Chapter I: HOPE that Mr. Mendenhall may be treated with the greatest (3)

Well, sir, ought we not to make this concession? It is but very little inconvenience. I will tell you, sir, what will be the practical operation of this. It will be this: When a slave has escaped from the master, and taken a refuge in a free state, and that master comes to recapture him and take him back to the state from which he fled, the slave will cry out, ‘I do not know the man; I never saw him in my life; I am a free man.’ He will say any thing and do any thing to preserve to himself that freedom of which is for a moment in possession. He will assert most confidently before the judge that he is a free man. But take him back to the state from which he fled, to his comrades, and he will state the truth, and will relinquish all claim to freedom. The practical operation, therefore, of the amendment which we have proposed, will be attended with not the least earthly inconvenience to the party claiming the fugitive. The case is bond without surety. The bond is transmitted by the officer taking it to the district attorney of the state from which he has fled. That officer sees that the bond is executed, and that the slave is taken before the court. Perhaps, before the slave reaches home, he will acknowledge that he is a slave; there is an end of the bond and an end of the trouble about the master. Is this unreasonable? Is it not a proper and rational concession to the prejudices, if you please, which exist in the non-slaveholding states? Sir, our rights are to be asserted; our rights are to be maintained. They will be asserted and maintained in a manner not to wound unnecessarily the sensibilities of others. And, in requiring such a bond as this amendment proposes to exact from the owner, I do not think there is the slightest inconvenience imposed upon him, of which he ought to complain.

Sir, there is one opinion prevailing――I hope not extensively――in some of the non-slaveholding states, which nothing we can do will conciliate. I allude to that opinion that asserts that there is a higher law――a divine law――a natural law――which entitles a man, under whose roof a runaway has come, to give him assistance, and succor, and hospitality. A divine law, a natural law! and who are they that venture to tell us what is divine and what is natural law? Where are their credentials of prophecy? Why, sir, we are told that the other day, at a meeting of some of these people at New York, Moses and all the prophets were rejected, and that the name even of our blessed Saviour was treated with sacrilege and contempt by these propagators of a divine law, of a natural law which they have discovered above all human laws and constitutions. If Moses and the prophets, and our Saviour and all others, are to be rejected, will they condescend to show us their authority for propagating this new law, this new divine law of which they speak? The law of nature, sir! Look at it as it is promulgated, and even admitted or threatened to be enforced, in some quarters of the world. Well, sir, some of these people have discovered another plausible law of nature. There is a large class who say that if a man has acquired, no matter whether by his own exertions or by inheritance, a vast estate, much more than is necessary for the existence of himself and family, I who am starving, am entitled by a law of Nature to have a portion of these accumulated goods to save me from the death which threatens me. Here are you, with your barns full, with your warehouses full of goods, collected from all quarters of the globe; your kitchens and laundries and pantries all full of that which conduces to the subsistence and comfort of man; and here am I standing by, as Lazarus at the gate of the rich man, perishing from hunger――will not the law of Nature allow me to take enough of your super-abundance to save me a little while from that death which is inevitable without I do it? Why, sir, trace this pretended law of Nature, about which, seriously, none of the philosophers are agreed, and apply it to one of the most interesting and solemn ceremonies of life. Go to a Mahometan country, and the Mahometan will tell you that you are entitled to as many wives as you can get. Come next to a Christian country, and you will be told that you are entitled to but one. Go to our friends the Mormons, and they will tell you that you are entitled to none. But there are persons in this age of enlightenment and progress and civilization, who will rise up in public assemblages, and, denouncing the church and all that is sacred that belongs to it――denouncing the founders of the religion which all profess and revere――will tell you that notwithstanding the solemn oath which they have taken by kissing the book to carry out into full effect all the provisions of the constitution of our country, there is a law of their God――a divine law, which they have found out and nobody else has――superior and paramount to all human law; and that they do not mean to obey this human law, but the divine law, of which, by some inspiration, by some means undisclosed, they have obtained a knowledge. That is the class of persons which we do not propose to conciliate by any amendment, by any concession which we can make.

But the committee, in considering this delicate subject, and looking at the feelings and interests on both sides of the question, thought if best to offer these two provisions――that which requires the production of a record in the non-slaveholding states, and that which requires a bond to grant to the real claimant of his freedom a trial by jury, in the place where that trial ought to take place according to the interpretation of the constitution of the United States, if it take place any where. Therefore, in order to obviate the difficulties which have been presented, and to satisfy the prejudices in the non-slaveholding states, we propose to give the fugitive the right of trial by jury in the state from which he fled. The statement in the report of the committee is perfectly true that the greatest facilities are always extended to every man of color in the slaveholding states who sues for freedom. I have never known an instance of a failure on the part of a person thus suing to procure a verdict and judgment in his favor, if there were even slight grounds in support of his claim. And, sir, so far is the sympathy in behalf of a person suing for his freedom carried, that few members of the bar appear against them. I will mention, though in no boastful spirit, that I myself never appeared but once in my life against a person suing for his freedom, but have appeared for them in many instances without charging them a solitary cent. That I believe is the general course of the liberal and eminent portion of the bar throughout the country. One case I made an exception, but it was a case when I appeared for a particular friend. I told him: ‘Sir, I will not appear against your negroes unless I am perfectly satisfied that they have no right to freedom; and even if I shall become, after the progress of the trial, convinced that they are entitled to freedom, I shall abandon your cause.’ I venture to say, then, that in all that relates to tenderness of treatment to that portion of our population, and to the administration of justice to them, and the supply of their wants, nothing can be found in the slaveholding states that is not honorable and creditable to them.

