u 6 Ui ^♦^% "o^^*" ^.^^^^ ^^K*' "^^"^^-^ "^^S J'^ .0«». '^tEi^s^n* .4. O. ^o. ..p *. ~^t ^/ MR. WFBSTER AND HIS REVILERS. C -340 I MR. webstp:r and his revilers. [It having b^n suggested to the Editors of the Intelhgencer that tie article in their paper of the 24th of Apr!!, headed " .¥r. Webster and Ms Revilers," and principally copied from the New York Express, might be nseful to the cause of truth and public justice if circulated in pamphlet form, they have yiejded to the suggestion, and issue the article in that form.] fTom THE KATIONAL ISTELLIBB-VCER OF APHIL 24, 1841. It is the practice of demagogues in all free Governments to seek the direction of public opinion by keeping alive old pre- judices, or exciting new ones. In no country lias this artifice been more freely or frequently resorted to than in our own, nor by any party in it so systematically and intolerantly as by that wl^ch has sprung up of late years and assumed to itself thename o( democratic, but which, so far from possessing the elem.ents of true and enlightened democracy, is imbued and guided by tjie very spirit of despotism. Let any man have labored as long or as signally as he may in support of the rights of his country, of the national prosperity, of the Consti- tution and of public liberty— letttis whole career have been marked by public usefulness, and his patriotism be as unblem- ished as the sun— these shall all weigji as nothing in the scale if he stand in the way of disappointed oflice-seekers, or of am- bitious and aspiring partisans. Caq nothing better be found to serve the ends of party rancor, he shall, though he be patriotism and purity personified, be hunted down and sacri- ficed, without scruple or rem6rse, to superannuated prejudices, or mere political abstractions. There is not one among the men whose names adorn the annals of our country, who has 'SXiffered more from this species -of injustice than the present Secretary of State. This eminent citizen, whose name, in the ai-ijst remote regions of tlie globe, sheds a lustre on the fame of Ms country, is at home assailed with all the malevolence. of an intolerant faction, on the score of political incidents which took place before one-half of our readers were born, and wliich, whatever were their merit, ought, after such a lapse of time, to be considered, upon, any fair construction, as barred hy Ihe statute of limitations from any title to a nlace in politi- ■i:jal controversies of the present day. We had occasion to say iIks same thing not much more than six monihs ago, ^vhen an asfauk of this sort was made, and justly rebuked by public opinion, on the occasion of Mr. Webster's visit to the city of JRidimond. Nor was it any new opinion of ours: for it was, ^ipon an occasion which then offered, expressecl^'ith' equal confidence six years ago, and has been entertained by us, ysltli the same earnestness of conviction, more than twenty years gone by. It is preposterous to be ripping up any man's life for thirty or forty years, to discover v/hether at some time or other he has not differed in opinion from some other man or men- who have long since gone down to the home lof all the living. Not, by any means, that we think that Mr. Websteb has any thing to apprehend from a free and fair inquiry into the whole of his political life. On the contrary, we have no ^ubt he would court it. But wiiat we do most decidedly object to is the falsification of history; the misstatement of ^aicts; and the distorting atid blurring of the lace of such facts ;as are not wholly misrepresented. These remarks are suggested by an article which we find in .ftfe New York Express of Wednesday last, the writer of which lias taken the trouble to meet and absolutely extinguish the ixtest of these incendiary attempts upon the reputation of "Mr. Webstek. We have a very sensible pleasure in transferring ilie whole article to our columnti. Here it is : KRon TUB SEW tonic kxpuess ov APiiir. 21. Mr. WF.BSTER .\?iD THE LAST WAR. • Diiiinq the ^..,.^ ,!(.'s of tli.: ...ci t;iection some partic^s. appear }o have e.xplored the Journals of Congress, during the war with Enn^- land, lo find matter ot" accusation against Mr. VVebsteis. A letter \y;is published [hereto subjoined] appearinjr to furnish the- result of such e.xamiiwtlnn. Whether this was fair or not, few peo- ple could judg», as few ha\'e eithnr tlie m to above.) Srn : I herewith send you the vote of Daxiel Webster on several occasion?, while a member of Congress during the war. 1st. On the 7th January, 1814, he voted against an appropriation ^°^ defraymj the expenses of the navy. 2d. On the 19th January, 1814, he voted against a proposition more effectually to detect and punish traitors and spies. 