by solemn treaty was an unauthorized measure of war and legislation. In this, his vindication of the course pursued byMr.Madison was most triumphant. He proved by citing acts of congress passed in 1803–4, that the president was fully empowered to authorize the occupation of the territory.He maintained that these laws furnished‘a legislative construction of the treaty correspondent with that given by the executive,and they vest in this branch of the government indisputably a power to take possession of the country whenever it might be proper in his discretion; so far, therefore, from having violated the constitution in the action he had taken and caused to be taken, he had hardly carried out its provisions, one of which expressly enjoined it upon him to see that the laws of the United States were faithfully and impartially executed, in every district of country over which she could rightfully exercise jurisdiction. After settling the questions of title and constitutional action of the president, he proceeded to notice some of the arguments of the opposition against taking forcible possession, which attempted to show that war would result. ‘We are told,’ said he, ‘of the vengeance of resuscitated Spain. If Spain, under any modification of her government, choose to make warupon us for the act under consideration, the nation, I have no doubt, will be willing to meet war. But the gentleman’ (Mr.Horsey) ‘reminds us that Great Britain, the ally of Spain, may be obliged by her connection with Spain to take part with her against us, and to consider this measure of the president as justifying an appeal to arms. Sir, is the time never to arrive when we may manage our own affairs without the fear of insulting his Britannic majesty? Is the rod of British power to be for ever suspended over our heads? Does congress put on an embargo to shelter our rightful commerce against the piratical depredations committed upon it on the ocean? we are immediately warned of the indignation of offended England. Is a law of non-intercourse proposed? the whole navy of the haughty mistress of the seas is made to thunder in our ears. Does the president refuse to continue a correspondence with a minister who violates the decorum belonging to his diplomatic character, by giving and deliberately repeating an affront to the whole nation? we are instantly menaced with the chastisement which English pride will not fail to inflict. Whether we assert our rights by sea or attempt their maintenance by land—whithersoever we turn ourselves, this phantom incessantly pursues us. Already has it had too much influence on the councils of the nation. It contributed to the repeal of the embargo—that dishonorable repeal which has so much tarnished the character of our government.Mr.president, I have before said on this floor, and now take occasion again to remark, that I most sincerely desire peace and amity with England; that I even prefer an adjustment of all differences with her, before one with any other nation. But if she persist in a denial of justice to us, or if she avails herself of the occupation of West Florida to commence war upon us, I trust and hope that all hearts will unite in a bold and vigorous vindication of our rights.’ The effect produced byMr.Clay’s speech was most obvious, inducing many of the most strenuous opposers of the course pursued by the president, who were firmly resolved on recording their votes in disapproval of it, to come frankly forward and candidly to acknowledge their error, and express their determination to sustain him in this measure. They were true to their declaration, and thus the approval of the proclamation was secured. But ‘had there been at that time in the senate no democratic champion likeMr.Clay—one who could stand up among the tall and fierce spirits of faction to vindicate the rights of our country, and utter a solemn warning in the ears of those who would wantonly throw the key of her strength into the hands of an enemy—it is difficult to say how imminently dangerous might have been the present condition of the republic.’Mr.Clay’s labors during the remainder of the session were arduous and unremitted, as well as most valuable, to particular individuals as well as to the nation. The discharge of his dutytowards his country, he seems ever to have considered of the most pressing importance, and it is gladdening to the heart of every true American to witness the disinterested, the noble and generous manner with which it was performed. In whatever relations, and however circumstanced we find him, we see him presenting, in this respect, one unvaried aspect. He took an active part in all the discussions of consequence, where any important and essential principle was involved. He was several times appointed one of a committee, to whom matters of interest were referred. Here he displayed accurate discrimination, soundness of judgment, and great ability, in immediately discerning and seizing the strong points of a subject, calculated to render conspicuous its merits or expose its defects. He acted as chairman of a committee, to whom was recommitted a bill, granting a right of preëmption to purchasers of public lands, in certain cases, and reported it with amendments, which were read. After receiving some alterations, it was again recommitted, reported, and finally passed the senate. The cause of the poor settler and the hardy pioneer could not have been committed to better hands—to one who would more studiously and feelingly consult their best interests. Experience had made him acquainted with the privations, wants, and toils, which they were compelled to encounter, in causing the forest to recede before their slow, fatiguing march, and this opened a wide avenue to the fountain of his sympathetic feelings, which gushed spontaneously forth whenever he contemplated the evils and the difficulties which beset their path. This he exerted himself to render as smooth as possible. Hence he early and continually advocated a most liberal policy towards that class of his country’s yeomanry, maintaining that she should extend to them every facility in her power, consistent with wisdom and justice.Mr.Clay has always watched the movements of the emigrant with feelings of almost paternal solicitude, and wherever he has pitched his temporary tent, or made his permanent abode, there he has exerted himself to induce his country to extend her beneficial legislation, and to lay at his door as many of the benefits of civilized life as possible, with their ameliorating influences. How illiberal then, how unjust the attempts of those inimical to him, to convert his noble benevolence into a weapon of hostility against him, by endeavoring to procure credence for those senseless reports, which represented him as unfriendly to the interests of the emigrant, and as endeavoring to aggrandize himself at their expense. But time is fast dispelling the cloud of error, which was thus raised and caused to brood over the public mind, and the sun-light of truth is pouring in its irradiating beams, most clearly revealing the justice and wisdom of his advocacy, in relation to the public domain.His attention was engrossed by other and correlative subjects soon after—that of the protection of the hardy back-woods men andfrontier inhabitants against Indian depredations, and the regulating of intercourse between them. He reported a bill supplementary to an act entitled ‘an act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontier.’ This was placed before a committee, of which he was chairman; and by his philanthropic exertions and diligent labors, the whole west were laid under deep obligations to him, for those wise measures adopted in reference to them, whereby their interests and lives were shielded against the predatory attack of the aborigines.He warmly espoused the cause of the people of Orleans Territory, who were desirous of forming a constitution and government. Accordingly, on the twentieth of April of the same session, he succeeded in causing such action to be taken relative to the subject, as to secure an amendment of a bill before the senate, so as to require the laws, records and legislative proceedings of the state, to be in the English language. A few days subsequent, leave of absence was granted him during the remainder of the session.On the third day of December, 1810, the commencement of the third session of the eleventh congress,Mr.Clay was found in his place in the senate. A subject that had been much agitated in private many months previous, and up to that time, was now brought forward for public discussion—that of re-chartering the United States bank. This was the all absorbing topic of the session, and called into exerciseMr.Clay’s most vigorous powers. His instructions from the legislature of Kentucky required him to oppose the re-charter of that institution, and these were in coincidence with his own views relative to it. It had been his design to limit his opposition to merely recording his vote against the renewal of its charter, without entering into the discussion which would probably ensue, but the virulent and menacing character of the proceedings of those advocating its re-charter, unsealed his lips, and caused him to apply the lash of his eloquence to their backs with most tremendous effect. These embraced the whole body of the federal, and many of the democratic party—an array of members and strength which might have deterred any ordinary man from confronting. Against this, he stood almost alone, deserted even byMr.Pope, his colleague: yet he stood firm; and, from the effect that followed his exertions, proved himself more deserving the title of ‘Macedonian Phalanx,’ than the federal party to whom he had applied it. The attack was provoked by that party, and it was made in the spirit of conscious might, which not only meets opposition with the utmost certainty of overthrowing, but which seeks it. He alluded to that deep-seated prejudice in the public mind, against the bank, and the foundation of that prejudice. It did not escape his notice that the bank was created by the federal party—its warmest and most devoted friends, then resorting toevery expedient and means to prolong its existence. He was also well aware of the aid rendered that party, byMr.Crawford and others, who had in this measure left the democratic ranks and gone over to it. He referred, also, to the astounding fact, that the institution was in reality in the hands of foreigners, since foreign capitalists were more deeply interested in its continuance than our own, who owned a moiety only of its stock; neither did he fail to suggest, that perhaps the violent struggle then going on to keep it in existence, was instigated and maintained, to no inconsiderable extent, by foreign influence. In no equivocal manner he depicted the absurdity, to say nothing of the danger, of permitting Great Britain to acquire such an influence as she evidently could acquire, by having her monetary interests, to so great an extent, identified with the United States bank—an influence which would place facilities in her hands, that, in case she felt disposed, she could use to our most serious detriment. These and many other considerations, he brought forward as furnishing good and valid ground of alarm, and legitimately calculated to awaken patriotic opposition. But his greatest fundamental objection was one which he derived from the constitution itself, and one which he urged with a vehemence sure to prevail. He maintained that no specific provision was found in that instrument, authorizing or permitting the charter of the bank, neither could it be so construed as to imply the power to that effect. In opposing, therefore, the renewal of its charter, his remarks were principally confined to the objectionable feature of its unconstitutionality; and they furnish one of the strongest arguments against a national bank ever made, and one that is often referred to as authority of a high order. It may be well to insert a portion of his speech, illustrative of their pertinence and beauty.‘This vagrant power to erect a bank, after having wandered throughout the whole constitution in quest of some congenial spot to fasten upon, has been at length located, by the gentleman from Georgia, on that provision which authorized congress to lay and collect taxes. In 1791 the power is referred to one part of the instrument, and in 1811 to another. Sometimes it is alleged to be deducible from the power to regulate commerce. Hard pressed here, it disappears, and shows itself under the grant to coin money.