Mr. President, the only measure remaining upon which I shall say a word now, is the abolition of the slave-trade in the district of Columbia. There is, I believe, precious little of it. I believe the first man in my life that I ever heard denounce that trade was a southern man――John Randolph of Roanoke. I believe there has been no time within the last forty years when, if earnestly pressed upon congress, there would not have been found a majority, perhaps a majority from the slaveholding states themselves, in favor of the abolition of the slave-trade in this district. The bill which the committee has reported is founded upon the law of Maryland, as it existed when this district was set apart and ceded to the United States.――Maryland has since very often changed her laws.――What is their exact condition at present, I am not aware. I have heard that she has made a change at the last session, and I am told that they may again be changed in the course of a year or two. Sir, some years ago, it would have been thought a great concession to the feelings and wishes of the north to abolish this slave-trade. Now, I have seen some of the rabid abolition papers denounce it as amounting to nothing. They do not care for that. And will my friends, some of my friends on the other side of the house, allow me to say a word or two with respect to their course in relation to this measure. At the beginning of this session, as you know, that offensive proviso, called the ‘Wilmot proviso,’ was what was most apprehended, and what all the slaveholding states were most desirous to get rid of. Well, sir, by the operation of causes upon the northern mind friendly to the Union, hopes are inspired, which I trust will not be frustrated in the progress of this measure, that the north, or at least a sufficient portion of the north, are now willing to dispense with the proviso. When, three months ago, I offered certain resolutions, and when to these measures it was objected, by way of reproach, that they were simply carrying out my own plan, my honorable friend from North Carolina at the moment justly pointed out the essential differences between the plan, as contained in the resolutions offered by me, and that now presented by the committee.

At the time I offered those resolutions, knowing what consequences and, as I sometimes feared, fatal consequences, might result from the fact of the north insisting on the proviso, by way of compensation, in one of the resolutions which I offered――the second one――I stated two truths, one of law and one of fact, which I thought ought to satisfy the north that it ought no longer to insist on the Wilmot proviso. Those truths were not incorporated in the bill reported by the committee, but they exist, nevertheless, as truths. I believe them both now as much I did in February last. I know there are others who do not concur with me in opinion. Every senator must decide for himself, as the country will decide for itself, when the question comes to be considered. Well, when our southern friends found they were rid of the proviso, they were highly satisfied, and I shared with them in their satisfaction. If I am not much mistaken, a great majority of them would have said, ‘If, Mr. Clay, you had not put those two obnoxious truths in them, we should have been satisfied with your resolution.’ Well, sir, we have got rid of the Wilmot proviso, we have got rid of the enactment into laws of the two truths to which I refer, but I fear there are some of our southern brethren who are not satisfied. There are some who say that there is yet the Wilmot proviso, under another form, lurking in the mountains of Mexico, in that natural fact to which my honorable friend from Massachusetts adverted, as I myself did when I hinted that the law of nature was adverse to the introduction of slavery there. Now, as you find that just desire is to be obtained, there is something further, there are other difficulties in the way of the adjustment of these unhappy subjects of difference, and of obtaining that which is most to be desired, the cementing of the bonds of this Union.

Mr. President, I do not despair, I will not despair, that the measure will be carried. And I would almost stake my existence, if I dared, that if these measures which have been reported by the committee of thirteen were submitted to the people of the United States to-morrow, and their votes were taken upon them, there would be nine-tenths of them in favor of the pacification which is embodied in that report.

Mr. President, what have we been looking at?――What are we looking at? The ‘proviso;’ an abstraction always; thrust upon the south by the north against all the necessities of the case, against all the warnings which the north ought to have listened to coming from the south; pressed unnecessarily for any northern object; opposed, I admit, by the south, with a degree of earnestness uncalled for, I think, by the nature of the provision, but with a degree of earnestness natural to the south, and which the north itself perhaps would have displayed if a reversal of the conditions of the two sections of the Union could have taken place. Why do you of the north press it? You say because it is in obedience to certain sentiments in behalf of human freedom and human rights which you entertain. You are likely to accomplish those objects at once by the progress of events, without pressing this obnoxious measure.――You may retort, why is it opposed at the south?――It is opposed at the south because the south feels that, when once legislation on the subject of slavery begins, there is no seeing where it is to end. Begin it in the district of Columbia; begin it in the territories of Utah and New Mexico and California; assert your power there to-day, and in spite of all the protestations――and you are not wanting in making protestations――that you have no purpose of extending it to the southern states, what security can you give them that a new sect will not arise with a new version of the constitution, or with something above or below the constitution, which shall authorize them to carry their notions into the bosoms of the slaveholding states, and endeavor to emancipate from bondage all the slaves there? Sir, the south has felt that her security lies in denying at the threshold your right to touch the subject of slavery. She said, ‘Begin, and who can tell where you will end? Let one generation begin and assert the doctrine for the moment, forbearing as they may be in order to secure their present objects, their successors may arise with new notions, and new principles, and new expositions of the constitution and laws of nature, and carry those notions and new principles into the bosom of the slaveholding states.’ The cases, then, gentlemen of the north and gentlemen of the south, do not stand upon an equal footing. When you, on the one hand, unnecessarily press an offensive and unnecessary measure on the south, the south repels it from the highest of all human motives of action, the security of property and life, and every thing else interesting and valuable in life.

