.^^ 
 
 
 :^. 
 
 
 ^^-^ 
 
 
 ^^' 
 .^^ 
 
 
 .«' 
 
 v<^ *Y" 
 
 "^^^' 
 
 A 
 
 
 ^- z^-' 
 
 
 
 v"*' 
 
 
 ^-0 
 
 
 
 ' o 
 
 
 ^'^^ 
 
 3.0 V- 
 
 * • c 
 
 5 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 .0^ 
 
 ,0- 
 
 •.-■S' 
 
 
 \/-^' 
 
 ^ ^ ■ .v"^. 
 
 
 
 
 
 - , • X . 
 
 -Q 
 
 
 ..^°"'^. ^' 
 
 
 
 o >>> .'%' .V 
 
 -0^ ;. ^ov 
 
 ■in • * i^ . ^ .1. 
 
 (V ' 
 
 ,0-r 
 
• <?>. c'^ *," 
 
 '^O 
 
 K^' 
 
 
 
 ^ -^-IV'^^* 
 
 * "^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 c" ♦ 
 
 
 „/ :'M,k:%^4' 
 
 
 '\ .^' ^}K 
 
 <^ %>ii>^,^ ,y 
 
 
 -^0^ 
 
 :♦ - ^^ 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 4.-^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
TO TIIR PEOPLK () I VKRMONT 
 
 MR.'Th'eLPS' rejoinder to MR. SLADE'S "REPLY." 
 
 ^ ^ _ 
 
 A pamphlet having appeared under the signature of William Slade, professing to be a reply to my ap- 
 peal to the people of Vermont, in which the attack upon my character, both public and private, has 
 been renewed, I deem it proper to appear again before the public in my own defence. Deeming it due 
 to myself and to my friends to vindicate myself from the aspersions cast upon me, I entered on that duty 
 with'a full knowledge of what I might expect, and with a settled purpose to defend myself to the last. 
 I knew well lo whom I was to attribute the malignant and unprincipled attack made upon nie at Monlpelier 
 in October, 1844 ; and I was too well acquainted with the character of the principal instigator and actor 
 in that transaction to suppose that his malignant passions would be satisfied with what occurred there. 
 
 Naturally selfish, ambitious, cold-hearted, hypocritical, and revengeful, he has well cultivated these 
 qualities through a life of political controversy 'and political intrigue. For more than thirty years he has 
 enacted the double part of a political gladiator and a political pauper, alternately gasconading and beg- 
 ging—mixing in every paltry quarrello gratify his grovelling love of distinction, and, at the .same time, 
 abjectly soliciting office for bread. He has mounted every hobby to be found on the political arena, 
 called to his aid high-sounding pretensions to philanthropy and religion, and, under the garb of sancti- 
 monious pretension to superior piety, has followed political juggling as a trade. It is not to be wonder- 
 ed at that such a man should stab at the reputation of any one who stands in the way of his promotion, 
 nor that he should keep the community in which he resides, and even the church of Christ to which he 
 is attached, in a perpetual broil. Much less could I expect, while he was smarting under defeat, and 
 exasperated by the prostration of his hopes of obtaining my place through my destruction — hopes 
 which he had long indulged — that cither his habits or his natural vicious propensities would be changed. 
 
 The part which he acted in the controversy about my election was characteristic of the man. He ap- 
 peared at Montpelier ostensibly as an unwilling witness, impelled by his sen.se of duty to answer to the 
 call of " the committee." It " teas ^^npleasant," but his conscience impelled him to it. His respect for 
 the committee, (who, by the bye, were his own tools,) his duty, forbade his silence. And what was 
 his statement.' Look at his answer to the committee. It consisted of rumors, reports, hearsay from he 
 knew not whom, strung together by such expressions as these : " I was informed, by whom I cannot 
 remember" — " I understood, in the course of the day" — " Mr. C. came to me and said" — "I inquired 
 of the doorkeeper, who informed me" — "Who, I understood, was endeavoring," &c. This was the 
 sort of testimony which his seme of duty compelled him to give. He knew well that no man's property, 
 much less his reputation and his peace, should be sacrificed upon such statements. No candid man, no 
 man who respected himself, would venture upon such a proceeding. Yet this empty pretender to chris- 
 tian chfu-ity and christian rectitude strings together the various rumors and reports which he has been 
 enabled to gather, during four years of espionage upon me, as the testimony of others, " whom he could 
 not discredit," although he knew not where he got it, and presents it as the basis upon which the man 
 who happened to stand in the way of his political aspirations was to be ruined and disgraced. Not 
 content with this, forgetting his ostensible character of a reluctant witness, he turns prosecutor, and ad- 
 dressed letters to Mr.Conrad and Mr. Cranston, in order to obtain something to sustain these charges, 
 under the hypocritical and false pretence that his character was implicated, although I had not then seen 
 his communication, nor, if I recollect right, had it been presented to the convention, nor had they acted 
 upon it. Nay, according to Mr. Conrad's letter, his (Slade 's) communication to him was dated on the 
 11th of October, /otir days before the cmnmittee icere appoxnted, and Jive btfore his (Slade's) ansieer to the com- 
 mittee ; and, to sustain his statement to Conrad, he says that Mr. Phelps pronounced his statement to 
 be false on the evening before his election. Now, the evening before the election was on the 23d or 24th, 
 and Slade states his letter to Conrad to have been dated on the 18th, and of course hefm-e my denial, as 
 it was, in fact, before I had seen his communication. After the samples I have had of Slade 's veracity, 
 I am inclined to take Conrad's letter as furnishing the true date of Slade's communication to him — and 
 from that it appears that Slade was instrumental in getting up the committee. 
 
 But let us follow this hypocritical pretender a little further. The greater part of liis statement, as I 
 have already observed, was hearsay. The little and unimportant part which he pretends to have witnessed 
 himself has been proved to be, in every particular, false ; and I shall show it false again before I gel 
 through. Yet, when the convention acquitted me by nominating me, by a most decisive vote, for re- 
 election to the Senate, and when the legislature confirmed that nomination, what has been the course of 
 this man.' He drops the cloak ; he is no longer the reluctant witness, but conies out as prosecutor — 
 publishes a pamphlet, in which he tells the public that he has " nothing to say, in the way of self-vindica- 
 tion, from thechargeof falsehood, "&c., but proceeds, with a zeal which manifests itself in every paragraph, 
 to insist upon the truth of the various reports which he had so carefully laid before the convention. An 
 honoralile man, or a christian, if he had been instrumental in circulating a report injurious to his neigh- 
 bor, would be gratified at finding the report untrue ; and in this case, after the Whig convention and the 
 legislature had" passed upon them, he would express his gratification that they were pronounced un- 
 founded. But to Mr. Slade it is matter of mortification and chagrin. He boldly endorses the reports, 
 and conies out in a pamphlet of thirty-two pages to prove their truth. What possible object can be an 
 || 9wered by this course, except the gratification of personal malignity - That it is not self-vindication he bold 
 

 2 
 
 iy avows. The honor of Vermont is where it is, aiid where it will be, if my life is spared, for six years 
 to come ; the election caimot be recalled ; his prospects are at an end, for the present, at least. And after 
 all that has occurred, does he imagine tlial he is consulting the honor of the State, or the feeling of its 
 people, by circulating in the Halls of Congress a vile pamphlet, traducing the man whom they have seen 
 fit to place there as their representative in the highest brainii of the National Legislature! 
 
 If any man ha.s doubted the agency of William Slade in ilie assault upon me at Moutpelier in the fall 
 of 1844, let him read this pamphlet, and he will be .satisfied. The mask is thrown off. The flimsy and 
 hypocritical pretences which he put forth on that oi-casion are boldly thrown behind him, and he stands 
 out the avowed and open defender of the scandalous libels which he, on that occasion, covered under the 
 garb of hearsay. The public will now know what is meant by his sense of duty, and they will be able 
 to appreciate tlie veracity of the man who volunteers, in the spirit and temper exhibited by that pamph- 
 let, to become my tradiicer. 
 
 The thing itself is full of falsehood, prevarication, perversion, misrepresentation, and pettifoeging, 
 from beginiiinf; to end. My argument is perverted, the testimony of witnesses is misrepresented, and 
 new falsehoods are devised to help out witJi old ones. The book is precisely what 1 .•<liould expect from 
 such a source, except that I did not suppose a man of so little capacity as "Wm. Slade, and one who 
 usually employs so many words to express so little, could compress so much falsehood and so much 
 malignity into so small a conipass. This feature of the book may perhaps be accounted for by the fact 
 that an intellect naturally feeble and dJlfusive uill sometimes derive an unusual energy from the impulse 
 of powerful passions. Vexation and chagrin at his disappointment, the bla.'siing of his cherished hopes 
 of preferment, a consciousness of exposure to the imlignation and contempt of a discerning public, and, 
 above all, the viper-like intensity of malice, when it finds itself impotent, may have given to his blow- 
 pipe a power of condensation and a fervor which nothing but the fire of unholy passions could 
 produce. 
 
 I propose to examine the book — to detect its fallacies, and expose its falsehoods. In doing this I shall 
 observe the order in which his charges are originally made, and in which they are treated m my " ap- 
 peal," rather than to take his book in course. I do not say, follow the order of his book, for there is 
 neither order nor arrangement in it. It is a confused farrago, calculated, as it was probably designed, 
 rath' r to throw confusion over the argumentof the matter between us : and, while that is put out of sight, 
 to give effect to his vituperation and abuse. Insinuation and bold as-sertion, j)erpetual repetition of assaults 
 upon my general character, are interwoven with snatches of reasoning and shreds and patches of evi- 
 dence, garbled and perverted. It exhibits a continual effort to get away from the eviden.^e which my 
 appeal presents; and when he is forced upon it, he seems to struggle to get loose and take shelter under 
 the general scandal which he and his family have so industriously circulated with regard to me for some 
 years past. In short, it would seem that my appeal had operated upon him like an emetic, luid brought 
 up the contents of a deranged and disordered stomach in a half digested state. 
 
 Before proceeding to the details, however, it will be proper to furnish the reader with the key to the 
 \yhoIe book. This key Slade has, in his indiscretion and folly, himself furnished, shewing, iii strong 
 light, how utterly infatuated a man may become who suffers himself to become the sport ot'his vindic- 
 tive passions. On page 12 of his reply, after the usual commonplace about there being no " necessity 
 for a reply to the Senator's appe-d," and there being enougli in the appeal "to convict Its author of tlie 
 substance of all that has been alleged against him," &c., which, by the bye, he borrowed from a scurvy 
 article in the Burlington Free Press, (if he were not the author of that article,) he proceeds: "There 
 " may be those u]ion whose mind the Senator's bold flourishes and false issues may make an impres- 
 " sion, wkile to a much larger class, ivho have not seen the book, and never n-'iU, (for it seems, for some wwc- 
 " cmintable reason, very difficult at this tinu to find a copy,) it uiU be ins it has been) 7-epreseiUed as an ti/i»i- 
 " fisher ichich nobody can ansicer." " Under these circumstances, I ilr not ft (fat liberty to he silent. I have, 
 " therefore, to l)espeak the candid attention," &c. The reader will please bear in mind that he wTites 
 for the much larger class trho have never seen the Senator's book, and never xcill. This will serve to explain 
 not only some strange statements, but also the general drift of Mr. Slade's reply. He then proceeds to 
 assure the public that he has " nothing to say in the way of self-vindication," and puts himself upon 
 his established "reputation for truth, which will render such a defence unnecessary." If he stands 
 there, I fear he will find him.self upon a rotten foundation. 
 
 But if he does not write in self-vindication, for what earthly purpose is this pamphlet ushered into the 
 world.' The election is past, and cannot be affected by it, and no motive can be assigned except to tra- 
 duce and injure the man whom the people of the State have preferred to himself for an important pub- 
 lic station. As to the honor of the State, for which he seems to entertain such deep anxiety, I do not see 
 how it is to be promoted by abusing lier represcnuuive. But, as if conscious that his motive could not be 
 mistaken, he proceeds to say, that he enters upon his reply, " with a conviction that (he) is not to strive 
 to see how much harm he ctu\ do Mr. Phelps." Oh, no ! It is all intended in kindness, as the reader 
 must perceive, when he reads the invective which Slade has interwoven in every part of his book. He 
 then goes on to staU-, that " not the least important question involved in the matter is, whether in a rase 
 " of manifest dereliction of duty, or gross immorality on the jxirt of a public servant, the truth is not to 
 " besliued, when he presents himself to claim a renewed expression of public confidence." Now, I 
 have to say, that no such question has been made by me; but the true question between us is, whether 
 whathe has staied is trtie ; and to this issue, notwithstanding what he says about my evading the issue, 
 / iniend to hold him. 
 
 His book ronimences with giving the circular letter of llial very important committee, in deference to 
 whom he professes to have given his statement, although I believe nobody doubts that the rommittee 
 WMgot tip at his instigation, and to enable him to do the dirty work which he could not, without some such 
 
K 
 
 reieiice, volunteer to do. Upon this letter I liave but one remark to make, and that is, tliut the utter 
 lypocrisy of the whole aftair is apparent from the assertion that I was "understood to refer to you 
 (Slade) for information." Now, who ever understood tliat I referred to him for information ? I knew 
 well that he wa.s actuated by a deadly hostility to me, and that lie and his family were seizing upon 
 every rumor, and availing themselves of every opportunity to traduce me. So well was this understood, 
 that my friends protested, when the committee was appointed, iigainst applying to him for infomiation. 
 The man who penned that sentence nuisi have known it to be false. The same letter was addressed to 
 Hikmtl Hall. Now, I had been informed that he had thrown out at Burlington, in June previou.s, u 
 mysterious intimation that there was something which would come out by and l)ye. How came he to 
 know that something which was then kc])t secret would "■come oa<," unless the matter was then ar- 
 ranged? He acted his part afterwards, and probably in pur.suance of the arrangement then made. I 
 had no faith in him, and never referred to him for information. As to the committee, I have nothing to 
 say, as they served merely as a conduit pij.e through which the filth was discharged; and nothing which 
 they said or did serves to shew the truth of the sUitemcnts. 
 
 Mr. Shvle then proceeds to give the answers to that circular, including those of Adams and Meach, 
 who were volunteers in the matter. For what purpose were these letters published ? Some of them 
 have no connection with Slade 's statement, as they refer to a period after he went out of Congress, and 
 could not aid him. But ho tell.-; us he does not write in self-vindication — but for the edification of those 
 " tc/w) lutve never seen the Senator''s book, und never w'i//." In other words, these letters which had never 
 been before published, except in connection with my defence, were to go forth alone — the poison with- 
 out the antidote. And for what jnirpo.se? They liad discharged their legitimate office, if they ever had 
 any. They were procured for the profes.sed purpose of informing the members of the Legislature, and 
 all of them (except Mr. Marsh's) had l)cen laid before the Whig members, who had acted on them. 
 What public purpose, then, could be answered by their publication at this day.' It may be said that 
 Mr. Slade needed them to sustain his veracity. But he does not put himself on that ground. He dis- 
 claims any purpose of self-defence. He comes out boldly and avowedly as my accuser, and endeavor.s 
 to sustain all the charges. But why docs he feel so anxious to prove them .' What object is now to be 
 eftected by it? None clearly, biU the malicious purpose of wreaking his vengeance on me. 
 
 I cannot now go into a minute examination of these statements. I have already done it in my Appeal, 
 copies of which I trust arc still extant, and to that I refer. It is enough to say here, that these letters 
 were before the Whig Convention, together witii the verbal testimony of Governor Crafts, Mr. Upham, 
 Mr. Foote, and other gentlemen, and, after a very full discussion, I was nominated by the Convention 
 by the decisive vote of 94 to 22 — more than four to one. Yet these statements, thus pronounced upon 
 by the members of the Legislature, are .scattered broadcast over the Suite — nay, laid upon the desks of 
 members of Congress, accompanied l.iy a pettifogging argument from a disappointed and reckless poli- 
 tician. They are to go where my vindication and defence are never seen. Fortunately, however, the 
 decision of the Legislature, notwithstanding the eftbrts of Wm. Slade and his coadjutors, is known 
 also, and upon that verdict I rely. But Mr. Slade has discovered that it is a verdict not of acquittal, 
 but forbearance ! That mind must be strangely constituted, or strangely blinded by passion or prejudice, 
 which can adopt such an idea. What does he mean by a verdict of forbearance ? Why, aii elec- 
 tion by the Legislature to the higliest office in the gift of the State, with the-^e statements before 
 them. This is a forbearance which would doubtless have been extremely gratifying to Mr. Slade, 
 had it been extended to him. But docs he seriously believe that they would have' elected me if they 
 had believed his statements? The supposition is a libel upon the Legislature. No, they believed the sto- 
 ries to be false and malicious, and the offspring of a vile conspiracy." 
 
 Mr. Slade states that I did not publish Mr. Alarsli's letter. I'did not, nor did I n >iice it in my Ap- 
 peal, except in general terms, for the best of reasons : 1st. It was not received by the eoianiittee until 
 after my election, and I w;is not aware that it had ever been made public. 2dly. Mr. .M:ush slates no- 
 thing one way or the other as to the truth of the charges. He merely states that he had heard reports, 
 •but does not state what they were, and refers to gentlemen whose s'tatements were already before the 
 Convention. Besides, I\Ir. Marsh's letters refer "to the session of 1844. Mr. Sladc's to that of 1842. 
 How, then, could the former prove or disprove the latter? And why does Mr. Slade publish it? For 
 the reason already suggested. Two purposes might be answered. It might produce an unfavorable 
 impressitm against me, and it might tempt me to indulge in remarks odensivc to Mr. i\I., and thus lead 
 to a public controvensy Iietween us which no doubt would he gratifying to the peaceful, benevolent, and 
 christian propensities of Mr. Slade. But I have now to deal with Mr. S. and not Mr. M. If it be- 
 come neces.s;u-y for Mr. M. and myself to have any controversy, we can manage it witliout the interfe- 
 rence of Wm. Slade. For myself, I neither expect nor desire his assisUince, and I doubt much whether 
 Mr. M. would consider it cither creditable or expedient to have him for an ally. 
 
 But Mr. Slade is not content with the publication of Mr. Marsh's letter. He adds a note to that let- 
 ter, in which he charges my present colleague (Mr. Upham) with currying to Mr. Marsh reports, prejudi- 
 cial to me, while he was a fellow-boarder with me. Mr. M. says that he received from the inmates of Judge 
 Phelps' boarding house "such information as led nie to think 1 should best consult my own self-respect 
 and most promote my own quiet and that of my family — who were with me — by avoiding a free inter- 
 course with Judge P.," &c. And further — "I forbear to state particulars, &c., bec^iuse it is but hesu- 
 say, and for tlie better reason, that two of the gentlemen from whom I received it are referred to, in yours 
 of the 16th, as having been written to by you," &c. Mr. Slade adds, in a note, "The gentlemen here 
 referred to are Messrs. Upham and Foot, who made verbal communications to the committee in reply to 
 their circular.'' Now, of what importance was this note to Mr. Slade? It certainly did not tend to 
 prove a syllabl/of his cliargrs. Whv, then. wa« it made? For the double purpose, doubtless, of ere- 
 
aline an ujipirasion that my colleague had given currency to these rcijorls, and of brecduie dissenlioE 
 between us. Rut Mr. Slade is rather unfortunate in this particular. 1 have a note from Mr. Upham 
 explicitly denying the fact, and I am authorized by him to say that he has Mr. Marsh's assuremce that 
 he (M.) had no reference to him (Mr. Upham) in the statement given above. As I intend to number 
 the falsehoods in Mr. Slade's different statements in regard to me, I denominate this falsehood No. 1. 
 As to Mr. Foot, I know not whether he is the person alluded to by Mr. Marsh or not. He and Mr. 
 Upham both made verbal statements to the committee, which the committee undertook to reduce to writ- 
 ing; Dut the statement was so grossly perverted, that Mr. F. declared it should not be read to tlig con- 
 vention. Both he and Mr. Upham mane their statements in the convention, as 1 understood ; and it 
 was upon their testimony, in conne.-.tion with tliat of the other gentleman present, that the convention 
 decided. 
 