‘What is the nature of the government? It is emphatically federal, vested with an aggregate of specific powers for general purposes, conceded by existing sovereignties, who have themselves retained what is not so conceded. It is said that there are cases in which it must act on implied powers. This is not controverted, but the implication must be necessary, and obviously flow from the enumerated power with which it is allied. The power to charter companies is not specified in the grant, and I contend is of a nature not transferable by mere implication. It is one of the most exalted acts of sovereignty. In the exercise of this giganticpower we have seen an East India Company erected, which has carried dismay, desolation and death, throughout one of the largest portions of the habitable world—a company which is in itself a sovereignty, which has subverted empires, and set up new dynasties, and has not only made war, but war against its legitimate sovereign. Under the influence of this power we have seen arise a South Sea Company, and a Mississippi Company, that distracted and convulsed all Europe, and menaced a total overthrow of all credit and confidence, and universal bankruptcy. Is it to be imagined that a power so vast would have been left by the constitution to doubtful inference? It has been alleged that there are many instances in the constitution, where powers in their nature incidental, and which would necessarily have been vested along with the principal, are nevertheless expressly enumerated, and the power to make rules and regulations for the government of the land and naval forces, which it is said is incidental to the power to raise armies and provide a navy, is given as an example. What does this prove? How extremely cautious the convention were to leave as little as possible to implication. In all cases where incidental powers are acted on, the principal and incidental ought to be congenial with each other, and partake of a common nature. The incidental power ought to be strictly subordinate, and limited to the end proposed to be attained by the specific power. In other words, under the name of accomplishing one object which is specified, the power implied ought not to be made to embrace other objects which are not specified in the constitution. If then, as is contended, you could establish a bank to collect and distribute the revenue, it ought to be expressly restricted to the purpose of such collection and distribution. It is mockery worse than usurpation, to establish it for a lawful object, and then to extend it to other objects which are not lawful. In deducing the power to create corporations, such as I have described it, from the power to collect taxes, the relation of principal and incident are prostrated and destroyed. The accessory is exalted above the principal. As well might it be said that the great luminary of day is an accessory, a satellite to the humblest star that twinkles forth its feeble light in the firmament of heaven.‘Suppose the constitution had been silent as to an individual department of the government, could you, under the power to lay and collect taxes, establish a judiciary? I presume not; but if you could derive the power by mere implication, could you vest it with any other authority than to enforce the collection of the revenue? A bank is made for the ostensible purpose of aiding in the collection of the revenue, and whilst it is engaged in this, the most inferior and subordinate of all its functions, it is made to diffuse itself throughout society, and to influence all the great operations of credit, circulation, and commerce. Like the Virginia justice,you tell the man whose turkey had been stolen, that your books of precedents furnish no form for his case, but then you will grant him a precept to search for a cow, and when looking for that he may possibly find his turkey! You say to this corporation, we cannot authorize you to discount—to emit paper—to regulate commerce—no! our book has no precedents of that kind. But then we can authorize you to collect the revenue, and whilst occupied with that, you may do whatever else you please.‘What is a corporation, such as the bill contemplates? It is a splendid association of favored individuals, taken from the mass of society, and invested with exemptions, and surrounded by immunities and privileges. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts has said that the original law establishing the bank was justly liable to the objection of vesting in that institution an exclusive privilege,—the faith of the government being pledged that no other bank should be authorized during its existence. This objection, he supposes, is obviated by the bill under consideration; but all corporations enjoy exclusive privileges—that is, the corporators have privileges which no others possess; if you create fifty corporations instead of one, you have only fifty privileged bodies instead of one. I contend that the states have the exclusive power to regulate contracts, to declare the capacities and incapacities to contract, and to provide as to the extent of the responsibility of debtors to their creditors. If congress have the power to create an artificial body and say it shall be endowed with the attributes of an individual, if you can bestow on this object of your own creation the ability to contract, may you not in contravention of state rights confer upon slaves, infants, andfemes covert, the ability to contract? And if you have the power to say that an association of individuals shall be responsible for their debts only in a certain limited degree, what is to prevent an extension of a similar exemption to individuals? Where is the limitation upon this power to set up corporations? You establish one in the heart of a state, the basis of whose capital is money. You may erect others, whose capital shall consist of land, slaves, and personal estate, and thus the whole property within the jurisdiction of a state might be absorbed by those political bodies. The existing bank contends that it is beyond the power of a state to tax it, and if this pretension be well founded, it is in the power of congress by chartering companies to dry up all the sources of state revenue. This government has the power to lay taxes, to raise armies, provide munitions, make war, regulate commerce, coin money,etc.,etc.It would not be difficult to show as intimate a connection between a corporation established for any purpose whatever, and some one or other of those great powers, as there is between the revenue and the bank of the United States.’Mr.Clay noticed the danger to which the United States wereexposed from the fact that the capital of the bank was principally subject to foreign control, in the following glowing language.‘The power of a nation is said to consist in the sword and the purse. Perhaps at last all power is resolvable into that of the purse, for with it you may command almost every thing else. The specie circulation of the United States is estimated by some calculators at ten millions of dollars; and if it be no more, one moiety is in the vaults of this bank. May not the time arrive when the concentration of such a vast portion of the circulating medium of the country in the hands of any corporation will be dangerous to our liberties? By whom is this immense power wielded? By a body who, in derogation of the great principle of all our institutions, responsibility to the people, is amenable only to a few stockholders, and they chiefly foreigners. Suppose an attempt to subvert this government—would not the traitor first aim, by force or corruption, to acquire the treasure of this company? Look at it in another aspect. Seven tenths of its capital are in the hands of foreigners, chiefly English subjects. We are possibly on the eve of a rupture with that nation. Should such an event occur, do you apprehend that the English premier would experience any difficulty in obtaining the entire control of the institution. Republics, above all other governments, ought most seriously to guard against foreign influence. All history proves that the internal dissensions excited by foreign intrigue, have produced the downfall of almost every free government that has hitherto existed; and yet gentlemen contend that we are benefited by the possession of this foreign capital!’His powerful arguments and convincing reasoning prevailed—resulting in a most signal victory over those opposed to him, who entered on the discussion with sanguine expectations of success. The charter was not then renewed. Many more subjects of interest came before the senate during the session of 1810–11, in the consideration of which he displayed his usual zeal and solicitude in behalf of the interests of the commonwealth, which were now with favor generally recognized.Mr.Clay had produced an impression of his eloquent powers and brilliant talents, that was not confined to his associates and those witnessing their every day exercise, but it was as extensive as his country. His reputation as a debater, orator, and sound logical reasoner, was now immovably established. The star of his fame, which first appeared in the political horizon, under circumstances of doubt and gloom, struggling through dense clouds of indigence and obscurity, emitting what political animosity termed anignis fatuusglare around the cabins of the emigrant and the hunter in western forests, was now in theascendant, illuminating and vivifying, not only the woody homes, the rural hamlets, and sylvan abodes of his own forest land, but mingling its bright beams most beautifully with those that streamed fromLiberty’s altar. Henceforth it will be our delightful duty to mark it steadily careering its glorious way upwards, higher and higher, making its blessed influences to be felt in every nook and corner of our extensive country, penetrating the kingly court, flashing amid the diadems of crowned heads, and introducing hope and peace into the tenement of the oppressed on distant shores. It was obvious to the least penetrative vision that it was then rapidly and steadfastly approaching the zenith, when its effulgence would illumine the world.At the close of his second term of service, which was for two years, he returned to Kentucky, but his fame had preceded him—the eyes of Kentuckians had been fixed gratefully on him during his senatorial services, and they were prepared to return him speedily to the halls of congress, to adorn which, he had given such abundant proof of his capability. According to the proclamation of the president, congress convened on the fourth day of November, 1811, and on the first ballot for speaker to the house of representatives,Mr.Clay was elected by a majority of thirty-one over the opposing candidates. When it is recollected that this was his first appearance in that body, it must be regarded as a remarkable occurrence, and entirely aside from the ordinary course of events; indeed, as an instance of early and strong confidence reposed in one, to which a parallel cannot be found in the history of any individual. There were many circumstances, however, explanatory of this hasty, unreserved reliance. He was known to have acted in that capacity in the legislature of Kentucky, and to have discharged its duties with singular ability and acceptance; also of his conspicuity in the senate they were not ignorant, and perhaps a desire to seeMr.Randolph, of Virginia, restrained in his gross violations of order and decorum, for which he was noted, whom it was imaginedMr.Clay could curb, induced several members to vote for him, who otherwise had not supported him for the office. That confidence so generously, spontaneously, and by him so unexpectedly yielded, he very appropriately noticed, in a pertinent speech made by him on assuming the responsible station, and he proved by his faithfulness, zeal, and decision, with which he discharged its onerous duties, that it was most judiciously confided. He showed himself equal to the task of curbingMr.John Randolph, or any other turbulent spirit in the assembly over which he presided. He was subsequently chosen several times to fill the same important post, and never did he betray his trust, or disappoint the just expectations of his friends. The manner in which he exercised his authority may be considered as somewhat stern, slightly approximating to arbitrariness, evincing great decision and firmness of character, and a disposition not to tolerate the slightest disrespect or indignity towards the house. During the long period in which he discharged the functions of speaker, including many sessionsof great turbulence and strife, not one of his decisions was ever reversed on an appeal from the chair. This fact speaks volumes in his praise.At the time when he was inducted into his office, the affairs of the republic were in an exceedingly critical condition. Those who had been sustaining themselves with the cherished expectations that England would repeal her orders in council, since the revocation of the edicts of France had removed the causes inducing their passage, now utterly abandoned them, on beholding her, instead of relaxing, enforcing them more rigorously than ever. To every unbiassed mind, the time seemed to have arrived when it was necessary to rise and put a stop to the long series of unprovoked depredations and outrages, committed against our commerce, by both that and the French nation. Such was the juncture of affairs as to make it obvious that if the American nation would preserve the semblance of freedom even, and command national respect, she must resort to more efficient measures than she had hitherto employed; that she must retrieve her tarnished honor, and vindicate boldly her rights. France manifested some disposition to be influenced by the remonstrances of the United States against her spoliations, by rescinding the opprobious Berlin and Milan decrees of Napoleon, which she had so construed as to make them sanction the seizure and confiscation of our property. Not so, however, with Great Britain; she refused to recognize their repeal, and even pretended to deny that they had been revoked. She still persisted in obstructing the commerce of America, declaring all the ports of France in a state of blockade, seizing our merchantmen bound to them, and confiscating their cargoes, in direct violation of the law of nations, permitting any neutral power to trade to any foreign port, when the blockade is not maintained by the actual presence of an adequate force. But England, by proclamation, blockaded every French port, from the Elbe to Brest, interdicting all vessels from entering them which did not carry on their trade through her, and seized such as made the attempt, while at the same time she neglected to keep a naval force on the coast of