Mr. President, after we have got rid, as I had hoped, of all these troubles――after this Wilmot proviso has disappeared, as I trust it may both in this and the other end of the capitol――after we have been disputing two or three years or more, on the one hand, about a mere abstraction, and on the other, if it were fraught with evil, not so much present as distant and future, when we are arriving at a conclusion, what are the new difficulties that spring up around us? Matters of form. The purest question of form, that was ever presented to the mind of man――whether we shall combine in one united bill three measures, all of which are necessary, or separate them into three distinct bills, passing each in its turn, if it can be done.

Mr. President, I trust that the feelings of attachment to the Union, of love for its past glory, of anticipation of its future benefits and happiness; a fraternal feeling which, I trust, will be common throughout all parts of the country; the desire to live together in peace and harmony, to prosper as we have prospered heretofore, to hold up to the civilized world the example of one great and glorious republic, fulfilling the high destiny that belongs to it, demonstrating beyond all doubt man’s capacity for self-government; these motives and these considerations will, I trust, animate us all, bringing us together to dismiss alike questions of abstraction and form, and consummating the act in such a manner as to heal not one only, but all the wounds of the country.

CORRESPONDENCE.

[SINCE the decease of the distinguished subject of these memoirs,
several of his letters (some of which were never intended
for the public eye) have found their way into the newspapers.
As a laudable curiosity exists to know the general style of
his correspondence, a few letters are subjoined, which will
afford a pretty correct idea of the easy and familiar manner
of his intercourse with personal friends. The unreserved manner
in which he expresses his opinions upon topics which were
commanding attention at the time, may be regarded as peculiarly
one of his prominent characteristics, and one, too, which few
individuals in political life seem anxious to emulate.――The
first three letters were addressed to Robert Walsh, Jr., Esq.,
formerly editor of the _National Gazette_, but of late years the
Paris correspondent of the New York _Journal of Commerce_, in
which paper they originally appeared.]

“WASHINGTON, 6th September, 1817.

“MY DEAR SIR: Having seen the second volume of the Register at Mr. D. Brent’s, I was about to inquire at the book-stores for it, when a copy was left at my house, I did not know how, until I received your obliging favor of the 29th ulto. Although it found me engaged in an interesting course of reading, I did not hesitate to interrupt the progress of my studies, to peruse your introductory discourse.

“I was much gratified in perceiving that you had undertaken the vindication of the captors of Andre, from the most indiscreet and unfounded attack of Col. Talmage. Rarely, if ever, whilst presiding in the H. of R., was I so much shocked as when he made it. It was so unnecessary, so unjust, and, I thought, was so much the result of a wish, on the part of the accuser, to announce _his_ participation in the concern of which he spoke. I really felt so transported with indignation, on the occasion, that I found myself, at one time, involuntarily rising from the Speaker’s chair, in defence of those injured men. I then wished that congress would guard against the unfavorable inference, which the future historian might possibly draw, from a rejection of their petition, by allowing them the solicited augmentation of their pensions; and I still regret it was not done.

“I do not agree with all that you have said respecting the famous Compensation Act. The form was always objectionable with me, and I still think the per diem mode preferable. In England, formerly, the members of the H. of Commons received _wages_, (that was the technical term applied to the allowance to the members,) which were paid by the boroughs, &c., that elected them. When the country had increased in wealth, and Parliament had obtained greater political importance, opulent men offered to serve, without pay, and then the receipt of wages was gradually discontinued and finally abolished. In that country, of small territorial extent, where the aristocratic feature of the government and the consequent entails which exist on estates, will always keep up large fortunes, there never can be any considerable inconvenience in attending Parliament. But, you know, to attend that body is in fact, with the mass of the members, to be present only three or four times every session, when the great questions come up. Generally throughout the session there are not more than from fifty to one hundred members in attendance. But even in England, formerly so great, occasionally, was the reluctance to submit to the inconvenience of attending Parliament, that instances have occurred of compulsory attendance.

“Every thing is otherwise here. We have happily no aristocracy, and no device for keeping estates in the possession of the same family for any length of time. The powerful operation of our statutes of distribution scatters the accumulated wealth of industry or of avarice. Fortunes are small, in the general, and will always continue so, whilst our present institutions exist. Our territory is of immense extent. The consequence is that he who happens to be a member of congress from a great distance, has to make vast and often ruinous sacrifices. Our government is yet in its infancy, and the novelty of the situation, the great excitement of the times, and other causes may have prevented us heretofore from experiencing much difficulty in getting competent members to serve. Young, however, as we are, and short as has been my service in the public councils, I have seen some of the most valuable members quitting the body, from their inability to sustain the weight of those sacrifices. And in process of time I apprehend this mischief will be more and more felt. Even now there are few, if any instances, of members dedicating their lives to the duties of legislation. Members stay a year or two, curiosity is satisfied, the novelty wears off; expensive habits are brought or are acquired; their affairs at home are neglected; their fortunes are wasting away, and they are compelled to retire. There are no sacrifices too great for one to make, when necessary, for his country.