 Having published these letter.?, a portion of which could, in no point of view, tend to his vindication, 
 if such haa been his object, and all of which had been successfully refuted at Montpelier, he proceeds 
 with what he calls a general account or synopsis of my appeal, fam not surprised at his garbled, im- 
 perfect, and unfair representation of it. tie has left oiit what was most material, disjointed and pervert- 
 ed what he has noticed, and endeavored to destroy its force by purposely misrepresenting its meaning'. 
 I ceumot go into particulars, for it would become necessary to write the book over again, but must refer 
 to the book its-lf, and apjjeal to the candid judgment of the reader who has seen it to deteiTnine how far 
 his reply represents it fairly. I say I am not surprised, because the mon who can suppress prijited tes- 
 timony and tiien misstate it, and who will persist in statements clearly proved to be false, cannot be ex- 
 pected to do justice to the .irgument of his adversary. But he was writing for " a much larger class, who 
 nave never seen the book, and never will," and therefore expected to escape deu-ction. He charges 
 me with an attempt to evade the issue, with making false issues, &c. Now, let us see who makes the 
 false issue. If the reader will compare my circular letter to the gentlemen of the Senate with Mr. 
 Slade's letter to the celebrated committee, he will find that, in my letter, I have quoted Mr. Slade's very 
 language. (See page 24 of my appeed.) Is this niakinir a false issue — to inquire' of those gentlemen in 
 the very language of the charges.' He says himself (p. 9 of his reply) that, in the circular, Mr. P. "gives 
 the substance of my statement in regard to the occurrences in connection with the tariff vote, excepting 
 that part relating to his ^ acting strangely in the presence of Mr. Cranston, to irhicli he makes no allusion.'' " 
 What was Slade's sUitement.- It was this: "Mr. C. came to me and said that Mr. Phelps was acting 
 strangely, swearing that he would not vote," &c. This statement he doubtless intended, like all his 
 hearsay, as an assertion of the fact, as he now treats himself as responsible for the truth of all these 
 statements derived from others. Turn now to my letter of inquiry, as published, and the reader will 
 find the first paragraph, after giving the other charges, concluding with this expression: "And that dur- 
 ing the day I acted strangely, swiaring that I icould not vote oti the bill." Yet with tliis very letter in print 
 under his nose, imd while pretending to ascertain its import, Mr. Slade ventures the assertion that / 
 make no alhisio^i to actirig strangely, &c. But his declaration was to go to iliose "who had never seen the 
 Senator's book, and never would." Here is no room for mistake. It is a deliberate falsehood. And 
 this I denominate falsehood No. 2. What shall be said of the man who tlms deliberately misrepresents 
 a printed document which lies before him — and what credit can be attached to his statements m other 
 particulars.^ It is a rule of law and of reason, that a witness who is detected in one wilful falsehood in 
 nis testimony is not to be believed in any thing he states. 
 
 We come now to the answers to my circular; and here I will lake up Mr. Slade's original statement, 
 examine the proof, and reply to his argument. 
 
 He commencis his charges of neglect o( duty with the following sentence: "I was informed {by tchom 
 I cannot remember) that he had been offended at some supposed slight or want of attention of some Sena- 
 tors, and u.sid tipprobrious language in regard to them, and declared, with oaths, tliat he would not vole 
 on the bill ; and I understood, m the course of the day, that several Senators had made ineffectual efforts 
 to soothe him." Now as to the false issue. Let the reader advert to my letter to tlie gentlemen of Uie 
 Senate, and he will find the inquiry made in the very language of Mr. Slade. What were tlie answer^ 
 to this circular.' The reader will look in vain in Mr. Slade's book for the testimony of those gentle- 
 men. Not a single answer is given. All, without exception, are suppressed. I have taken the testi- 
 mony of every friend of the Uiriff in the Seimte, and of every Whig ui that body, with one solitary ex- 
 ception. I had published that testimony as the basis of my vindication. He aiiempts a rcjily ; and yet, 
 with the excention of the letter of Gov. Crafts, which was not in answer to that circular, and that of Mr. 
 Conrad, which was addressed to him, he omits them all, under tJie pretence of want of room. He 
 might have omitted some of his generid abuse, or, at least, condensed it, and spiuxd altogether comments 
 upon assertions of his disproved by those letters. But he was writing for "those who had never seen Uie 
 Senator's book, and never would,' and for this reason the testimony was suppressed. This is not all. Al- 
 though he says, in introducing Gov. Cralus' letter, that he desires " to omit nothing which Mr. Phelps 
 may deem material to his aise," he yet omits two-thirds at least of lliat letter, and, unfortunately for his 
 
 Erofessions of fairness, omits the very part which coiUnidicts his statement, as to what he pretends to 
 ave witnessed in the Senate chamber upon the taking the vote. 
 Having suppressed the documents themselves, he proceeds to misrepresent them. The following is 
 his account of them: "Some of them, as those of Mr. Woodbridge, Mr. Wright, Mr. Berrien, and Mr. 
 " Williams, contain general statements with regiu-d to the position of the writers on the question, and 
 " the reason of tlieir votes. Others, like that of Mr. Porter, state the obst;icles which had to be eiicoun- 
 " tered in the {MLssage of the bill. Mr. Mangum refers almost exclusively to Mr. Phelps' j^cneral course 
 " on the tariff questicm, and his services oh the Committee of Indian Affairs, his only allusion to tlie real 
 " qiKsiion in iHsue being in a postscript to his reply. Neorly all the Senators addressed give replies to 
 
" the iii((Uiry an Id wliat was Mr. Pliel[)8' course in regard to tlie tariff — in relation to which they use 
 " expressions like this, that he hud * nianilained a deep interest in its favor,' and been its ' fast and steady 
 " supporter, &c.' Mr. Woodbridge is quite stroni^ on the subject, commencing his reply with, 'I am 
 " both surprised nnd g)-ieved to learn that it has been imputed to the Hon. Mr. Phelps that he was hoa- 
 " tile to the principles of the tariff of 1842;' while Mr. Choate closes his reply thus: 'From what I 
 " know of your settled opinions, and had observed of your habitual course in the Senate, I should have 
 " been iirofoundly astonished to have discovered, on such a day or at any time, any such unwillingness.' 
 " With all this, which does not affect the question at issue, except against Mr. Pheijis, as I shall show 
 " hereafter, there are minirlcd such declarations as the following: ' I have no recollection of any declara- 
 " tion or oath by you that you would not vote, nor of your having used opprobrious language.' 'I 
 " have no recollection of your being absent when the bill was put to vote.' ' If any of these circumstan- 
 " ces occurred they were unobserved by me, or have been forgotten.' 'I have no recollection of any 
 " opposition on your part to the tariff act.' 'I do not distinctly recollect all the circumstances and indi- 
 " vidual opinions relative to that measure, but I understood you to be one of its firmest friends.' ' If 
 " any such occurrences took place, and I knew or heard of them, they have escaped my recollection.' 
 " 'Some time has elapsed, and occurrences may have taken place of which I knew nothing, or which I 
 " do not now recollect.' ' I i)aid but little attention to the action of others, (says Mr. Woodbridge,) and 
 " have no knowledge as to where precisely Mr. Phelps might have been when the final question was 
 " taken. The journal, I think, must show.' Such are some of the ways in which a want of recollection 
 " in regard to the matter is expressed in the replies. Some, however, go further than this, and say they 
 " do not think any such thing could have taken place, becjuisc ot'the uniform support that Mr. Phelps 
 " had given to the tariff. One of the Senators, (Mr. Evans,) referring to the fact that he was chairman 
 " of the Committee on Finance, and that it was his duty to ascertain how many votes could be relied on 
 " in favor of the bill, and to Uike care that it should not be pressed to a vote in the absence of any 
 " friendly to it, says: ' If you had been absent from the Senate under circumstiinces indicating that you 
 " did not intend to vote, it i.s scarcely possible that I should have been ignorant of it.' 
 
 "Some of the replies speak of the protracted debate, and say that some of the Senators, as Messrs. 
 " Wright and Williams for example, went out for relief, from the fatigue of a long sitting, into adjoin- 
 *' ing rooms, within Ccdl, and suggest, that perhaps the absence of Mr. Phelps might have been from 
 *' that cause." 
 
 I have transcribed the whole of his account of this testimony, in order that the reader may judge of 
 its fairness. Now, let the reader turn to these letters, which are subjoined, and make the comparison, 
 and let him note the difference between the testimony which Mr. Slade has seen fit to suppress, and this 
 garbled, confused, and imperfect representation of it. Take, for example, the letters of Mr. Evans and 
 Mr. Choate, and compare the full, pointed, and explicit testimony of these gentlemen, with the solitary, 
 and comparatively unimportant, sentence which he has seen fit to extract. I will not now stop to com- 
 ment upon the unparalleled meanness of this course, further than to remark, that it is precisely what 
 might be expected from a man who appears in this business, in the outset, professedly as an indifferent 
 and reluctant witness, testifying from a sense of duty, and testifying to hearsay, but who comes out at 
 last as the accuser and prosecutor, endorsing and making himself responsible for all this hearsay, and 
 adding new falsehoods of his own invention to give currency to old ones. 
 
 But to return to his assertion about my taking offence — using opprobrious language — swearing that I 
 would not vote — and the attempts of several Senators to soothe me. He gives it in the out.set as mere 
 hearsay, and could not tell and can not tell now where he got it. But as the term " several Senators," 
 can apply to none but members of that body, I have taken the testimony of every friend of the tariff then 
 in me body, and that of evei-y polilical friend in it, with the single exception of one who was opposed to 
 the tariff radically and decidedly; and, as the reader will see by adverting to their statements, not one of 
 them has the slightest know Itilffe or recollection of any such transaction. I think I may well ask icho those sev- 
 eral Senators were who cmkavored in rain to soothe me ? Mr. Slade says he took no note of names. I have 
 saved him the trouble of that by appeahng to every man in the Senate, who can be supposed to have 
 taken an interest in persuading me to vote for the bill, and here are their statements. And this, I sup- 
 pose, is what he calls a false issue. But is not this testimony enough to dispose of a mere rumor — 
 a hearsay, from "whom he can not renuTuber'?^' Would not any man of honest and proper feeling, upon 
 the exhibition of this evidence, admit candidly that he had been misinformed, and thus clear me from 
 the imputation .' But what does this empty pretender to godliness and christian charity — this man who 
 makes such parade of his conscience and his reputation, mean? After having gathered up this report 
 which he got, he can't tell where, he lays it before the Legislature of the State as information derived 
 from those "whose assertions he could not discredit," and under the sanction and weight of his authori- 
 ty as Governor of the State, for the purpose of disgracing and destroying a man whose greatest offence 
 was standing in the way of his ambition; and when it is disproved by the unanimous testimony of the 
 friends of the tariff, and of the Whigs of the Senate, boldly endorses the falsehood, reasserts it, and 
 makes himself personally responsible for the truth of that, which, in the outset, he professed no know- 
 ledge of, except rumor, and that from a source which he can not designate. I envy not such a man the 
 consolations of communion with himself If there be a tithe of sincerity in his noisy professions of 
 Christianity, or a spark of conscience remaining in him, he will be disposed to look inwards — upon him- 
 self — upon the rottenness within the whited sepulchre — and when he next tenders his supplications, he 
 will be disposed to drop the haughty tone of the Pharisee and assume that of the humble Publican. 
 
 As he has seen fit to endorse the rumor, I pronounce it falsehood No. 3. He has been writing about 
 the country for proof of his eissertions. Some of his letters I have seen, and yet not a tittle cf proof 
 has lie obtained. Not an individual can be found who professes to know anything of this part of the 
 
charges. Upon llie face of his urijinal staieinent, this Iniiisaclioii, if it occurred al all, must have oc- 
 curred before the convei-sation with Cranston, flis testimony., therefore, will not help him. Indeed, 
 Cranston knows nothing of the " opprobrious lane;:uage," or the " efforts to soothe" me. He (Slade) 
 IS left without a jiartii-le of support in this particular. 
 
 And how docs he rndcavor to escape? 
 
 By pretendino^ that he " took no note of names." He was treasuring up these rumoi-s for future use; 
 they were to be used effectually when the proper period arrived, but it was not wortli wliile to take note 
 of names ; that might be dangerous, as it might turn out, a.s it has done in almost every instance where 
 individuals are referred to, that they disclaim the imputation, and the supposed hearsay turns out to be a 
 fabriciition of his Excellency. But "as to attempts to appease him, Ihey may not have been nuiJc by Setuttors, 
 but thai Ihcy trere made by others there can be little dtnibt.'" This dastardly' attempt at escape is characteris- 
 tic of the man. It indicates not only a consciousness that the oriuinal statement i.s false, but that the 
 author of it lacked the manliness to acknowledge the inaccuracy of his information. Nay, he has the 
 assurance to a.s.scrt,in his reply, that the substance of his charge is proved, although he has not the 
 slightest evidence from any hunian being that this part of his statement is true. He knows nothing 
 about it, and the statement itself is contradicted by the unanimous testimony of the Whigs in the Se- 
 nate. 
 
 Again he is driven to the following jirevarication, as to the " opprobrious language" ; " Does any oiie 
 u?ho knmcs .Vr. Phflps believe that it produced no ' opprobious language' " ? Here is a most extraordmary 
 effort to supply the want of proof. He had asserted certain facts, by way of hearsay, to be sure, but 
 insists that the hearsay was tiiie ; and yet the proof is, when he is called upon for proof, that nobody will 
 doubt who knows Mr. Phelps. It is very true that nobody who knows Mr. P. only through the representa- 
 tions of Wm. Slade and his termagant wife, will doubt much about anything that may be laid to his charge. 
 
 Whenever the tidsehoods which they have so industriously circulated, have taken root or obtained the 
 least credence, people are doubtless prepared to believe anything they may choose to invent. But, pos- 
 sibly, there are those who know Mr. Phelps tlirough other sources of information, and Mr. P. 
 trusts that there are those who know something of his libellers, and the credit to be attached to their 
 statements. 
 
 But Mr. Slade endeavors to avoid the testimony of the gentlemen of the Senate by attributing it to the 
 want of recollection. Let the reader recur to the peculiar crisis in which the Senate and the country were 
 placed on the 27th day of August, 1842, the day on which the tariff act was passed. Let him recal to 
 mind the feverish anxiety manifested by all on that occasion — the divided state of the Senate — the un- 
 certainty of the fate of the bill, depending, as it did, upon the vole of the Senator from Michigan, mine 
 being relied on in its tavor — ;uid let him suppose that I had then expressed a determination not to vote for 
 for the bill. Does he imagine that such a declaration would have made no impression, or would have 
 been speedily forg<jtten ? He might as well suppose that I had knocked a Senator down in ihe presence 
 of the Senate, and nobody would remember it. But, in order to weaken the force of iliis argument, 
 which I used in my Appeal, he resorts to his usual misrepresentation, and represents me, after having 
 adverted to the crisis, as scouting the suggestion that " during this day of anxiety and excitement, when 
 the hopes of the Whig party were at stake," I could have declared with oaths that "I would not vote 
 for the bill;" and adds, in brackets, ^' let tht reader rememlier this.^'' Now, what 1 did any Wiis this: 
 " It is apparent that at such a crisis the defection of a Whig Senator from r^ew England would have as- 
 " tounded the Senate and the country; and the le;usl indication of such a purpose would have produced 
 " a sensatiim, both in the Senate and out of it, not to be tbrgoiten. Such a thing could not be kept secret ; 
 " it would not only have been instantly known through the Senate, but the report would have found its 
 " way with the rapidity of lightning to my constituents at home." If I scout any thing, it i# the 
 idea that such an occurrence would be forgotten. The reader who hais "never seen the Appeiil, and 
 never will," may judge, from this specimen, of the manner in which he misrepresenl.s it. 
 
 But enough of ihis. Lot us follow his statement further: "Some time al'ier sundown, the Senate be- 
 " ing still in session, and it being suspected that the final vot.' on the tariff would be tiikcn that night, Mr. 
 " Cranston, of Rhode Island, (^ame to me and said, that Mr. Phel))s Wiis acting siiaiiirely, swearing that 
 " he would not vote on the bill," &c. Now, it appears that Mr. Cran.non did tell him so, and this is 
 about the only tnith there is in the whole stat<'ment. In every other instance, where he refers to his 
 UMihority for his hearsay, the persons implicated have denied his assertions. As to Mr. Cranston, he 
 shall be alieiuled to in due time. I will pa.ss him for the present, as I am now dealing with Mr. Slade; 
 and whcilier Cranston is to be believed or not, is an issue nut made by Sliidc's oriirinal siali ment. 
 
 He proceeds: " I accordingly n.'paired to the Senate Chaml>er and found Uiat Mr. Phelps was not in 
 *' his seat. I inquired of tJie doorkeeper at the .southern entrance where he was, who informed me that 
 *' he was in a small ante-room, ju.st at uv. entrance, with .Mr. Conrad, of Louisiana, who, 1 utulerstood, was 
 *' endearoring to perawule him to vole. This J leunud from the dnnrkceper, as trell iiv otlurs.^^ Here is false- 
 hood. No. 4. The doorktcper, Mr. Larner, says: ".Vc. Uladr is mlttakeu if ln' supposes that 1 informed 
 him that .Vr. Conrad, of !,nuisiana. iras in the ante-ronm endearorin;; to per.suade you to vote."' Here is another 
 instantr, I supposr, of what Mr. Sladi: would cjdl a f'abt issue. Mr. Slade, in the out.set, did not profess 
 to know anything of this matter, exc(|ii what the doorkeeper told him. His expression, " and others,''^ 
 runs tliroui^h his whole statement, as a sort of slen^otyiH'd phrase, very convenient for tlie purpose of 
 avoiding detection. These " others" app>ear to be very iinporliuU gentlemen in this tran.saciion, as they 
 lire to take all the responsibility in the end. The "somebody^' who endeavored " to soothe'' rae, was 
 probably one of them. 
 
 As aJI llie informaUon which Mr. Slade then possessed on this point was the supposed infui niation 
 
From the doorkeeper, I llioii^ht if sufficient to sltow, by tlie doorkeeper liimself, that lie g-ave Mr. S. no 
 such infornmtioii. ITe, liowever, Ijoldiy realHrms that the (toorkeejier told him so, as if a falsehood was 
 any better for being; repeated. 
 