3d. On the 2.5lh March, he voted against the bill to call forth the militia to ex- ecute the laws of the Union and repel invasion. ^4th. On the 1st December, oirly a few days before the sitting of the Hartford Convention, he voted against a bill to provide additional revenue for defraying'the expenses of the Govtrnment and maintaining the public credit. ■ 5th. On the 10th, he voted to postpone indefinitely a bill authorizing the Presi- dent of the United States to call upon the several States for their respective quotas of militia to defend the frontier agai!is| invasion. 6th. On the 13th, against the same bill. 7th. He also voted against a hill to provide additional revenue for the support of Government and the puUic credit, and also against an appropriation for re- building the Capitol, which had been destroyed by the enemy. The above is taken from the public records at Washington. 1 could givp you more, but the above is enough. Such is the vote of a Tory, now called Vi/hig. Sorry I am to find you in such company, with such a le.uler. [What follows is of a private nature.] Respectfully yours. THE STATEMEIVT. A true and e.\act statement of the case, in regard to each of these votes, as appears from the Journals and the printed debates. , The charges are : I. "On the 7th January, 1814, he voted against an appropriation for defraying the expenses of the navy." . This is exceedingly disingenuous for two reasons : . 1st. Because the matter is not accurately stated^ nor the reason for the vote given, as that now appears in the debates. A bill had passed the House of Kep- resentatives, and without opposition, either on the question of its'engrossmentor the question of its final passage, "making partial appropriations for the service of 1814." The Senate inserted, as an amendment, an appropriation^f one million, of dollars for the expenses of the Navy. It was quite unusual at that time, and indeed it is believed unprecedented, for the Senate to originate, by way of amend- ment, such large grants of money for the public service.. On this ground, alone, the amendment was opposed by some who had been the warmest friends of the Navy from the time of General Washington. " It was a question of the regularity of proceeding, a question of fhe order of business, mere-' ly. The record shows that Natuamel Ma ion, and other administration men, voted with Mr. Webster on that question, against concurring with the Senate in their amendment. . 2d. Because it is well known that, throughout the whole war, Mr. Webster • was constantly urging upon Government grealer extension of our naval means, and augmented expenditure and augmented efforts on the sea. The Navy had been exceedingly unpopular vith the party then iti power. This every body knons ; and Mr. Webster was atterupting to argue it into popularity. The Journal sho\Ts that, on the 8th November, 1814, the House went into committee on the bill from the Senate to authorize the President to budd twenty vessels of war to carry a certain number of guns. Mr. Reed moved to increase the number of guns more Ihap twofold for each ship. Mr. Webster voted in the affirmative, but the ij^ion was lost, and the bill then passed without opposi- tion. Doubtless rtiany other votes of this kind may be found in the Journal, for the debates show that Mr. Websteh constantly urged the increase of our Naval power as the best means of meeting our enemy, the proudest maritime Power in the world. Ih respect, then, to the \\>le here complained of, the fact is, that it was not a vote against an appropriation to defray the expenses of the Navy, but was a vote against the assumption of the Senate to originate, by way of amendment, large appropriations of money for military service. It was then, and is now, thought by many, exclusively the legitimate office of llie House of Representatives to originate all the principal grants of money for the support of Government. Would it be considered fair to charge Nathaniel Macon and others, the friends of Mr. Madison and distinguished supporters of the war, with a disposition to withhold the means of defending the country, because he and they voted against the extraordinary amendment of the Senate? Certainly not ; and, therefore, the same charge now made against Mr.' Webster with voting with iVctihaniel Mdcon on that question is unfair, if not ridiculous. 11/. "?)n the 10th January, 1814, he voted against a proposition more effectu- ally to detect and puuisii traitors and spies." This is absolutely untrue. ' On lh6 19th of January, 1814, Mr. Wright, of Maryland, moved the following resolution : " Reso/red, That t!ie Committee of the Whole Hou.'