“You say that the competition would be too much if the compensation were high. Every demagogue would aspire to the honor. Our form of government, however, supposes a competence on the part of the electors to discriminate and to choose. And depend upon it that, in the general, in any such common scrambling as you suppose, talents and virtue will prevail. To suppose that they would not, is to arraign our system. But if there be danger arising from too much competition, the result of high pay, is there not on the other hand, equal or greater danger from insufficient competition, the result of inadequate pay? I confess that I would much rather see every man in the congressional district, aspiring to the honor of representing it, than to see such an arrangement of the pay, that only one or two persons could face the expense and sacrifice incident to a seat.

“Do you not press the subject of Bonaparte too far? Fallen and captive, has he not some claim upon the magnanimity not only of his conquerors, but, during his imprisonment, upon cotemporary authors also? England has shown him none. All posterity will, I think, condemn her surrender of him to the allies, and her concurrence in his exile to St. Helena. Chatham, or Fox, or even Pitt, would have permitted him, as he desired, to remain in England. Is it not to be apprehended that any animadversions upon him, at the present time, will indirectly conduce to sanction the principles of legitimacy and the conduct of the allies?

“I ought to apologize for the unintended length of my letter. I do not often turn over the first side of the paper, and can only say that my having offended, in this instance, has proceeded from the respect and consideration in which you are held by

“Yours, faithfully and cordially,
“H. CLAY.
“R. WALSH, JR., ESQ.”

* * * * *

[CONFIDENTIAL.]

“WASHINGTON, 18th Feb. ’25.

“DEAR SIR: I thank you for your prompt attention to the paragraph which I sent you, and for your friendly letter.

“You did not like my Kremer Card. I was not surprised, but hear me. I was assailed from all quarters. The cannon of every man who would now, or four or eight years hence, be President, (except that of Mr. A.,) was directed against me. I heard it all, and saw every movement. I should have disregarded it, whilst the attack assumed the ordinary form of anonymous or even editorial commentary. But when a person was so far designated as to be elected to be a _member_ of the H. of R. belonging to the _Pennsylvania_ delegation, it assumed a tangible shape. A crisis arose in my poor affairs. Silence and criminality would have been the same. And it seemed to me that I was called upon to take a step even of apparent rashness. I ought to have omitted the last sentence in the Card; but as to the rest, I yet approve of it. And still the reason, the philosophy, the religion of no man more decidedly condemns duelling than, I hope I may say, mine does. The corrective of that pernicious practice must be found in communities, not in individuals, at least in such humble ones as I am. When the public shall cease to stamp with dishonor the man who tamely submits to injurious imputations, duels will cease. I hope the sequel of that affair was more satisfactory to the northern public.

“I have consented to go into the department of state, after much deliberation. They will abuse me for it. They would have abused me more if I had declined it. I shall carry into it zeal and industry only. The other departments which are vacant by Mr. Calhoun’s election to the V. P., and Mr. Crawford’s retirement, remain to be filled, but I am not at liberty to indicate their probable incumbents.

“An opposition is threatened; but there is no danger of any, unless the course of the Administration shall furnish just occasion for it, which we shall strive to prevent. What is now threatened, is the offspring of chagrin and disappointment. What will they oppose? If we go right, that will not, is it to be hoped, make them go wrong. An impartial trial and a just verdict are all that is demanded, and that the country will render, whatever the hopes of faction may inspire.

“I am, with great regard,

“Faithfully yours,
“H. CLAY.
“ROBERT WALSH, JR., ESQ.”

* * * * *

“WASHINGTON, 25th April, 1836.

“DEAR SIR: I duly received your favor of the 18th inst. You do me the favor to desire an adequate notion of my services and views whilst I was in the department of state. I regret that the bad state of my health, and my various public duties here oblige me to be very brief.

“Besides the discharge of the current duties of the office, I negotiated various treaties. Some of these (those for example with Austria and Mexico) were agreed upon, but not actually signed, and were subsequently concluded in the name of the succeeding administration.

“In the treaty with Central America was first introduced the great principle, that the national and foreign vessels should be equally allowed to introduce into their respective countries merchandize without regard to its _origin_. The principle had been adopted in the convention with England of 1815, negotiated by Messrs. Adams, Gallatin and me, of permitting the vessels of the two countries to import the productions of the _two countries_, on terms of entire equality; but it was restricted to the productions of G. B. and the U. S. It did not admit of an English vessel importing into the U. S. the produce of any country other than G. B., nor _vice versa_. By the treaty with Central America, which I negotiated, on the contrary, an American vessel may carry into its ports the produce of any country of the four quarters of the world, on the same terms as it can be imported by a national vessel, and _vice versa_. This has been a model treaty, which has been followed in several treaties afterwards negotiated.

“My instructions to Mr. Brown on our claims against France cost me much labor, and were favorably thought of by others.