 Finding himself contradicted, by a disinterested witness, as to the only information which he profes- 
 sed in the outset to have, he now asserts that the fact was so — that Mr. Com-ad was with me in the ante- 
 room, endeavm-hi^ to pers^iade me to vote. Having ventured the assertion, knowing nothing about it him- 
 self, I expert him to prove it. 1 pronounce it falsehood. No. 5. And I refer, in the first place, to the 
 letter of Mr. Conrad, written in reply to a series of questions by Mr. Slade. Mr. C. is Slade's witness 
 in the matter, and may be supjiosed to have been fully interrogated by him. Now, Mr. C. does not 
 anywhere intimate that he had the slightest knowledge or su.-<picion that 1 was disinclined to vote for the 
 bill, or that he used any persuasion to change my purpose in that respect. There is not a sentence or 
 syllable in his letter which indicates any such thing. On the contrary, lie says, that as the " Senate had 
 " been in uninterrupted session from 10 A. M., [it was 8 in the evening when the vote was taken,] the 
 " patience and even the physical powers of many members were nearly exhausted. Mr. Phelps, in 
 " particular, seemed much annoyed at the long continuance of the debate, and manifested great displea- 
 " sure whenever a member would rise to speak." He then goes on to say, that after some member (he 
 thinks Mr. Calhoun) rose and addressed the Senate at considerable length, I rose and left the chamber, 
 remarking that I would stay no longer. He followed, &c., ai d, " after some little persuasion on ray 
 part, I consented to return.''' Now, there is not a word here, nor in the letter, of any purpose of mine 
 either to vote against the bill or withhold my vote. But Mr. Conrad says further : " I think it due to 
 " him, (Mr. P.,) however, to state, that I never/or an Imtani iinputed his course to a wish to defeat the 
 " bill of which he had ever been among the most strenuous supporters " &c. And again, in his letter 
 of May 4, 1846, Mr. Conrad says: "You certainly never did express a determination not to vote for 
 " the bill. So far from it, during the whole of the conversation referred to, you expressed great anxiety 
 " about its fate, and appeared much incensed at some of its friends and supporters, who, as you seemed 
 " to think, wei-e endangering its passage by protracting the debate to a very unreasonable length." Mr. 
 C. well knew that if I refused to vote for the bill it would be lost. And yet Mr. Slade will insist, in the 
 face of this declaration of his own witness, and in the absence of the slightest evidence or even hearsay 
 to support him, that this Mr. Conrad was closeted with me from half to three-fourths of an hour, endea- 
 voring to persuade me to vote. No man but William Slade, and no mind not so absolutely blinded by pre- 
 judice and passion as to be utterly incapable of judging, would draw such an inference from such a 
 letter. 
 
 But it is unnecessary to labor this point further. Let the reader advert to the letters of Mr. Conrad, 
 and judge for himself. But Mr. Slade has another very ingenious argument to prove his assertions. 
 He asks how I can have the face to deny them, when I have the letter of Mr. Conrad before me, in 
 which he states that he endeavored to dissuade me from going; and he asks, with great gravity, for what 
 purpose did I persist in going, hut to get away from voting? He must have a very poor opinion of tire 
 intelligence of the people of Vermont, if he supposes such pettifogging will deceive them. Has not the 
 reader already answered the question ? If not, let him advert to the letters of Mr. Porter, who sal next 
 me on the left; of Mr. White, who sat on my right ; of Mr. Clayton, who sat next Mr. White ; of Mr. 
 Wright, who sat immediately behind me ; and of Mr. Conrad himself, and he will perceive the utter 
 absurdity of this argument. Does it not appear, from all these letters, that I was impatient of the de- 
 bate, was anxious for the question, and that I threatened to leave because the vote was not taken.' To 
 use the language of Mr. White, I was " tired of watching an ever receding question." There was no 
 certainty, when 1 left the chamber, that the question would be taken that night. Nobody could tell howlong 
 the debate would last ; and, had it continued a few minutes longer, the question must have been deferred. 
 To suppose that my unwillingness to stay longer and listen to an unnecessary debate, after a confine- 
 ment in a hot chamber from 10 in the morning till 8 in the evening, was the same thing as a purpose to 
 go against the bill, is a piece of nonsence which will impose upon no one. 
 
 He then proceeds to intimate that Mr. Conrad does not give the whole conversation ; that he has kindly 
 drawn a veil over it, which, for the honor of Vermont, he (Slade) does not regret. This is a very chari- 
 table insinuation. If any conver.sation occurred in the ante-room, no one could tell what it was but 
 Conrad and myself. Slade knows nothing about it. Mr. Conrad .shows no disposition to conceal any- 
 thing, and yet this pious christian volunteers the insinuation that something occurred there dishonorable 
 to Vermont, which Conrad will not, and nobody else can, disclose. How does he know what occurred 
 there, and upon what authority is this insinuation made.' It is worthy of the source from which it 
 comes, and shews the malignant spirit with which the charges were originally made, and the temper 
 with which they are persisted in. But I maintain that Mr. Conrad and myself were not in the ante- 
 room together at all. And, first, upon the statement of Mr. Larner, the doorkeeper. It appears, by his 
 statement, that I went out first, and that Slade first came out and inquired for me, and then Conrad- 
 Now, if this be so, we could not have been in the ante-room together when Slade came and inquired. 
 But Mr. Slade endeavors to impeach Mr. L., and exhibits, in doing so, as fine a specimen of pettifogging 
 as can well be imagined. In the first place he asserts that, according to Mr. L., Mr. C. came and in- 
 quired for me after Mr. Woodbridse had ceased speaking. Now, Mr. L. may intend to be so under- 
 stood and may not. Secondly, Mr. L. states that Mr. Woodbridge rose to speak after I left, which he 
 thinks falsifies my assertion that it was impatience of the debate which induced me to leave. If any- 
 body can see the force of this argument, he has more brains than I have. That a person can not get 
 impatient in the course of a long speech, is new logic to me. But Mr. L. may be mistaken in this par- 
 ticular, without impeaching his credit. I might have left when Mr. Woodbridge rose, and yet Mr. L., 
 
8 
 
 standing outside of the door, and havine liis attention diverted by various Uiiiif;* occiirrine tliere, miglif 
 not have noticed thai Mr. W. was speaking, until after I had jiassed out. 
 
 Again: He says that, according to L., 1 passed out alone, and, according to Conrad's statement, he 
 went with me. I admit there is an apparent inrongruity between the iwo statements; and yet a person 
 acquainted with the chamber ajid avenues to it may well conceive thai both may be right. That passage 
 is usually crowded on such oauisions, especially about the door. It wa.« in the evening, and the passage 
 was not lighted, except from the adjacent rooms. Now, Mr. C, aJihough he followed imniediaiely, as 
 he says, mi^ht yet have lost sight of me ni my fias.sing through the crowd, EUid, as he passed, might have 
 spoken to the doorkeeper — a circumsUince which is of so little importance, that he might not recollect it, 
 and if he did, would not mention it. These things are, however, too trifling to spend time upon. The 
 remaining point, however, may well be noticed as a curiosity. It is this: That I contradict Mr. L., by 
 saying that, while reaching for my hat, Mr. C. saw me move towards ihe door leading out of the Capi- 
 tol. Now, to show the ingenuity of our worthy Governor, I need only state, that, in my Appeal, 1 look 
 the same course which 1 shall take now, that is, to take Mr. Larner's t^tatenieni, and sliow that, accord- 
 ing to that, we were not in the ante-room together at all, and then to prove tke sanu thing by that of Mr. 
 Conrad. This was done in order to show that the slight differences between them was unimportant. 
 In commenting upon Conrad's statement I used his language, and, for the pur|)ose of the argument, as- 
 sumed it to be true, as I have previously done with respect to Larner's. Having taken this course, Mr. 
 Slade discovers that 1 am responsible for the .statement of both, and if ihey differ, in any particular, I not 
 ■only contradict my own witness, bm contradict my.self ! This is a wonderful discovery, and shows his 
 excellencij not only to be a very good laicyer, but that he would make a most excellent jucige. 
 
 After all, whether Mr. L. is accurate in the particular account which he gives of the occurrences of 
 that evening, is not very important. The object I had in asking for his testimony was to show that he 
 did not tell Slade the story which the latter pretemls. He denies having done so. And how does Slade 
 meet that denial.' Why, after re-affirming " that he told me he was in the ante-room wiili Mr. Conrad." 
 he goes on to admit: "He (Mr. Larner) says I am mistaken in saying that I learned from him that 
 Mr. Conrad was endeavoring to persuade Mr. Phelps to vote." Possibly lie did not say this to me in ex- 
 press term; ; but of one thing I am certain, that, irhile standing vith him close to the ante-room door, the sound 
 of conversation reached our ears, and he said to nu thai it u-as JMr. C. and .Mr. P., who icere conversing there. 
 That 1 learned from some one that they xrtre there is evident, from tlie fact that Jilr. Cranston learned it, 
 •at that very time, from me, as well as others.'''' 
 
 The reader will perceive that Mr. Slade backs out, at once, from the material part of the story, to wit, 
 that Conrad teas endeavoring to persuade me to vote. He does not, and dare not, contradict Mr. L. in 
 this particular; but endeavors to escape by showing, what he admits to be in itself immaterial, to wit, 
 that ire u-ere in the room together. But this is not all. He appeals to Cranston's statement as to what he 
 (Slade) told him. Now, if the reader will advert to Cranston's letter, he will find not one word about 
 Conrad's persuading me to vole. Thus Mr. Slade not only gives up the pretence of what the doorkeeper 
 told him, but shows, by his own story at tlie time, that' he had tlien no such idea. Upon the very evi- 
 dence which he produces it turns out an after-thought, a subsequent fabrication ; and yet this after- 
 thought is all that is material in the story. 
 
 But let us Uike the statement of Conrad, and see whether that leads to a different result. He says 
 "he went into the small ajite-room where the hats of members are deposited, and I followed him. See- 
 ing him take his hat and move towards the door leading out of the Capitol, I endeavored to dissuade 
 him," &«. Upon this statement Mr. Slade reasons as follows: "Followed him where? Why, of 
 course, where he went, namely, into the ante- room. And there he saw him uike hi.s hat and move to- 
 wards the door. What door.' The first door that presented itself — the door leading from tlie ante- 
 room, and of cour.se leading towards one of the outer doors of the Capitol." He idso says, that " every 
 door ijetween the innermcst recesses of the building and the open air /ends out of tlie Capitol." This is 
 a discovery. Of course, a person going from the Senate chamber out of the Capitol might take any door 
 which presented itself Ami this train of reasoning is the only )>roof he lias that we were in the ante- 
 room together. It is very .satisfactory to him, and he very solemnly comes lo the conclusion, that "It 
 appears then, from Conrad '.s statement, that he and Mr. Plulps were in Uie ante-room together, and there 
 he endeavored to disstiade " the fugitive Senator from going," Ac. Now, this argument is intended, not 
 only for iho.se who Imve never .seen the Senator's book, but for those who have never seen tlie Senate 
 chamber and its appendages, and never will. It is so framed as to convey the impression that the pas- 
 sage out of the Senate chiuiilier was through the ante-room, and that Mr. Conrad and myself passed into 
 the room at one door and out at another. Mr. Slade is well acquainted with the form of these locidiiies, 
 but is driven to the necessity of giving a fa'se impression, in order to lay tlie foundation of his argument. 
 A short description will ilUistrate this. In j)assiiig out of the Senate chamber, to the south, tJie door of 
 the ante-room is on the left, outside of the cnamber ; a little further on to the right is a door which opens 
 at the head of the staircase, leading to the outside door of the building; and from this is a passage, also, 
 through the rotunda to the hall of the House of Rrpresintativi s, and to the other passages leading out 
 of the Capitol; directly in front of a person pa.ssing out, and t'urther on, is the door of the committee 
 room ap])ro[>riated to the Committee on Claims. Mr. Conrad's .seat was in the front row, on the ex- 
 treme right of the Stnators, and next this passage. Of course, by looking round, he could, from his 
 seat, see through the passage as far as the door of the committee room. This ante-room, as it is called, 
 is a small room about 7 feet wide and from 16 to 20 fiet long. It has but one door and one window ; and 
 whoever possn/ inin it must filher pass out by the door ht enters or jump out of the window, which is at least 
 twenty fret from the ground. The passage into this room is through one of the massive walls of the build- 
 ing, plar«d lh«re to support the arch of the 5y'naip chamber, and this wall i."< about font feet thick; the 
 
J^!iSsaa;e into it is so narrow that two persons cannot pass each other in it. And now for thfi " peg,'^ 
 which seems to annoy liis Excellency so mucli. Around tliis room are )ihiced wliat I have denominated 
 nefi;s, to hans; liats and cloaks on, the name of each Senator heing; placed over the one a|ipn)priated to 
 him. The one next the door, placed close to the r^asine;, was appropriated lo Mr. Archer — the next to 
 me. In passin'j out of the Senate rhanihcr it has been my practice iKit to enter the ante-room, but, 
 standing in the door, to reach my lu»nd in and take my hat. In this position no person could pass me 
 to enter the room. 
 
 Let the reader hear this description in mind, and we will recur to Mr. Conrad's statement. He states 
 that I passed by him, &c., and, seeing: me jjo into the ante-room, he followed. Followed where.' Why, 
 through the passiige leading out of the chamber and punt the (/oor of the ante-room. What next.* "See- 
 ing him take his hat and move towards the door lending oxil of the Capitol.''^ What door? Mr. Conrad 
 was speaking of jiersons passing out of the Senate chamber; and in that position the door at the head 
 of the staircase was the only one leading out of the Capitol. The door of the ante-room led into it, and 
 there was no egress except to return through it. If the direction is reversed, and a person is moving in 
 the opposite direction, none of these doors lead out of the Capitol. Mr. Conrad, therefore, nuist have 
 spoken of the door at the head of the staircase as the one leading out of the Capitol, as distinguished 
 froni the door of the ante-room, which did not lead out of it. If "every door in the inmost recesses of 
 the building leads out of it," it is difficult to perceive what Conrad meant by the designation. Again : 
 Supposing us to have been in the ante-room, the only door of that room opens at right angles to the 
 passage leading out of the Senate chamber. In returning to the chamber we must pass through that 
 door ; and the course back to the chamber is as direct as that out of the Capitol. Mr. C. would not desig- 
 nate this door as leading out of the Capitol, as it leads back to the chamber as directly as it leads out. 
 It is to be borne in mind, that members of the House, in passing to and from the chamber, have no 
 reason to enter the ante-room. But there are other circumstances to be considered. Mr. C.'s seat was 
 about 25 feet from the ante-room. The distance of the room from the main pa.ssage is about 4 feet, the 
 thickness of tlie wall. Now, Mr. C. did not move from his seat, according to his account, till he saw 
 me enter the ante-room, or rather the narrow passage leading to it, for he could not see the door of the 
 ante-room from his seat. I had then to pass not over four feet to reach my hat, standing, as I usually 
 did, in the door, and return to the main passage, while he was rising and approaching me. It is not 
 very likely that he came up with me before I regained the passage; and this explains his meaning when 
 he says that I moved towards the door hading out, itc. The true meaning of Mr. Conrad is, that seeing 
 me take my hat from the ante-room and move towards the door, &c., he endeavored to dissuade me, 
 &c. ; and the inference is, that he did not enter the ante-room at all. Yet Mr. Slade asserts that Conrad 
 says we went into the ante-room together. Mr. C. states no such thing; it is a mere inference, which is 
 without foundation. 
 
 But, having assumed that such was the case, he then proceeds, very gravely, to ascertam the time that 
 Mr. C. and myself were in the ante-room. This is, to be sure, of little consequence; but his reasoning 
 is worthy of a little attention as a curiosity. But, in order to lay the foundation for it, he finds it neces- 
 sary to coin a new falsehood, (No. 6,) with respect to which he is as unfortunate as usual. He says : 
 ''Mr. Conrad is correct in saying that Mr. Phelps went out when Mr. Calhoun rose to speak, and he is 
 also correct in saying that Mr. C. addressed the Senate at considerable length." 
 
 Now, Mr. Conrad does not say that Mr. P. went out when Mr. C. rose to speak. He first states that 
 Mr. C. rose and addressed the Senate at considerable length, and then proceeds to say that Mr. P. rose, 
 &c. If we take the transaction in the order in which Mr. C. states it, it was after Mr. Calhoun had ad- 
 dressed the Senate at length that I rose, and he no where intimates the contrary. But Mr. Slade, find- 
 ing that he can pervert Mr. C.'s statement in a manner which a careless reader might not detect, forth- 
 with falls to remembering. His memory is extremely vivid in recalling matter which may gratify his 
 vindictive feelings, but vmluckily his memory generally runs counter to that of men of altogether supe- 
 rior credibility. In addition to the plain inference from Mr. Conrad's statement, let me refer to the state- 
 ment of Mr. Thomas Clayton, who sat near me. He says: 'After a long and tedious discussion, when 
 almost every one had become wearied with the discussion, and when all were anxious for the question, 
 late in the evening, Mr. Woodbridge rose to speak. Soon after several members left their seat.s. Among 
 them I remember Mr. Wright, Mr. Williams, am/ yoursp/f." What, then, are we to think of Mr. 
 Slade's declaration? "This I well rememl)er. He (Mr. Calhoun) was speaking when I entered the 
 chamber, and found that Mr. Phelps was out." Mr. Conrad says nothing of the kind, and Mr. Clayton 
 states directly the reverse. It is agreed, on all hands, that Mr. Woodbridge followed Mr. Calhoun, and 
 was the last speaker. 
 
 What, then, becomes of Mr. Slade's argument about the length of time I was absent, as ascertained by 
 the duration of Mr. C.'s and Mr. W.'s speeches? He says they spoke from 30 to 40 minutes. Sup- 
 pose they did. I did not leave until after Mr. Calhoun had closed his speech. 
 
 But as to the duration of Woodl)ridge's speech, I stated in my appeal that it lasted but a very few 
 minutes, and that the report of it occupies but six or seven lines of the ordinary newspaper column. 
 Mr. Slade, however, endeavors to answer this, by .saying that speeches are often concisely noticed, and 
 as samples, cites the notices of Mr. Smith's and Mr. Simmons' speeches on the same day. Why could 
 he not have given the notice of Mr. W.'s speech, which is in the Same paper? It would certainly give 
 a better idea of what that speech was than the notice of another one. Mr. Slade is quite adroit at this 
 species of juggling, and to show the reader the object of the trick, I will give him the report of that 
 speech. It is as follows : 
 
 " Mr. Woodbridge said, that the bill before the Senate appeared to him to be fully as protective a 
 measure as it did to'the mind of the Senator tVom .SoiUh Carolina. But that was no objection to him. 
 O 
 
Oil the contrary, it waus its ^rreatest recommendation. It went far to reconcile him to the sacrifice whicli 
 his party had been roiisiruined to make. He had risen merely to say, in regard lo the vote he should 
 give, that as his friends went so should he ^o." 
 
 This reader is the wliole speech. It is a report ol'ihe speecli, and profes.ses to give the whole, unlike 
 the notices of the other speeches adverted to by Mr. Slade, where the reporter does not protes-s to give 
 the remarks. How long did the delivery of ilii.s speech occupy the Senate? What says Mr. Wright? 
 He left when Mr. Woodbridje rose, and went into the Secretary's room, and scaled himself at the 
 window. "I had been .seated by the window, as it then appeared and now appears to me, but a very 
 few miiutles when the younger Mr. Bsis.sett, one of the messe gers, came into the room in great haste, 
 and told me mi/ name /iftt/ <*een called.'" In a vei y few minutes the speech had been finished, and Mr. 
 VVriirhi's name, the last but one on the list, had been called. Mr. Woodbridge did not speiik over 
 two minutes, and if three minutes are allowed for calhng the names, wliich call was not finished when I 
 returned, we have but five minutes, which was the extent of my absence. 
 
 But our ingenious Governor has another very satisfactory and conclusive mode of tv;ccrtaining the 
 time during which Mr. Conrad was " endeavoring to persuade mc to vote." He says that Mr. Cran- 
 ston stJites that an hour intervened between his conversation with me and the final vote, and then goes 
 on to guess liow long Mr. Cranston was engaged in r^u-rying the very ([uaJifyinij intelligence he had 
 obtained to Mr. Slade; and deducting this period from the hour, ho gets the leiiijth of my absence. 
 Now, if Mr. C. had given us the duration of his ab.sencc — the period when he returned — we should 
 have had some data to act upon. The very satisfactory character of this reasoning of the Governor will 
 appear if we slate the question mathematically. If from 60 minutes you subtnxct any number less than 
 60, you don't know wliat, how many renuiin? 
 
