5MB!
DAVID OUTLAW,? Edilors.
TIIOS. J. IEMAlf 5
R ALEIGII, 17. C. THUTIGDAY, APIlIIi 20, 1CC5
OL JOTUIL ,110. 10
THOMAS J. LEOTAV,
FBOrBtETOR AXD PCBtHIIEH.
1KRMJ.
StrieatlrriJ, three dollar per annum oue
fcalfin adanee.
Snbterioer i tthtt Stntei
- then anc year , Be peron i tiflenl wiinoul tin
Stte, who may dealretobeeomeaubieriber,
will b ttrietly required l VJ whole a
AaraTiwitTa, not eieredine; Sheen line,
jttirrtrd three time (or one ilolUr, and twen-
ty.fi.eent fur each onlMioance.
l.tTTsa lo the Kilitor muni' be pott paid.
ooNcifPF.D.3
On resuming hi remark the follow
in . tlay, Mr. PORTER said: I am
-qtitteeniUle uf andgrateful to the
Senate for tlie indulgence which it (ex
tended to me yesterday, and I feel
that the best return I can make for its
kindness is to conder.se a much as
pswbre-wht I hare further to say on
the question now. under consideration.
In the observations I had the honor
iir'ITwrW,t-thi8eiate'.yei'er4ayf'l
iii.4l)luuAraroje nis. 1Tvi red
TlMa.o. . ... npnjr, 'WTV
that - which he... baaed 6a a . nrec.dent'
v - - w ' r .. , -
JJ.!" of
""'j . ' " lu"'"twHn contended Tor trieTrrejec tidn,"
':" " ' . . 7 t . ' Z
tion
wnicn, oy us language, atunns
such a power, 1 never
struck with astonishment
was more
in my hie,
and it was umier tne iiiuuence ot an
... t . .1- :o : . .:
irresistible curiosity
that I asked the
Senator the question I did, and not
trom the intention 01 interrupting the
,r i..c jupnj , uui gciiuj,
and I acquiesced in it But, sir. when
the honorable Senator further told me
to beware resting the matter on so
up, 1 k t prepare.r to joinjssue witn f
him, and to show .him that the point is
by no means a small one. On the
contrarv, me inquiry suggested a
. f . . , , , ,OT , -
rkvni.inl. Alt UlHlll lh. HfhAl. u u I n A nr
i",."'.i"r ."'L" . . V ,
me case, precedent, tienewis.
11 me senate, in tne instance rened
on, had determined they fmssessed
the power to expunge from their jour
nal an entry made on it, we sou Id then
have had the question submitted.
wneiner any exampieset oxo'griLwhich we who oppose this resolution
could authorize us to surrender our contend. All that is decided bv it is,
clear and conscientious convictions of that the rejection of a petition "is not
constitutional obligation. But the ,uch a proceeding as should be placed
case, sir, does not impose any surh on "the journals. But, Mr. President,
necessity.. WliaU jir. M its history? did it. go fhe whole len?th for which
It is this: On the last day of a- session the honorable Senator introduced it, I
of Congress, in the year 1 806, a peti-1 ctmld not permit in a case of this kind
tion, or memorial, was presented from that it should control my actions. In
Certain persons, then under conviction constitutional qUe8tions, we are not
for oflVnces committed against the permitted to surrender our conscience
laws of the United States. This me-to authority: It ooght to have no
mortal fleeted strongly on the con- guide but reason. The precedent in
duct of the Chief Magistrate, and its ftself contains nothing-to challenge
tenor was entered on tlie minutes.-'approbation. It was "lone in haste.