France sufficient to legalize the blockade. Her cruisers pursued our trading vessels to the very mouths of our own rivers and harbors, and seized, condemned, and confiscated them for violating thispseudoblockade. It seemed, by the number and enormity of the illegalities practiced towards us by Great Britain, as though she had commenced an organized, systematic crusade against our commerce, which aimed at nothing less than its utter extinction. But her barbarous system of impressment capped the climax of her cruelties. Under the assumed right of searching our ships, thousands of our seamen had been forced into her service on suspicion that they were British subjects. This execrable custom had carried seven thousand American freemen into captivity,as appeared from official reports made during that session, and the number was constantly augmenting; scarcely a breeze came across the Atlantic without wafting to our shores intelligence of some fresh enormity. To submit quietly to such unheard of oppression, would be an anomaly in the history of civilized nations. To expect redress by mild measures was out of the question. These had long been tried and found ineffectual. Madison, Pinckney, and Monroe, in their correspondence with the British government, had remonstrated again and again, but to no other purpose than to embolden the aggressor in his nefarious proceedings. There seemed, therefore, no alternative left the United States but to put themselves strongly on the defensive, and by force of arms, put a stop to these accumulating injuries. Every thing lovely in liberty, every thing sacred and hallowed in the memory of those by whom it was won, protested against further forbearance, and forbade further delay in unsheathing the sword of retributive justice. In short, the conviction had become deep and settled that nothing short ofwarcould preserve an inch of canvass on an American vessel, on the face of the ocean.Thus circumstanced, the United States seemed to be shut up to forcible resistance. The eyes of the whole country were turned towards congress, looking for measures of relief. It had been convened earlier than usual, that the subject of a declaration of war might come speedily before them. It is needless to remark thatMr.Clay’s views were favorable to war. An individual like him, jealous of his country’s honor almost to a fault, who could never contemplate oppression but with feelings of the deepest detestation, nor without experiencing the instantaneous desire to punish it; would grasp the weapons of defence instinctively, and if necessary, pour out his blood like water, rather than bow submissively beneath the galling yoke. With him, then, there was no equivocation nor hesitation, in advocating prompt warlike action, although he was compelled to do it in the face of formidable opposition. There was a strong party in the United States at that time, friendly to Great Britain, and disposed, rather than array themselves against her in a sanguinary conflict, to submit quietly to her rapacious attacks upon our liberties and lives. This party was well represented in congress. Many members of talent and influence were found in its ranks, in both houses, and they did not hesitate to employ them detrimentally to the interests of their country. But happily these found in him a giant champion—one who was well able to guard them, and willing to spend his last energy in their support. Lowndes, Calhoun, and other powerful coadjutors also stood with him, who labored hard to inspire the same ardent flame of patriotism in the breasts of others, that burned so intensely in their own.In the message of the president, the causes of complaint againstGreat Britain were stated, and also a concise summary of the abuses we had received, and were then receiving at her hands. It recommended the adoption of efficient and immediate measures of redress, by providing the means of prosecuting vigorously a war of defence and offence. This document was referred to a committee, which was selected by him. He was extremely solicitous that the subject of our foreign relations should receive that consideration which their exceedingly interesting character demanded; and to secure this, he was careful to choose those whose views, in reference to them, coincided with his own. Peter B. Porter, of New York, was the chairman of the committee. He presented their report to the house on the29thof November. It stated succinctly and in a patriotic tone, the injuries we had received at the hands of both England and France, denominating them as ‘so daring in character, and so disgraceful in execution, that it would be impossible for the people of the United States to remain indifferent. We must now tamely and quietly submit, or we must resist by those means which God has placed within our reach. Your committee would not cast a slander over the American name, by the expression of a doubt which branch of this alternative will be embraced. The occasion is now presented when the national character, misrepresented and traduced for a time, by foreign and domestic enemies, should be vindicated.‘If we have not rushed to the field of battle like the nations who are led by the mad ambition of a single chief, or the avarice of a corrupted court, it has not proceeded from a fear of war, but from our love of justice and humanity. That proud spirit of liberty and independence, which sustained our fathers in the successful assertion of their rights against foreign aggression, is not yet sunk. The patriotic fire of the revolution still burns in the American breast, with a holy and inextinguishable flame, and will conduct this nation to those high destinies which are not less the reward of dignified moderation than of exalted virtue.‘But we have borne with injury until forbearance has ceased to be a virtue. The sovereignty and independence of these states, purchased and sanctified by the blood of our fathers, from whom we received them, not for ourselves only, but as the inheritance of our posterity, are deliberately and systematically violated. And the period has arrived, when, in the opinion of your committee, it is the sacred duty of congress to call forth the patriotism and resources of the country. By the aid of these, and with the blessing of God, we confidently trust we shall be enabled to procure that redress which has been sought for by justice, by remonstrance and forbearance, in vain.’
‘He who of old would rend the oak,Dreamed not of the rebound.’
‘He who of old would rend the oak,Dreamed not of the rebound.’
‘He who of old would rend the oak,
Dreamed not of the rebound.’
Mr.Clay’s election to the senate of the United States was for one session only—the unexpired portion of general Adair’s term, who had resigned his seat. Immediately after his initiation into his new office, he engaged actively in the senatorial business. He found the senate discussing the merits of a bill providing for the erection of a bridge over the Potomac. Its erection was strongly desired by the inhabitants of Washington and Alexandria, and as strongly deprecated by those of Georgetown. Many efforts were made by both parties to secure his services in aid of their particular predilections, but nothing definite could be ascertained respecting his views in relation to the bill, and he refused to commit himself by pledging his support or opposition to it. He was not, though, indifferent to the proposed measure, but diligently employed himself in settling in his own mind the question of its constitutionality, and in deciding on its expediency. The result of his investigations was the conviction that it was sanctioned by the constitution, and a judicious measure of internal policy. He so regarded it in a speech which he made in its favor, by which he succeeded in producing a similar conviction in the minds of all the members who had not pledged themselves to oppose it, and thus secured its passage. This speech, although never reported, is represented as one of his happiest efforts, distinguished for satire and humor, aswell as gravity and sound logical argument, indeed, as embodying all the characteristics of a perfect specimen of eloquence. From the ground there taken, and the first time publicly, as to what he deemed true governmental policy, in relation to internal improvement, he has never in a single instance receded. With proud satisfaction may the friends of that system of which he has been justly styled ‘the Father,’ point to this unparalleled example of unwavering adherence and fidelity to principles since demonstrated to be the only permanent source of our national prosperity. In what an interesting attitude do we behold their originator and vindicator—a youth from Kentuckian wilds, rising up in the midst of grave senators and hoary-headed sages, and stretching out a timid, yet patriot-nerved arm, towards the shrine of Liberty. He plucks from her altar a burning brand and applies it to those inflammable materials which his genius and talents had collected around him. The flame that followed, though bright, he did not suppose would be seen and felt far beyond the precincts of her home. The utmost stretch of his fancy could not present to him the cheering vision, of the deepest recesses of the woody wilds he had left, illumined by its benign beams—that they were destined to play around the summits of the Alleghanies, glance across the broad prairie, blaze over the lake, and flash along the river, penetrating every department of industrial life, with their developing, moulding, and preserving power, until the broad breast of our vast republic should beam bright and beautiful as the ‘brow of night.’
An anecdote is related ofMr.Clay, aptly illustrating his ability to encounter opposition, in whatever manner presented. A senator from Connecticut had endeavored to inspire the younger members of the senate with a respect for him, nearly allied to awe, and to this end was accustomed to use towards them harsh and exceedingly haughty language, but especially to make an ostentatious display of his attainments and his supposed superior knowledge of the subject under discussion.Mr.Clay could ill brook his insolent looks and language, and haughty, overbearing manner, and took occasion in his speech to hit them off, which he did by quoting the laughable simile of Peter Pindar’s Magpie:
‘Thus have I seen a magpie in the street,A chattering bird we often meet,A bird for curiosity well known,With head awry,And cunning eye,Peep knowingly into a marrow bone.’
‘Thus have I seen a magpie in the street,A chattering bird we often meet,A bird for curiosity well known,With head awry,And cunning eye,Peep knowingly into a marrow bone.’
‘Thus have I seen a magpie in the street,
A chattering bird we often meet,
A bird for curiosity well known,
With head awry,
And cunning eye,
Peep knowingly into a marrow bone.’
It would be difficult to say which was the greater, the merriment which this sally caused, or the chagrin of the senator mentioned.
During the session an attempt was made to clothe the executive with power to arrest and confine colonel Burr, if deemed necessary by him, without experiencing the delays often consequent on theuncertain operations of law.Mr.Clay did not take an active part in the discussion that ensued, but barely recorded his vote against it. He regarded the suspension of the act of habeas corpus, by which alone this power could be conferred, as highly dangerous, and which could be justified in the greatest emergency only. He thought it, however, unadvisable to mingle in the discussion in consequence of having acted asMr.Burr’s counsel. The measure passed the senate, but was defeated in the lower house.
In the month of February of the same year,Mr.Clay exerted himself to procure an appropriation for the purpose of constructing a canal in Kentucky, having presented a resolution to that effect. The subject was referred to a committee, to whom as chairman he submitted a lengthy and able report. He also brought forward a resolution to improve the navigation of the Ohio river, which was favorably received by the senate, and adopted with unanimity. The secretary of the treasury also was called upon to obtain all the information he could impart and report the same, relative to constructing canals and making such other internal improvements as might come legitimately within the sphere of congressional action. With what deep interestMr.Clay regarded the prosecution of these and kindred works, may be learned from the phraseology of the resolutions which he introduced recommending them. In the report before mentioned there is the following passage.‘How far is it the policy of the government to aid in works of this kind when it has no distinct interest?Whether indeed in such a case it has the constitutional power of patronage and encouragement, it is not necessary to be decided in the present instance. The resolution directing the secretary to procure information, is as follows. ‘Resolved, that the secretary of the treasury be directed to prepare and report to the senate at their next session a plan for the application of such means as are within the power of congress, to the purposes of opening roads and making canals, together with a statement of undertakings of that nature, which as objects of public improvement may require and deserve the aid of government, and also a statement of works of the nature mentioned, which have been commenced, the progress which has been made in them, and the means and prospect of their being completed, and all such information as in the opinion of the secretary shall be material, in relation to the objects of this resolution.’ This resolution passed almost unanimously.