 But his last, and perhaps in his view the strongest argimient on this point is, that the duration of Mr. 
 P.'s absence may be inferred from " the temper in which he left the chamber, and the work to be per- 
 formed by Mr. Cranston, (he means Conrad) or somebody else during the absence." Tlii.s is most admi- 
 rable logic. v\ helhcr I left earlier or later, when Mr. Callioun rose or Mr. Woodbridge rose, may I 
 easily be detenuined by the temper with which I left I I suppose if Mr. Slade had a thermometer by 
 which lie could ascertain the precise degree of excitement, he could tell by some machemajtical process i 
 the length of my absence lo a second ! 
 
 But enough of this Itu-fetched and puerile reasoning. It proves nothing but the temper and .state of 
 mind in which Mr. Slade approaches this subject, and shews his settled purp«:)sc to persevere, right or 
 wrong, in traducino^ me, and to call to his aid, not only fabrications of his own, but arguments which to 
 a deliberate and candid mind must appciu- absurd and ridiculous. 
 
 The absurdity of his pompous conclusion is equalled only by that of his reasoning. Hear him : " It 
 tlms appears that, during the whole lime that Mr. Callioun was endeavoring to show the highly protec- 
 tive character of the bill, &c., and Mr. Woodbridge was giving reasons for disi>ensins willi his .scruples, 
 (fee, Mr. Conrad was engaged in the no less important, and cerUiinly not less difficult tasfc, of making Mr. 
 Phelps much calmer, and sfciiriJig a vote that saved the bill." He adds, as if chuckling at the idea of his 
 own ingenuity in arriving at this grave conclusion, •' From my heart I thank him for liis successful 
 labor, and every man in Vermont ought to thank him." The utter luartlessiuss of this last declaration 
 must be obvious to all Had the bill been lost through my delinquency, this political assassin would 
 have been much more inclined to give thanks, as it might have enabled him to have been more success- 
 ful in his attacks upon me, and in his purpose of taking my place. No man who knows the utter self- 
 ishness of his heart, or has witnessed his unprincipled course in tiiis matter, can doubt that the lariflT 
 bill would have been readily sacrificed lo the attainment of such an object. 
 
 But his conclusion. I was not out when Mr. Cidhoun wiis speaking. That is a fabrication of his 
 own. it is contradicted by Mr. Conrad's letter, and most emphaiically by Mr. Clayton's. As to Mr. 
 Woodbridge givijig his reasons, I have given his whole speech, and the reader am judge what lime it 
 occupied. And as to Mr. Conrad's task, I refer to his letter, in which he says that he '* never yj>r an 
 instatU imputed his course to any wish to defeat the bill ;" and yet he knew, I knew, and everybody »1>' 
 about the Senate knew, that if I failed lo vote for the bill it would be lost. There is not an expressioi, 
 in his letter indicuiing the slighiesi suspicion that if the vote had been called for bet'ore I let'i the cham- 
 ber, there was the lea.sl danger that my vote would be given ;\gainst the bill or withheld. And yci 
 iSladc persists in the declaration in the face of the testimony of liis own witness i\Ir. Conrad, and in the 
 absence of the .slightest evidence from any quarter, that a word was addressed to me to change such a 
 determination, (unless indeed lie finds it in the statement of Mr. Cranston whom I will attend to soon.) 
 The triitli is, every part and |)arcel of this grave summing up is false and groundless. 
 
 But Mr. Slade expresses his surprise that I .should .say this with Mr. C's letter before me ; and re- 
 turns again U) the ridiculous charge that my object was " to get away tVom voting." He says that AIi-. 
 ('. has drawn a V( il ovi-r the conversation which, for the honor of Vermont, he does not regret. Heii> 
 is a imui who volunteiTH as my accu.scr, calls upon Mr. Connul as his own witness, ;uid when he finds 
 that witness dues not support him, intimates that this witness has drawn a veil over the matter. But 
 what says this witiies.s as lo the ir.ui.saciioii ? " I caimot ima;;in(ihow it should have become necessary 
 to rel'er to a circuiiistaiii;e so virtf unimportant iis the one you allude lo," Otc. And yet, with the opinion 
 of liis own witness as to the unimportiince of the whole matter, Mr. Slade charges that witness with 
 drawinsi a veil over it. All that appears from Mr. Conrad's slaU'inent is, that fhad beiomc wearied 
 with what 1 considereil an iinnecc'.-s.ary and ill-limed debate; iuid finding that the vole was likely to be 
 deferred still loii;;er, I w. is disposed to ntire from Uieidiainber. .\t hi.s instigation, however, I returned, 
 and the quesiion was ui expectcdiy uiken. I vou^d of course, and the bill was passed. 
 
 Mr. Slade, however, iroaded on by his |>orsoiial malignity towards nic, and writhiir; unUcr tlic disap- 
 
11 
 
 .ipointmeiil of his hopes, emlLiivors to make much ado iiimiit nothing; ami, by <!;>-'>«s exaggeration, lo 
 convert what Mr. Conrad pronounces a very uniinportanl oircunistancc nito iv grave and imposnig 
 
 m-'^lter. , , . , . .1 , tj 
 
 But Mr. Sladc afiects to consider it unimportant whether we were in the ante-room tngetlieror not. He 
 says, 1 may have it " higher up, or lower down, or out of doors." " After all it was somewlicre ; and 
 notwithstanding his rt«f()i/)ten/era.s(Oji, the question must bo an.swered, was it anywhere.'" . . 
 
 I will meet Mr. S. on his own irround, and inquire whether it was anywhere r I agree that it is of 
 no importance, in itself considered, whether we were in the ante-room together or not. The substance 
 of the charge is, that I had expressed a determination not to vote for the bill, and that Mr. Conrad was 
 
 3xpla 
 dated May 4, 184(5: , ,.„ ^ . , . , . „ . , 
 
 " You catalnly never (Ud express a delcrminaiion not to vote for the bill. So Jar from it, rfwnng llie vliote 
 of the conversation rcfemd to, (that referred to in his letter to Sladc and pubh.shed by bim,) you expressed 
 great anxielii about its fate, and appeared much incensed at some of Us fiiends and supporters, vho, as you 
 seemed to think, verc cndans;eni}g its pusfcse bii protracting the debute to a very unrvuicnablc length.. ' " 1 do 
 not recoUc.t that a time had been fixed lor taking the vote by any formal resolution of the benate, but 
 mv impression is, that it was generaliv understood among the members on both sides, that the vote 
 should be taken that ni<rht. low appeared to think otherwise, hmccrer, and to sujyposc that there n-as a deter- 
 minution on the part of some members to continue the debate for an indefinite period.'' , ■ , ■ ^ 
 
 Mr. Conrad, after stating that wc descended the stair-case into the open air, as stated m his former 
 letter, proceeds to assign a reason for our going out which it would be perhaps indelicate to pubhsh ; 
 and which he says manifested itself immediately after we got out, and concludes as follows : 
 
 " After the lajise of a few minutes, during which ice conversed upon other matters, I proposed to return to 
 the Senate chamber, to which you assented. When wc returned, we found, very much to my surprise, {for 
 I did not e.ri)cct the debate to be so soon terminated,) the clerk calling the ayes and noes," &c. 
 
 Now it appears from the two letters of Mr. Conrad, that we had been m uninterrupted session from 
 10 o'clock in the morning till after dark on the 27ih of August, in a crowded and ill-ventilated room; that 
 theixuience and physical powers of the members had been exhausted; that! in particular had been 
 impaiient of what I considered an unnecessary and unseasonable debate; that I rose and left the chamber 
 under the imjiression that the vote would not be taken that night; that he followed me, and attempted 
 to dissuade me from going; that we proceeded down the stairs into the open air, where the conversation 
 turned upon other matters, and after a few minutes spent there, we returned to the chamber and found, 
 une\-pectedly to him as well as myself, the voting commenced. It was his impression that the vote 
 would be taken that night, but that I thought otherwise ; and yet I yielded to his suggestion and returned 
 to the chamber. That so far from declaring that I would not vote for the bill, I " expressed great anx- 
 iety about its fate," ifec. , . , ,- ■ c 
 
 To me it appears (and I think it will so appear to the unprejudiced reader) that this testimony ot 
 Mr. Conrad puts an end to the whole charge. So far at least as his knowledge goes, it clears me fully, 
 explicitly, and decidedly, of the charge of wavering about the larifl"; and he is one of the witnesses re- 
 lied on by Mr. Slade. 'All that he convicts me of is, that I left the chamber after an exhausting session 
 under the impression that the question would not be reached, and at his suggestion returned in season to 
 vote, although the debate ceased unexpectedly to him and to me. For this offence I am responsible to 
 my constituency, and will submit to any penance which they see fit to impose. 
 
 But is Mr. Slade satisfied ; or will he coin some new falsehood in order to evade this testimony? 1 
 recommend to him to review his reply, and to ask himself what becomes of his grave assertion, that 
 " Mr. P. left the chamber evidently in the spirit and temper just expressed to Mr. Cranston" of his la- 
 bored argument about the labor to be performed by Mr. Conrad, " to change the mmd thus screwed up 
 under such a pressure of motive lo'such a determination," "of the difTicult task of .securing a vote which 
 saved the bill," of the halt' or three-quarters of an hour spent in it, for which he so sincerely thanlis Mr. 
 
 ^ ,„ , ' . , ., . ■ , 1 ' 111 1 - <l 7.<--.I l,...l .1,,, l.:il r.,;i„,l tl,..r^.,rrl, i.^irM^. 
 
 ji 
 of 
 
 ^•," of all the supposed j , ,_ _, , . . • 1 i ri 
 
 and his "accustomed profi^nity," which he supposes was manifested in the interview with Mr. Conrad. 
 What, indeed, becomesof the garnishing which he has bestowed upon this scene of "dereliction of duty," 
 of violence, and profonity, &c., &c. ; and, in short, of the whole fabric of misrepresentation, exag:gcra- 
 tion,and falsehood, which his imagination and his malice have conjured up? What, indeed, becomes 
 of his grave assertion, " that durin<: the whole time that Mr. Calhoun was endeavoring to show the 
 highly pro'ective character of the bill," &e., and "Mr. Woodbridge was sriving his reasons," &c., 
 " Mr! Conrad was engaged in the no less important, and certainly not less difficult task, of making Mr. 
 P. much calmer, and securing a vote which saved the bill r" What becomes of the Governor's " thanks'" 
 and " gratitwlc'r' It would be gi-atifying to know whether the muscles of his Excellency's face moved 
 when this bm-st of patriotic feeling came from him, or to have seen the mock gravity which must have 
 adorned his veracious Excellency's phiz, when he bestowed this solemn commentary upon this mali- 
 cious invention of his own. The world will irive him due credit for his patriotism, as well as his ve- 
 racity, more especially when they consider tliat he had not the slightest reason to sufiposc that his as- 
 sertions were true, and when ihey see liow the te.stimoiiv of Mr. Conrad places the brand of malicious 
 
12 
 
 falsehood upon llieni all. Perhaps if Mi-. Slade will review the subject, he may find some abatement 
 of the pious horror with which he rolls up his eyes at a picture of his own drawing, £uid a string of 
 falsehoods of his own invention. 
 
 He .says I have charged him with falsehood. I have. I repeat the charge. And I have only to add, 
 that I am astonished that a mind so loose, and scattering, and verbose, should be able to comprise so 
 much malignant falsehood in so small a compass. He could not have done it but for the artificial energy 
 which may he tempoiarily imparted to an mtellect, naturally none of the strongest, by the impulse of 
 highly excited and malignant passions. Nay, I have convicted him of fjdsehoods for which he has 
 neither authority, palliation, or excuse. And before I get through with him, I shall convict him of 
 more. If I wished a sample of his recklessness on this subject, I need go no further than his story of 
 the interview with Mr. Conrad. His only authority for the statement in the outset was thesupposed state- 
 ment of the doorkeeper, who denies having given Mr. Slade any such information ; thus convicting Slade 
 of having fabricated the story. Yet, although he professed to have no evidence in the outset bilt mere 
 hearsay, he now comes out boldly and makes himself responsible for the story, and endeavors to sustain it 
 upon the strength of his " repuuition. " It turns out, however, by tlie testimony of Mr. Conrad, that the 
 whole story is a sheer fabrication. But Slade is not content with charging me with expressine a deter- 
 mination not to vote for the tariff bill, and asserting that Conrad was endeavoring to persuade me to 
 vote, but taxes his imagination for a story aljout complaint of Whig Senators, accustomed profanity, 
 &c., &c., which he doubtless would have the world believe. Where is his autliority for all this.' He 
 knows nothing about it himself, and Mr. Conrad intimates no such thing. The whole is the creation of 
 our pious Governor's imagination. Beine disappointed in not getting from Mr. Conrad any proof to 
 support his reckless assertions, he works himself into a pa.ssion, talks of his own witness drawing a veil 
 over the matter, resorts to general persontil abuse, and conies to the grave conclusion, that, if Mr. Phelps 
 did not do all which the fertile imagination of our veracious and pious Governor suH^ests, it was " un- 
 like him." Does he really imagine that the good people of Vermont can be so fiu- deceived as to mistake 
 the ravings of a disiippoiiited politician and a distempered mind for proof.' 
 
 But let us proceed with Mr. Slade's statement. " I returned into the Senate chamber, where I re- 
 mained until the debate closed — Mr. Woodbridge, of Michigan, being the last speaker. The Secretary 
 was thereupon ordered to call the yeas and nays. I immediately went to the doorkeeper and asked 
 where Phelps and Conrad were, who replied that they had left the ante-room and gone to some other 
 part of the Capital, he did not know where." Here is falsehood No. 7. The doorkeeper says he told 
 him no such thing. But it may be asked, of what importance is this, whether true or false: I can an- 
 swer that question. There was in this apparently unimportant statement a meaning that does not at 
 first meet the eye. The " some other part of the Capitol" was said at Montpelier to be the refectory 
 below, where " liqum-" was kept ; that this explanation was given by Mr. Slade is not to be doubted, as 
 one of his tools declared on the floor of the House, in reference to this statement, that he did not 
 want a representative at Washington who had to be dragged out of a grog-shop to give his vote." Like 
 the assertion that Mr. P. "appeared very much excited," and that " Gov. Crafts told me (Sl.\de) that 
 he advised Mr. Phelps to leave Broirn's /arem" — it had a peculiai- meaning. This meaning would doubt- 
 less have been avowed by Mr. Slade, and he would have been ready to swear that we went below for 
 sonuth'mf:; to drink, had not Mr. Conrad's letter closed the door effectually upon such a pretence. 
 
 But what next.' " I requested him (the doorkeeper) to go for them immediately. He went and found 
 them,"&c. Here Mr. Slade would arrogate to himself the credit of having, by his industry and patri- 
 otic eflorts, secured tlie votes of Mr. C. and myself, and thus saved the bill. But he is unfortunate 
 again. What says the iloorkeeper? '* Mr. Slade is mistaken when he says that he sent nic in pursuit 
 of them ; that 1 found them, and they returned; I did not go in uursitit ofyou.^' Here is falsehood No. 8. 
 
 We come now to the only thing in relation to this charge about the vote on the tariff of which Mr. 
 Slade professes to have any personal knowledge — all the rest is hearsay — and it will turn out that what 
 he pretends to have seen is totally and absolutely fal.'^e. "They c;une in, and went past me in the Senate 
 chamber just as Mr. Phelps' name was called. He did not answer, but passed to his seat, which was in 
 the .southern part of the chamber. The roll having been gone through, the Secretju-y called the name of 
 Mr. Conrad, who answered in the affirmative. He then called Mr. Phelps, tr/io </i</ not answer, biU turned 
 rourul to Mr. Conrad, who wan standing behind him, and said " Conrad have you voted /'' to which Mr. C. 
 replied that he had. 1 stood some 15 or 20 feet from them, imd heai-d the whtle distinctly.''^ Here we 
 have the Governor's veracity pledged. He is positive — heard the whole distinctly. Now this statement, in 
 all that is inat<rial, is utterly fidse. It contains two falsehoods, Nos. 9 and 10, as I will jiroceed to show. 
 The first is, that Mr. P. did not answer, cither at the first or second call of his name. What .says Mr. 
 Conrad ? " My impression is that biitli of our names had been called when we entered," &c. " I also 
 think that he ro.se at the proper time, and requested the clerk to c;dl his name, and anstcered to it when 
 called.''^ " I do not think Mr. P.'s name was called " just as he entered the chamber." "On the con- 
 trary, I think that our names had both been called in their regular order before wc entered, and that his 
 name was not again called until he rose and requested the clerk to call it, nnrf thai he immfiiin/*'/;/ answered 
 in th«' affirmative." " 1 have no recollection of his having been twice called." But what says Governor 
 Crafts on this jioint.' in giving me an account of his statement before the Convention he says, " I was 
 then a.'<ked whether you answered to the first call of your name on the pa.^sage of the t:u-iff bill. I gave 
 it as my impression that you did," itc. " Mr. Hale (H. Hale, Esq., of t'rwell,) afterwards stated to the 
 meeting tliat he was in the gallery at the time the vote was Uxkvw, &>•., arul was rrry poaitire thai you 
 an.ticered at the ftr.sl call of your name." The stjitemeiits of Mr. Clayton and Mr. Machen also prove the 
 siinie thing. They say that my name would not have been called except at my re(|uest, and that there 
 was nothing miusuid when I gave my vote which atiiacted their aiiciiiion. The reader am judge whether 
 
13 
 
 il would liavc allracttd liicir altenlion, if I luul risen iii my ]Amc, iiqMistcd my name to be called, niul 
 liad declined to answer. Such an occurrence was never witnessed in the Senate. As to turnme round 
 to Conrad, who stood behind me, and asking liim whether lie had voted, IVlr. C.'s statement puts that 
 subject at rest. Instead of standing behind m'e, he was at the clerk '.■< desk, directly in front, and in llie 
 centre of the semi-circle. The Senators were seated in lliose semi-circular rows, and my .seat was in the 
 middle row. To address liim in that position, would have required as loud a tone as to address the 
 chair, and would have attracted the attention of the whole Senate. Thus we .see that the Governor's 
 positive statement, as to what occurred after I entered the chamber, is contradicted by five different wit- 
 nesses viz: Gov. Crafts, Mr. Hale, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Clayton, and Mr. Machen, the clerk. I ought to 
 remai-k here that this part of Gov. Craft's letter is omitted in Mr. Slade's reply, for what purpose the 
 reader must judije; and although he " desires to omit nothing which Mr. P. may deem material to his 
 case," he yet onnts all of Gov.C.'s letter which contradicts the only portion of his [Slade's] statement, 
 which puijiort-s to be within his personal knowledge. ■ r , 
 
 I have now done with Governor Slade's statement as to what occurred on the occasion of the pas.sage 
 of the tariff act of J842. I will not stop here to express my anxiety " for the honor of Vermont," nor 
 to extiress the mortification which every citizen of that State must feel at this exposure of a man whom 
 they have been induced by circumsUinces to place in an exalted station. I have no "anxic/y" for the ho- 
 nor of the State, because I am satisfied that the State will take care of its own honor in due season. I 
 have none for niysclf in the matter, because the exposure of Mr. Slade's mendacity, and the manifesta- 
 tion of his fiendi.s'h malio-nity in his reply, will insure him the usual fate of the calumniator, whoso malice 
 usually recoils upon his^own h.cad. My comments, if I have any to make, will be reserved until I have 
 exposed in anotlier matter, which seems to be a favorite topic with him, a series of falsehoods from 
 ■which there is no escape, and for which there can be no apology. But before I take leave of this part 
 of the case, I think it proper to bestow some little attention upon this Mr. Cranstoii, who stands alone 
 as a volunteer aid to Mr. Slade. Although our worthy Governor has been circulating his letters about 
 the country, endeavoring to pick up material for his attack upon me, he has found no man to respond or 
 give him the least aid iti the matter but Mr. Cranston, of Rhode Island. Whether Mr. Cranston ac- 
 quires any laurels in the controversy, remains to be seen. In my judgment, he has placed himself in 
 no enviable position, unless, indeed, he is ambitious of the honor of being the dupe and the cats-paw of 
 Wm. Slade. In my former address to the public, I was disposed to treat him with delicacy and forbear- 
 ance ; for, although I have always regarded him as a weak man, having a vast deal more vanity than 
 brains, yet I was rather disposed to regard him and to treat him as agoodnatured simpleton instead of a 
 knave. His second letter to Mr. Slade, however, has confirmed me in the suspicions whicli I enter- 
 tained from the outset, thai he has condescended to make himself the tool of Mr. Slade, and I think an 
 examination of his letter will satisfy the candid reader that the suspicion was well founded. 
 