“But my great work was the preparation of the instructions intended for our commissioners who were to meet first at Panama and afterwards at Tacubaya. If you could take the trouble to read them, you would obtain a better conception of my views than any I can now give you, as to the liberal basis on which the commerce of the world should be placed. I there argue and endeavor to have established the principle that _private_ property on the ocean shall enjoy the same safety and protection to which it is entitled on land. And all the maritime principles in favor of free trade, against spurious blockades, &c., for which we had so long and so earnestly contended, are sought to be established at the proposed congress.

“These instructions are almost exclusively my sole work. Without consulting any body particularly, I engaged in their preparation, and afterwards submitted the draft of them to the President and his Cabinet. They run into about eighty pages of manuscript, and I do not think that the alterations which, on the scrutiny of these gentlemen, they underwent, amounted altogether to one page; and these related chiefly to the projected connexion between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. I was disposed to go a little farther than my colleagues.

“The relations in which I stood to the Diplomatic Corps, during the whole of Mr. Adams’s administration, and to every member of it, were of the most cordial and friendly character. It was impossible, I think, that business could have been transacted more satisfactorily to all parties. I have reason to believe, that up to this moment, the members of that corps who were associated with me, retain lively recollections of our amicable feelings and intercourse.

“I will not dwell on this subject: but must refer you, for any deficiencies, to my public acts and the transactions of the day.

“I will add that I introduced into the Department, as vacancies from time to time occurred, (I created none) some most accomplished assistants, several of whom were found to be so necessary that they escaped the general proscription.

“I think it very probable that your feelings towards me have been sometimes misunderstood and misrepresented. Certainly, in our personal intercourse, I never discovered any evidence of hostility or prejudice. Candor obliges me to say that I have sometimes seen in your paper what I thought bore testimony of an inimical spirit; but your frank assurance now convinces me that I was mistaken. We have been in the midst, during these late years, of the most exciting scenes in our public affairs. I do not much underrate the power which I was opposing――certainly not its disastrous tendency. I felt that I was struggling for the country, for its civil liberty, its institutions, its prosperity, its value. I felt that I had a good title to the support of all honorable and intelligent men. Perhaps I have been sometimes too sensitive, when I thought that support was not yielded, and have censured too hastily when I supposed a measure of zeal in the public cause was not displayed by others equal to my own. With best wishes for your health and prosperity, I am

“Your friend and obedient servant,
“H. CLAY.
“R. WALSH, ESQ.”

* * * * *

[The following private letter was written to several political
friends in the state of New York, who wrote to Mr. Clay in 1844
on the subject of emancipating his slaves. They expressed their
high admiration of his character, their pleasure on learning
that he had given freedom to his man Charles, and their desire
that he would extend the same boon to all those who still
remained on his hands. He replied as follows:]

ASHLAND, 8 Jan., 1845.

_Gentlemen_,――I have perused your friendly letter in the spirit in which it was written. I am glad that the emancipation of my servant Charles, meets your approbation. A degree of publicity has been given to the fact, which I neither expected nor desired. I am not in the habit of making any parade of my domestic transactions, but since you have adverted to one of them, I will say that I had previously emancipated Charles’ mother and sister, and acquiesced in his father’s voluntary abandonment of my service, who lives with his wife near me. Charles continues to reside with me, and the effect of his freedom is no other than that of substituting fixed wages, which I now pay to him, for the occasional allowances and gratuities which I gave him.

You express a wish that I would emancipate the residue of my slaves. Of these more than half are utterly incapable of supporting themselves, from infancy, old age, or helplessness. They are in families. What would they do if I were to send them forth on the world? Such a measure would be extremely cruel instead of humane. Our law does not admit of emancipation, without security being given that the freed slave shall not be a public charge.

In truth, gentlemen, the question of my emancipating the slaves yet remaining with me, evolves many considerations of duty, relation and locality, of which, without meaning any disrespect to you, I think you are hardly competent to judge. At all events, I, who alone am responsible to the world, to God, and to my conscience, must reserve to myself the exclusive judgment.

I firmly believe that the cause of the extinction of negro slavery, far from being advanced, has been retarded by the agitation of the subject at the North. This remark is not intended for those who, like you, are moved by benevolent impulses, and do not seek to gratify personal or political ambition.

I am, with great respect,
Your friend and obedient servant,
H. CLAY.

Footnotes.

1 – In one of the many speeches which he made during his
journey, he thus alludes to the tenderness with which he
was treated. ‘I was taken into custody, made captive of,
but placed withal in such _delightful bondage_, that I
could find no strength and no desire to break away from
it.’

2 – Extract from the Grant to Crozat, dated at

‘_Fontainbleau_, September 14, 1712.

LOUIS, By the grace of God, &c.