How long after the entry was made We have no evidence there was any
we do not know, but not many hoursJwe know there could not have been
.1 - 1
alter, and on me same iay m wiucn
i"-" : y "- me session. 11 was passed by a small
tion was made and carried to expunge majority in a very thin Senate. It
it from the journal. This motion pre- was a complete party vote, in high
vailed. lhe confusion and hurry paHytrmes. To make such a pro
which always attend the transaction ceeding decisive or a question of this
of business on the last night Con,; magnitude, would beto place the Con
gress sits, accounts fully for the inac- .titution of the. Mimtr at k m..
curacy of expression used in the reso- 'of eTery faction which by turns may
lttoiv a; theje .ws : na possession of a majority in Con
ine entries mule during the day were greis," "'
read over and sanctioned - br Aht ap- -1 have already said, MrrPresident.
probation of the Senate. Until thathat I do not consider it made the
approbation is given, the acts of the slightest difference in the question be-
Pfw-"-i
iiaA-Xotnpiete conin.1, just as in ine!piin was constitutional or otherwise.
same manner, the entries 01 a clerk ot .
a court made during the day are sub
ect to tlie revision and correction of
.. . .. , . .
the "judge when read the following
-morning. Had not the senate been
tKHit-toitljwr t!t Jiclvt4he- mea
,:'turf a-eiiffritfy
correction could have been tnade at the
commencement of -the next day's sit
ing, when the minutes prepared by the
Secretary were read over. It did not,
however, sit, and it ia probable this
method of getting rid of the obnoxious
matter was preferred, as it was a pe
riod when party run high, and the step
taken by the petitioners well calculat
ed to excite the passions which belong
to such times. Be this, however, as
it -. may, it is obvious that whatever
form tlie majority chose to give their re
solution, their power over the matter
was undisputed. .
I see, sir, some gentlemen dissent
to this position. I consider it, how
ever, perfectly sound. It cannot be,
it is not true, that the secretary of a
Legislature or the clerk of a court has
the right to place any matter he pleas
es on the minutes of the proceedings,
and tbat neither the judges in the one
case, nor the legislative body in the
other have the power to expunge
from them what is improperly, placed
there, -it cannot be. it is not true
that, if errors are committed by either,
they must remain and cannot be cor
rected all practice and all reason are
opposed to such a doctrine. But this
control over the proceedings, before
the journal of the clerk or secretary is
made up and sanctioned, is totally dif
ferenent from the right claimed here to
change or deface the record after it Is
. mpleteiTbectBttduring its term,
tnav correct any error iflto which U
has fallen. Us minutes are under its
control for the same time. But wasit
ever
heard,, that it could, at 1 sue-
creding one, change, erase from, orjrominent-and controlling inquirvir
add to the record of its proceedings of
a former session f XMever, sir. And
SoTsTrTinT
ciplef of the Constitution, is the pow-! Senate when sitting as a court of int
er of .this, body limited.; Its record,1 peachment, but with this single ex
6iiceThadeTlecm
Firoperty of the People, was intended its legislative .and in its executive ca
br their protection, and you have no pacity, can go into an investigation of
rigni.xu .yeiace ir.
lheISenatw
aware of this objection to the precedent'
cited oy nim, and iie-rtrtreavored skil-
fully to evade it by savin that at all
events we could, not tieny that it was;nd e executive portion could not be
ftompieie' answer to our argument,)
...L! 1. I il T----iTr--v-... ."'
which assumed me constitutional iuiyiniy necessaryw-naveme. contrary
of this House to record all its proceed
Here, said he, was a proceed
and a proceeding not recorded.
sir, mis is quite plausible, nut on a
close examination, it offers no real
difficulty. The question presented in
the instance referredlo was " precisely
IRal IS, tllC Tight 0t this blidv ttt lejctt
. r 'l r
- irt - wii newHuwcre in me rain-
only on the'abofttlon memorials, and
urged tnat we had a right to ref use to
conM them, and to denv thp.n .n.
iace on ttur jurnai. aJ we t,en
known ol tliis precedent we hnuM
-" ...
have nuoteil i
t in support of the nbsi-
tion we assui
med, for, byerasinzthe
memorial from
the minutes, the then
Stfnate declared that thev were under
ltf nor to permlt any record of it to be
preserved. Well, sir, I think the
Senate decided correctly in the case
to which I hav !!,..,! , h.,f K- i,.
with him M receive the petitions will
no joubt consider the decision of the
Senate of 1806 erroneous. Iferrone-
nu t
IV IO HU BUlilUIHT.
