Chapter IV: Preface (2)

The attorney, some months subsequent, imagined himself warranted in resuming the prosecution. The second day of December was appointed for the trial. On the day previous Mr. Burr addressed a note to Mr. Clay, soliciting his aid, of which the following is an extract. ‘I have no design nor have I taken any measure to promote a dissolution of the Union, or a separation of any one or more states from the residue. I have neither published a line on this subject, nor has any one, through my agency or with my knowledge. I have no design to intermeddle with the government or to disturb the tranquillity of the United States, or of its territories, or any part of them. I have neither given, nor signed, nor promised a commission to any person for any purpose. I do not own a musket, nor bayonet, nor any single article of military stores; nor does any person for me, by my authority, or with my knowledge. My views have been fully explained to, and approved by, several of the principal officers of government, and I believe are well understood by the administration, and seen by it with complacency. They are such as every man of honor, and every good citizen must approve. Considering the high station you now fill in our national councils, I have thought these explanations proper as well to counteract the chimerical tales which malevolent persons have so industriously circulated, as to satisfy you that you have not espoused the cause of a man in any way unfriendly to the laws, the government, or the interests of his country.’

Mr. Burr was doubtless aware of the scruples felt by Mr. Clay respecting the propriety of acting as his counsel, which scruples were occasioned principally by the new and interesting relation just assumed by him――that of United States senator. Mr. Clay’s doubts were satisfied, and he consented to appear at his trial as his attorney, in connection with Col. John Allen. To them Mr. Burr in the expectation of securing their services, had previously sent a large sum of money, which they declined receiving, and returned to him. The day appointed for trial at length arrived, and again the attorney sought to delay the proceedings of the court, on the ground of the absence of an important witness. Mr. Clay strenuously contended that such tardy procedure, where such interests were involved, and where the most speedy action was requisite, was unsanctioned by correct judicial usage; that the accused was sustaining material injury in consequence of the obstacles thus thrown in the way of his establishing his innocence, which he was impatiently and anxiously waiting to do. Mr. Clay’s representations succeeded. The attorney was required by the court to proceed immediately. Accordingly all the evidence he could produce was spread before the grand jury, who, after a patient and careful investigation, returned the indictment accompanied with their refusal to consider it a true bill, and reasons for the same,――alleging that the testimony contained nothing to criminate the accused, ‘nor can we from all the inquiry and investigation of the subject discern that any thing improper or injurious to the government of the United States, or contrary to the laws thereof, is designed or contemplated.’ Their decision was received with the strongest demonstrations of approbation from all quarters, which were exceedingly gratifying to Mr. Clay, and served to strengthen his conviction of Mr. Burr’s innocence when he consented to act as his counsel. It is unnecessary to say, that had he been aware of Mr. Burr’s real designs, no inducement could have been held out by that person strong enough to have determined him to appear in his defence. Subsequent events show this to be true――events which removed all doubts as to Mr. Burr’s guilt. A mass of unequivocal testimony had been obtained, in relation to his operations upon which he had already entered, and of his future projects, by the exertions of Mr. Jefferson, which testimony was exhibited to Mr. Clay, at Washington, where he repaired soon after the trial to take his seat in the senate. One of the most remarkable and indubitable portions of the evidence alluded to, was a letter in cipher which Mr. Burr had sent by captain Samuel Swartwout to the commander of the United States army, general Wilkinson, which contained a somewhat circumstantial account of his proceedings and intended proceedings. In this he expressly stated his design of seizing on Baton Rouge, preliminary to extending his conquests into the Spanish provinces. Such disclosures opened the eyes of the public to the true character of Mr. Burr, and called forth expressions of their just indignation, in which Mr. Clay also united,――who, after an interval of several years, for the first time subsequent to the trial, met Mr. Burr in the city of New York. Mr. Clay was sitting in the court room of the City Hall, when a gentleman approached and tendered him his hand with the customary salutation. But Mr. Clay recognizing, treated him with marked coldness and refused to receive or return the proffered civility. Mr. Burr, however, endeavored to engage him in conversation, congratulating him on his successful efforts at Ghent, in relation to the treaty, and an arrangement which he and his associates had effected with Great Britain, whereby valuable commercial advantages were secured to America. To all his efforts at conversation Mr. Clay turned a deaf ear, replying very briefly to his inquiries and giving him no encouragement to proceed. On leaving, Mr. Burr requested the privilege of a brief interview with him, who in answer, informed him where he had taken lodgings. The colonel, however, did not call, and thus terminated all the intercourse ever had by Mr. Clay with him. We have thus endeavored faithfully and impartially to record all the facts in relation to that intercourse, that the world may see and decide upon the truth or falsehood of the charges made against Mr. Clay, in consequence of it. How can they be tortured so as to yield any evidence calculated to impeach his integrity? How to make it appear manifestly wrong to act as his counsel, and to conduct that trial, the right to which was guarantied by the constitution? But above all, how can they be made to furnish a foundation for those cruel charges of acting in concert with the accused, of being privy to his plans, as aiding and abetting him, and of disrobing him of his hard, well earned, unspotted robes of legal and political purity, and clothing him in the black habiliments of a traitor, engaged in bartering away the liberties of his country? But in the language of another, ‘the shaft, though aimed with a will sufficiently deadly, fell upon a breast of steel.’ The charge of treason preferred against a man who has done more for his own country than any other living statesman, and whose voice has echoed beyond her confines, and with a tone of creative power called other republics into being, is like the other infamous calumnies that have been propagated against the same illustrious individual, and like them, must soon be lost amid the lumber of forgotten things. Such conspiracies to ruin a patriot can only end in the prostration of the conspirators.

‘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, as well 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 of Mr. 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 the uncertain 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 as Mr. 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 interest Mr. 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 part Mr. 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 him with which Mr. Burr was visited, and partially succeeded, but which were dissipated by an address made by Mr. 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 not Mr. 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 of the 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 gave Mr. 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 toward Mr. Clay, and indeed towards all the prominent supporters of Mr. Jefferson’s administration. He had repeatedly attacked Mr. 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 with Mr. 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, ♦conformable to the decisions of the general government in relation thereto. They recognized Mr. 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,――and Mr. Clay’s were adopted by the same vote. But the vials of Mr. Marshall’s fiercest and most vituperative wrath were reserved for the occasion when Mr. 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 of Mr. 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 where Mr. Clay considered himself bound, according to Kentuckian interpretation of the law of honor, to challenge Mr. 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, two of whom were entitled to seats. It appeared that Mr. 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 whether Mr. Haycroft was entitled to a seat, and if not, to decide on the claims of Mr. 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 that Mr. 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 of Mr. Thomas. His claim can only be supported by a total rejection of the votes given to Mr. 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 passed 18th of 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 to Mr. 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 to Mr. 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 of Mr. Buckner Thurston’s term, who had resigned his seat in that body. During Mr. Clay’s continuance in the 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 very _lungs of Liberty herself_, generating and diffusing copious 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 tailor _just 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, combining with 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 of _encouraging 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 of Mr.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 a _non sequiter_――that although such consequences might be, and doubtless were _incidental_ to 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, but _to 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 be _in 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 by Mr. 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 by Mr. 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 both _war 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 delivered in 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 of Mr. 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 for _the people_, the great mass of mankind, and did not hesitate to declare that the people of Spain had it most unreservedly and 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 the XIV to 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 of St. 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 by Mr. 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 war upon 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 by Mr. 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 like Mr. 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.’