‘The care we have always had to procure the welfare and
advantage of our subjects, having induced us, &c. to seek
for all possible opportunities of enlarging and extending
the trade of our American colonies, we did, in the year
1683, give our orders to undertake a discovery of the
countries and lands which are situated in the northern
part of America, between New France and New Mexico;
and the Sieur de la Salle, to whom we committed that
enterprise, having had success, enough to confirm a belief
that a communication might be settled _from New France
to the Gulf of Mexico_, by means of large rivers, this
obliged us, immediately after the peace of Ryswic, to give
orders for establishing a colony there, and maintaining
a garrison, _which has kept and preserved the possession
we had taken in the very year 1683_, of the lands, coasts,
and islands, which are situated _in the Gulf of Mexico
between Carolina on the east_, and old and new Mexico on
the west. But a new war having broke out in Europe shortly
after, there was no possibility, till now, of reaping from
_that colony_ the advantages that might have been expected
from thence, &c. And, whereas, upon the information we
have received concerning the disposition and situation of
the said countries, _known at present by the name of the
Province of Louisiana_, we are of opinion, that there may
be established therein considerable commerce, &c., we have
resolved to grant the commerce of the country of Louisiana
to the Sieur Anthony Crozat, &c. For these reasons, &c. we,
by these presents signed by our hand, have appointed and
do appoint the said Sieur Crozat, to carry on a trade in
all the lands possessed by us, and bounded by New Mexico
_and by the lands of the English of Carolina_, all the
establishments, ports, havens, rivers, and principally
the port and haven of the Isle Dauphine, heretofore
called Massacre; the river of St. Louis, heretofore
called Mississippi, from the edge of the sea as far as the
Illinois, together with the river St. Philip, heretofore
called the Missouri, and of St. Jerome, heretofore called
Onabache, with all the countries, territories, and lakes
within land, and the rivers which fall directly or
indirectly into that part of the river St. Louis.

‘_The Articles_――¹. Our pleasure is, that all the
aforesaid lands, countries, streams, rivers, and islands
be, and _remain comprised under the name of the government
of Louisiana_, which shall be dependent upon the general
government of New France, to which it is subordinate;
and further, that all the lands which we possess from the
Illinois, be united, &c. to the general government of New
France, and become part thereof, &c.’

3 – The chairman had risen to put the question, which would
have cut Mr. Clay off from the opportunity of speaking, by
carrying the bill to the house.――_Editor._

4 – This prediction is already beginning to be
realized.――_Editor._

5 – It is due to Mr. Clay to observe, that one of the most
offensive expressions used by Mr. Quincy, an expression
which produced disgust on all sides of the house, has
been omitted in that gentleman’s reported speech, which
in other respects has been much softened.――_Editor._

6 – It is impossible to describe the pathetic effect produced
by this part of the speech. The day was chilling cold;
so much so, that Mr. Clay has been heard to declare, that
it was the only time he ever spoke, when he was unable to
keep himself warm by the exercise of speaking; yet there
were few eyes that did not testify to the sensibility
excited.――_Editor._

7 – This speech was never published.

8 – The proposition which it asserts was, he thought,
sufficiently maintained by barely reading the clause in
the constitution on which it rests: ‘the congress _shall
have_ power to dispose, &c. the territory or other
property belonging to the United States.’

9 – The house of representatives has uniformly maintained its
right to deliberate upon those treaties, in which their
coöperation was asked by the executive. In the first case
that occurred in the operation of our government, that of
the treaty commonly called Mr. Jay’s treaty, after general
Washington refused to communicate his instructions to
that minister, the house asserted its rights, by fifty
odd votes to thirty odd. In the last case that occurred,
the convention in 1815 with Great Britain, although
it passed off upon what was called a compromise, this
house substantially obtained its object; for, if that
convention operated as a repeal of the laws with which
it was incompatible, the act which passed was altogether
unnecessary.

10 – The resolution, offered by Mr. Clay, declaring that
the United States would not see with indifference any
interference of the holy alliance in behalf of Spain
against the new American republics.

11 – Madame de Staël.

12 – It has been, since the delivery of the speech, suggested,
that the reverend Robert Finley, of New Jersey, (who is
also, unfortunately, dead,) contemplated the formation of
a society, with a view to the establishment of a colony
in Africa, and probably first commenced the project.
It is quite likely that he did; and Mr. Clay recollects
seeing Mr. Finley and consulting with him on the subject,
about the period of the formation of the society. But
the allusion to Mr. Caldwell was founded on the facts,
well known to Mr. Clay, of his active agency in the
organization of the society, and his unremitted subsequent
labors, which were not confined to the District of
Columbia, in promoting the cause.

13 – A society of a few individuals, without power, without
other resources than those which are supplied by
spontaneous benevolence, to emancipate all the slaves of
the country!

14 – See the last annual report and the highly interesting
historical sketch of the reverend Mr. Ashmun.

15 – To say nothing of cotton produced in other foreign
countries, the cultivation of this article, of a very
superior quality, is constantly extending in the adjacent
Mexican provinces, and but for the duty, probably, a large
amount would be introduced into the United States, down
Red river and along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

16 – Mr. Clay subsequently understood that colonel Murray was a
merchant.

17 – Mr. Clay stated that he assumed the quantity which was
generally computed, but he believed it much greater, and
subsequent information justifies his belief. It appears
from the report of the cotton committee appointed by
the New York convention, that _partial_ returns show a
consumption of upwards of two hundred and fifty thousand
bales; that the cotton manufacture employs nearly forty
thousand females, and about five thousand children; that
the total dependants on it are one hundred and thirty-one
thousand four hundred and eighty-nine; that the annual
wages paid are twelve million one hundred and fifty-five
thousand seven hundred and twenty-three dollars; the
annual value of its products thirty-two million three
hundred and six thousand and seventy-six dollars; the
capital forty-four million nine hundred and fourteen
thousand nine hundred and eighty-four dollars; the number
of mills seven hundred and ninety-five; of spindles, one
million two hundred and forty-six thousand five hundred
and three; and of cloth made, two hundred and sixty
million four hundred and sixty-one thousand nine hundred
and ninety yards. This statement does not comprehend the
western manufactures.