. -
ous, it is no authority. If, on the
COntrarr.it waa a enenrlnninii.ii.it
....I
contrary, it was
establishes what I assert to be the true
doctrine namely, that the Senate have
a right to refuse a petition, and are
under no obligation to record it. The
case cited, therefore, does in no re-
Rnert Conflict with iUo nrininlua fnr
I " K' w . m iv.
much-debate on it the last night of
Jhe resolution of the
In my Judgmen t the obligation impos
ed on us to keep a record of it is pre-
cisely the same, be its character what
it may. The Constitution makes no
distinction; and where it does not
rtltirtmgBHbf"weaBf
soun that the benate, in the instance
alluded to, either did injustic to .the
President, or itnproperlr exercised the
powers vested in it, I beg leave to
make a few observations on the lead
ing proposition, br which this chare
of injustice and assumption of power
wassupposea 10 De established. We
exercised, it is said, on the occasion
complained of, judicial not legislative
power, and we condemned the Presi
dent of tlie United Stages when he
was not accused, and we did so with
out even hearing his defence.
If all this . be true, "the head and"
front of our offending" is certainly
I l.t !..-. I r.
crj tuiiniucrauic; uui i apprenenu it
requires no very great ability to show
that it has no foundation whatever.
We did not, sir, on the occasion al
luded to, exercise iudicial power, and,
therefore,' we neitner'tried nor con
demned lhe President.
Although the legislative, executive,
and judicial powers conferred by the
Constitution of the United States on
the Senate be in theory distinct, yet
cases are constantly arising in which
the action of the body in its several
capacities is imperiously demanded on
the very same matter. This is inevi
table! for as the. powers conferred ex
tend to the person who acts as well
as the thing which is acted on.Uis im
possible, in legislating on the one, or
in sitling in judgment on the other, to
ayoid deciding on matters which are
common to both. The exercise of iu-
dicial authority in one aspect presents
an exception to this principle. In the
investigation which belongs to it, a
at to the intention with which they act
commuted. An examination ot
1 me icbiitt 01 acts, ami ineir lenqen.
thonty was conferred on it. Were
( otnerwise 11s legislative power
would be most injuriously abridged,
oenencianv exercised, inileed.it is
l L .1
principle
established, and the Chief
I III Irl raaf m k ia
Magistrate
v. cv v wk uunci in 1119
nanus which would enable Turn effec
tually to put a stop to all legislation
on matters in regard to which he
though t proper to resort to the exercise
bTExecutive"
fdeestaiui theCoittUottsrhly?
tions of this
fis--body shoufd
under the control of any other branch
of the Government. " My reading 6f
it T8,"ttiat-in-1he se i)F theniFtf i it
more confined in its sphere, nor less
free in its action, than the House of
Representatives.
See, Mr. President, to what con
sequences the contrary doctrine would
lead. Coqgress is almost constantly
pus sing laws which -require the exer
cise of Executive authority to carry
fecti the President con
strues them according to his judgment.
and executes them. The Legislature
take the matter into consideration:
they think he has assumed a power
which the law did pot confer, and the
exercise of which is injurious
public interests. A bill is introduced
to correct the evil. Ig the Senate
estopped from acting on it, because,
forsooth.it is compelled to look into
the construction given -by the Pres'u
dent of the lawr and finds that it dif
fers in opinion from him? Can.it ex
tend no remedy for the mischief be
cause he has done wrong?
In an early period of the federal le
gislation, an act was passed authoriz
ing the President of the United States
to remove from the public lands per
sons who had settled there without
permission. It was intended to oper
ate on that class of persons vulgarly
but emphatically called squatters.
In the year 1806 (I think,) Mr. Jeffer
son enforced this law against a pos
session which Edward Livingston had
of a portion of the batture in front of
the city or New Orleans. To this
property Mr. L. asserted title under a
grant of the French Government to
the society of Jesuits. His right was
contested by the city of New Orleans,
and by proprietors of the lots in front
of the river, holding under the same
grant. It is not necessary to say, if
uwcic rajr ia uo so, wnicn nan tne
better titles it is enough tn state that
the property did not belong to the
United States, and that the act of re
moval, however good the motives of
the President, and I do not impeach
them, was most illegal, and in., its
operation oppressive in tlie extreme.
