the position, that all we do on this floor is under the sanction of an oath, and as the facts alluded to in these resolutions are not personally known or legally proved to them, they cannot vote for them. These gentlemen seem to know everything on one side of this subject, and nothing on the other. They know all the good actions of Mr. Clay-his eloquence in support of the war-his negotiations at Ghent-his timely interference to save the nation from disunion on the Missouri question. But unfortunately, they know nothing of his hostility to Mr. Adams previous to the last election-nothing of his sudden reconciliation-nothing of his traversing the country at seasons of election and making electioneering speeches! In the same way, they know all about Mr. Adams-of his writing against Thomas Paine-of his desertion of his old party in 1807-of his hypocrisy from that period up to his election; all this and more they know of Mr. Adams when contrasted with Mr. Crawford. But, alas, when contrasted with General Jackson. they pretend to know nothing at all about him! They even talk of sending for witnesses, issuing subpoenas-as though nothing but Court-House evidence will induce them to say any thing against either Clay or Adams. Mr. Speaker, I am not disposed to be quite so technical. The facts alluded to, and collected in these resolutions, compose a part of the history of our country; I am sorry to say, of the most disgraceful part of that history. In acting upon them I do not consider myself as swearing to their correctness; but, sir, I do consider myself as swearing to my belief of their correctness, and to the conclusions drawn from them. In this spirit and with this understanding of my obligation, I introduced them, and still give them my cordial support. But, sir, I did not then, nor do I now, expect some others to give their sanction. To have done so, would have argued the most profound ignorance of the political occurrences of the times. I will not, however, arraign the motives of those who may differ from me, but leave them to themselves, their country and their God. Whilst pursuing this course towards them, they ought to have shown equal magnanimity and charity to us. Why charge us with man-idolatry? Why charge us with imitating the Hartford Convention? Is it worse in us to idolize Jackson now, than for them once to have

idolized Crawford, and now to idolize Clay or Adams? As to the Hartford Convention, what resemblance can be found in the proceedings of this House to the treasonable deliberations of that assembly? Is it treasonable, in their opinion, to denounce the measures of this mad and profligate administration? to protest against the alarming usurpations of the second Adams, as the old Republicans did against those of the first? Surely that eye must be evil that can discover the slightest resemblance.

Another whimsical suggestion was made by the gentleman from Knox-that in adopting these resolutions, we should be taking sides with Great Britain in the Colonial trade question; and that they would seriously embarrass Mr. Gallatin in his negotiations at St. James'. This I consider a very foreign, a very far-fetched notion. Is there a word in those resolutions about the Colonial trade? It is true, that they contain a condemnation of many of the measures of the administration. But if this be taking sides with England, if this be embarrassing to Mr. Gallatin, that mischief has been done long ago. The debates in Congress, the political essays of the day, the numerous and popular decisions made all over the nation, long ago told to England and to the world, to Mr. Gallatin and every Minister we have had abroad, that Mr. Adams' measures were obnoxious to the American people. The same gentleman calls for proof of the dangerous tendency of the Panama mission; says that he was not in the country when that subject was discussed in Congress, and therefore would like to hear something about it on this floor. He even demands the treaty by which these "intrusive alliances" have been formed! Mr. Speaker, those resolutions only speak of intended or contemplated alliances; for who did not know that no treaty had been made? Who did not know that our Ministers and their Secretary, after groping about in the Southern Seas, spending for nought thirty or forty thousand dollars of the people's money, returned in disgrace to the United States, and reported that they could not even find the contemplated Congress. It is not now attempted to vindicate that mission on any of the grounds assumed by the President in either of his messages, or by any of his friends on the floor of Congress,

but an effort has been made by the gentleman from Knox, to redeem the President and his Secretary from the contempt and ridicule to which it has exposed them, by conjectural surmises as to the designs of Bolivar.