18 – As to Shirley, Mr. Clay acknowledges his mistake, made
in the warmth of debate. It is yet the abode of the
respectable and hospitable descendants of its former
opulent proprietor.

19 – This subject had been set down for this day. It was
generally expected, in and out of the senate, that it
would be taken up, and that Mr. Clay would address the
senate. The members were generally in their seats, and
the gallery and lobbies crowded. At the customary hour, he
moved that the subject pending should be laid on the table,
_to take up the land bill_. It was ordered accordingly.
At this point of time Mr. Forsyth made a motion, supported
by Mr. ♦Tazewell, that the senate proceed to executive
business. The motion was overruled.

20 – It is understood to have been read by Mr. Hill.

21 – The following is the proceeding to which Mr. Clay referred:

Resolved, by the general assembly of Maryland, that the
senators and representatives from this state in congress,
be requested to use their utmost endeavors, in the
admission of the state of Missouri into the union, to
prevent the prohibition of slavery from being required
of that state as a condition of its admission.

It passed, January, 1820, in the affirmative. Among the
names of those in the negative, is that of Mr. Taney.

22 – The amendment was in the following words:

_Be it further enacted_, that in all instances of
appointment to office by the president, by and with the
advice and consent of the senate, the power of removal
shall be exercised only in concurrence with the senate;
and when the senate is not in session, the president may
suspend any such officer, communicating his reasons for
the suspension ♦during the first month of its succeeding
session, and if the senate concur with him, the officer
shall be removed; but if it do not concur with him, the
officer shall be restored to office.

Mr. Clay was subsequently induced not to urge his
amendment at this time.

23 – The following is the table referred to by Mr. Clay.

_Statement showing the dividend of each state, (according
to its federal population,) of the proceeds of the public
lands, during the years 1833, 1834, and 1835, after
deducting from the amount fifteen per centum, previously
allowed to the seven new states._

Fifteen
per
Share for centum Total
Federal each to new to new
States. population. state. states. states.
―――――――――――――― ――――――――――― ――――――――― ――――――――― ―――――――――
Maine 399,437 $617,269
New Hampshire 269,326 416,202
Massachusetts 610,408 943,293
Rhode Island 97,194 150,198
Connecticut 297,665 459,996
Vermont 280,657 433,713
New York 1,918,553 2,964,834
New Jersey 319,922 494,391
Pennsylvania 1,348,072 2,083,233
Delaware 75,432 116,568
Maryland 405,843 627,169
Virginia 1,023,503 1,581,669
North Carolina 639,747 988,632
South Carolina 455,025 701,495
Georgia 429,811 664,208
Kentucky 621,832 960,947
Tennessee 625,263 966,249
Ohio 935,884 1,446,266 230,844 1,677,110
Louisiana 171,694 265,327 67,661 332,888
Indiana 343,031 530,102 325,485 855,588
Illinois 157,147 242,846 483,760 726,606
Missouri 130,419 201,542 174,354 375,897
Mississippi 110,358 170,541 788,403 958,945
Alabama 262,508 405,666 541,940 947,607

[Fractions of dollars are omitted in the above sums.]

24 – MESSRS. GALES & SEATON:

In the speech which I addressed to the senate, on
the subject of abolition petitions, I ascribed to Dr.
Franklin the authorship of the law passed by the state
of Pennsylvania, in 1780, for the gradual emancipation of
slaves. Such was the impression on my mind; but, from a
communication which I have since received, I believe that
the measure originated with another distinguished citizen
of Pennsylvania, the late honorable George Bryan.

I will thank you to make this correction, unimportant in
respect to the use I made of the fact, but otherwise just
and proper.
Yours, respectfully,
H. CLAY
Washington, March 2, 1839.

25 – The result of the returns has since been announced, and
it shows a population of rising seventeen millions. Still
Ohio has the proportion supposed, of about one tenth of
the population, according to _federal numbers_, which
furnish the rate proposed for distribution.

26 – It is but justice to those officers to say, that the
most extravagant increase in the contingent expenses of
congress is in the article of printing, for which they are
not responsible.

Transcriber’s Notes.

The following corrections have been made in the text:

Page 12:
Sentence starting: Among them were George Nicholas,...
– ‘Brekenridge’ replaced with ‘Breckenridge’
(George Nicholas, John Breckenridge,)

Page 28:
Sentence starting: ‘How far is it the policy....
– Missing endquote in text; placement uncertain.
(‘How far is it the policy...)