An - action- was- brought . against 31 rA
Jefferson - for this act, and the cause
1 la
uistiiisseti lor want 01 jurisdiction in
the court, on the ground that the tres
pass was committed tn Louisiana, and
ttieYm
f asTcrsif," "irMr. " Li vlngstoiTliad" ap"
plied, as wellhe. mighjttoX'gngress
for compensation for the great pecu
niary losses which he sustained by this
act of the President, could the Senate
not have acted on the bill for affording
relit f, because u.it.s,mu,stlJ,necessarUy
thine an act, in the language of the
resolution of the Senate, "not confer
red by the constitution and laws, but
in derogation of both?"
If gentlemen on the other side say it
could not have acted : on such a bill,
because it must have decided on a
matter which might thereafter come be
fore it on an impeachment for the act,
I leave the correctness of the "answer
to be decided by the American people
without any comment of mine. ' And
if their answer be that it could have
constitutionally passed such a law, I in-
3 uire what difference there is between
ecidingthat an act of the President
was contrary to law, and giving relief
for it, and making a declaration to the
same effect in the shape of a resolu
tion? ( :;:
The contest between the present
Chief Magistrate and the Bank of the
United States is' nearer to 00 r own
times, and, offers an example equally
illustrative of the ground I assume.
By its charter, the United States en
gaged to place with it in desposite tlie
public moneys. The President thought
he had the power to- withdraw them
whenever he pleased, and without any
cause save his own pleasure. Hie
Senate think differently; and without
stopping to inquire which party ii i
rigfit. 1 ask, could not a bill have been
constitutionally passed here to compel
them to be replarett, because,' 1ft our
opinion, they had been - illegally, and
consequently, - unconstitutionally J re-
moved? I suppose it will hardly be
contended it could not. If it could,
have we -not the power to declare the
illegality, by a resolution in the hope
that if will induee the chief Magistrate
to reconsider his act and restore the
deposit? t requires-sharper-optics
than mine, Mr. . President, to. see the
difference. . ' ' . ;
iiW e need not stop here, sir. - Let
us follow this matter into the exercise
of the executive power which the Con
stitutionnas coniew
!vIdaI'strwUtO
stitution has conferred on 59. . Itidi
sometimes nominated to the Senate
for others. The manner in which they
have discharged their duties in the
place filled by them is often and of
necessity a matter of rigid and severe
inquiry. Acts have to be sifted and
examineJ,ahd IT judgment formed on
them, to enable us to decide whether
it is proper to give our consent to the
nominee occupying a high station.
The investigation must, therefore, be
often carried to actions which, -if com
mitted wlfh 7 "tad iiiotive; mighr'iuK.
lemhefttfftcerttfm
such inquiries have never, as 1 know,
L I... I. ; . ' ;
been questioned. alihoughitU manU:
fest the -same .matters in!relatiitn jft
the same person, may come before us
u ajuuiciai capaciir.
Sir, this limitation,- w'lucbJiaw,-lor
the first time in our history, is at
tempted to be placed on the legist a-
f A A " - .
live power 01 me oenair, is a pregnant
sign of the prevailing notions of the
day. lhe duties which this body has
to perform, in the capacity in which
11 passcu mis resolution, are just as im
portant and as sacred as those belong
ing to it in its judicial or executive
character. With the opinions enter
tertained by its members, -they could
DOtrrivithout acnltcTiigtheir"TtiT
science at the shrines7 of ease " afld ex
pediency, have refrained from the de
claration they made in relation to the
conduct of the Executive in removing
the deposites, That measure filled
them with a profound, and. I will add.
a just alarm. In their view of the mat
ter, they ww r great" asumphon of
power on the part ol the uhiet Ma
gistrate, and they could not be blind
totheJactLthat the !jendencyoi pub
lic opinion was, and, I am sorry to
say, still is, to surrender all authority
into the bands of the hxecutive: to
look to him, & to him only, as an index
which is topointto what is useful and
what is honorable in policy 8c in legislation-
Had they consulted. their own
conveniencetheir course was plaint
it was to bow to the storm, and trust
that, when a man less popular man was
at the head of the Government, the
healthy action of all its several de
partments would be restored. - But
they took lessons from a purer source,
and, I trust, a higher wisdom. Ex-
Siricnce had taught them that in free
overnments dangerous precedents,
are always set by popular men 'be
cause it is they and they only who can
create adelusion which will permit them
to be set They knew with what fatal
effect this example would be cited in
after times. as a justification of still
greater stretches of authority, and
they determined, at all hazards, to re
sist it to the utmost of their ability.