At the expiration of his senatorial term the citizens of Fayette county gave him their suffrages again for the state legislature, to which he was elected by a majority much larger than his most sanguine friends expected. In consequence of the partMr.Clay had performed in the affair of colonel Burr, his popularity sustained some diminution, which, however, was only temporary. His enemies attempted to excite similar feelings of odium towards himwith whichMr.Burr was visited, and partially succeeded, but which were dissipated by an address made byMr.Clay, in relation to his connection with him, and succeeded to such an overwhelming extent in turning the tide of calumny directed towards him, against his enemies, that it would have been exceedingly hazardous for any one, in the presence of his friends, to repeat the slanderous charges. He was elected speaker of the assembly at the next session, although opposed by a very popular member as a candidate for the same office. In this station he was distinguished for zeal, energy, and decision, exhibited in discharging its duties. He would sometimes engage in the debates of the house when a subject of unusual interest was before it. An attempt was made during this term worthy of the dark ages—an attempt to prohibit the reading of any British elementary work on law, and reference to any precedent of a British court. Contrary to what might have been expected, this monstrous proposition, this antinomian attempt found favor in the eyes of more than four-fifths of the members of the house, and had notMr.Clay rushed to the rescue, the whole system of common law, so far as Kentucky was concerned, would have been destroyed. His timely interference averted the catastrophe. The prohibition was advocated on the ground that it was inexpedient for an independent nation to derive any assistance in the administration of justice, from the legal decisions of a foreign court; especially from those of the one in question. It cannot be doubted that the friends of the prohibition were stimulated by ardent though somewhat bigoted patriotism. Those deep seated feelings of repugnance towards the nation at whose hands we had received such oppressive treatment but a few years previous, had not yet subsided, and very naturally extended to every thing pertaining to that nation. This fact partially apologizes for that intemperate and inconsiderate zeal with which more than four-fifths of the house set about demolishing what it was vitally important should be incorporated with the fabric of our liberties, and become a constituent part of the same. They desired to be removed as far as possible from Great Britain, in legal as well as in other respects, without carefully considering the effect of that removal. This law, viewed through the distorted medium of prejudice and hatred, seemed a huge excrescence on the body of our institutions, whose incumbency exerted a crushing instead of a sustaining influence, draining their energies, instead of imparting to them no inconsiderable portion of their vitality, and instantly the axe of judicial reform was seized by these sapient legislators for its amputation. Against this fratricidal attempt,Mr.Clay raised his powerful arm. He had witnessed with feelings of unfeigned regret, this rash attempt to lay violent hands on that system with which was associated every thing valuable and venerable in jurisprudence. That system which might justly be styled the legal Thesaurus ofthe world, founded by the hand of social exigency amid fearful convulsions, and reared by the united efforts of the most eminent jurisconsulats the world ever saw, he endeavored to shield against the ruthless assaults of this legislative vandalism. He was aware that the popular opinion considered this system as unnecessarily voluminous—an immense mixture of superfluities, prolixities, and absurdities, unadapted to, and unneeded by, our institutions. These erroneous apprehensions and long existing prejudices, he combated and corrected. He demonstrated its utility by a lucid exposition of the beauty, symmetry, and simplicity of its fundamental principles, and its necessity, by depicting in most glowing colors the disastrous consequences which would inevitably follow its destruction. Fearing, however, that the resolution would pass, he met its supporters in the spirit of compromise, and moved so to amend it, that the prohibition should extend to those decisions only, that had been given since the fourth day of July, 1776. His reasons for permitting those to remain, which were given previous to that period, were as convincing as they were sensible. He argued that up to the time of the declaration of independence, the laws of the one nation were those of the other, and that therefore the adoption of the primary resolution would be in effect abolishing our own laws. He is said to have given on this occasion, one of the most splendid specimens of elocution ever witnessed. A gentleman who was present describes it as a perfect model. ‘Every muscle of the orator’s face was at work; his whole body seemed agitated, as if each part was instinct with a separate life; and his small white hand, with its blue veins apparently distended almost to bursting, moved gracefully, but with all the energy of rapid and vehement gesture. The appearance of the speaker seemed that of a pure intellect, wrought up to its mightiest energies, and brightly glowing through the thin and transparent veil of flesh that enrobed it.’ His control over his auditory was most absolute and astonishing—now bathing them in tears, and now convulsing them with laughter, causing them to alternate between hope and fear, love and hate, at his bidding. When he concluded, scarcely a vestige of opposition remained, and the amended resolution was adopted almost by acclamation. While the prominence, which this and similar efforts gaveMr.Clay, was a source of satisfaction to him, and gratification to his friends, it was attended with the unpleasant effect of exposing him to the keenest shafts of his political enemies. In the year 1808 he was most violently assailed by Humphrey Marshall, an ultra federalist, a man of talents and eloquence. He let no opportunity pass unimproved to give vent to his rancorous feelings towardMr.Clay, and indeed towards all the prominent supporters ofMr.Jefferson’s administration. He had repeatedly attackedMr.Clay through the press, but now, being a member of the legislature, was enabled to make them in person.Mr.Clay’s friends, desirous of bringing them together, made arrangements to this effect, by not re-electing him speaker.Mr.Marshall seemed anxious to measure weapons withMr.Clay; following him in all his movements, and opposing him at every turn.In the early part of the session,Mr.Clay placed several resolutions before the house, relating to the embargo and British orders in council, remonstrating against the arbitrary demands of that nation, and pledging Kentucky to action,conformableto the decisions of the general government in relation thereto. They recognizedMr.Jefferson’s policy as sound, approved his measures, and pronounced him entitled to the thanks of his country, for the ability, uprightness, and intelligence which he displayed in the management, both of our foreign relations and domestic concerns.Mr.Marshall endeavored to procure their amendment, so as to condemn the embargo, and reprobate, without stint or measure,Mr.Jefferson’s administration. Their rejection was most emphatic, by a vote of sixty-four to one—he voting in their favor,—andMr.Clay’s were adopted by the same vote. But the vials ofMr.Marshall’s fiercest and most vituperative wrath were reserved for the occasion whenMr.Clay stood up in defence of his favorite policy, of affording protection to domestic industry, by introducing a resolution, declaring that it was expedient for each member of the house, for the purpose of giving unequivocal evidence of his attachment to this principle, to clothe himself in fabrics of domestic manufacture. This patriotic attempt was not only denounced by his foe as demagogic, and prompted by motives of the most inordinate and grasping ambition; but leaving the resolution, he attacked its author in genuine billingsgate style. Utterly regardless of every rule of gentlemanly courtesy, parliamentary propriety, or common decency even, he exhausted the vocabulary in search of opprobious and insulting epithets, which he applied in the spirit of the most liberal abuse. Such foul and unmerited treatment could not be quietly borne by a person ofMr.Clay’s ardent and sensitive temperament, and he rebuked him in language deservedly harsh, and calculated to sting him to the quick. The quarrel progressed until it reached that stage whereMr.Clay considered himself bound, according to Kentuckian interpretation of the law of honor, to challengeMr.Marshall to meet him and settle it in single combat. It was accepted, and the parties, pursuant to appointment, met and exchanged two or three shots, resulting in a slight wound to each. The duel was terminated by the interference of the seconds, who protested against its further procedure.
In 1809, a case of contested election came before the legislature, in the settlement of which,Mr.Clay acted a conspicuous part. The electors of Hardin county had given four hundred and thirty-six votes for Charles Helm, three hundred and fifty for Samuel Haycroft, and two hundred and seventy-one for John Thomas, twoof whom were entitled to seats. It appeared thatMr.Haycroft, at the time of the election, held an office, which, according to the constitution of Kentucky, rendered him ineligible to a seat in the general assembly.Mr.Clay submitted his views of the case, in a report prepared by him, as chairman of a committee appointed in accordance with a motion made by him to inquire whetherMr.Haycroft was entitled to a seat, and if not, to decide on the claims ofMr.Thomas to one. This report was adopted unanimously, and has since constituted the rule in similar cases in Kentucky. Its doctrines are so sound, and at the same time so simple, that we cannot forbear inserting an extract. ‘The fact being ascertained thatMr.Haycroft held an office of profit under the commonwealth at the time of the election, the constitutional disqualification attaches and excludes him; he was ineligible and therefore cannot be entitled to his seat. It remains to inquire into the pretensions ofMr.Thomas. His claim can only be supported by a total rejection of the votes given toMr.Haycroft, as void to all intents whatever. It is not pretended that they were given by persons not qualified according to the constitution, and consequently, if rejected it must be not for any inherent objection in themselves, but because they have been bestowed in a manner forbidden by the constitution or laws. By an act passed18thof December, 1800, it is required that persons holding offices incompatible with a seat in the legislature, shall resign them before they are voted for; and it is provided that all votes given to any such person prior to such resignation shall be utterly void. This act, when applied to the case in question, perhaps admits of the construction that the votes given toMr.Haycroft, though void and ineffectual in creating any right in him to a seat in the house, cannot affect in any manner the situation of his competitor. Any other exposition of it is, in the opinion of your committee, wholly inconsistent with the constitution, and would be extremely dangerous in practice. It would be subversive of the great principle of free government that the majority shall prevail. It would operate as a deception of the people, for it cannot be doubted that the votes given toMr.Haycroft were bestowed upon a full persuasion that he had a right to receive them. And it would infringe the rights of this house, guarantied by the constitution, to judge of the qualifications of its members. It would, in fact, be a declaration that disqualification produces qualification—that the incapacity of one man capacitates another to hold a seat in this house. Your committee are therefore unanimously and decidedly of opinion that neither of the gentlemen is entitled to a seat.’ This act closed his career in the legislature of Kentucky, to which he tendered his resignation soon after. He was elected to the senate of the United States for two years—the unexpired portion ofMr.Buckner Thurston’s term, who had resigned his seat in that body. DuringMr.Clay’s continuance inthe legislature, he had produced the deepest impression of his ability and talents, and won the favor of his associates, to what extent may be determined from the fact of their selecting him for the office before named, by a vote of two thirds. He retired, accompanied with their expressions of sincere regret for his loss, and high estimate of his services. The annals of Kentucky present no brighter spot than that which in imperishable characters records his name. It is the oasis of her history, verdant and beautiful, begirt with the wreath of his noble deeds, brilliant with the gems of benevolence, philanthropy and patriotism.