^o be instructed to inquire into the expediency of extending the second section of the act for the Government of the United States relative to spies, to citizens of ike United Slates." The effect of extending the rules and articles of war relative to spies to citizens of the Miitcd States, would have been to expose every American citizen visiting the encampment of the American army, to be charged with being a spy, and have that charge tried and determined by a drum-head court-martial, and that trial fol- lowed bydeath. It would have withdrawn from our citizens that great siiicid nf American liber- ty — the right of trial by jury — and placed the whole country, and all our citizens, at once under martial law. So thought Mr. Webster, and he voted against it. So thought Mr. Cheves and Mr. Farrow, of South Carolina, Mr. Duvall, Mr. Ornisby, and Mr. Clark, of Kentucky, Mr. Eppcs, of \'irginia, Mr. Kent, of 8 * Maryland, Mr. Seybert, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Fisk, of Vermont, (or New York,) Mr. King, of North Carolina, (now"Senator from Alahairia, and late President of the Senate,) Mr. Richardson, (late Chief Justice oUVew Hanii)shire,) Mr. Rob- ertson, of Louisiana, and many others of the warmest supporiers of the Adminis- tration of Mr. Madison; and they voted wiili Mr. Websicr : ijnd there is no more truth in this charge against Mr. Webster than in the same charge, shauld it he made, against Jvlr. Eppes, the chairman of tiie Commitlec of Ways and Means, son-in-law of Mr. Jefferson, and leader of the then Democratic party in the House of Representatives. — III. "On the 2.5th of March he voted against the bill to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union an J rejiel invasion." This is wholly a mistake, or misstatement. The Journalof the 25th of March .shows no such question voted upon, or pending. IV. " On the 1st nf December, only a few days before the meeting oXlhellart- ford Convention, he voted against a bill to provide additional revenue for defraying the expenses of the Government, and.mainiaining the public credit." This reference to the Hartford Convention is merely for effect, and to make un- fair and false impressions, as it is known to all, who are not wilfully ignorant, that Mr. Webster had nothing to do 'with the Hartford Convi-ntion. The opponents of .Mr. Vv'ebstor have been, again and again, challenged in vain • to the proof that he was in any manner connected with the Hartford Convention, its oiigin, or proceedings.- No such proof has- been or can be presented. And yet the charge, so faiseiy made, and so often refuted, continues to be repeated. As for the test of the fourth allegation, it only appears that Mr. Webster was in a very small minority ag^iinst a bill laying taxes on various articles,Jto some of which taxes there were very serious objections, however important the object, while money could be raised in other modes. This bill proposed a direct tax upon various articles. It laid duties ujkjii sales at auction, on the postage of letters, on licenses to retail wines, on license* to re- tail spirituous liquors and foreign merchandise, on carriages for the conveyance of persons, and on plate, harness, &c. It is but fair to ascribe Mr._ Webster's vote against this bill to his objection to the form of some of the taxes, because -the Journal shows that a few days before he voted in the affirmative on a propositioa to increase other taxes. The yeas and nays given in the Journal show that the vote on the tax biU refer- red to was not, by any means, a test of parlies, or a party vote — most of the lead- ing Opposition members having voted in the aflirmative. The Journal of the 2(!th of October, 1814, shows that Mr. Vv'elstfr proposed and voted for some of the taxes provided for by this bill, but, us he disapproved of other taxes contained in it, he voted against the whole bill. V. " On the lOth, he vottd to postpone indellnitely a bill authorizing the Presi- dent of the United States to call upon the several States for their respective quotas ■of militia to defend the frontier against invasion." VI. »'0n the 13th, he voted ogaipst the same bill." • 9 The answer to these slands on the same grounJ as*those to eoine of the pre- ceding. The reason irf not given, but the debate shows a reason, fair and honest at least, whatever may be tiiought of its strength and validity. Mr, Webster never g^ve a vote against defending the country, against repelling invasion, or against executing the laws. He '.vas as ready to defend the country as the warmest patriot, and we have seen it stated, what is no doubt true, that when Portsmouth, the town in wiiich he tiien lived, was supposed to be in danger of an immediate attack by the enemy, ho was placed, on the nomination of John Langdon, at the head of a committee raised for its defence. In Mr, Webster's speech, 2l5t ^f8f^ch, 1838, in reply to Mr. Calhoun, he chal- lenged that gentlemen to show that he ever gave an unpatriotic vote during the war or at any other time. He adjnilted that, tvt'th Mr. Calhoun, he had preferred to carry on the war with England on ike ocean, and had indicated that preference by his votes, ash:id Mr. Caihoun and others. It is well known that on the occa- feion referred to, Mr. Calhoun, who has served with Mr. Webster for nearly thirty years in Congress, and who wcW knew what his votes were during the war, was j^erfectly silent when ibis challenge was made. Vir. ''He also voted against a bill to provide additional revenue for the support of the Govcrnn^ent and the public credit,, and also against an appropriation for