 In his first letter to Mr. Slade, he states that he "was surprised to hear him (Mr. Phelps) declare that 
 he would not vote for the bill, and it would be lost. I did not believe he ivould vote against the bill, or even 
 icithhold his vote. Yet I was alarmed for the fate of the bill," &c. " I immediately called on you at 
 Mrs. Spriggs's, and stated .what had passed between Judge Phelps and myself, and requested you to go 
 to the Senate chamber and see him.'" Now, let me ask what sent Mr. Cranston to Mr. Slade on this oc- 
 casion .' Were there not men in the Senate chamber to whom he might have appealed .' Where was 
 my colleague, Governor Crafts, and other trentlemen, between whom and myself there subsisted the 
 most friemlly feeling.' Could no one be found to interfere but Mr. Slade .' Why was it necessary to go 
 immediately to the bitterest enemy I had, to a man who was notoriously endeavoring to supplant me- 
 who was then known in Vermont to be aspiring to my place — and why was it necessary to carry to 
 such a quarter a declaration which he (Cranston) admits he did not believe hinusclf? If he did not be- 
 lieve it, for what f arthly pui-pose did he communicate it to the man who he knew would catch at any 
 thing out of which a story to my prejudice could be manufactured, and with his usual lying propensi- 
 ties exaggerate and distort it ? He not only did not believe it, but admits that, " on no occasion before 
 or since" that day did he ever see or hear any thing in my conduct that indicated a feeling of hostility or 
 even indiflerence towards that important measure; but on the contrary, on all other occasions, I ap- 
 peared as anxious for its success as any other memlier." And yet under these circumstances, not a 
 word is dropped in the Senate chamber — even the chairman of the Committee of Finance could not be 
 advised of it — no one else was advised of it ; but he starts off, at the hazard of having the vote taken 
 and the bill lost in his absence, (if he believed the declaration which he puts in my mouth,) to carry the 
 gratifying intelligence to Mr. Slade There is but one explanation of all this. It was convenient for 
 Mr. Slade to have some one in my boarding-house to act as a spy upon me, and Cranston was precisely 
 the man to be flattered into such an employment. He has his reward in the drivelling compliment 
 which Mr. Slade pays him in his book, with which he doubtless feels highly gratified. But in order to 
 avoid the effect of this argvmient, he pretends that he first called upon Mr. Everett, who sent him to 
 Slade. If so, he called upon Everett with the same views that he went to Slade, supposing, doubtless, 
 that their feelings harmonized on the subject. But Mr. Everett, whatever might have been his feelings 
 towards me, friendly or unfriendly, had too much self-respect and sense of honor to dabble in such a 
 proceeding; but .sends Cranston to a more fit employer. He certainly knew the relations between 
 Slade ;uid myself, aiul could have sent Cranston to Slade with no other purpose than to intimate to him, 
 that if he desired employment in such dirty work Slade was his man. 
 
 But let us follow Mr! C. a little further. In his second letter he excuses himself by saying, that 
 " nothing but a sense of what it appeared to me I owed to one who, by my intervention, had unfortunately 
 been made apai-ty to it, (the controversy,) could have induced mo to make any statement or disclosure 
 on the subject whatever." Here is a pretence of duty to Mr. Slade. Let us see how fur it bears him 
 
14 
 
 out. Mr. Slade says that Mr. C. told him so and so. Mr. C. admits lie did tell him so. Sladc then is 
 sii.stained in his statement. Whether what C. told him be true or false is not importajit lor Slade's jus- 
 tification, as he did not then vouch for its truth. Sujipose, then, Mr. C. was to admit tliat he mfsappre- 
 liended me, how is Slade's veracity implicated.' The idea of a duty to Sladc is mere pretence. His 
 true meanins^ is, that having volunteered to cater for Slade's virious propensities, and set him upon the 
 pitiful business of traducing me ; having, in short, led him into the scrape, he feels bound to swear him 
 out of it. 
 
 When Cranston had admitted that he told Sladc what he [S.] states, he had tiiken the whole re- 
 sponsibility upon himself; and so far as Slade's veracity was implicated, he was sustained. Suppose, 
 then, that Cranston had admitted that he misapprehended me, how could Slade be injured? As an ho- 
 norable man and my friend, as he pretends to be, he might have left tiie matter upon the footing that I 
 insisted that he misunderstood me. He might have said — It is true Mr. Slade, 1 told you as you state, 
 and of course must take the responsibility. But Mr. P. says I was mistiiken. Possibly I was. It is 
 no wish of mine to fix charges upon Mr. P., and of course here I leave the matter. Had he taken this 
 course, what ground of conijilaint would Slade have.' And how docs he make out that it was hJfe duty 
 to aid Sladc in fixing his charges upon me.' 
 
 But having enlisted in the busmess of playing the spy upon me, although a fellow boarder with me in 
 tlie .same house, and of carrying gossip to Slade, he doubtless derived his notions of duty from the de- 
 grading ))Osition he occupied ; and conceived that having once undertaken to play the second fiddle to a 
 political juggler, he was bound to sustain his employer in his unprincipled attiick upon mc. 
 
 In pursuance of this pur)50se he proceeds to make his statement a little mi»rc particuhu- and more po- 
 sitive. Of the probability of his story, I shall have something to say presently. I am now looking at 
 the strange, and I may add, dishonorable course of Mr. Cranston, as showing the temper and spirit 
 with which he originated all this difficulty. He is, as the reader will perceive, responsible for the whole 
 of it. It was his officiousiicss in nuniing after Mr. Slade and bringing him to the Senate chamber, that 
 set him, Slade, upon the project of conjuring up a siring of charges against me. If his motives were 
 honorable, why did he not appeal to some one in the Senate chamber.' Why was it necessiiry to go 
 for a man who was notoriously hostile to me, and notoriously a amdidate for my place? Nor is this 
 all. When these two worthies returned to the capital, what did they do.' Neither of them showed the 
 least disposition to approach mc, or to take the least measure to change the determination which Mr. C. 
 attribute tome. C. says he "requested S. logo to the Senate chamber and .see /ijni," P., and Sladc 
 says that he learned that I was in the ante-room with one of the Senators. Now, why did not Mr. S. 
 
 fo into the ante-room, or at least send one of the messoiigers to inlimatx? a wish to sec me .- But he and 
 Ir. Cranston contented themselves with inquiring of the doorkeeper, and watching my luoveinenls, 
 Mr. S. tells Mr. C. what he " learned," and Mr. C. carefully treasures it up for future use. The con 
 duct of these men shows their purpose to be, not to advise or persuade me to my duty, but according 
 to their own account of the matter, they were lurking about as spies, fishing for material to be made 
 use of at Montpelier. The character of Mr. Cranston's testimony shows his subserviency to Slade. 
 How did he know what Mr. Sladc " learned ?" As a lawyer and a man of sense, he knew that as a 
 witness between me and Slade he .should testify to what he knew only. Yet he interlards what Mr. 
 Slade learned and what Slade said, as if Mr. Slade's statements were any the better for being repeated 
 by him. But not content with this, he goes further ; and although he had my )iamphlet belbrc him, and 
 was aware of my complaint that Slade was continually referring to " others'" for the reports which he 
 Wiis propagating, thus placing it out of my power to trace the report, yd Mr. C. introduces this very 
 phraseology : " I learnt from you cnul otiiirs that lie was in the antc-i-oom," &c. A witness who is con- 
 stantly interlarding in his story with what he heard from the party to the controversy, and from 
 others, not naming them, would obtain credit in no court of justice. 
 
 But this attempt to bolster u]) Mr. Slade in this way is truly ridiculous. Slade says the doorkeeper 
 told him so and so. The doorkeeper says he did not ; but Slade told Cranston tlie story, and this proves 
 it true. Let us illustrate this. C states that B told him that A had stolen sheep, and in his zeal tells every 
 letftr in the alphabet. B is called upon by A, and denies that he told I," any such thinir. No matter, says 
 C, I will prove by every letter in the alphabet that I told them so, and tiiat proves not iinly that B did say 
 .'^o, but tlial the charge is true ; A did steal the sheep! Suppose Slade did tell the story to others, and 
 olhtrs told it to Cranston, Slade refers to the doorkeeper as his authority, and the doorkee|>er denies the 
 statement, and yet the projxigaiion of the falsehood by Slade is evidence of it-s truth! 
 
 Mr. C. must be lacking in intellect or in honesty to attempt to sustain Mr. Slade, or traduce me, by 
 such mciisurcs. But a word as to the ppibability of this story of Mr. Cnmston. He sjjeaks of the 
 crisis — the importance of the mea.sure to the Whig party and tiic country, and of the "strongest solici- 
 iu<* for its f)as.sagc." It is agreed that the Senate chamber was crowded with nieml)ers <if the House 
 and othi'rs on that occasion, and we all know, who are familiar with the Senate, chaml>er, that at such 
 limes the spei;t;»lors are conirregated in crowds on each side of the clerk's desk. Nobody think of plac- 
 ing themselves in front of that desk — the thing is regjirded as indecorous. Yet he savs that be met me 
 "near the clerk's desk," and then' I told him that " I'd be damned if I'd vote for the l>ill." But this is 
 not all. He says the sentimiiits of all the members of the Senate " had been rigidly canvassed," and it 
 had been " a.sccrtaiiicd to a c.ert;iinty" that if Mr. Woodbridirc voted for the bill it would pa.'^s " hi/ <i 
 Duijm-il II »;/■ fOK'." Now, how happens it that nobody else heard the dedanition .' I assert that it was 
 imjiossible to carry on a conversation near the clerk's table on that oi>casion, even in an ordinary tone of 
 voice, without iiiing hcjird by many individuals. But let us take the story of Mr. C, with the exagsie- 
 ration and coloring of Mr. Sladc. This giving " vent to his }>ent-up jealousy and wrath" — "this most 
 revolting accompanimeiil of profanity," — this exhibition of " the Senators' wrath," which had risen t" 
 
15 
 
 this pitcli o{ '■' Iwrrihif anil tm-ijlcsubiimily,'" is reproseiitfid to have occurred in tlic very centre- of the 
 Senate chamber, on an occasion when tliat chamber was crowded, tlie deepest interest felt, and every 
 occurrence watclied witli the deepest anxiety, and yet nobody Init Mr. Cranston, of Rhode Island, wit- 
 nessed it! Does not Mr. Slade, and Mr. Cranstcm, also, perceive tiiat tlie strona:cr they make the state- 
 ment the s^reater is its iniprobabilily ? Every one in the chamber knew that if I did not vole fur the bill 
 it would be lost. In that period of deep anxiety and solicitude, it i.s pretended that 1 made the declara- 
 tion, which, if carried out, would prostrate the hopes of the Whig party and the country, and yet not 
 one of the friends of that measure knew anything of the matter. I have obtained the testimony of every 
 member of the Senate wiio voted for that bill, and not one of them pretends to the slii,-htest knowledge^ 
 of any such occurrence. Mr. Slade has seen fit to suppress this testimony, under pretence of a want of 
 room, and to o-ive his own garbled representation of it. He affects to believe that such a declaration 
 would have passed unnoticed, but does not the reader perceive that the defection of a member from New 
 En^and at such a crisis, whose vote had been uniformly and confidently relied on, would have produced 
 an excitement in the Senate, and out of it, which would not have readily been forgotten .> Now, I repeat 
 the inquiry, how happened it that such a declaration, made under such circumstances, with all this 
 " violence,' and liorrlhlc and terrijir. subhmity of icr«//i.," in the midst of a crowded chamber, should have 
 esca])ed the notice of everybody but this mousing too! of his Excellennj? Nay, more; why did not Mr. 
 Cranston let the secret out > Why did he not, in his anxiety for this great measure, at least give a hint to 
 its friends in the Senate .=' He knew very well that the disclosure of such a purpose as lie attributes to 
 me, would have drawn upon me an influence from my personal and political friends which no man could 
 i-esist— that the purpose would have been stifled in its conception. But he could do no such thin?. He 
 slips oiTwith the secret to my bitterest enemy — requests him to come and see me ; and yet, when they 
 return to the Senate chamVier, neither of them attempts to communicate with me — Init contentthemselve.s 
 with inquiries of the doorkeeper, and cozily communicating to each other what they had "found'' and 
 " /m?-7if." The reason of all this is to be found in Mr. C.'s first letter. " He did not Ijelieve that I would 
 vole against the bill, or even withhold my vote." In .short, he did not himself believe the charge of 
 delinquency in my duty, and therefore it was unnecessary to say anything of the matter in the Senate 
 chamber ; but it would be " nuts for Slade to crack," and off he posts upon the " praisevortlnf errand of 
 conferring with him on the subject. One would suppose that if Mr. C. had the slightest idea dial I should 
 prove definquent, he would have broken out involuntarily — he was in the midst of the friends of the 
 tariflT and my friends— he was in the very spot to sound the alarm — and yet the pleasing intelligence was 
 reserved for Mr. Slade 's ear alone. 
 
 But there is another consideration more conclusive. Mr. C. says, that having heard the declaration 
 from me that I would not vote on the bill, he hnmediatdy called on Mr. Slade. Siade would endeavor to 
 make out that they both repaired to the Capitol forthwith ; that he was there some 40 minutes out of the 
 hour which elapsed l)etween the conversation with Cranston and the taking of the vote, while Calhoun 
 and Woodbridge were speaking. Now, where was I in the few minutes while Cranston was absent.' In 
 my seat, anxious for the question, and impatient of what I considered an unnecessary and unseasonable 
 debate. This is proved by the letters of Mr. Porter and Mr. White, who sat on each side of me, and 
 Mr. Conrad. Now, does' Mr. Cranston suppose that he can make any man believe that I had formed 
 and expressed the deliberate purpose of not voting for the bill, and yet was the next moment in my 
 seat anxious for the vote ? But Mr. Slade says I was " seen (o" and tnken cure of. By whom ? Nobody 
 clearly, unless it was Mr. Conrad ; and my interview with him was afterwards. Nay, Mr. Clayton 
 says that I was in my seat until Mr. Woodbridge rose, which was within five minutes of taking the 
 vote, and of course for eleven-twelfths of Mr. Cranston's hour — then left, and Mr. Conrad followed — I 
 returned and voted. The fact then that I was in my place, ready and anxious to vote, and this before 
 any communication with Mr. Conrad, or any one else, is enough of itself to discredit the statement of 
 Mr. Cranston. 
 
 One more flict in answer to Mr. Cranston. It is agreed on all hands that when the question was put, 
 I voted readily and cheerfully. To be sure Slade states that I declined to answer until my name had 
 been called the third time; but in this he is contradicted by every one who says anything on the subject. 
 How came this, if I had determined not to vote.' Who changed mypurpo.se? There is no human 
 being to whom this task has been assigned but Mr. Conrad, and his letter sliows that he had not the 
 slightest suspicion of any such purpose. 
 
 There i.s one circumstance connected with the statement of Cranston which I cannot omit to notice. 
 Although he appears perfectly willing to testify to all that Slade told him, and all that Slade " learned,''' 
 to say nothing of what he learnt from those veritable and conspicuous gentlemen called "others," who 
 doubtless can be found anywhere, yet he has not a word to say about Mr. Conrad's " endeavoring to 
 persuade me to vote." He says Mr. Slade " learned" that I was in an ante-room witli one of the Sena- 
 tors, and there le-aves the subject. Now, as these two worthies doubtless held sweet commimion 
 together, and Mr. Cranston w;i.s made the receptacle of Mr. Shade's discoveries, for the purpose of testi- 
 fying to them afterwards, it would seem that as ho communicated nothing of the kind to iVlr. Cranston, 
 the iiivention wa.s an after-thought. Where then did he get this story of Conrad's endeavoring to per- 
 suade me to vote > The doorkeeper denies having told it — Cranston knows nothing of it — Slade, him- 
 self, in relating his discoveries to Cranston, says nothing about it — and there is not now a particle of 
 evidence that any such persuasions were used. As to Conrad, he says in hi.s letter tii Slade that what 
 transpired Ijetween him and me was not made public by him, and Slade received no information from 
 him till after my re-election. The result is, that Slade made the statement at random, and without any 
 authority, and this accounts for ins pertinai-ity in perverting Mr. Conrad's testimony and insisting upon 
 the absurd proposition that my leaving the chamber at that late hour, and when the continuance of tlie 
 
debate liid lair to defer the question till the next day, was for the purpose of " netting away frotit 
 votiniT ;" and this in the lace of the declaration of Mr. Conrad as to my readiness and anxiety to vote 
 the moment tiie qufstion was reached. 
 
 It will be obscrvtd that the only witnes.sfs relied on by Slade to prove his charjreare Mr. Conrad and 
 Mr. Cranston. H<! seems to think that Conrad supports Ci-anston, but to reconcile the two .stiitements 
 he is obliged not only to pervert Mr. Conrad's lettrr, bat to draw upon his own inventive jjowers for 
 what he repri-sents to have occiirn-d between Mr. C. and myself. Having recently received a letter 
 from Mr. Conrad explanatory m' his meaning, "l will here advert to it again, as, instead of sustiiining 
 Mr. Cranston, it most decidedly disproves his statement. Mr. Slade states that my " goins: out was 
 probably within fifteen or twenty minutes after the conversation with Cranston. Very well ; .Mr. Con- 
 rad followed me, and what occurred .' Why, in this very interview, in which Slade insists that Conrad 
 dissuaded me from my jiurpose, Mr. C. himself says, that ^^ during the ic/io/fof it I expressed ^reat anxiety 
 far the fate of the fci//," and " appeared much incemed at some of its friends and supporters icho, as you [/,] .scfm- 
 cd to Ihinh, irtre endangering its passage titj protracting the ilebale to an unsearonable length.^' It is very clear, 
 then, that wlien I left the chamber I had no such jnirpose as that attributed to me ; and yet, aecoi^ding to 
 Siade's statement, this was within fifteen or twenty minutes after the supposed declaration to Cranston. 
 Who had, during this short period, changed my purpose .-7— who had achieved the Herculean task, as 
 the Governor would represent it.' " When and where [.says his Excellency] Wi\s such a case [if there 
 ever was another such] cured in five minutes, or five times five.'" This is the task for which the worthy 
 Governor is so grateful to Mr. Conrad. Mr. C, however, Appears, by his own confession, not to be en- 
 titled to it, and the Governor's gratitude is thrown away. This is a pity, as it is probably tlie first time 
 in his life that he ever manifested his gratitude even to tliose who had befriended him. 
 