The manner in which he discharged his duties while connected with her legislature, is forcibly described by one intimately acquainted with him. ‘He appears to have been the pervading spirit of the whole body. He never came to the debates without the knowledge necessary to the perfect elucidation of his subject, and he always had the power of making his knowledge so practical, and lighting it so brightly up with the fire of eloquence, and the living soul of intellect, that without resorting to the arts of insidiousness, he could generally control the movements of the legislature at will. His was not an undue influence; it was the simple ascendency of mind over mind. The bills which originated with him, instead of being characterized by the eccentricities and ambitious innovations which are too often visible in the course of young men of genius suddenly elevated to power and influence, were remarkable only for their plain common sense, and their tendency to advance the substantial interests of the state. Though he carried his plans into effect by the aid of the magical incantations of the orator, he always conceived them with the coolness and discretion of a philosopher. No subject was so great as to baffle his powers, none so minute as to elude them. He could handle the telescope and the microscope with equal skill. In him the haughty demagogues of the legislature found an antagonist who never failed to foil them in their bold projects, and the intriguers of lower degree were baffled with equal certainty whenever they attempted to get any petty measure through the house for their own personal gratification or that of their friends. The people, therefore, justly regarded him as emphatically their own.’
In the winter of 1809–10, soon after he took his seat the second time in the senate, his attention was turned towards a subject kindred to that to which it had been directed when he first became a member of that body—that of domestic manufactures. It is a remarkable fact, that the first two subjects which demanded and secured his aid on entering congress, were those of primary importance to the welfare of the republic—subjects subsequently shown, in the unillusive light of experience, to be not only as intimately connected with private as with public prosperity, but as constituting the verylungs of Liberty herself, generating and diffusingcopious alimental streams to every organ and member of her body, thus producing that health and vigor whereby she was enabled to extend proper encouragement and protection to all her children. Up to this period but little thought, and less action had been bestowed by government upon the subject of domestic manufactures, and the light duties imposed on articles of foreign growth and manufacture, were for the purpose of raising a revenue, and not intended to afford any protection or encouragement to any branch of domestic industry. Our country, instead of putting her young, muscular hands vigorously forth, and from her own inexhaustible resources constructing such articles as she needed, sat still in the same supine attitude of abject dependence on Great Britain which she was in when the war of the revolution commenced, stretching them out to foreign artificers, and receiving those articles at their hands. How long she might have remained in this inglorious position, it is difficult to determine, had not her relations with that nation assumed an aspect so threatening and belligerent, as to alarm and induce her to withdraw and employ them in her own protection. Now the increasing prospect of war served in some degree to arouse the nation from that lethargic state of indifference in which it had so long slumbered. At least it was deemed advisable to anticipate such an event, by making provision for the materials usually needed in such an emergency. Accordingly a bill was introduced to appropriate a sum of money to purchase cordage, sail cloths, and the ordinary munitions of war, and so amended as to give preference to articles of domestic growth and manufacture, provided the interests of the nation should not suffer thereby.Mr.Lloyd, a senator from Massachusetts, moved to strike out the amendment granting the preference, and supported his motion by a long and powerful speech. A general and interesting discussion ensued, in which the policy of extending direct protection by the government to domestic manufactures was considered.Mr.Clay was among the first to avow himself decidedly in favor of the policy, and by his speech made at the time proved both its expediency and wisdom. His remarks were plain and practical, chiefly confined to statements of facts, with brief comments, yet so philosophically and skilfully arranged as to produce their intended effect. In the course of his observations, he alluded to that preference generally given in our country to articles of foreign production, by saying, that ‘a gentleman’s head could not withstand the influence of the solar heat unless covered with a London hat; his feet could not bear the pebbles or the frost unless protected by London shoes; and the comfort and ornament of his person was consulted only where his coat was cut out by the shears of a tailorjust from London. At length, however, the wonderful discovery has been made that it is not absolutely beyond the reach of American skill and ingenuity to produce these articles, combiningwith equal elegance greater durability. And I entertain no doubt that in a short time the no less important fact will be developed, that the domestic manufactures of the United States, fostered by government, and aided by household exertions, are fully competent to supply us with at least every necessary article of clothing. I, therefore,for one, (to use the fashionable cant of the day,) am in favor ofencouraging them; not to the extent to which they are carried in England, but to such an extent as will redeem us entirely from all dependence on foreign countries.’
Mr.Clay exposed the fallacy of the specious reasoning ofMr.Lloyd and other members hostile to the measure, who based their opposition on the ground of the bad practical tendency of a system of domestic manufactures fostered by government; and in illustration of which they cited the wretched and most famished condition of the operatives of Manchester, Birmingham, and other manufacturing cities of Great Britain. They maintained that the introduction of such a system into America would be attended with the same sad consequences—that these were the natural results of such a system, surrounded by such governmental encouragement, and inseparably connected with it.Mr.Clay in reply declared that this was anon sequiter—that although such consequences might be, and doubtless wereincidentalto such a system, it by no means followed that they were unavoidably and inevitably consequent upon it under all circumstances. The case instanced, he said, furnished no proof to that effect,—that the deplorable condition of the manufacturing districts of Great Britain had not been, neither could be satisfactorily accounted for in the manner attempted. It was not attributable to the fact of their being manufacturing districts—to the existence of that system which they were then considering, butto the abuse of that system. That it would be just as philosophical and logical, in view of the excruciating sufferings of the gormandizer, to conclude that the invariable tendency of food when introduced into the stomach is deleterious, as to adduce the squalor and wretchedness of England’s manufacturing population as proof positive of the pernicious tendency of the system under which they operated. This was not sufficiently restricted. It was too grasping—intended to make her the manufacturing monopolist of the world, and so shaped as to shut out effectually all rivalry. To this grand, distinctive feature of that system the evil in question could be directly traced—an evil that would be seen attendant on any vast, artificial establishment similarly conducted, whether encouraged by public or private patronage. That the objections, therefore, of opposing members lost all their validity when directed towards the system itself, which they possibly might possess when directed towards the feature mentioned, if it were not known that this was merely conventional, and not inherent, which might be retained or rejected at pleasure.It had not been, indeed it could not be denied, that to this system, badly as it was organized, England was materially indebted for that extensive developement of her natural resources which she had made, and especially for her maratime importance. That her literary and scientific institutions owed their permanence and eminence mainly to it, which had diffused also streams of beneficial influence through every part of her vast dominions. In the case of England, throwing the broad shield of her protection around this system, two results were witnessed, the satisfaction of her own and the world’s wants in relation to manufactures. But it was not intended nor desired to imitate her in this respect by carrying the principle of protection so far. The public aid solicited for the American manufacturer was moderate, just sufficient to enable him to supply the domestic demand for his fabrics. The measure, even then, was most obviously one of expedience and wisdom, and doubtless always would be; but there were indications to render it certain that it would soon become one of necessity. There was a strong prospect of our being deprived of our accustomed commercial intercourse, in consequence of the arbitrary and illegal proceedings of the belligerent nations of Europe, and that we should be obstructed by military power from an exercise of our right to carry the productions of our own soil to the proper market for them. The circumstances that then surrounded the country rendered it imperiously incumbent upon her to look to herself, and in herself, and from her inestimably valuable raw materials make for herself such articles as were requisite for her prosperity in peace, and protection in war. In short, to take such measures as to forever obviate the necessity of resorting to the workshops of the old world for them.Mr.Clay referred to our immense natural resources, scattered in rich and varied profusion over the land, as furnishing an argument in favor of the policy he was advocating. In contending for our manufacturing interests, it by no means followed, as had been intimated, that he deemed them of paramount importance to the nation. He did not hesitate to admit that on the culture of the soil her happiness and wealth chiefly depended;—that here lay the mine from which her treasury must be replenished by the hand of agriculture, if she would have an overflowing one, and expressed his decided belief that commerce was, and ought to be more indebted to it than to manufactures. He did not desire the department of the plough and sickle to be encroached upon by that of the spindle and shuttle; yet he contended that it was proper that we should supply ourselves ‘with clothing made by our own industry, and no longer be dependent for our very coats upon a country that was then an envious rival, and might soon be an enemy. A judicious American farmer in the household way,’ said he, ‘manufactures whatever is requisite for his family. He squanders but little in the gewgaws of Europe.He presents in epitome what the nation ought to bein extenso. Their manufactures should bear the same proportion, and effect the same object in relation to the whole community, which the part of the household employed in domestic manufacturing bears to the whole family.’ The view taken byMr.Clay was so enlightened, sound and practical, as to commend the bill to their most favorable consideration, and induce them to adopt it as amended. The salutary effects that flowed from it soon became apparent. The public purveyors immediately succeeded in making arrangements for the specified articles with American capitalists, on most advantageous terms, so that when the storm burst upon us, as it did soon after, though not perfectly prepared for its encounter, we were not as defenceless as we should have been, had our dependence been placed exclusively on foreign nations. The impetus given to domestic manufactures was astonishing, resulting in their increase during the following year over those of the year previous, to the amount of more than fifty millions of dollars. Of this increase,Mr.Madison, in his message to congress the following session, makes most favorable mention, by declaring that he felt particular satisfaction in remarking that an interior view of the country presented many grateful proofs of the extension of useful manufactures; the combined product of professional occupation and household industry. He expressed his conviction that the change which had introduced these substitutes for supplies heretofore obtained by foreign commerce, might, in a national view, be justly regarded as of itself more than a recompense for those privations and losses resulting from foreign injustice, which first suggested the propriety of fostering them. Here then, from that system, while yet in the germ, was gathered an antepast of that immense fruition, which it was destined to yield, when its stately trunk had towered in symmetry and majesty toward heaven, imparting prosperity and security to millions of freemen, dwelling beneath its branches. But let it not be forgotten that it is to the persevering and unremitting exertions of Henry Clay that we are indebted for the planting and the growth of that goodly tree.