re- building the Capitol, wliich had been destroyed by the enemy." The answer given to tiin fourth charge i.s the answer to tlie seventh, except that under the 7th head is contained, also, a very disingenuous charge — tliat Mr. Web- ster voted against a hill to provide for the rebuilding of the Capitorl after it had been destroyed by the enemy. Tffc unfairness and falsity of Ibis charge arc shown by an examination of the re- cord. The Journal shows the following legislation in respect to rebuilding the Capitol. It is to be rcmemberou, however, that, in consequence of a domestic ca- lamity, Mr. Webster did not take his seat in Congress in 1814 until the l,5th*ay of October. On the 26lh September, Mr. Fisk of New York,' a distinguished friend of t!ie administration of Mr. Madison, moved for a committee "to inquire into the expediency of removing the seat of Government during the session of Con- gress to a place of better security and less inconvenience." The motion prevailed r ayes 72, noes 51. This was not a party vote, as the record shows. On the 3d October the committee reported "that it was' inexpedient, at this time, to remove the scat of Government," but Mr. Fisk himself moved to amend the report by striking out the word *' inexpedient," and substituting "expe- dient." On this motion the vote stood 68 to 68, and the Speaker (Mr. Cheves) declaring himself for the amendment, it was adopted, and the amended resolution was referred to a Committee of the Whole House. October 4. The order of the day on this subject being Called for, Mr. IVcwton rao^ed its indefinite postponement. This was negatived: yeas (il, nays 77, and not a party vote, as the Journal shows. October G. The report of the committee, having been reported back to the 10 • House from the Committee of the Whole House, was taken up ; anJ on the ques- tion to agree to it, the vote stood ayes 72 and 71 noes. So the report recommcnd- jng the removal cf the seat of GJovernment from Washington to some more con- venient place was agreed to, and a committee was appointed to bring in a bill. ' October 13. Mr. Fisk reported a bill for the temporary removal of the seat of Government. On the 15th October Mr. Webster took his seat for the first time for that session, and on this day the question was taken upon a motion to reject the Irill, and it was negatived, ayes 76, noes 79, Mr. Webster voting in the ncgati' e ; that is to say, he voted against the rejection of a bill, brought in !>y a leading friend of the Ad- ministration, and on which there had been, in no stage of it, a party vote, provi- ding for the removal of the seat of Government from Washington. The bill, not being rejected, was read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House. Being reported back from the committee to the Hoijse, it was moved to am.end the bill by insi^rting a section which provided that the President's House and the Capitol should be rebuilt on their former sites in the city of Wash- ington, which was rejected without a division. , » In the Committee of the Whole the bill had been amended, and on'e of the amendments was to name the place to which the Government should be removed. (The place does not appear upon the .Tournal, but is believed to have been Lan- caster, Pennsylvania.) The question then being put upon the engrossment of the bill, it passed in the negative, ayes 74, noes 83. -And so the bill was lost. Mr. Webster voted in the affirmative. This was not a paity vote; the Northern men generally voted to remove the .Government to Lancaster, and the Southern were against it. , The ne.^t proceeding that appears upon this subject took place on the 20th Oc- tober, when Mr. Lewis, of Virginia, (whom Mr. Jefferson called the residuary legaree of all the federalism of the State of Virginia,) moved for a committee to inquire into the expediency of rebuilding the President's House and the Caj)itol, and the necessary expense for that purpo.se. The resolution was adopted without objection, and a committee appointed, which reported on the 21st November, and on that day Mr. Lewis obtained leave to bring in a bill making an appropriation for repairing or rebuilding- in the city of W'ashington. It does not appear that any further proceedings took place in the House in re- gard to the bill introduced by Mr. Lewis; but on the Sth of February a bill from the Senate, to provide for the rebuilding of the President's House and the Capitol, being under consideration in the H(5use of Representatives, it was moved that no part of the money should be expended until the President laid before Congress a report stating the principles upon which the Capitol, President's House, and the Post Office should i)e rebuilt, with an estimate of the cost. This motion was re- jected. Then Mr. Stanford, of North Carolina, an ardent supporter of tlfe Ad- ministration, moved " that the bill be'recommitted with instructions to report such change and p/an of conslrucllon of the public buildings as .shall comport