 But where was I during these fifteen or twenty minutes.' In my place in the Senate. If any per- 
 suasions or remonstrances were used there, somebody must have known it, and Mr. Slade, after w'riting, 
 about the country as he has for proof, might have been able to show it. But what was I about? Why, 
 expressing the same feeling in relation to the bill which I afterwards expressed to Mr. Conrad. This 
 appears from the testimony of Mr. White, Mr. Porter, and Mr. Conrad himself. Now, will any body 
 believe, that while I was expressing these feelings, I did almost in the same breath make the declaration 
 stated by Cranston.' When we consider the utter improbability, nay, the impossibility, that such an em- 
 phatic declaration should have been made in the very centre of that chamber, crowded as it was on that 
 occasion, without being heard by some one besides Cranston, and that no member of the Senate knows 
 any thing about it, the improljability of its being forgotten if made, and the fact that I w;is then ex- 
 pressing directly the opposite sentiments, we may, I think, come to the conclusion that Mr. Cranston is 
 juistiiken. And when we look at Cranston's own declaration that he did not believe it, and his subse- 
 quent conduct in impvirthig it to nobody but Slade, without the least intimation to the friends of the bill 
 which he affects to suppose Wiis in jeopardy, we may further conclude that Cranston had entered rather 
 too cordially into Siade's views and feelings to be a very reliable witness. 
 
 I will now take leave of Mr. Cranston. He is entitled to the credit of having produced this contro- 
 versy l)y his officiousness. Had he left Mr. Slade at home about his busuiess, no such notable disco- 
 veries would have been made. His " praiseworthy object" might iiave been elFected throuirh some gen- 
 tleman of the Senate, to whom he might with more [.ropriety have appealed, and who would have aided 
 him if necessary, in preventing any delinquency on my part, or danger to the important me;isure under 
 consideration, rather than sought for the material for an attack u|H>n me, and the means of injuring inc 
 in the eyes of my constituency. If his object was praiseworthy, as he pretends, 1 leave him to explain 
 why he dropped not even a hint in the Senate chamber of the danu:er to the bill, and gave no intimation 
 to any of its friends, who appear, Ijy their own statements, to have been utterly ignorant of any such 
 danger.' — why he left the Senate chamber at the hazard of having the vote taken and the bill lost before 
 Mr. Slade could be brought to the rescue .' — why it did not occur to him to intimate to Mr. Evans, the 
 chairman of the Committee of Finance, the expediency of suspending the vote, lest my iletermination 
 should prove fatal to it .' — why, when he returned to the chamber and found me absent under circum- 
 stances which he would rf-present as suspicious, and an absence which Slade insists was for the purpose 
 of avoiding the vote, he did not then interpose? — and why, at l;u<t, he suffered the Senate to meet the 
 vote in my absence, (as he would have it with a determination not to vote,) to the certain failure of the 
 measure, without the slightest intimation to Mr. Evans (or any one else) of the risk he was running? If 
 he felt " alarmed for the fiite of the bill," why did he not make an effort to save it? It was not inad- 
 vertence, for his attention was directed to me and to what Mr. Slade was " learning" with respect to 
 me. They were very co/.y. Mr. C. knowing what Mr. S. found and learnt, and yet, while he was 
 treasuring up what Mr. S. could collect, to lie paraded before the people of Vermont to secui-e to Mr. 
 Slade the succession to my [>lace, not a word escajies him, not an effort is made liy Slade or himself to 
 save the bill or put its friends on their guard. In short, why it is, if he went for Slade for the praise- 
 worthy i>urpos(^ of getting him to interfere, that neither Slade nor himself made the least effort, either 
 with me or anyhodij ebe — anil why they both stood in the chamber and hejird the question put, and tiie 
 ayes and noes called, without the slii,')itest movement, intimation, or hint designed to arrest the proceed- 
 ing. I leave him further to rX]tlaiii why, as an inditVcrent witness, lie deems it his duly to repeat what 
 Mr. Slade told him as proof of the truth of Siade's statement, and why he refers to nimoi-s "from 
 others," whom he cannot or dare ni>t name, in order to fix the imputation upon me. When he sJiall 
 have answered these questions, but not, I think, before, he may possii)ly convince the public that he 
 did not go to the chamber as the tool of Mr. Slade, to enact the spy and the pander. Mr. C. may be 
 proud ot the distinction of playinu; second fiddle to Wm. Slade in this pitiful business; btit if so, ( 
 can only say I fn\y biin not his laurels. 
 
IT 
 
 Mr. Slade seems ilispost-d to make quite a floiirisli ov.t this Idler of Mr. Cranston, it .seems^ to 
 him to prove every thing. He is half inclined " to lay down ins pen." It would luue Ijcen a pity ifhe 
 had done so, as it would liave deprivfd him of the opportunity of discliari;ing his j^ll ; and he might, 
 as it is said of the rattlesnake, have died of Ids own venom. He is "indignant at the treatment he has 
 •xeecived from Mr. Phelps ; but that feehng is ehangcd by the sight of this letter into a feeling of a very 
 dilfercnt character." What that tVeling is he does not condescend to tell us. Probably it was a feeling 
 of relief at the prosjiecl of a str.iw to catch at, to save him.self from the indignation of the community a.s 
 a downright calumniator and liar. He publishes this letter of Mr. Cranston, but withholds the testimo- 
 ny of more than thirty members of the Senate, which shows the utter improbability of Mr. Cranston'.s 
 •story. Thai 1 should iiave made such a declaration to Mr. Cranston, in such a place, and on such un 
 ocea.sion, and nobody else have heard it, or if they did, that nobody remembered it, is not to be credited. 
 And yet Mr. Sladc-, this pious pretender tf) piety and integrity, suppresses the evidence upf)n which I rely, 
 and after publishing the st;\tement of Mr. C. totho.se "who had never seen my appeal, and never 
 would," and of course wlio had never seen the testimony of these thirty Senators, and never voiM, goes 
 on to comment upon the " astounding fact :" " that a Vermont Senator sicore in Ike Heiiate chaiiiber that he 
 lonuld )iol vote for the tariff net of 184:2." 
 
 H\it conceding to him' all that can be fairly claimed for the statement of Mr. Cranston, what .shall be 
 said of the rest " of Mr. Slade's story" — of the use of " opprobrious language" on that occasion, of whicli 
 he has nolfurffishcd the slightest ]>roof— of tlie "eil'orUs of several Senators to soothe me." "Who were they? 
 I repeal — what becomes of the declaralion previous to the appearance of Mr. Cranston as an a(;tor hi this 
 mailer, that I "would not vote upon the bill?" But he .says "who will ask me for names?" — "will any 
 body ask ine to show the several steps by which the Senator's wrath rose to Ikisipllek of horrmle and 
 terrific suhiunUii '! Can any body believe that it reached it without finding vent in iic presence of smne- 
 body besides Mr. C ? And does any one who knou's Mr. Phelps believe that it ))roduced no " opprobri- 
 ous language .'" Now this sort of reasoning may satisly Mr. Slade, but the indiM'erent reader will see in 
 it proof of utter infatuation — proof that the man's malignant passions liave overcome his judgment and 
 his discretion. He lias done what others have done before him in their assaults upon me — overcharged 
 his gun — fabricated stories too gross — stories which carry on tiicir face evidence of malice and falsehood. 
 I ask again if this '^horrible and terrific.'''' scene was enacted in the Senate, and the " Senator's wrath was 
 finding vent in declarations to others than Mr. Cranston, that he would not vote," &c., how it happens 
 that no friend of the bill, no member of the Senate knows any thhig about it? Does not Mr. Slade see, 
 <loes not Cranston see, that every attempt to enlarge upon the story only renders the story more incredi- 
 ble, and the malicious purpose more glaring ? But what shall we say of the story of my declining to 
 vote until my name had been called three limes — of my turning to Conrad, n'/to stood behind me, &c., 
 which Mr. Slade saw and heard so disl'tncllij, but with respect to which he is contradicted by several wit- 
 Jiesses, Mr. Conrad, liis own witness, among the rest? Even Mr. Cranston does not attempt to help 
 him out in this. Possibly Mr. Slade adopts the Indian's maxim, that two truths to one lie is very well 
 for an Indian. If so he has inverted the ratio, and seems to consider that one truth to a dozen talse- 
 lioods will do very well for an intriguing and unprincipled politician. 
 
 But I leiive this subject, this charge of having " neglected" my appropriate duties. I have shown in 
 Jiiy " appeal," that as a charge of failure in duly, it amounts to nothing ; and Mr. Slade, in his reply, 
 .seems to abandon that pretence, but labors to im]iute to me conduct discreditable to me as a man. 
 
 I pass^to anoilu'r, whicli seems to be his favorite theme. In discussing the chai-ges in relation to what 
 .occurred in the Senate chamber on the 27th of August, 1S42, he constantly insinuates that my conduct 
 was the result of intoxication. He talks about " excitement," " another stimulus," &c. &c., its if con- 
 sumt insinuation and repetition added any thing to the weight of the charge or to his credibility. It is a 
 <iommon case that a man who thinks his Veracily doubted, endeavors to obtain belief by conslant rei)eti- 
 .tion, and by positive and reiterated assertion, to convince others, if possilde, that he himself believes what 
 he slates. He has the meanness to attempt to pervert Mr. Conrad's language, and to make use of the 
 .term "excited" as sustaining his assertion. /"Let the reader advert to Mr. Conrad's letter, and judge for 
 himself whether he had any such meaning. 
 
 I pledge myself to convict Mr. Slade on this his favorite topic of repeated falsehood, from which there 
 is no escape, and for which there is neither apology nor excuse. First he states, that I was " mani- 
 festly under the infliitncc of lii[uor during the evening of the passage of the tarifl"." Now this rests 
 upon the sole credit of Wm. Slaile. No other person intimale.sany thing of the kind. Even Cranst(ni, 
 the oidy individual whom he has procured to say one word lo sustain him, says nothing of the kind. 
 To this declaralion of William Slade I oi)pose that of Samuel Crafts. See his letter to the Comnnttee, 
 in which lie says, among other things, " ?ior t/i(/ / ever see him ichen I supposed he hud been using anif 
 (spirits.) That Gov. Crafts saw and observed me that evening, I think no one will doubt. I leave it 
 to the public to decide between these two witnesses, which is the more candid and impartial, aiid best 
 entitled to credit. And here I will resume my enumeration, and call this falsehood No. 11. And here 
 also 1 will notice an argument of Mr. Sladc's, of no great importance, to be sure, but still wnrlhy of 
 notice as characteristic of ihc man. He thinks very strange that I should not recollect tiir <ircum- 
 ataiices whicli he says occurred on that occasion. He tiien proceeds with another pompous account of 
 the scene — the "most revolting accom[)animent of protaiiity," &c., and adds: "Nevertheless he well 
 remembers that he reached his hand through the ante-room door, ami ior)k his hat from the 'i>eg!' 
 That ' peg' i.s a thing to be remembered ! The rest is forgotten !" Now here is falsehood No. 12. I 
 no where jirofess to rememlier talking my hat from the peg, which seems lo annoy his Excellency so 
 much. My language is, [see Appeal, ]). b,| " i/iiy /)r«(/(cc ii"«.v, when going out, not to enter the ruoni, 
 but to reach my hand in,'' itc. 1 was commenting upon Conrad 'a stalement. that " seeiiii: him luke Ins 
 
 3 
 
18 . 
 
 hat and move towards tlie door leading out," &c., and arg;uinij from my usual custom as to the position 
 in which he saw me, taking his statement as true. This pitiful falsehood is coined with my book before 
 him, for the mere purpose of hanging a quibbling argument upon it. After interposing this falsehood, | 
 he proceeds to infer liial Mr. P. is either guilty of falsehood, or he was in " no condition to remember." 
 1 do not remember this " horrible and terrific" scene, because, in the first place, it is the creation of the 
 Governor's prolific imagination. If Mr. Crajiston and my.self had any con vcrsittion it was casual, and 
 whatever it may have oeen the reader is by this time satisfied that I formed and expressed no such 
 deliberate purpose as he attributes to me — and although he and Mr. Slade might have their reasons for 
 remembering, yet there was nothing to fix my attention upon it afterwards. As to the interview with 
 Conrad, he lilmself tells us that he considers it a " circum.stance very unimportant." It is a very com- 
 mon thing during such long sittings for members to leave and go home — equally so for them to leave 
 the chamber, and alter remaining for a time in the adjoining rooms, to return to the chamber. That I 
 should not renumljer .«uch a matter, after the lapse of more than two year.'i, is not very strange, espe- 
 cially iis these chaiges were very studiously kept concealed from me until after my arrival at Monl- 
 pelier, in October, 1844. But the Gcvernor endeavors to get rid of the testimony of gentlemen of the 
 Senate upon the ground of their want of recollection, and considers, or affects to consider, their testimony 
 very slight for this reason. Now, the argument is equally applicable to them as to myself, and if wiuit 
 of recollection is proof that they were in no condition to rememlier, then the Governor h;i^ brought u.x to 
 the sage conclusion that on that occasion the whole Senate was drunk. But I will not spend time U|x>n 
 this puerile argument. 
 
 Tlie next falsehood that I shall notice, is his general and sweeping assertion as to my " habit of j 
 drinking." After asserting that there was no session, unless it might have been the first, when I was 
 lint frequently disgnised with liquor, so as to be observable to all who associated with me. he adds: 
 "This wa.s more apparent, I think, during the long session of the 27th Congress than it had been at 
 any previous time." IN'ow I shall not trouble myself on this point to procure affidavits, but shall con- i 
 tent myself with the testimony furnished by the redoubtable committee, and I will simply oppose to it 
 the testimony of Governor Crafts, as .set forth in his letters, which are appended hereto. It will be per- 
 ceived that Governor Crsfts was with me during that session (the long session of the i27ih Congress) 
 from the 30th of April to the 31sl of August, when Congress adjourned, and also durini: the succeeding 
 session. What says Governor Crafts r " For about seven months of that time I was at Washington, 
 and in daily intercourse with him, [Mr. P.] For a few days after my arrival, I look lodgings at the 
 same boarding-house with Judge P. and occupied the same room with him." Again : " I not only saw 
 him daily in the Senate, but generally every day, either at his quarters or mine." The same intercourse 
 continued during the winter session. " While I was at Washington, I never saw Judge P. drink but 
 one solitary glass of wine, and no distilled spirits at all. / (ift-fr snir him trhen I <nijrf)ofed he had beeti 
 using any, nor do I believe he teas in the habit nf u.siug s-pirits priratcly during the time I irrts lU Washiitgton.^'' 
 He slates the same thing in his letter to me, and suued the same verbally before the conventicn. I will 
 not stop to comment upon these two statements, but leave the public to judge between the two witnesses. 
 Believing, however, that they will be inclined to give credit to Governor Crafts, I take the liberty to de- 
 nominate this falsehood .\b. 14. But let us proceed with Mr. Slade's letter to the committee : " For se- 
 veral xceeks during that sessicm [the long session of the 27ih Congress] he was confined to his lodgings 
 under the care of Dr. Sewall, with whom I was intimately acquainted, and of whom I occasionally 
 made inquiries as to Mr. Phelps's cundiiion ; and from whom, as icell as from others, I understood his ill 
 health was the (-fTect of excessive drinking. He was, during his confinement, at a private house a little 
 e;ist of Capitiil square, to which I understood he had been [persuaded to remove from Brown's tavern." 
 Here are no less than three falsehoods in this quotation. It will be necessary to dissect it. First, 
 as to the several weeks confinenuiU. It appears by Mr. Brown's books that I left his house on the 18th of 
 June. Congress adjourned on the 31st of August. Now the journals of the Senate and the Congres- 
 sional Globe show me in my place in the Senate every day during that period when the Senate was in sessiiui, 
 with the following exceptions, vii: : The 27ih and 2t!ih of June. The Senate did no luissiness on those 
 days. On the 27th, the death of Mr. Southard was announced, and on the 28th the Senate attended his 
 funeral. The journals, therefin-e, show nothing as to who was present. Yet I well remember being 
 present. The 7th of July, the I'Jih and 22d of August, when the journal shows nothing satisfactory; and 
 the 15lh, IGth, 18th, and 19lh of July, when I admit I was unwell- Here are seven days only dur- 
 ing the whole period in which there is not jin)of of my presence in the Senate. The three isolated days 
 prove nothing, if I am supjiosed to have been abstni, as they could not have been part of several ireeks 
 confinement. The result is, I was absent four days when unwell ; and if you imlude the 17ih. [Sun- 
 day,] five days. It is to be remembered that the journal shows me |)resent on the 14th and on the 2tlih. 
 Here is evidence not to be questioned of the utter falsity of this assertion. The Governor adniit.«! that 
 he " may have been mistiikeii as to the dxiration of the .<ickne.«s." But how mi'^taken ? What circum- 
 stance misled him ': How docs he account for this gross exag-.^en\tion by wiiich five days are magni- 
 fied into severid weeks.' Wiis ii mere inaccuracy of recolleclifiii.' If so, we have a s;miple of ilie mag- 
 nifying power of his memory, by which we can estimate the proportion of truth in his recollections of 
 the transactions connected with the tarifl" vote. But the term mistaken is too mild. It was a wilful 
 mLsrcprcsentation. Falsehood No. ]."). But 'et us loi^k at this statement in anothernspect. I was con- 
 fined, as he .say.s, for several weeks umler tlie care of Dr. Sewall. Now I have Dr. Sewall's account be- 
 fore me, which shows ihat the only charges he had against me for the year 1842, are for four visits, viz : 
 ftn the 17ih, Inth. 19th. and 21wt of July. Th^ c harg'? next precedin? wb.«! in January. 1841, eighteen 
 months before ; and the next ch.irge following was in Drcember, I84.'<. seventeen months afterwards. 
 The result la, that for a period of nearly tlii-cc years, from January, 1841, to Dcrnibcr. 1843, the whole 
 
• 19 
 
 of his proftv^siiiiul --.ervir.ps amounted to hut tnur visits. Nor is tliiH all. Dr. S.V fir.^'t vi.sit was on 
 Sunday, tlie 17tli 'us foiirtli and last wa.s on tlie ^Ist, and I vva.s in my place in the Senate on the 2Uili 
 and 21st. Thcr; u- ;re, then, but three days at most when I was conCiiifd under tlie care of Servall. The 
 Governor mcik<--i i; .several weeks. As he has pre.~;entp(i me a dilemma, I will pre.scnt him one. tie 
 either knew l!i-.' s' uvment to be false when he made it, or his memory lietniyed hnn to a mo.st extraor- 
 dinary degree. If he choose to take the la.st horn of the diknnna, I ask him whether it was not equally 
 treacherous w ih respect to what he jiretcnds to have scni in the Senate chamlier uiif-re he is contradicted 
 by several wiinesses, and with respect to what he "/»frtf(/," when, with the .solitary exception of Mr. 
 Cranston, he is contradicted by every person lo whom he refers as his authority.' 
 
 But this extraordinary aberration of memory may be accounted for when we come to examine the 
 tnode in which he attempts to escape from the falsehood. . 
 