He had scarcely ceased from his efficient labors in procuring the adoption of the bill before mentioned, when another opportunity presented itself for the exercise of that expansive patriotism for which his every public act is distinguished, and one which he embraced with his characteristic eagerness and promptitude. There was strong prospect that the United States would be dismembered of a portion of her territory—the large and fertile district included between the Mississippi and Perdido Rivers, being the present states of Mississippi and Alabama, and the territory of West Florida, or the greater part of it. To prevent this,Mr.Clay came boldly forth, triumphing over all opposition, and clearly vindicated her right to it. The United States became possessed of it in 1803,when it was ceded to her by France, with every thing appertaining just as she had received it from Spain, who formally acquiesced in the cession in 1804. The United States, from conciliatory motives partly, and partly in consequence of events which they could not control, suffered it to remain in the possession of Spain, who temporarily exercised authority over it. But her authority was now being subverted, a large portion of the inhabitants of the province refusing to submit to it. Reports also were rife that agents despatched by the king of England, were actively engaged in endeavoring to induce the people to come under British government. In this emergency, president Madison, thinking that longer delay in taking possession of it would expose the country to ulterior events which might affect the rights and welfare of the Union, contravening, perhaps, the views of both parties, endangering the tranquillity and security of the adjoining territories, and afford fresh facilities to violations of our revenue and commercial laws, issued his proclamation, directing that immediate possession should be taken of the said territory.Mr.Claiborne, governor of Orleans territory, was instructed to take immediately the requisite steps for annexing it to that over which he presided, and to see that the laws of the United States were rigidly enforced, to which he yielded prompt obedience. At this conjuncture the cry that came up from the party opposing his administration was loud and long. They attempted to prove that this measure was not only impolitic and uncalled for, but extremely unjust toward Spain, intended to involve us in a war with England, who, as her ally, would take umbrage on account of it, and that it was also unconstitutional. The federalists, through the press, and in legislative assemblies, represented the country as already surrounded in circumstances of great peril in consequence of this procedure. A warm debate ensued in congress on a bill reported by a committee to whom the proclamation was referred, which declared that the laws then in force in the territory of Orleans, extended and had full force to the river Perdido.Mr.Pope, one of the committee, in a speech made at the time, explained the grounds which induced them to make the report, and was followed byMr.Horsey, a senator from Delaware, in opposition. He pronounced the title of the United States invalid, thought it inexpedient to take possession of the territory by force, and questioned the right of the president to issue his proclamation to that effect. He declared that document bothwar and legislation, inasmuch as it authorized occupancy by military force, and invested a governor with all the authorities and functions in regard to the province in question, that he legitimately possessed in presiding over his own. His sympathies seemed to be strongly enlisted in behalf of the king of Spain, whose prospective loss he deplored in language of deep commiseration. His speech was in many respects able, but it had been much more appropriately deliveredin Madrid at the foot of the Spanish monarch’s throne, and in the presence of his court, than at Washington, beneath the ægis of liberty, and surrounded by patriotic and intelligent freemen.Mr.Clay regarded with feelings of deep regret as well as surprise, this anti-republican effort, this unnatural attempt by a son of Freedom to support the unfounded pretensions of a foreign prince to a portion of her own blood-bought soil,—that soil from which he drew his sustenance, and on which were reared those institutions that constitute it an appropriate asylum for the down-trodden of every other nation beneath the canopy of heaven. Although laboring under a severe indisposition, he could not, while he possessed the power of utterance, sit tamely still and listen to such sentiments promulgated in the very temple of liberty. He rose to reply in that graceful, dignified manner, so peculiar to himself. As he drew up his tall form into that commanding attitude which he was accustomed to assume as preliminary to a mighty parliamentary effort, it could be easily discovered in his countenance, what was the nature of his feelings, and how deep the fountain of eloquence had been stirred within him, whose effusions, directed with unerring precision, were soon to bear his auditory away on their resistless tide, to the goal on which his keen eye was fixed. This speech ofMr.Clay may justly be regarded as one of the most finished specimens of argumentative eloquence, profound investigation, purity of diction, and logical reasoning, that the records of any legislative body can furnish. It evinced by its demonstrative and inferential character, the most thorough and patient examination of the subject, in all its minute details, and indicated most clearly his main design to be, not a brilliant and striking display, calculated to please and captivate the fancy, but to array before the senate a formidable front of facts, to hem in the whole house with a wall of adamantine argument, which could be neither scaled nor sapped; and he was completely successful. He commenced by a brief exordium of the most caustic irony, which fell like molten lead upon the heads of his opponents. He expressed his admiration at the more than Aristidean justice which prompted certain gentlemen, in a question of territorial title between the United States and a foreign nation, to espouse the cause of the foreign, presuming that Spain in any future negotiations, would be magnanimous enough not to avail herself of these voluntary concessions in her favor in the senate of the United States. He said he would leave the honorable gentleman from Delaware to bewail the fallen fortunes of the king of Spain, without stopping to inquire whether their loss was occasioned by treachery or not, or whether it could be traced to any agency of the American government. He confessed that he had little sympathy for princes, but that it was reserved forthe people, the great mass of mankind, and did not hesitate to declare that the people of Spain had it most unreservedlyand most sincerely. He went into a minute and circumstantial history of the territory in dispute, and proved by a chain of reasoning the most clear and satisfactory, that its title was in the United States. In doing this he adopted that mode which the nature of the subject suggested, by a critical examination of all the title papers, transfers, and all other documents in any way relating or appertaining to it. He examined the patent granted by Louis theXIVto Crozat in 1712, which patent covered the province in question, and declared that it was at that time designated by the name of the Province of Louisiana, and was bounded on the west by old and new Mexico, and on the east by Carolina. This document he regarded as settling the question beyond all doubt, that the country under consideration was embraced within the limits of Louisiana. He proved that it originally belonged to France, who claimed it by virtue of certain discoveries made by La Solle and others during the seventeenth century; that she ceded it to Spain in 1762, who retroceded it to France in 1800, by the treaty ofSt.Ildefonso, and that it belonged to the United States by purchase from her as a portion of Louisiana in 1803. After the most thorough investigation, considering all the ambiguous expressions unintentionally incorporated with the treaties relating to the territory, and applying to them the most impartial and rigid rules of construction, he presented the title of the United States to it as most indefeasible, and as standing on a basis which all the sophistry, and ingenuity, and ill-directed sympathy of the opposition could not shake. He then proceeded to inquire if the proclamation directing the occupation of property thus acquired by solemn treaty was an unauthorized measure of war and legislation. In this, his vindication of the course pursued byMr.Madison was most triumphant. He proved by citing acts of congress passed in 1803–4, that the president was fully empowered to authorize the occupation of the territory.He maintained that these laws furnished‘a legislative construction of the treaty correspondent with that given by the executive,and they vest in this branch of the government indisputably a power to take possession of the country whenever it might be proper in his discretion; so far, therefore, from having violated the constitution in the action he had taken and caused to be taken, he had hardly carried out its provisions, one of which expressly enjoined it upon him to see that the laws of the United States were faithfully and impartially executed, in every district of country over which she could rightfully exercise jurisdiction. After settling the questions of title and constitutional action of the president, he proceeded to notice some of the arguments of the opposition against taking forcible possession, which attempted to show that war would result. ‘We are told,’ said he, ‘of the vengeance of resuscitated Spain. If Spain, under any modification of her government, choose to make warupon us for the act under consideration, the nation, I have no doubt, will be willing to meet war. But the gentleman’ (Mr.Horsey) ‘reminds us that Great Britain, the ally of Spain, may be obliged by her connection with Spain to take part with her against us, and to consider this measure of the president as justifying an appeal to arms. Sir, is the time never to arrive when we may manage our own affairs without the fear of insulting his Britannic majesty? Is the rod of British power to be for ever suspended over our heads? Does congress put on an embargo to shelter our rightful commerce against the piratical depredations committed upon it on the ocean? we are immediately warned of the indignation of offended England. Is a law of non-intercourse proposed? the whole navy of the haughty mistress of the seas is made to thunder in our ears. Does the president refuse to continue a correspondence with a minister who violates the decorum belonging to his diplomatic character, by giving and deliberately repeating an affront to the whole nation? we are instantly menaced with the chastisement which English pride will not fail to inflict. Whether we assert our rights by sea or attempt their maintenance by land—whithersoever we turn ourselves, this phantom incessantly pursues us. Already has it had too much influence on the councils of the nation. It contributed to the repeal of the embargo—that dishonorable repeal which has so much tarnished the character of our government.Mr.president, I have before said on this floor, and now take occasion again to remark, that I most sincerely desire peace and amity with England; that I even prefer an adjustment of all differences with her, before one with any other nation. But if she persist in a denial of justice to us, or if she avails herself of the occupation of West Florida to commence war upon us, I trust and hope that all hearts will unite in a bold and vigorous vindication of our rights.’ The effect produced byMr.Clay’s speech was most obvious, inducing many of the most strenuous opposers of the course pursued by the president, who were firmly resolved on recording their votes in disapproval of it, to come frankly forward and candidly to acknowledge their error, and express their determination to sustain him in this measure. They were true to their declaration, and thus the approval of the proclamation was secured. But ‘had there been at that time in the senate no democratic champion likeMr.Clay—one who could stand up among the tall and fierce spirits of faction to vindicate the rights of our country, and utter a solemn warning in the ears of those who would wantonly throw the key of her strength into the hands of an enemy—it is difficult to say how imminently dangerous might have been the present condition of the republic.’
Mr.Clay’s labors during the remainder of the session were arduous and unremitted, as well as most valuable, to particular individuals as well as to the nation. The discharge of his dutytowards his country, he seems ever to have considered of the most pressing importance, and it is gladdening to the heart of every true American to witness the disinterested, the noble and generous manner with which it was performed. In whatever relations, and however circumstanced we find him, we see him presenting, in this respect, one unvaried aspect. He took an active part in all the discussions of consequence, where any important and essential principle was involved. He was several times appointed one of a committee, to whom matters of interest were referred. Here he displayed accurate discrimination, soundness of judgment, and great ability, in immediately discerning and seizing the strong points of a subject, calculated to render conspicuous its merits or expose its defects. He acted as chairman of a committee, to whom was recommitted a bill, granting a right of preëmption to purchasers of public lands, in certain cases, and reported it with amendments, which were read. After receiving some alterations, it was again recommitted, reported, and finally passed the senate. The cause of the poor settler and the hardy pioneer could not have been committed to better hands—to one who would more studiously and feelingly consult their best interests. Experience had made him acquainted with the privations, wants, and toils, which they were compelled to encounter, in causing the forest to recede before their slow, fatiguing march, and this opened a wide avenue to the fountain of his sympathetic feelings, which gushed spontaneously forth whenever he contemplated the evils and the difficulties which beset their path. This he exerted himself to render as smooth as possible. Hence he early and continually advocated a most liberal policy towards that class of his country’s yeomanry, maintaining that she should extend to them every facility in her power, consistent with wisdom and justice.Mr.Clay has always watched the movements of the emigrant with feelings of almost paternal solicitude, and wherever he has pitched his temporary tent, or made his permanent abode, there he has exerted himself to induce his country to extend her beneficial legislation, and to lay at his door as many of the benefits of civilized life as possible, with their ameliorating influences. How illiberal then, how unjust the attempts of those inimical to him, to convert his noble benevolence into a weapon of hostility against him, by endeavoring to procure credence for those senseless reports, which represented him as unfriendly to the interests of the emigrant, and as endeavoring to aggrandize himself at their expense. But time is fast dispelling the cloud of error, which was thus raised and caused to brood over the public mind, and the sun-light of truth is pouring in its irradiating beams, most clearly revealing the justice and wisdom of his advocacy, in relation to the public domain.