with the 11 convenience of the Government." Tliis motion was lost. .Mr. Eppes, of Vir- ginia, as appears by his vote, was of opinion that the money ought not to lie voted without some iiind of change in the old plan of construction, nor without some plan being laid before the House to show ivhat the construction was to be, and the expens^ of it. Mr. Webster was of this opinion also, and on the third reading of the bill there were 67 yeas and 55 nays, and the bill passed. Mr. Webster voted in the negative, and this is the crime he is accused of. Mr. Eppes, the Democratic lead||of the House, and chairman of the Comniittee of Ways and Means, voted with him. Mr. Farrow, of S. C, voted with him, Mr. Kerr, of Va., Mr. Udree, of Pa., Mr. Taylor, of N. Y., Mr. Ingham, of Pa., Mr. Murfree, of N. C, Mr. Williams, ofN. C, Mr. Conard, of Pa., Mr. Stan- ford, of A'. C, and other stanch Democrats, voted with lAr. Webster, and many of ,VIr. >yehster's political friends voted for the bill. The truth is, it was no party proceeding, and there wa« no party voto on it ; and all that can be made of it is, that Mr. Webster was not willing to vote away the money of the people until he knew how it was lo be laid out and expended, any more than Mr. Eppes. Every public man know.s, all fair-minded men admit, that justice can be done to no man by picking out a vote here and a vote there, and publishing them without their proper connexion, without accurately stating the occasion, and without giv- ing .the reason, on wliich they were founded. Persevering efforts of this kind liave been liiade against Mr. Web- ster, many times and by difierent liands, but tiius far without success. The way in which Mr. Webster has himself met them may be learn- .ed by the following extracts from liis speech in reply to Mr, Cal- houn, on tlie 22d of March, 1838 : But, sir, before attempting that, he [Mr. Calhovn] has something else to say. • He had prepared, it seems, to draw comparisons himself. He had intended to say something, if time had allowed, upon our respective opinions and conduct in regard to the war. If time hat\ allowed! Sir, lime does allow — time must al- low.- A general remark of that kind ought not to be, cannot be, left to produce its effect, when that effect is obviously intended to be unfavorable. Why did tlic gentleman allude to my votes, or my opinions, respecting the war at all, unless he had something to say 1 Does he wish to leave an undefined impression that some- thing was done, or something said by me, not now capable of defence or justification ! something not reconcilable with true patriotism T He means that, or nothing. And now, sir, let him bring the matter forth ; let him taico the responsibility of the accusation; let him stale his ficts. I am hercj this day, to answer. Now is the time, and now is the hour. I think we read, sir, that one of the good spirits would not bring against the arch-enemy of mankind a railing accusation; and what is railirig but general reproach — an imputation without fact, time, or 12 circomslance 1 Sir, I call for particulars. The gentleman knows my whole con- duct well: indeeJ, the journals show it nil, from the moment I came into Con- gress till the peace. If I have done, then, sir, any thing unpatriotic, any thing which, as far as love of country goes, will not bear comparison wilhiiis or any man's conduct, let it now be stated. Give me ihc fact, tlie time, tire manner. He speaks of ihe war; that which is called the late war, though it is now twenty-five years since it termi.Taled. He would leave an impression that I on- posed it. How ? I was not in Congress when war^Ms declared, iior in public life, anywhere. I was pursuing my profession, anu keeping company with judges, sheriffs and jurors, and plantiffs and defendants. If I had been in Con- gress, end had enjoyed the benefit of hearing the honorable, gentleman's speeches, for all I can say, I might have concurred with him. But I wa.s not in public, life. I never had been for a single hour, and was in no situation, therefore, to oppose or support the declaration of war. I am speaking to the faci, sirT and if the gentleman has any fact, let us know it. Well, sir, I came into Congres."; during the war. I found it waged and raging. And wh.1t did I do here to oppose it 1 Look to the journats. Let the- honorable gentleman tax his memory. Bring up any thing, if there be any thing to bring up — not showing error of opinion, but showing want of loyalty or fidelity' to the country. I did not agree to all that was proposed, nor did the honorable gentle- man. I did not approve of every measure, nor did he. The war had been preceded by Ihe restrictive system and the embargo. As a private individual, I certainly did not think well of these measures. It appeared to me the embargo annoyed us as much as our enemies, while it destroyed the business and cramped the spirits of the Feoji'e. ■; In this opinion I may have been right or wrong, but the genll^an was himseU of the