 In the first plae, he endeavors to make out that 1 misrepresented what appears on the journals. He 
 says " Mr. Phelps's allusion to the ^joitnuiP has sent me to the same source for informal inn, where I 
 find that iiis r .me does not appear, either amon<^ the yeas and nays, or any other way, from the Olh of 
 July, inclusiie, to the QOih of the s.une mouth, excepting un the 14tii ; nor do I find his name connected 
 with the debates as given in the JVullnntil [nteHis;encer.'''' 
 
 Now .ill this is a mere trick. " F'rom the !)th, inclusive, to the 20th" — I admitted in my publica- 
 tion that I was absent on the ir>th, IGth, 18th, and 19th — I was present on the 20th, jus the journal 
 shows. What was his olijrct in including this period, unless it was to produce a great hiatus in my at- 
 tendance upon the Senate, 1 cannot conceive. On the 14tli he admits I waspresenL If, then, my state- 
 ment is erroneous, it must be with respect to the time from t!ie 9th to the 13ih inclusive. Now to show, 
 to begin with, that I was right in my statement, I refer to the following certificate of the Secrct;iry of 
 the Senate : 
 
 " Office of the Secretary of the Se.vate, March 10, 184G. 
 
 "Sir : In answer to your inquiry of this morning, I have the honor to inform you that there is evi- 
 dence in this oiHce to show that you attended the Senate on the 9th, 11th, 12tli, 13th, and 14th of July, 
 1S42. I hare the honor to be, &c., ASBURY DICKENS. 
 
 " Hon. S. S. Phelps, Senator, &c." 
 
 The 10th of July was the Sabbath. Tlie result is, that I was present in the Senate on every day 
 " between the 9th, inclusive, and the 20lli, except on the four days when I stated I was absent, and the 
 two Sundays which intervened. The certificate of the Secretary is based on the executive journal, which 
 being a secret journal, he did not feel at liberty to refer to it. I know, however, that he refers to it be- 
 cause I examined that journal with the clerk who made the certificate. 
 
 But how comes Mr. Sladc to contradict my statement.' I will explain. If the reader will advert to 
 my appeal, he will perceive that I referred on this point to the journals of the Senate, [using the plural 
 number to avoid cavilling,] and to the Congressional Globe. Mr. Slade, having my book before him, 
 must have seen this. He knew also, as well as I did, that there was a legislative and an executive jour- 
 nal of the Senate, which were kept separate. He saw also, when he referred to the legislative journal, 
 that on each of the days mentioned the Senate went into executive session ; and he perceived also, that 
 the ayes and noes were not called in legislative session on either of those days, except the 14th, when I 
 answered to the call. He must have known, then, that I referred to the executive journal, especially as 
 I used the plural number. Yet, by a mere quibble, he substitutes the singular number "journal," and 
 endeavors to make out that my statement was incorrect, presuming that many of his readers would not 
 be aware of the fact of the existence of the separate journals, and knowing that the legislative journal 
 was published and in the hands of members of that Congress, and that the executive journal had never 
 been printed. Although, if by " the journal" he means the legislative journal only, his statement is 
 literally true, yet the object was doubtless to deceive the people of Vermont as to the evidence of my 
 presence in the Senate, and to fix the charge of misrepresenting the journals of the Senate upon me. It 
 IS, in a moral point of view, a falsehood, and may be numbered IG. 
 
 That his object was to practise 'a deception is obvious from what follows. He says: "This cor- 
 responds, as to the duration of his absence, with the .statement of Governor Crafts." Now, here is false- 
 hood No. 17. Governor Crafts no where stales that I was absent ten or twelve days. He says that, 
 with the exception of ten or twelve days, my health was good, and my attendance on the Senate as regu- 
 lar as that of any other member, &c. Mr. Slade adds again, as if not sali.sfied with one misrepresenta- 
 tion : " Here, then, according to Governor Oafts, were ten or twelve days, instead of four, when he 
 was ' very itnice//,' and nearly a loeek of tluit time under the care of Dr. Sewalt.'" Now I have shov\-n by 
 Sewall's book that it was but three days, including the Salibath, that he was in attendance before I was 
 in my place in the Senate. In spite of all his quibbling and attempts at evasion, the proof returns 
 upon him. The journals and the reports of debates show that I was not absent from the Senate more 
 than one day at a time when that body was in session, with the single exception of the four days in 
 July. The meanness of the attempt to evade this evidence is apparent. Slade knew as well as I did that 
 there was a separate executive journal ; and he must have perceived, when he looked at the legislative 
 journal, that on the very days al!ud"(i to, that journal shows that the session was devoted principally to 
 executive busine.ss. The pertinacity with which he persists in these statements, after they are so tho- 
 roughly disproved, indicates not only the depravity of his heart, but also utter infatuation of mind. 
 
 Again, I refer to the Congressional Globe, and he speaks of the Intelligencer. Now he well knew that 
 the reports in the Globe are intended for preservation in the libraries of the Capitol, and those of the 
 Intelligencer for their daily paper only. The consequence is, that the former contains all the debates, 
 
20 
 
 while the latter contains surh notice of iheni only as is interestin? to ordinary readers. The Globp 
 notices a debate on the 9th, between Mr. Caliif.un and myself, on a private claim, and llie Intelligencer 
 omits it. The ihin^^ is of itself of no im|iortance, as the executive journal shows me present on the 9th, 
 except to exhibit the shnlflin^ of Mr. Slade. 
 
 But, as if disii listing tlie etfiaiey of his trick in regard to the journals, he endeavors to escape from 
 the difficulty in which he had involved hinv^elf by his suitement about the seva-al tceels'' sickness on the 
 hill, by shifting the time and place. Hear him : "A word of explanation in re^rard to my statement 
 MS to the duration of hi.s .sicknes.*;. J/i/ mlstuhe on^inated in brining two periods of aickiiess together 
 which were separated. The 10 or 1"2 days in July was one of them." Here is a repetition of tiie false- 
 hood. I have siiown what that sickness was. " The other tras in the fore part of May, vhin ht iras at 
 Broirn's taveni, from where lie s;iys he left on the 13th for Vermont." "Neither the Senate journal, nor 
 the daily account of debate.s in the Intelligencer, sliow that he wa.s in his jilace in the Senate from the 
 30tli uf April to the 12tli of May, except the 3d and 4th of that month." And again he says, "it 
 ajjpears that, fmm hi.s [Gov. C.'s] arri\al on the 30th of Ajtrii, to Mr. Phelps' leaving for Veriii'ont, on 
 the 13th, the latter was in his i)lace iii the Senate but three days." 
 
 Here are two falsehoods in this .statement, Nos. 19 and 20 — the first the statement of my sickness, 
 and second of my absence from the Senate. 
 
 Before proceeding to show the utter falsehood of tliis statement, I will examine the authority upon 
 which it IS made. Having had hi.s attention turned to the journals, he finds that in the fore psu-t of 
 May, a period when there is usually very little liusiness done, the journal is very me;igre, and conceiving 
 that he would not be contradicted' by the record, he immediately fastens upon that period as another 
 period of sickness. If I may use a vulgar adage, His Excellency has here jumped out of iht- fn/mg pan into 
 the Jxrt. Let us examine the journal. On the 30lh of April 1 presented the credentials of Governor 
 Crafts. The 1st of May was Sunday — the 2d he says I was absent — let it go so — the 3d and 4th he 
 says I was ]»resent. Well, we have got one day lo.st, [which by-the-bye was not so.! On the 5tli the 
 .Senate met. Mr. Wooodl.ury laid a resolution on the table, and' the Senate adjourned to the following 
 Monday, the 9th. No other business was done, and the journal show.s only two memliers present, Mr. 
 Woodbury and Mr. Mangum. On the Gih, 7th and 8th the Senate was not in session. On the 9Ui, 
 10th and llth the ayes and noes were not called, and on the 12th they were called, and I was present. 
 From the 4th to the 12th the Senate did not sit but 3 days to do business, and on those days nothing 
 appears to show who w;ls present. The result is, that during this whole period, from the .30th of Aprd 
 to the 13th of May, there is not the slightest evidence to be derived from the journal that I was absent 
 from my ]ilace, unless it be on the 2d, on which day the ayes and noes were called but once. But let 
 us look at the evidence on the otlier side. Governor Crafts says, that with the exception of a kv,- days 
 in July, or August, my health was good, and my attendance on the Senate as regular sls tliat of any 
 other member. It will be remembered that during this jieriod he occupied the same room with me. If 
 I had been sick and confined to my room, it is not very likely that he would have for?otten it. He 
 came to Washington a stranger, to take his seat on the 30th of April, 1842, and occupied the same 
 room with me. Now, if his collea^ie had been sick on that occasion, and he left to make his way into 
 the Senate without the attention which genilemen thus situated exjiect from their colleagues, to intro- 
 duce himself to members of that body, and make himself acquainted with the various pariiculai-s neces- 
 .«ary to be known, it couki not have escaped his recollection. Durine this period was the Ashburton 
 dinner, with respect to which Gov. Crafts was catechized at Montpelier, which must have occurred on 
 the 6th or 7ili. But Mr. Slade says, "that Governor Crafus has '■'■ eiUirdy forgotten Mr. P.'s absence 
 from the Senate the greater part of the first twelve days in May," and " it c^uinot he supposed that he 
 would retain a very distinct recolleeiioii as to his condition during that time." Now, 1 pronounce the story 
 of my absence from the Senate, and the insinuation as to my condilhm, an absolute and unriuiilified fal.se- 
 liood, coined by ^Villi.nn Slade, wiih the w<irst motives, and for the basest purposes. Hut Governor 
 Crafts " /mm ^(;)-got<en." Let the reader look at the following letters from Mr. Morse and the two 
 Messrs. Browns : — 
 
 " Washington, March 17, 1846. 
 "Hon. S. S. Phelps: 
 
 " Sir : — Havino: seen Governor Slade's pamphlet, and you having called my attention to that portion 
 where he states that you were sick at Brown's Hotel, in May, '42. for ten or twelve days, I feel bound, 
 in justii'e lo you, to correct the Governor's siatenitnt. 1 was barkeeper at the Hotel at the time, and 
 ."aw you every day, und cun stale positively that you trerr not conjintd lo your rnoin a singU day duritig your 
 stay (it the Hotel, nnd I firmly btlieve i/oii went In Ihe Smate erery day it tens in session. 
 
 " Very respectfully, ^.c, 
 
 "J AS. E. MORSE." 
 
 " Hon. S. R. Pnr.i.rs : 
 "Sir: — Having perused the above statement, we in tnilh cordially agree in every particular with it. 
 
 " Respectfully, your obedient servants, 
 
 "MAR.SHALL BROWN, 
 "I'lLLO'l'SON P. BROWN." 
 These gentlemen are the proprietors of Brown's Hotel, [or "/((rem" as Mr. Slade has it] and tlieir 
 letter is writtin niiderneaili the .-ibovi; Idler of Mr. Morse, and upon the same paper. 
 
 Now. our worthy (Snrenior, having first looked at the joiirinl to .see if he would be c/mtradicte^ by 
 that, ventures upon this absolute and unipialified falsehur>d to e\tri(.at(^ himself from the fal.sehuod he 
 had previously told in r< lation to my sickne: s on the Hill. lie knew well that the first of May was a 
 
21 
 
 period ulien little was done in CoiuTess, and seir.ed upon tliis period to esrape dfteoiiou. At the mo- 
 ment when I am writing, (IJOth April,) the desks and seats ot' the nicmljers of the House of Represenla- 
 lives are removed from the Hall, and the carpets lorn up, and the Senate have adjourned to Monday for 
 the same ])urpose, to wit, the cleaning of the chambers. Yet he is contradicted in his statement by no 
 less than four witnesses. 
 
 . But he adds an insinuation that Governor C. had also forgotten my coiulilion. Governoi C. is a man 
 not only of correct habits, but coirecl senlimenls; and is it to be believed that, if, on iiis arrival at Wasli- 
 in°ton, he had found his colleague in u rondUlon disreputable to himself and the State he represented, the 
 Governor would not have fell and remembered it? But I have not yet done with Atr. Slade on this 
 point. Dr. Sewall's account shows, as the fact was, that he never visited me at Brown's. So far, then, 
 ns respects the ultimate purpose of this statement, to wit, the cause of my sickness, no information could 
 be got from him. 
 
 It is a little curious that Slade sliould cliarge Governor C. with forgetting. Did not he forget where lie 
 locates the sickness on the Hill, in July? Does he not, afier finding himself contradicted by the J(jurnals, 
 admit that he was juiiffffcen? Is not his statement of the sickness at Brown's an afto-thcuffht? And 
 does he even venture upon it until he has examined the Journal to see whether it is so/'p to remember ? 
 And, last of all, is it not proved by tlie testimony of Gov. Crafts, Mr. Morse, the two Browns, and by 
 Sewall's account, that this new version of the story — this cm'rected recollection — is as gross and vile a fabnca- 
 tion as tlu other ? It is sickening to see a man thus floundering in tlie mire — sinking himself deeper and 
 deeper in infamy by every struggle. 
 
 But let us follow out the Governor's statement. After saying that I was confined to mv lodgings for 
 several weeks, he goes on to state that lie learnt from Sewall, " of whom he mmle occasional inquiries as ta 
 Mr. Plielps^ condition, that his ill health was the effect of excessive drinking;" and he says, that, al- 
 though he may be " mistaken as to the dnralion of his sickness, he is not as to the cause of it." He says 
 further, that I do not deny the cause of my sickness, but " spend my whole force in attempting to esta- 
 blish the immaterial point that it was not of several weeks duration." Here is falsehood No. 21. Wliat 
 does he mean, when, on the same page with the foregoing, he quotes my language a.s to " one morefalse- 
 Iwod exposed," in reference to tliis very assertion. But he wrote for those who had •' never seen the Sen- 
 ator's book, and never would;" and therefore he represents me as admittins; a statement to which I apply 
 the language, " one mwe falsehood exposed.''^ Again, do I not, in my Apjieal, refer to the testimony of 
 Governor Crafts as clearing me absolutely from this imputation ? What, then, does Mr. Slade mean by 
 saying that I do not deny it? 
 
 But what is his statement? Why, that during the several weeks sickness be occasionally inquired of 
 Sewall, &c. Now, I have shewn that Dr. Sewall visited me first on Sunday, the 17th, and also on the 
 18th and TJth. On the 20th, the Journal shews me in my place in the Senate. Now, as we are to sup- 
 pose that a man of Mr. Slade's piety was at his devotions on the Sabbath, instead of mousing about tO' 
 pick up scandal about me, he had only forty-eight hours, from Monday morning to Wednesday, to make 
 his occasional inquiries. How often, during these forty-eight hours, did Mr. Slade make these 
 
 occasional in<]inries ? Does not the reader perceive that the whole story is of the same manufacture ? 
 
 That, when he states that I was confined for several iceehs, and during that period he made occasional in- 
 quiries of Dr. Sewall, and it turns out that these occ(L'!ionai inquiries must have been made during forty- 
 eight hours, the whole story is absurd and ridiculous? But he endeavors to make out, in contradiction 
 to his first statement, that a part of this sickness was at " Brown^s tavern.'''' I supjiose this was a part of 
 the time when he made these occasional inquiries of Sewall, and yet it turns out that I was never sick a 
 day at iJroion's, and Sewall never v'lsited me there. 
 
 Bat let us follow iiim a little further. He applies to Dr. Sewall to sustaiji him in his assertion as to 
 the cause of my sickness. The Dr. refuses to be catechised on the subject, and not content with that 
 furnishes me with his certificate that the statement of Mr. Slade is altogether unauthorized by him. 
 
 Here is falsehood No. 22. The Doctor denying altogether having authorized the assertion. 
 
 But Mr. Slade having applied to Dr. Sewall for testimony to sujiport him, and meeting witli a rebuff 
 proceeds at once to ai-gue that, if the Doctor could answer without implicating me, he would have done 
 so. He takes the same course as to Judge Prentiss. Now the simple truth is, that neither Dr. Sewall, 
 nor Judge Prentiss, nor Gov. Mattocks, nor Mr. Everett, would degrade themselves by a response to 
 these inquiries of Gov. Slade. They have an utter contempt for the whole business. Mr. Prentiss 
 threw the letter of the committee into the fire, and never deigned a response in any shape. Gov. Mat- 
 tocks and Mr. Everett did in substance the same thing. If any body wishes to know the sentiments of 
 these gentlemen on the subject, they are referred to tlmm ; and they will probably find that each of tliose 
 gentlemen are at this moment my personal friends and supporters. They have the honor of Vermont as 
 much at heart ns Wm. Slade ; and if they thought that Vermont was dishonored by my course at Wash- 
 ington, they would be as ready to say so. 
 
 As to Dr. Sewall, he was a man of sufficient discernment to know tliat if he answered such an inquiry 
 in one case, he must in another ; and if he answered in one case and refused in another, the .same infer- 
 ence would be drawn which Mr. Slade has drawn in this case. His professional rule would amount to 
 nothing. If he was intimate with Slade, he had sufficient discernment to know the man, and to under^ 
 stand the object of his inquiry. I know enough of Sewall to know that he would spurn indignantly 
 such an appeal to liim. But as he knew Wm. Slade, and knew well what use he would make of hi3 
 (Sewall's) refusal to submit to be catechised on such a subject, he took care, before he went to his grave, 
 to furnish me with the written declaration that the statement of Gov. Slade was unmithoriztd by him. 
 This he could do with propriety. And yet this same Wm. Slade, in the face of this declaration by 
 
22 
 
 Sewall, insists that the inference tVom Se wall's aversion to dis;5race liiinself by listening to Slade'3 ap- 
 plication is against me. 
 
 The next assertion is, that «'Gov. Crafts told (me) Slade that lie advised Mr. Phelps to leave 
 Brtnvn'a." Knowing Wrn. Slade well, I understood well that there was an insidious meanin"- in this. 
 In 'his reply hf huldly avows this meaning, and say.s, that " Gov. Crafts told me at the lime that he 
 advised Mr. P. to leave Brown's /or the reason su^^estetl, and added, i/Mj P. reiniin-ed at Brourn^s he wmUd 
 Tuin himself.^' I pronounce this falsehood No. ^3 ; and refer again for proof tii Gov. Crafts' testimony 
 and leave the reader to judge for himself whether Gov. C. oould have made any such statement. But 
 Mr. Slade says that " Gov. C. is mistaken as to the lime when my stateinent rcpre.sents him to i 
 have advised Mr. P. to leave Brown's," &c. " It was not, as his letter supposes, soon after his arrival 
 at Washington, which was on the 30th of April, but it wa.s when Mr. P. actually left Brown's, &.C., : 
 which was, a.s he states, on the ISth of June, twelve days after his return from Vermont." " It wa.i i 
 during these twelve days that matters got into such a stale at Brown's, as to make it proper for the Gov- , 
 ernor to advise Mr. Phelps to remove," &c. Here is falsehood No. '2i. Gov. C. refers to no particu- ; 
 lar period when he advi.sed Mr. P. to leave Brown's, and if he did, his ^fiieral statement, to which I 
 have so ot'ten referred, if believed, gives the lie to this assertion. But as Mr. Slade has .seen lit to again 
 change his ground, and after having changed the jjeriod of sickness from July to May, now fixes it in 
 June, I will call other witnesses than Gov. Crofts 1 returned from Vermont on the 6th of June, and 
 on the 18lh removed to the hill. Now a w )rd as to these " i'j days." On the 7th of June, it appears 
 from the journals that I was in my place to the vt-ry momi>nt of .adjournment. On the Sih, was in my 
 place. On the !)th, I voted twelve times on the call of the ayes and noes, and was present to ihe very 
 moment of adjournment. On the lOih, I voted nine times-, and was present to the time of adjournment. 
 On the 12th and 13th, the next days on which the Senate was in session, I was present, and took pai-t in 
 the discussi.m of the bill for the relief of the representatives of Silas Deane. On the 14th I was present, 
 and voted on the only call made that day. On the 15th I was present, and voted every time the ayes 
 and noes were called. On the Ifiih, I was .ilsj preseit to the close of the session — also, on the 17th. 
 And on the 18ih, the very day on which I left Brown's, I wis present, and on this day engaged in the 
 discussion of the Choctaw tretity, referred to by Mr. .Manguni in his letter. Now, let me contrast the 
 declaration of Mr. Slade, who represents me as ruining myself with the testimony of Mr. Man^uni, 
 then president of the Senate. Speaking of this very debate, and the subject of it, he says: " Ihave 
 long regarded those claims (under the Choctaw treaty) as the most complicated, intricate, aiid difficult, 
 that could be presented, and ;us enveloped and barricaded by the mo.st inofenious, and I may add, stu- 
 pendous frauds that I have witnessed in my public life. The severe labor and eminent ability which Mr. 
 P. brought 10 these questions, and the fearless manner in which he exposed them, enhanceil, I think, 
 greatly his reputation for legal ability and acumen ; and also for a firm and unshrinking moral courage 
 in the di.scharge of his Senatorial duties." 
 