He supposed the Panama Congress to have been gotten up by that quandam Washington of the South, to aid him in an ambitious project of reducing the South American States to his imperial sceptre. That Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay, apprised by secret agents of this intention, instituted this mission, to warn those States of impending danger. Was anything like this suggested by Mr. Adams to the Senate, when sitting with closed doors, in profound secrecy and confidence? No, sir, nothing like it. I therefore consider it only as an afterthought-the last hopeless apology for those in power-which will no more justify the measure, than the purposes at first avowed. If that Congress was to have been used as the mere instrument of Bolivar's elevation to the imperial crown, what business had we to be represented there? If our ministers opposed such designs, we should of course be involved in the feuds and controversies of the respective parties, and if Bolivar succeeded, he would then be found at the head of all the confederated States of South America, a bitter and implacable enemy to the United States. Will the folly of this mission be less, by alleging that it never was intended for our ministers to unite in their deliberations, but only to act as counsellors or advisers, and, in some sort, as spies on their proceedings? Thirty or forty thousand dollars are then to be thrown away, only to give warning of designs, no doubt better understood by them than by our own government! An imposing mission, fitted out in full national splendor, only to supply two idle danglers, or lobby members, to Bolivar's Congress !

Both of the gentlemen who oppose these resolutions, call themselves Republicans of the old Jefferson school. I admire their creed. It is drawn from a pure and unadulterated fountain of political knowledge, and I deny that any one principle taught in that school, is opposed to these resolutions. What are some of the leading measures of the Jeffersonian creed? "That the people is the source of all power and the fountain of all honor." That they have a right to exact obedience to their

will from all their public functionaries. That a government instituted for their "peace, safety, and happiness;" should be administered in simplicity, economy and purity. Are not these principles regarded and inculcated in these resolutions? The first one proposes to give the election of President directly and conclusively to the people: The second condemns measures, which set their wishes at open defiance, and prostrate some of their dearest rights and privileges: The third proposes as a remedy for these evils, the election of an individual, distinguished for his qualifications, his public services, and, above all, for his devoted attachment to the constitutional and inherent rights of the people. If gentlemen were really what they profess to be, it seems to me, that they would not be found in the opposition to this measure. The great patriarch of republicanism sanctioned the principles when alive, and seemed to call, with a solemn voice, almost from the tomb, on his followers, to rally around the man "who had filled the measure of his country's honor." The Republican party must unite, if it is ever restored to power. They must unite like a band of brothers, as in the dark period of '98, or the sceptre has departed from Judah forever. One gentleman was unkind enough, tauntingly to remind us, that we had been fired upon and scattered like birds. I know it. The nation knows and feels it. Why did he not tell you, that it was that very Kentucky sportsman, mentioned in these resolutions, who had fired upon and scattered the republican party? Why will not that gentleman, seeing that "he is one of us," give his assistance in collecting the scattered forces of the republican phalanx, and retrieving the misfortune which the hypocrisy of the President in 1807, and the desertion of his Secretary in 1824, has brought on our party? This is the great object of the friends of those resolutions. They wish to make an appeal to the great body of the people, to rise up and vindicate their own rights; to teach the self-willed politicians of the day, that they shall not set at naught their instructions, with impunity. In short, to fight over, in the persons of Jackson and the younger Adams, the same battle that was fought between the elder Adams and Mr. Jefferson. The struggle is obliged to come on, and none should either expect or desire to be neutrals in it. It is not enough for

gentlemen to cry out, we used to be for Crawford! They must present stronger evidence than this that they are the disciples of Jefferson. Whom are they for now? The question reminds me of a remark submitted by the gentleman from Bedford which I feel bound to notice: That many men in this State, not having merit of their own to rise upon, make ardent professions of attachment to Jackson, which they do not feel. This is no doubt true of some of the friends not only of Jackson, but of Clay and Adams. But, sir, is this worse than for men, whilst canvassing before the people, to pretend to be for Jackson, and thereby get into office, and then turn round and do him all the injury in their power? Or in other words, is it worse than to sail under the Jackson flag in the presence of the people, and so soon as they get out of their sight, display the broad pendant of Adams and Clay? The gentleman disclaimed" all allusions" to me in his remarks. I assure him with equal sincerity, that I make the same disclaimer as to him.

Allow me now, sir, in conclusion, to observe that I did not rise to discuss the merits of these resolutions, nor the accompanying remarks. They are left to vindicate themselves; but in the course of the debate, some positions were assumed and suggestions made, which I felt it my duty thus briefly to notice.