same opinion; He told us the other day, as a proof of his independence of party, on great questions, that he differed with his friends on the subject of the' embargo. He was decidedly and unalterably opposed to it. It furnishes, in his judgment, therefore, no imputation either on my patriotism or the soundness of my political opinions that I was opposed to it also. 1 mean opposed in opinion.; for I was not in Congress, and had nothing to do with the act creating the em- bargo. And as to opposition to measures for Carrying on the war, after I came into Congress, I again say, let the gentleman specify — let him lay his finger;on any thing, calling for an answer, and he shall have an answer. ' ' "• Mr. President, you were yourself in the Iio6se during a consideraldepart of this lime. The honorable gentleman may make a witnes.s of you. He may mako a witness of any body else. He may i)e his own witness. Give us but some fact, some charge, something capable in itself either of being proved or disproved. Prove any thing not consistent with honorable and patriotic coiiduct, and I am ready to answer it. Sir, I am glad this subject has been alluded to in a manner which justifies me in taking public notice of it ; because J am well aware that, for ten years past, infmite pains have been taken to find something, in the range 13 of these topics, which might' create prejudice against me in the country. Tk« Journals lia»e all been pored over and the reports ransacked, and scraps of para- graphs and half sentences have been collected, put towetlier in the fulsept manner, and then made to flare out as if there had been some discovery. But all this failed. The *pe.\t resort was to su[)posed correspondence. My letters were sought for, to learn if, in the confidence of private ficndship, I had never said any thing which an enemy could make use of. With this view the vicinity of my former residence has been searched, as with a lighted candle. New Hampshire has been explored from the mouth of the Merrimack to the White Hills. In one instance a gentle- man had left the State, cone five hundred miles off, and died. His papers were examined, a letter was found, and, I have understood, it was brought to Wash- ington ; a conclave was held to consider it, and the result w.is, that if there was nothing cUe ngainst Mr. Webster, the matter had better be left alone. Sir, I hope to make every body of that opinion who brings against me a charge of a want of patriotism. Errors of opinion can be found, doubtless, on many subjects; but as such conduct flows from the feelings which animate the heart, I know that "no act of my life has had its origin in the want of ardent love of country. Sir, when I came to Congrsss, I found the honorable gentleman a leading mem- ber of the House of Representatives. Well, sir, in what did we dilTer? One of the first measures of magnitude, after I came here, was Mr. Dallas's proposition for a bank. It was a war measure. It was urged as being absolutely uecespary to enable Government to carry on the wnr. Government wanted reveiruc ; such a bank, it was hoped, would furnish it, and on that account it was warmly press- . el and urged on Congress. You remember ail this, Mr. President. You re- , member how much so*ie persons supposed the success of the war and salvation of ith^ country depended on carrying that measure. Yet the honorable member from South Carolina opposed that bill. He now takes to himself a good deal of merit — none too much, but still a good deal of merit— for having defeated it. Well, sir, I agreed with him. It was a mere i)aper bank — a mere machine for fabricating irredeemable paper. It was a new form for p^per money ; and, instead of benefit- ing the country, I thought it would plunge it deeper and deeper in difliculty. I made a speech on the subjcci ; it has often b^en quoted. There it is ; let whoever pleases read and examine it. I am not proud of it for any ability it exhibits ; on the other hand, I am not ashamed of it for the spirit which it manifisU. But, sir, I say again, the gentleman himself took the lead against this measure — this ' darling measure of the .Vdmiuistration. I followed him; if I vws (seduced into error, or into unjustifiable opposition, there sits my seducer. What, sir, were other leading sentiments, or leading measures of that day ? On what other subjects did men differ 1 The gentleman has adverted to one, and that a most important one — I mean the Navy. He says, and say» truly, that at the commencement of the war the Navy was unpopular. It was unpopular with his friends, v^ then contrflled the politics of the country. But ho says he differed with his friends ; in this respect he r«>iistcd jiariy influence and party c«n- 14 notion, and was the friend and advocate of the Navy.