r , . .1 . .1 1 '
r or one, sir, 1 rejoice mat mey aid
so; the" gratitude bf thfeir "country-:--waits
thcin; and posterity will do that
justice to their acts and their motives
which party spirit now refuses to a-
Wafd.tothemr- Par too humble myself
to connect nistory s un my name, t
fondly indulge the hope that- the po
sition t occu piedTit that women t will
aitacn me in some uegree 10 11, as one
of those who stood manfully in the
preach in the unequal battle which
was fousht fofthe Constitution. I
no prouuer epuapu to pe engraven on
my tomb.
. We have been required, sir, in this
debate to toe the rnarJct and the hope
has. been expressed that, after having
denounced the f resident dun nz the
session of .1834, stizmatized his con
duct, and misrepresented his actions,
we will not now take shelter under the
defence that we did not mean to im
putebad motives to his acts, and
merely intended to express an abstract
it 1 c t . l .
.pinion on me iawiuine;s oi nis acts.
This hope, Mr, President, so far as lam
concerned, I am fullyv prepared to
gratify. I am ready to come up to tlie
line 1 advanced to then, and defend
it. And I say, sir, that, during the
wnoie ot that debate, I do not recol
lect any charge of corruptions or in-
tentional violation bf the Constitution
charged on the President of the
united states, , ilisacts, removing
the ' deposites and displacing the
Secretary of the Treasury, " were de
nounced it is true, and , in -strong
terms the unlawful assumption of
authority was exposed in every point
of-view- ia which it was suscepti
ble, and the pernicious, tendency of
iL. . . y i . , . .
ma iccucui in v painieu in viviu
colors. Tliis is my recollection of the
debate, sir. I do not pretend to sav
that, in the heat of it, expressions of
another kind may not have casually
dropped, but iuch was its general ten
or, and I have no remembrance of its
being carried farther. As to my own
opinions I can speak with great exact
nes, lor I think now of the whole mat
ter pjecisely as I thought then.
did not then Le .ieve, and I do not now
believe, that the Chief Magistrate was
impelled by any corrupt motive, or
Ihat-iicHhooght, when committing
those acts we found fault with, that
he was violating the Constitution "and
laws; and the little t said on the sub
iectv'fbr r ss"theit anewTnember
here, distinctly expressed this convic
juu w- auv.s . moere i cowtiHrt
of the President wrong, i lr believed
that neither the Constitution nor the
law authorized him to interfere as he
did with the public Treasury, and so
thinking I did. not hesitate to say so,
and sustain my opinions by my vote.
The thought never- crossed my- mind
that I was prejudging his case, if he
had been impeached; nor can I now
see the" slightest reason for alleging
that I did. And I cannot help, sir.
remarking that they who press such an
idea pay a poor compliment "to the
rarenrrehey
whoever di ITers 'Ith'IrimamntdO'SJ
ascribe to him bad motives for them;
andi ilcddehejtiestion z of 1 cU
were in the exercise of our judicial
functions..
But, sir, when the Senator from
Missouri was about to bring forward
this motion lor expunging, I marvel he
did not carrv his attention to anather
resolution whieli is to be found on the
journals of the Senate, and which,
according to the doctrines he labors
to establish, is in as great a degree a VP
olation of the Constitution as that se
lected by him. I allude to. that pas
sed by tliis body in relation to the late
Postiuastcr-OeneraLjiIr Barry. at
theelftse-of-the sesswn-f i 834.:-Thnt"
the Senate may see thfrpeifect analo
gy between the two cases, I shall
bring them In iuxta-position. That
which relates to the President is in
these words:
UeolveiirTl.nTi'P
ceii fwoecatliba; tu reUlinn t (be jvima'luu
a,,umci1 Hpoa liinMelf aiulinrilr and imrcr mm
conferrel br Ilia CniiMiiutiori ami Lawa, bat m
demfaiioa nf bnib."