Page 31:
Sentence starting: In the early part of the session....
– ‘comformable’ replaced with ‘conformable’
(conformable to the decisions of)

Page 40:
Sentence starting: He maintained that these laws....
– Missing endquote in text; placement uncertain.
(‘a legislative construction)

Page 52:
Sentence starting: It placed in bold relief....
– ‘babaric’ replaced with ‘barbaric’
(the barbaric depredations)

Page 55:
Sentence starting: A people having, besides....
– ‘prostated’ replaced with ‘prostrated’
(which must be prostrated before)

Page 82:
Sentence starting: A most animated discussion....
– ‘uinimpaired’ replaced with ‘unimpaired’
(in the unimpaired possession)

Page 93:
Sentence starting: A few days subsequent....
– ‘subseqent’ replaced with ‘subsequent’
(A few days subsequent)

Page 105:
Sentence starting: He went on to state,...
– ‘slighest’ replaced with ‘slightest’
(agitate in the slightest degree)

Page 111:
Sentence starting: If she would but extend....
– ‘exend’ replaced with ‘extend’
(but extend her hand)

Page 115:
Sentence starting: Says one familiar with....
– Missing endquote in text; placement uncertain.
(‘popular meetings,...)

Page 138:
Sentence starting: Soon after the appearance....
– ‘Beverly’ replaced with ‘Beverley’
(Mr. Carter Beverley,)

Page 151:
Sentence starting: He promptly obeyed the call,...
– ‘slighest’ replaced with ‘slightest’
(which cast the slightest shade)

Page 160:
Sentence starting: But the salvation of it....
– ‘retrogade’ replaced with ‘retrograde’
(making this retrograde movement,)

Page 165:
Sentence starting: The governor’s room....
– ‘visiters’ replaced with ‘visitors’
(constant succession of visitors.)

Page 171:
Sentence starting: There is an abundance....
– ‘veneficial’ replaced with ‘beneficial’
(it is perfectly beneficial.)

Page 174:
Sentence starting: I cannot but remember,...
– ‘weilding’ replaced with ‘wielding’
(though wielding such a vast)

Page 189:
Sentence starting: No permanent advantage, however,...
– ‘permanant’ replaced with ‘permanent’
(No permanent advantage, however,)

Page 190:
Sentence starting: His power of illustration....
– ‘mysterous’ replaced with ‘mysterious’
(knowledge of its mysterious movements.)

Page 208:
Sentence starting: Born in an humble station,....
– ‘withont’ replaced with ‘without’
(without any of the adventitious)

Page 215:
Sentence starting: That coöperation did not end....
– ‘unyelding’ replaced with ‘unyielding’
(the unyielding opposition to)

Page 217:
Sentence starting: MR. BRECKENRIDGE then rose....
– ‘Breckinridge’ replaced with ‘Breckenridge’
(Mr. BRECKENRIDGE then rose)

Page 245:
Sentence starting: The question was then put....
– ‘Breckenbridge’ replaced with ‘Breckenridge’
(proposed by Mr. Breckenridge,)

Page 250:
Sentence starting: I could not but realize....
– ‘memery’ replaced with ‘memory’
(to cheer his memory and his)

Page 431:
Sentence starting: Whatever may be the character....
– ‘maintaing’ replaced with ‘maintaining’
(capable of maintaining the relations)

Page 448:
Sentence starting: It will be seen, that Mr. Clay....
– ‘Munroe’ replaced with ‘Monroe’
(administration of Mr. Monroe,)

Page 582:
Sentence starting: It is a circle of....
– ‘philanthrophy’ replaced with ‘philanthropy’
(circle of philanthropy,)

Page 629:
Sentence starting: If I have not been....
– ‘misimformed’ replaced with ‘misinformed’
(If I have not been misinformed)

Page 631:
Sentence starting: According to the principle....
– ‘Excutive’ replaced with ‘Executive’
(compass of the Executive power,)

Page 799:
Sentence starting: If it were possible to pacify....
– ‘he’ replaced with ‘be’
(no difficulty need be apprehended.)

Page 950:
Sentence starting: The committee on foreign relations....
– ‘delaring’ replaced with ‘declaring’
(declaring that Texas)

Page 980:
Sentence starting: No prudent or practical government,...
– duplicated word removed ‘in’
(will in its measures)

Page 995:
Sentence starting: Neither of them,...
– ‘1823’ replaced with ‘1833’
(whatever in 1833.)

Page 998:
Sentence starting: [Here Mr. Clay read parts....
– ‘speculototors’ replaced with ‘speculators’
(attempts were made by speculators,)

Page 1211:
Sentence starting: Mr. Clay had hitherto viewed....
– ‘weigh’ replaced with ‘weight’
(in its numerical weight,)

Page 1244:
Sentence starting: And first, the government will,...
– ‘preseve’ replaced with ‘preserve’
(and thus preserve the public)

Page 1262:
Sentence starting: [Here some body cried out....
– ‘Beverly’ replaced with ‘Beverley’
(Mr. Carter Beverley,)

Page 1301:
Sentence starting: One of these objections was....
– duplicated word removed ‘at’
(if admitted at all,)

Page 1306:
Sentence starting: Now, sir, if you admit California,...
– ‘settlemennt’ replaced with ‘settlement’
(to the settlement of the boundary)

Footnote 19:
Sentence starting: At this point of time Mr. Forsyth....
– ‘Tazwell’ replaced with ‘Tazewell’
(supported by Mr. Tazewell,)

Footnote 22:
Sentence starting: _Be it further enacted_,...
– ‘duing’ replaced with ‘during’
(for the suspension during the)