His attention was engrossed by other and correlative subjects soon after—that of the protection of the hardy back-woods men andfrontier inhabitants against Indian depredations, and the regulating of intercourse between them. He reported a bill supplementary to an act entitled ‘an act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontier.’ This was placed before a committee, of which he was chairman; and by his philanthropic exertions and diligent labors, the whole west were laid under deep obligations to him, for those wise measures adopted in reference to them, whereby their interests and lives were shielded against the predatory attack of the aborigines.
He warmly espoused the cause of the people of Orleans Territory, who were desirous of forming a constitution and government. Accordingly, on the twentieth of April of the same session, he succeeded in causing such action to be taken relative to the subject, as to secure an amendment of a bill before the senate, so as to require the laws, records and legislative proceedings of the state, to be in the English language. A few days subsequent, leave of absence was granted him during the remainder of the session.
On the third day of December, 1810, the commencement of the third session of the eleventh congress,Mr.Clay was found in his place in the senate. A subject that had been much agitated in private many months previous, and up to that time, was now brought forward for public discussion—that of re-chartering the United States bank. This was the all absorbing topic of the session, and called into exerciseMr.Clay’s most vigorous powers. His instructions from the legislature of Kentucky required him to oppose the re-charter of that institution, and these were in coincidence with his own views relative to it. It had been his design to limit his opposition to merely recording his vote against the renewal of its charter, without entering into the discussion which would probably ensue, but the virulent and menacing character of the proceedings of those advocating its re-charter, unsealed his lips, and caused him to apply the lash of his eloquence to their backs with most tremendous effect. These embraced the whole body of the federal, and many of the democratic party—an array of members and strength which might have deterred any ordinary man from confronting. Against this, he stood almost alone, deserted even byMr.Pope, his colleague: yet he stood firm; and, from the effect that followed his exertions, proved himself more deserving the title of ‘Macedonian Phalanx,’ than the federal party to whom he had applied it. The attack was provoked by that party, and it was made in the spirit of conscious might, which not only meets opposition with the utmost certainty of overthrowing, but which seeks it. He alluded to that deep-seated prejudice in the public mind, against the bank, and the foundation of that prejudice. It did not escape his notice that the bank was created by the federal party—its warmest and most devoted friends, then resorting toevery expedient and means to prolong its existence. He was also well aware of the aid rendered that party, byMr.Crawford and others, who had in this measure left the democratic ranks and gone over to it. He referred, also, to the astounding fact, that the institution was in reality in the hands of foreigners, since foreign capitalists were more deeply interested in its continuance than our own, who owned a moiety only of its stock; neither did he fail to suggest, that perhaps the violent struggle then going on to keep it in existence, was instigated and maintained, to no inconsiderable extent, by foreign influence. In no equivocal manner he depicted the absurdity, to say nothing of the danger, of permitting Great Britain to acquire such an influence as she evidently could acquire, by having her monetary interests, to so great an extent, identified with the United States bank—an influence which would place facilities in her hands, that, in case she felt disposed, she could use to our most serious detriment. These and many other considerations, he brought forward as furnishing good and valid ground of alarm, and legitimately calculated to awaken patriotic opposition. But his greatest fundamental objection was one which he derived from the constitution itself, and one which he urged with a vehemence sure to prevail. He maintained that no specific provision was found in that instrument, authorizing or permitting the charter of the bank, neither could it be so construed as to imply the power to that effect. In opposing, therefore, the renewal of its charter, his remarks were principally confined to the objectionable feature of its unconstitutionality; and they furnish one of the strongest arguments against a national bank ever made, and one that is often referred to as authority of a high order. It may be well to insert a portion of his speech, illustrative of their pertinence and beauty.
‘This vagrant power to erect a bank, after having wandered throughout the whole constitution in quest of some congenial spot to fasten upon, has been at length located, by the gentleman from Georgia, on that provision which authorized congress to lay and collect taxes. In 1791 the power is referred to one part of the instrument, and in 1811 to another. Sometimes it is alleged to be deducible from the power to regulate commerce. Hard pressed here, it disappears, and shows itself under the grant to coin money.
‘What is the nature of the government? It is emphatically federal, vested with an aggregate of specific powers for general purposes, conceded by existing sovereignties, who have themselves retained what is not so conceded. It is said that there are cases in which it must act on implied powers. This is not controverted, but the implication must be necessary, and obviously flow from the enumerated power with which it is allied. The power to charter companies is not specified in the grant, and I contend is of a nature not transferable by mere implication. It is one of the most exalted acts of sovereignty. In the exercise of this giganticpower we have seen an East India Company erected, which has carried dismay, desolation and death, throughout one of the largest portions of the habitable world—a company which is in itself a sovereignty, which has subverted empires, and set up new dynasties, and has not only made war, but war against its legitimate sovereign. Under the influence of this power we have seen arise a South Sea Company, and a Mississippi Company, that distracted and convulsed all Europe, and menaced a total overthrow of all credit and confidence, and universal bankruptcy. Is it to be imagined that a power so vast would have been left by the constitution to doubtful inference? It has been alleged that there are many instances in the constitution, where powers in their nature incidental, and which would necessarily have been vested along with the principal, are nevertheless expressly enumerated, and the power to make rules and regulations for the government of the land and naval forces, which it is said is incidental to the power to raise armies and provide a navy, is given as an example. What does this prove? How extremely cautious the convention were to leave as little as possible to implication. In all cases where incidental powers are acted on, the principal and incidental ought to be congenial with each other, and partake of a common nature. The incidental power ought to be strictly subordinate, and limited to the end proposed to be attained by the specific power. In other words, under the name of accomplishing one object which is specified, the power implied ought not to be made to embrace other objects which are not specified in the constitution. If then, as is contended, you could establish a bank to collect and distribute the revenue, it ought to be expressly restricted to the purpose of such collection and distribution. It is mockery worse than usurpation, to establish it for a lawful object, and then to extend it to other objects which are not lawful. In deducing the power to create corporations, such as I have described it, from the power to collect taxes, the relation of principal and incident are prostrated and destroyed. The accessory is exalted above the principal. As well might it be said that the great luminary of day is an accessory, a satellite to the humblest star that twinkles forth its feeble light in the firmament of heaven.
‘Suppose the constitution had been silent as to an individual department of the government, could you, under the power to lay and collect taxes, establish a judiciary? I presume not; but if you could derive the power by mere implication, could you vest it with any other authority than to enforce the collection of the revenue? A bank is made for the ostensible purpose of aiding in the collection of the revenue, and whilst it is engaged in this, the most inferior and subordinate of all its functions, it is made to diffuse itself throughout society, and to influence all the great operations of credit, circulation, and commerce. Like the Virginia justice,you tell the man whose turkey had been stolen, that your books of precedents furnish no form for his case, but then you will grant him a precept to search for a cow, and when looking for that he may possibly find his turkey! You say to this corporation, we cannot authorize you to discount—to emit paper—to regulate commerce—no! our book has no precedents of that kind. But then we can authorize you to collect the revenue, and whilst occupied with that, you may do whatever else you please.
‘What is a corporation, such as the bill contemplates? It is a splendid association of favored individuals, taken from the mass of society, and invested with exemptions, and surrounded by immunities and privileges. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts has said that the original law establishing the bank was justly liable to the objection of vesting in that institution an exclusive privilege,—the faith of the government being pledged that no other bank should be authorized during its existence. This objection, he supposes, is obviated by the bill under consideration; but all corporations enjoy exclusive privileges—that is, the corporators have privileges which no others possess; if you create fifty corporations instead of one, you have only fifty privileged bodies instead of one. I contend that the states have the exclusive power to regulate contracts, to declare the capacities and incapacities to contract, and to provide as to the extent of the responsibility of debtors to their creditors. If congress have the power to create an artificial body and say it shall be endowed with the attributes of an individual, if you can bestow on this object of your own creation the ability to contract, may you not in contravention of state rights confer upon slaves, infants, andfemes covert, the ability to contract? And if you have the power to say that an association of individuals shall be responsible for their debts only in a certain limited degree, what is to prevent an extension of a similar exemption to individuals? Where is the limitation upon this power to set up corporations? You establish one in the heart of a state, the basis of whose capital is money. You may erect others, whose capital shall consist of land, slaves, and personal estate, and thus the whole property within the jurisdiction of a state might be absorbed by those political bodies. The existing bank contends that it is beyond the power of a state to tax it, and if this pretension be well founded, it is in the power of congress by chartering companies to dry up all the sources of state revenue. This government has the power to lay taxes, to raise armies, provide munitions, make war, regulate commerce, coin money,etc.,etc.It would not be difficult to show as intimate a connection between a corporation established for any purpose whatever, and some one or other of those great powers, as there is between the revenue and the bank of the United States.’
Mr.Clay noticed the danger to which the United States wereexposed from the fact that the capital of the bank was principally subject to foreign control, in the following glowing language.