Thht which regarded Mr. Barry is
as follows; .-.' ' '
ltnUed, Ttiat It I prmeA anil admitted
dial large mat of money hat bera ntwrnwed
at different banka by (lie Pnat Matter fleneral
in order to make up the defleienr in the mean
nf earrjrinK on the btiiinraa ol the Foiit ttfflca
Department, withitut authority given bv any law
of Conrre,j an J that, at Ctrfigrrn at'Hie M.
acite the power to borrow money on the eredii
of lhe United Slate, all uoh aonleaet lor lu.
by ilia Hon Matter my Ulrjul undviip' - -
XMow, sir, I cannot see any the slight
est difference between these cases, and
I defy the most subtle intellect to
show how they can be distinguished
from each other. And, sir, 011 exam
ining the vote given on that case, we
do not find it was a party vote. Far
from it; it was the unanimous voice of
the Senate, and the vote of the Sena
tor from Missouri stands recorded a-
moug the number. Well, sir, may I
not ask if it was a violation of the
Constitution ot the United States to
vote that Gen. Jackson had exercised
a power not conferred on him by law,
was it not an equal violation of it to
vote that Mr. Barry had acted contra
ry to law? Do the "names make any
fifference? Or is it that the action
which is constitutional in rezftnl to a
rosmtasier uenerai hecomes a heinous
offence when committed azainat one
clothed with the power and unheld bv
the-popularit yof4hePresident of -4lw J
Uttited States? rtHJatnotBut still '
it is left to gentlemen who are now
prepared to expunge this resolution be
cause it prejudges Gen. Jackson, to
explain why they voted for that against
Mr. Barry, which equally prejudged
him. They must also explain why
ihctvOhtf 1itrer"jfWdiutirr tn
totf cheotnY'ttic' jourrts ihdtpWrge
the former. Is it because they voted
for that against the Postmaster that it
is sacred? or has slow, repentance not
yet reached tliem?.-fSir,-it has; been
said that the most ignorant mnn may
ask a question which the. wisest rannot
answer; ami I apprehend they will
find themselves, pretty much in that
condition in relation to these interrog.
stories.
The Senator from Missouri, howev
er, who takes time by the forelock, has
anticipated this objection, and has giv
en his explanation. : lie says the vote
was forced on him, and, finding him
self compelled to act in this unconsti
tutional way, he conceived that he
was in nd respect sanctioning the
course which the Senate pursued; that
a negative vote1 would have admitted
the jurisdiction just as much as an af
firmative one. . Without in the slight
est respect impugning the sincerity of
this declaration, and giving it full ef
fect, 1 must still remark that though
it way sustain the -consistency of the
Senator, it still leaves the precedent
in all its original force, as the construe
tion of laws, orlhe deductions to be
made from the acts of legislative btw
dies, can be in no respect anected
by'
the declarations of individual membm-s I
of their views or motives in concurring net to be nndersiood as wishing to de-
in them. And I must also say, that I tract from the reputation of the Pre-"
should think that it is a very good rea- sident. He has many qualities I re
ton to vote against a resolution or law, spect, and he ha rendered important"
that I believe it to be unconstitutional,, sen ices' to hi country. No oue, sir.
But be this as it may, it only explains
the vote of the Senator, ai.d we have
the sanction of all ' the rest of his
friends for the constitutionality of our
proceeding. And stall events it is no
justification for permitting the resolu
tion in regard to Mr.. Barry la remain-.!
and expunging that relating to the Pre
sident. If either is to be effaced front
our journal I hope both will. If jus
tice requires this act, let it be extended
to the memory of him who has passed'
hence.td.,jinotheran4 better world. .aa
wlls.4rm'wWTrmitjt Btmwg'Ufip
Let the bounty of the honorable Sena
tor extend to all similarly situated.
I trust tie will recollect, .
"That ' the rUian tun which aHuiea opoa
Conrt '
lliilr n U'n ring from the cottage " -
I think, .Mr. President, 1 have
shown-" that-the Constitution-of the
ountry will be violated if we adopt
the re4olution of the honorable Sena
tor, and I hope I have satisfactorily
answered the principal reasons present
ed by him in support of it ? ,
OTnie remsining porfhin- of the honor- - -
ablF'SehatoPs speech" wis aevoted fa
f wo -mlt) eels 1 .. ft. ,pan'ff &K1nzwnm-K$.