^ Sir, I commend him fo- il. He showed his wisdom. That gallant little Navy soon fought itself into favor, and showed that ii man who had placed reliance on it had not been disappointed. Well, sir, in all this, I was exactly of the same opinion as the honorable gen- tleman. Sir, I do not know when my opinion of the importance of a naval force to the United States had its origin. I can give no date to my sentiments on this subject, because I never entertained different sentiments. I remember, sir, that immedi- ately after coming into my profession, at a period when the Navy was most un- popular, when it was called by all sorts of hard names, and designated by many coarse epithets, on one of those occasions on v.'bich yuung men address their neighbors I ventured to put forth a boy'.s hand in defence of the Navy.' I insisted on its importance, its adaptation to our circumstances and to our national character, and its indispensable necessity, if we intended to maintain and exfend our com- merce. These opinions and sentiments I brought into Congress; and, so far as I remember, it was the first, or among the first times, in which I presumed to speak on the topics of the day, that I atte\npled to urge on the House a greater attention to the naval service. There were xlivers modes of prosecuting the war. On these modes, or on the degree of attention and expense which should be bestowed on each, different men held different opinions. I confess I looked with most hope to the results of naval warfare, and therefore. I invoked Government to invigorate and strengthen that aim of the national defence. I invoked it to seek its enemies upon the seas — to go where every auspicious indication pointed, and where the whole heart and soul of the country would go with it. , . Sir, we were at war with the greatest maritime power on earth. England had_ gained an ascendancy on the seas over the whole combined Powers of Europe. She had been at war twenty years. She had tried her fortunes on the continent, but generally with no success. At one time the whole continent had been closed against her. A long line of armed exterior, an unbroken hostile array frowned upon her from the Gulf of Archangel, round the promontory of Spain and Portu- gal, to the foot of the boot of Italy. There was not a port which an English ship could enter. Every where on the land the genius of her great enemy had triumph- ed. He had defeated armies, crushed coalitions, and overturned thrones; but, like the fabled giant, he was unconquerable only while he touched the land. On the ocean he was powerless. That field of fame was his adversary's, and her me- teor flag wi?s streaming in triumph all over it. To her maritime ascendancy England owed every thing, and we were now at ■war with her. One of the most charnnng of her poets has said of her, that " Her march is o'er the raounlain wave, " Her home is on the deep." Now, sir, since we were at war with her, I was for intercepting this march; ! was for calling upon her, and paying our respects to hci*at home ; I n'^ for giving her to know that we, too, had a right of way over the seas, and tnat our marine 15 officers and our sailors were not entire strangers on the bosom of the deep; I was for doing something more with our navy than to keep it on our shores, for the pro- tection of our own coasis and our own harbors ; I was for giving play to its gallant and burning spirit; for allowing it to go forth "upon the seas, and cncountCT on an open and an equal licld, whatever the (>roudest or the bravest of tho enemy could bring against it. I knew the character of its officers, and the spirit of its sea- men ; and I knew that, in their hands, though tfie flag of the country might go down to the bottom, while they went with it, yet that it could never be dishonored or disgraced. Since she was our enemy — and a most powerful enemy — I was for touching her, if we could, in the very apple of her eye ; for reaching the highest feather in hei^ cap : for clutching at the very brightest jeyel in her crown. There seemed to me to be a peculiar propriety in all this, as the war was undertaken for the redress of maritime injuues alone. It was- a war declareil for free irade and sailor's rights. The ocean, therefore, was the proper theatre for deciding this controversy with our enemy,' and on that theatre my ardent wish was that our own power should be concentrated to the utmost. • So much, sir, for the war, and for my conduct and opinions as connected with it. And, as I do not mean to recur to this subject often, or ever, unless indis- pensably necessary, I repeat the demand for arty charge, any accusation, any alle- gation whatever, that throws me behind the honorable gentleman, or behind any other man, in honor, in lidelity, in devoted love to that country, in which I was born, which has honored me, and which I serve. I, wlio seldom 4pal in defiance, now, here, in my place, boldly defy the honorable member to put his insinuation in the form of a charge, and to support that charge by any proof whatever. W •? 3# I A\ C» * "IOC/ — , ^-^ • , , » ■ V > ■^>. ' <* • » ^v *^ ' • • • v^ ^f.* nO - ^-^^0^ ^-K '><, <^ .* • o-LV-, O ^o..*^'-'^o' V'-;?^,- .* ■c ■'