‘The power of a nation is said to consist in the sword and the purse. Perhaps at last all power is resolvable into that of the purse, for with it you may command almost every thing else. The specie circulation of the United States is estimated by some calculators at ten millions of dollars; and if it be no more, one moiety is in the vaults of this bank. May not the time arrive when the concentration of such a vast portion of the circulating medium of the country in the hands of any corporation will be dangerous to our liberties? By whom is this immense power wielded? By a body who, in derogation of the great principle of all our institutions, responsibility to the people, is amenable only to a few stockholders, and they chiefly foreigners. Suppose an attempt to subvert this government—would not the traitor first aim, by force or corruption, to acquire the treasure of this company? Look at it in another aspect. Seven tenths of its capital are in the hands of foreigners, chiefly English subjects. We are possibly on the eve of a rupture with that nation. Should such an event occur, do you apprehend that the English premier would experience any difficulty in obtaining the entire control of the institution. Republics, above all other governments, ought most seriously to guard against foreign influence. All history proves that the internal dissensions excited by foreign intrigue, have produced the downfall of almost every free government that has hitherto existed; and yet gentlemen contend that we are benefited by the possession of this foreign capital!’
His powerful arguments and convincing reasoning prevailed—resulting in a most signal victory over those opposed to him, who entered on the discussion with sanguine expectations of success. The charter was not then renewed. Many more subjects of interest came before the senate during the session of 1810–11, in the consideration of which he displayed his usual zeal and solicitude in behalf of the interests of the commonwealth, which were now with favor generally recognized.Mr.Clay had produced an impression of his eloquent powers and brilliant talents, that was not confined to his associates and those witnessing their every day exercise, but it was as extensive as his country. His reputation as a debater, orator, and sound logical reasoner, was now immovably established. The star of his fame, which first appeared in the political horizon, under circumstances of doubt and gloom, struggling through dense clouds of indigence and obscurity, emitting what political animosity termed anignis fatuusglare around the cabins of the emigrant and the hunter in western forests, was now in theascendant, illuminating and vivifying, not only the woody homes, the rural hamlets, and sylvan abodes of his own forest land, but mingling its bright beams most beautifully with those that streamed fromLiberty’s altar. Henceforth it will be our delightful duty to mark it steadily careering its glorious way upwards, higher and higher, making its blessed influences to be felt in every nook and corner of our extensive country, penetrating the kingly court, flashing amid the diadems of crowned heads, and introducing hope and peace into the tenement of the oppressed on distant shores. It was obvious to the least penetrative vision that it was then rapidly and steadfastly approaching the zenith, when its effulgence would illumine the world.
At the close of his second term of service, which was for two years, he returned to Kentucky, but his fame had preceded him—the eyes of Kentuckians had been fixed gratefully on him during his senatorial services, and they were prepared to return him speedily to the halls of congress, to adorn which, he had given such abundant proof of his capability. According to the proclamation of the president, congress convened on the fourth day of November, 1811, and on the first ballot for speaker to the house of representatives,Mr.Clay was elected by a majority of thirty-one over the opposing candidates. When it is recollected that this was his first appearance in that body, it must be regarded as a remarkable occurrence, and entirely aside from the ordinary course of events; indeed, as an instance of early and strong confidence reposed in one, to which a parallel cannot be found in the history of any individual. There were many circumstances, however, explanatory of this hasty, unreserved reliance. He was known to have acted in that capacity in the legislature of Kentucky, and to have discharged its duties with singular ability and acceptance; also of his conspicuity in the senate they were not ignorant, and perhaps a desire to seeMr.Randolph, of Virginia, restrained in his gross violations of order and decorum, for which he was noted, whom it was imaginedMr.Clay could curb, induced several members to vote for him, who otherwise had not supported him for the office. That confidence so generously, spontaneously, and by him so unexpectedly yielded, he very appropriately noticed, in a pertinent speech made by him on assuming the responsible station, and he proved by his faithfulness, zeal, and decision, with which he discharged its onerous duties, that it was most judiciously confided. He showed himself equal to the task of curbingMr.John Randolph, or any other turbulent spirit in the assembly over which he presided. He was subsequently chosen several times to fill the same important post, and never did he betray his trust, or disappoint the just expectations of his friends. The manner in which he exercised his authority may be considered as somewhat stern, slightly approximating to arbitrariness, evincing great decision and firmness of character, and a disposition not to tolerate the slightest disrespect or indignity towards the house. During the long period in which he discharged the functions of speaker, including many sessionsof great turbulence and strife, not one of his decisions was ever reversed on an appeal from the chair. This fact speaks volumes in his praise.
At the time when he was inducted into his office, the affairs of the republic were in an exceedingly critical condition. Those who had been sustaining themselves with the cherished expectations that England would repeal her orders in council, since the revocation of the edicts of France had removed the causes inducing their passage, now utterly abandoned them, on beholding her, instead of relaxing, enforcing them more rigorously than ever. To every unbiassed mind, the time seemed to have arrived when it was necessary to rise and put a stop to the long series of unprovoked depredations and outrages, committed against our commerce, by both that and the French nation. Such was the juncture of affairs as to make it obvious that if the American nation would preserve the semblance of freedom even, and command national respect, she must resort to more efficient measures than she had hitherto employed; that she must retrieve her tarnished honor, and vindicate boldly her rights. France manifested some disposition to be influenced by the remonstrances of the United States against her spoliations, by rescinding the opprobious Berlin and Milan decrees of Napoleon, which she had so construed as to make them sanction the seizure and confiscation of our property. Not so, however, with Great Britain; she refused to recognize their repeal, and even pretended to deny that they had been revoked. She still persisted in obstructing the commerce of America, declaring all the ports of France in a state of blockade, seizing our merchantmen bound to them, and confiscating their cargoes, in direct violation of the law of nations, permitting any neutral power to trade to any foreign port, when the blockade is not maintained by the actual presence of an adequate force. But England, by proclamation, blockaded every French port, from the Elbe to Brest, interdicting all vessels from entering them which did not carry on their trade through her, and seized such as made the attempt, while at the same time she neglected to keep a naval force on the coast of France sufficient to legalize the blockade. Her cruisers pursued our trading vessels to the very mouths of our own rivers and harbors, and seized, condemned, and confiscated them for violating thispseudoblockade. It seemed, by the number and enormity of the illegalities practiced towards us by Great Britain, as though she had commenced an organized, systematic crusade against our commerce, which aimed at nothing less than its utter extinction. But her barbarous system of impressment capped the climax of her cruelties. Under the assumed right of searching our ships, thousands of our seamen had been forced into her service on suspicion that they were British subjects. This execrable custom had carried seven thousand American freemen into captivity,as appeared from official reports made during that session, and the number was constantly augmenting; scarcely a breeze came across the Atlantic without wafting to our shores intelligence of some fresh enormity. To submit quietly to such unheard of oppression, would be an anomaly in the history of civilized nations. To expect redress by mild measures was out of the question. These had long been tried and found ineffectual. Madison, Pinckney, and Monroe, in their correspondence with the British government, had remonstrated again and again, but to no other purpose than to embolden the aggressor in his nefarious proceedings. There seemed, therefore, no alternative left the United States but to put themselves strongly on the defensive, and by force of arms, put a stop to these accumulating injuries. Every thing lovely in liberty, every thing sacred and hallowed in the memory of those by whom it was won, protested against further forbearance, and forbade further delay in unsheathing the sword of retributive justice. In short, the conviction had become deep and settled that nothing short ofwarcould preserve an inch of canvass on an American vessel, on the face of the ocean.
Thus circumstanced, the United States seemed to be shut up to forcible resistance. The eyes of the whole country were turned towards congress, looking for measures of relief. It had been convened earlier than usual, that the subject of a declaration of war might come speedily before them. It is needless to remark thatMr.Clay’s views were favorable to war. An individual like him, jealous of his country’s honor almost to a fault, who could never contemplate oppression but with feelings of the deepest detestation, nor without experiencing the instantaneous desire to punish it; would grasp the weapons of defence instinctively, and if necessary, pour out his blood like water, rather than bow submissively beneath the galling yoke. With him, then, there was no equivocation nor hesitation, in advocating prompt warlike action, although he was compelled to do it in the face of formidable opposition. There was a strong party in the United States at that time, friendly to Great Britain, and disposed, rather than array themselves against her in a sanguinary conflict, to submit quietly to her rapacious attacks upon our liberties and lives. This party was well represented in congress. Many members of talent and influence were found in its ranks, in both houses, and they did not hesitate to employ them detrimentally to the interests of their country. But happily these found in him a giant champion—one who was well able to guard them, and willing to spend his last energy in their support. Lowndes, Calhoun, and other powerful coadjutors also stood with him, who labored hard to inspire the same ardent flame of patriotism in the breasts of others, that burned so intensely in their own.
In the message of the president, the causes of complaint againstGreat Britain were stated, and also a concise summary of the abuses we had received, and were then receiving at her hands. It recommended the adoption of efficient and immediate measures of redress, by providing the means of prosecuting vigorously a war of defence and offence. This document was referred to a committee, which was selected by him. He was extremely solicitous that the subject of our foreign relations should receive that consideration which their exceedingly interesting character demanded; and to secure this, he was careful to choose those whose views, in reference to them, coincided with his own. Peter B. Porter, of New York, was the chairman of the committee. He presented their report to the house on the29thof November. It stated succinctly and in a patriotic tone, the injuries we had received at the hands of both England and France, denominating them as ‘so daring in character, and so disgraceful in execution, that it would be impossible for the people of the United States to remain indifferent. We must now tamely and quietly submit, or we must resist by those means which God has placed within our reach. Your committee would not cast a slander over the American name, by the expression of a doubt which branch of this alternative will be embraced. The occasion is now presented when the national character, misrepresented and traduced for a time, by foreign and domestic enemies, should be vindicated.
‘If we have not rushed to the field of battle like the nations who are led by the mad ambition of a single chief, or the avarice of a corrupted court, it has not proceeded from a fear of war, but from our love of justice and humanity. That proud spirit of liberty and independence, which sustained our fathers in the successful assertion of their rights against foreign aggression, is not yet sunk. The patriotic fire of the revolution still burns in the American breast, with a holy and inextinguishable flame, and will conduct this nation to those high destinies which are not less the reward of dignified moderation than of exalted virtue.
‘But we have borne with injury until forbearance has ceased to be a virtue. The sovereignty and independence of these states, purchased and sanctified by the blood of our fathers, from whom we received them, not for ourselves only, but as the inheritance of our posterity, are deliberately and systematically violated. And the period has arrived, when, in the opinion of your committee, it is the sacred duty of congress to call forth the patriotism and resources of the country. By the aid of these, and with the blessing of God, we confidently trust we shall be enabled to procure that redress which has been sought for by justice, by remonstrance and forbearance, in vain.’