Jack, and vituperaliwivof rtl lattt -
Bank of the United States. The re-
evancy of either or "both Ihese mat- v
ir lo jhejattwt he
will excuse me for saying is not exact-
ir seen oy me, anu 1 migm wen past -tern
by 1 but a few observations before
I close, on some of the topics he ad
vanced, will, 4 trust, be pardoned.
And first, sir, as to the praises which
the Senator lias dealt out with such an
overflowing hand to the .President, I
havejto say that I find no fault with
them, nieypro
the strong partiality which the gentle- - .
man from Missouri feels for their ob
ject, and his friendship, and the modes ,
he taketJUt manifcatitore matteri en-
tirely teimal-t-himslfr--It-wouht-
be the less - excusable - in me to com-
Flain of this failing, as it is one which '
share largely in myself, - In spite of
every thing 1 can do, sir, I find tho ,
utmost difficulty in "seeing ' faults in
thmte tohonv" I -anv-attacheiU--.My
self tovegets interested i SBtatning
theminniy.own; opinion, anilit..tsi
dexterous in palliating their, weak
nesses, and magnifying their virtues. ,
JA.ltb.lhe. perecljoiisciousness of tliiij
tendency ot my own nature, I can
make great allowance Tor what I con
sider the extravagant praise which the
Senator has bestowed on the present
Chief Magistrate. But, after making ,
all concessions of this kind, I cannot
help thinking the gentleman from Mis-
soun has pushed the matter a little too .
far; that he has even stretched beyond ,.
its due extent the old maxim, . , -
, ("Lay h on thick, and Mime will itiek."
i is, perhaps, , rash in me to say to,'
Sir, the honorable Senator is skilled ,
in matters ot this kind, but I just sub
mit to him whether he did not set all -the
taws of proGability fat least) at de-.
fiance, when he said that '6eneral '
Jackson had rendered more benefit to
mankind than all the politicians that -
ever existed.'' :
fMr. Benton here laid he had been "
misundci stood; that he said "all the.
hark politicians who had ever lived. '
Mr. Porter continued. If, sir,' the'
Senator .so limited his. remark.. I d -
not gainsay it, On the contrary, it
has my entire assent.' 1There is no '
clasnkfint'n orJ,whnm,yiaTiniorei.11.
thorough ; contempt -no, sir, not m?-
conteitint, they are not worthy of it- . .
there are no men for whom I have a i
more intense pitr, than ! hve for those .
whnfme-iiuww,rsvth!iomin
nf hark politicians, lliey are a mis- : t
erablej-ace. generallylost tn all honort ' ' ' j
truth, and patnotifm, who sell thcrn-.
selves fur office, , and when. they ob-'
tain it, use place and station to plun- j
tier more successfully the People they ' s
hate deceived,: Wth uch
I'WrtefW4rtt-tflaVr
a moment; but, sir, I think,-on reflec- !
tion, the Senator from Missouri will
see that I was not mistaken, and that, - 't
in the vrarmtlrnf his eulogium, he di3 ' -
carry his comparison to the extent IV ,
have stated. Sorh ar my notes of his ;
speech. IJHere Mr. Benton said the - I
Senator from Louisiana might so un J
derstand . his remarks. WelU? sir, .'
with that permission, I proceed t . ?-j
comment on the compliment paid to
the President; and, looking back,-I'
find that Solon was a poliiican, Aris-.
titles was a politician, Pericles was a'
politician, Cicero was a politician,-
John Hampden , (a name never to be H s
mentioned jn a temple of freedom . v
without reverence and gratitude) waa ' - - '
a politician; Lord Chatham was a poli-;
ticiari; John '1, Hancock, Benjamin
Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were '
politicians. And " tir with these
names come a crowd ot recollections
which force me tn think that Solon,
and Aristides, and Pericles, snd Cice
ro and 'John Hampden, aed Lord ,
Chatham, and Hancock, and Jefferson, v
andXFrankUn,lakfa-altogetlicr, have '
rendered Jnst murk service to man j,
html at Gen. Jatlion. ant a tittle I '
more. ' '--. -. . '
Sir. In making tltese remarks, I am
I