 Now, let the reader contrast the statement of Gov. Slade, on the one hand, that at the very moment 
 when this debate was going on I was ruining my.self, with the tcsiim my of Gov. Crafts and Air. Man- 
 gum, on the other, and judge for himself as to the anxiety of Mr. Slade for to the " honor of Vermont ' 
 And let him judge, also, of the temper and spirit wliicii could induce Mr. Slade to utter a statement so 
 e.xplicilly contradicted by the testimony of Mr. Mangum. 
 
 In my apjied I refer to my laljirs on th; several oainittees of t'le Senate as showing that, so far 
 from being disqualified for the duties of my station, I performed more labor during that session than any 
 other member of that body. I advert to it here for t!ie purpj.se of e.vp,)sin2: another willful lalsehood of 
 Mr. SI ide. I stated that 1 had mad'-, beiwce:i the 31 of January and the ild of March, fifty-two reports 
 from various committees, and the truth-telling Governor says that the "printed documents'' show but 
 firty-eight. I was in error so far as this, ihe journal shows but fifty-one. But to show th.e trickery of 
 Mr. Slade, it is necessary to give the following explanation: The reports were not all printed; the 
 Joitnin/ shows fifty-one to have been made; Slade had had that journal ui his hand, but finding that the 
 printed documents did not show them all, he cunnin'j:ly drops the journal and takes up the dvcumtnts, and 
 very gravely asserts what he knew to be false, that " the truth rests entirely in the printed documents, to 
 which Mr. P. professes to refer for evidence, and which he must have had before him." Here are 
 two fidschoods, J^os. 25 and 2G. Mr. Slade knew that the journal of that session shows several reports 
 made by me which were not printed, which journal he had before him, as he repeatedly refers to it ; 
 and the only, reason for his citing the '■'■documeiits" instead of the jouriud is, that he must have discovered 
 the difl'erence. The other falsehood is this : I did not refer to the printed d icuments for evidence, but to 
 the ^^ printed jmirmd and documents." Again: 1 stated that during the session I made about 80 
 reports, filling over iwo hundred pages of the printed documents. I did not advert to the fact that these 
 reports were noi all |iririied. In a number of cases they were upon bills from the House, when, if the 
 fomiiiillee agree with the House, it is not usual to make a wriiien report. Still the labor of examining the 
 case is to be performed, altho\i2^h the labor of a written report is saved. On t'urther examination of the 
 journal, I find that, instead of eighty re|)Ort.s, as stated before, I made more than that number — eighty- 
 six, if 1 count right — and such a^ were printed occupy two hundred and four pages of the printed docu- 
 ments. The Governor gravely says, thai "it is well enough to have the irutli stated," and insinuates 
 that I have misstated, although I had the " documents" before me. The pitiful juggle of substituting the 
 documents, which show but a part of these reports, for the journal, which shows all, is characteristic of 
 the man, and will enable the public to jud^, not only of the temper euid spirit witli which he preferred 
 the.se charges, but of the credit to be attached to his siatements. 
 
 After all, it is a little laughable to hear Wm. Slade cavilling on this subject. He was in Congre.ss, I 
 belitve. twelve years; and yet if, during that time, he made a single report from any committee, 1 have 
 
yet to leaiii what It was. 1 couinicnd liiiii tn i\ii cxaiiuiiaiioii of ilie journals niid (Icjcuiiiciils of the 
 House 1(1 see if he can find a single re]Uirt iifhi.s while he was a nieniher of that body. 
 
 Mr. Slude, however, has discovered thai, fmin the 13th A|inl to the ;27ih of July, I made no reports 
 wiialever ; and he asks why my lalmr was suspended durin;;: three j/irn/Zw and a half. He knows as well 
 as I. But as the public may not, I wdl inform tiiem. I'he business wliieli orig.nated in the Senate had 
 been disposed of. (See Mr. Mangum's letter.) In consequence of my being on so many conmiittees, 1 
 was favored about making reports from the Committees on Claims and Pensions. The committee of 
 whicli I was cliairman had despatdied everything before it before 1 left for Vermont. I was absent till the 
 6th of June. After my return the business before the other committees was light, until bills came in from 
 the House, towards the latter ]>art of the session, when business pressed, and I was called on again. Af- 
 ter this [ made not merely fifteen reports, as he says, but thirty, as the journal shows, principally from the 
 Committees on Claims and Pensions, by both of which I had been favored as to making reports, during 
 the earlier part of the session, on account of my engagements on other committees. 
 
 I believe I have now answered all Mr. Slade's assertions, unless it be that to whicli he seems to at- 
 tacli so much importance, the conduct which he imputes to me at the boarding liouses — at Mrs. Pit- 
 man's and Mrs. Smith's. 
 
 I ''ave, in my Appeal, reasons which, I think, all sensible men will deem sufficient, for not following 
 liim into this system of espionage into my private life. I have other reasons yet to present. To be 
 sure he breaks out into a tirade about my " claim ; that all investigation into my conduct, except what 
 is strictly otTicial, is an unwarrantal)le inriuisition into my private life." This is falsehood No. 27. I 
 made no such claim, and my Appeal show.s it. Again : He says that " the rooms about the Capitol, and 
 even the Setiate chamber, becon e transformed by his presence into the sanctuaries of private life." 
 Here is falsehood No. 28. He knew well that my remarks on this subject had reference only to the 
 pitiful scandal he had put forth in relation to my conduct in the families in which I resided. (Sec my 
 Appeal, page 14.) Does he mean the rooms around the Senate chamber, and that chamber itself, when 
 he speaks of Mrs. Pitman's and Mrs. Smith's boarding houses.' 
 
 But these charges are only a specification of the general charges of intemperance, which finds its way 
 into every paragraph he writes. I thought it sufficient to meet the charge generally, and to show the 
 utter falsity of such of his statements as could, with decency and propriety, be made a topic of discussion. 
 But as to the general charge of intemperance, he has the impudence to say I do not deny it. "He 
 rather avoids it, by excluding from his Appeal that part of my reply to the committee which contains it." 
 Here are two more falsehoods — 29 and 30. If the reader will turii to page 14 of my Appeal he will find 
 this very charge of Mr. Slade mentioned and commented upon. I even quote his words as to the 2d 
 session of the 27th Congress. Again, on the 16th page, I quote his language about my sickness for sev- 
 eral weeks, under tlie ca^re of Sewall, &c. This is one falsehood. The other is the assertion that I do 
 not deny it ! For what purpose does he suppose I quoted the testimony of Governor Crafts on this 
 .subject? For what purpose did I convict him of absolute falsehood in his statement of my sickness on 
 the Hill, by proof from the journal .' For what purpose did I refer to the certificate given me by Sewall 
 showing the falsehood about Sewall's statement to him .' For what purpose did I advert to the pretence 
 that Governor Crafts had advised me to leave Brown's, and show, by Governor C, that this was a fab- 
 rication? For what purpose did I advert to the mass of labor which I performed that session, and the 
 testimony of Mr. Mangum ? For wha tpurpose was all this, except to disprove the charge ? What, in- 
 deed, did I mean by the expression, " One more falsehood exposed," with whicli 1 introdu<;ed the certi- 
 ficate of Sewall? 
 
 But Mr. Slade wrote for those " who had never seen the Senator's book, and never would," and 
 therefore felt at liberty to utter this egregious falsehood. Further, for what juirpose does he suppose 1 
 have now exposed his new falsehoods on this point — his attempt to deceive the jniblic in relation to the 
 journals of the Senate — his new-coined falsehood about my sickness at Brown's, in May, with respect to 
 which he is decidedly contradicted — and the other gratuitous falsehoods about the twelve days in June? 
 Perhaps he will insist, after all this exposure of his recklessness, that 1 do not mean now to deny it. 
 
 It is true I did not quote what he had to say about Mrs. Pitman's and Mrs. Smith's. I did not intend 
 to go into a discussion of such gossip, because I held it in contempt. No man who respects himself 
 would descend to asking certificates of gentlemen or ladies with whom he boarded on such a subject. 
 
 There are other reasons why I need not go into it. I have already shown all his statements on this 
 subject to be utterly false ; and having thus thoroughly discredited him, it is unnecessary to go into the 
 family circle for proof. I have shown his story about the several weeks' sickness and confinement to 
 my lodgings to be utterly false by the journals of the Senate, and by Dr. Sewall's account ; I have shown 
 his second story about the sickness at Brown's, in May, to be a sheer fi^brication, by the testimony of 
 Gov. Crafts, Mr. Morse, and Messrs. Brown, and by Sewall's account; I have shown by Gov. Crafts 
 the falsity of the story about his advising me to leave Brown's for the reason suggested ; I have shown 
 by Sewall's wrilfen declaration the utter falsity of the representation iis to what Sewall is said to have 
 told him as to the cause of my sickness ; I have proved by Gov. Crafts that his general declaration as to 
 my habits during the long session of the 27th Congress, is absolutely untrue. Mr. Slade says my in- 
 toxication was "observable by all who associated with" me, and that " this was more apparent during 
 the long session of the 27th Congress." Gov. Crafts .says that he assoeiated with me daily, and he 
 never saw anythins of the kind. Ajain, he asserts that I was under the influence of liquor on tlie even- 
 ing of the passage of the tariff. Gov. C. saw me that evenin?, and if such had been the case, would 
 have discovered it as well as Mr. Slade. The diflference between them is, that the former would manu- 
 facture no such story about me ; the latter had his object in doing so. He affects to rely upon what he 
 calls the exhibition I made of myself before Mr. Craniton Let tiie reader look at the story of Cranston, 
 
34 
 
 and see if there be any evidence m that story, if true, to sustain Uie charge. If he relies upon tlic ui- 
 consisteiicy of my declaration to Cranston witli my course on tliat occasion, and my language at the 
 time to others, let me remind him that this very inconsistency rendered the story of Cranston improba- 
 ble. Let the reader advert also to the testimony of the members of the Senate on tliis point. 
 
 Now, after all this, can it be deemed necessary for rne to collect testimony to disprove mere hearsjiy, 
 which he in his zeal picks up and propagau-s? He talk.s of his statement about my intemperance at 
 Mrs. Pitman's. What is that statement? It was this: ^^ It was often said in my hearins; that he was," 
 &,c. Now, he does not pretend to know anything of the matter, except from hearsay. He does not as- 
 sert the fact from his own knowledge ; and lie knows as well as 1 that mere hearsay is no evidence. As 
 he has gravely put forth this charge under circumstances of peculiar aggravation, it is his business to 
 prove it, and not mine to disprove it. He seems to think that if he can pick up a gossiping story to my 
 prejudice, even if it be manufactured in his own family, that it becomes hallowed by passing through his 
 perverted intellect, and must be taken to be true, unless I disprove it. Where did he get his notions of 
 the rules of evidence.' He very gravely refers me to my ftllow-boarders, and names Judge Prentiss, 
 Messrs. Everett, Mattocks, and Young, who he says are in Vermont, and within my reach. Now 1 
 happen to know that Judge Prentiss was addressed by the committee, who acted under the worthy Gov- 
 ernor's auspices — threw tlieir letter into the fire, and never deigned to answer it. This sliows his opin- 
 ion of the propriety of such an inquisition. I also know tliat Mr. Slade has addressed Governor MiU- 
 tocks, Mr. Everett, and Mr. Young, to obtain evidence to support his charges, and some of them more 
 than once. If he had got any thiiig from them he would have given it to the public. But he has got 
 nothing. Having invaded the domestic circle to which I belonged, and charged me with conduct there 
 offensive to the females, some of whom he names — having done this upon mere rumor, and having in 
 Tain endeavored to obtain evidence from that circle to sustain him, he then gravely refers me to those 
 gentlemen, iis irilhin my reach, for testimony. Does he expect me to sanction tlie meanness of such a |uo- 
 ceediii"', by resorting to these gentlemen and joining in a commission to take testimony : Is it notenough 
 for ine that he has put forth charges, of the truth of which he knows nothing, and in support of which 
 he cannot obtain the smallest particle of testimony r By what rule of evidence am I required to put my- 
 self upon the defensive, after he has applied to those who may be supposed to know, and hfis failed ut- 
 terly to get a syllable of proof to sustain him .' 
 
 I cannot admit that I am under obligation to take testimony to refute every floating slander that he may 
 pick up. He has appeared before the public as an accuser and prosecutor ; let him prove his assertions. 
 He is much mistaken if he supposes, after what the public have witnessed of his malice and his false- 
 hoods, that they will take his hearsay for proof. As to what was '" so often said in his heai-ing," in re- 
 ference to Mrs. Pitman's, he does not tell us by whom it was .said. My knowledge of circumstances en- 
 ables me to judge very satisfactorily as to the source from which this inforniation came. Tliere is a very 
 prolific source of such valual)le information very near the Governor's person, and in the peraon of the 
 Governor's nearest earthly connexion. Those who have been olcst with a taste of the waters whicli 
 flow from that source, will readily comprehend that such things are ojten said in his presewe. After what 
 they have witnessed of her etibrts to traduce me, I believe they will agree with me, that if she can be si- 
 lent oil this topic in her hours of retirement, and in the presence of her husband alone, it is the only ))lace 
 on earth where her tongue is at rest. Does he expect me to take aflidavit.s to disprove all she may say .•' 
 He knows, as well as 1 do, that all the scriveners in the country could not keep pace with the unruly 
 tongue of a tennagant woman. "While these slanders are daily concocted under his own roof, and 
 daiiv put forth, obtruded ujion all ears, without regard to time, or place, or circumstance, does he imagine 
 that' I have no better employment than to Imsy myself with mimitc and formal contradiction? Nay, is he 
 not aware that the motive to these ravings is too well understood by the public, an I the source from which 
 theii conic is too con-eclly estimated, torendersuch contradiction necessary ? 
 
 1 have now done with the Governor's charges. I believe 1 have proved them utterly groundless and 
 false. The only panicle of testimony which he is alile to produce, af'ter strenuous effort-s for that pur- 
 pose, is the statement of Mr. Cranston. The reader will perceive, if he looks at the testimony 
 of Conrad, of White of Indiana, of Porter of Michigan, and others, that at the very moment when 
 Cranston represents me as swearing that 1 would not vote for the t^iriftbill, I was ex|»ressing an anxiety 
 for its passage, and reprobating the course of ius friends in endangering its pas.sage ity an unscji-sonablc 
 debate ; for it will be borne in mind that Conrad speaks of my coui-se bct'ore leaving the chamber, as 
 well as after ; and it appears from all the evidence that I let't with Mr. Conrad in a very lew minuica 
 after the supposed dialogue with Oansion — Slade says fifteen or twenty- 
 
 A word as to the attempt of Mr. Slade to rid himself of the imputation of being an interested and 
 partial witness. 1 did represent him as a candidate for my place. With how much truth, those who 
 had read his reply c^ui judire. This, he says, is a misrepresentation, because, he says : " I did not reply 
 trithont infilnnt; up my mind, and dectarins; to several of my friends that tlie rqtly would place me in a position 
 in which I could not crpert to Ur uii^nl as a ciindidate for the Senate.'" And agam : " To all practical purposes 
 I ceased to be a candidate from the very momcntl replied to the committee.''^ It seems, then, that he was a can- 
 <laie up to that moment. Mow anxious lie was, the reader may judge iVom iii.s own writings, and Jiis 
 complaint of being forced to aic.ept the olfice of Governor. He says he c|:s.'overed that the question of 
 his election had been thus di-cided " soon al'ter his arrival at Montii«lier."' Well, hi- insists that he had 
 nothinir to do with the getting up of the (U)nimitt(e. That was appointed on the 15ih. On the 16tli they 
 address him : aiul oti the same day he replies. He "liid not reply wuhoui MwA'ing n;i /li.s iiiirw/,'' Sfc. 
 Now, the truth is from his own sttu'y — he was at that period forced openly to abnndon his long clu"rish- 
 cd lioi>es — to foii'i^o a pur|iosc upon which his licart had been lout: set — and tins, as he represents, by 
 llic inaaagciucnl uf my friemls. At ihiii in lucnt, c\a.<j'eraied at di llai. iiKTiilicd at hi.s failure, and 
 
25 
 
 goaded on by his selfish and vindictive passions, he siis down to roucqct his answer to the commiltde. 
 
 No tin^e is allouoJ for reflection, not even twenty-four hours, nor for liis unlioly and vindictive passions 
 to subside ; but he proceeds to wreak his vengeance upon tlie man wlio stood in tlie way of his favorite 
 object. If Mr. Sladc imagines that the new position which he was compelled to assume rendered him 
 a more candid and reliable witness, and that the public will regard liim as more disposed to do me justice, 
 at the moment when his hopes were utterly blasted, tlian while they were indulged, he is welcome to all 
 the advantage of the cluuige. 
 
 It may be well here to notice what he calls the history of my election. It can be done in few words. 
 / had nothing to do icith hii nomination as Governor, although I doubt much whether it would ever have 
 been made, had it not been to get rid of his interminable importunity and intrigues for office. As to 
 going about the State addressing the people, I went no where except where I was specially invited. I 
 set no machinery at work. All this is his invention. As to pledges, I know of no instance in which 
 any such were asked for, unless it was suspected that there was a secret purpose on the part of the can- 
 didate to betray his constituents. The assertion that pledges were exacted " to vote for Mr. P. in spite 
 of any developments of hii ccnduct which might be made at Monlpelier,'''' I pronounce £in unmitigated false- 
 hood, and a libel upon any member of the Legislature to whom it may be applied. 
 
 As to his sense of duty, and his " true dignity,^^ which impelled him to the course he has taken, I 
 have only to say he will find it extremely difficult to persuade the good people of Vermont that his mis- 
 representations, his gro.ss exaggerations, and liis downright falsehoods, proceed from such a motive. 
 Had he pursued the semblance of triuli, they might be disposed to extend to him every charit^ible apol- 
 ogy. But they can not fail to regard him and his malignant efforts in their true light, and to perceive 
 that there is no room for charity. His history of the proceedings of 1842, which constitute the sub- 
 stance of his charges, and out of which he has manufactured a pamphlet of thirty-two pages, stands 
 forth un.-?ustained, as a lasting monument of \\-hat his head and his heart are capable of. In every ma- 
 terial assertion in that statement he is contradicted either by record evidence or unimpeachable wit- 
 nesses, with the single exception of what he gets from Cranston. Even his testimony is utterly incon- 
 sistent with the feelings which I so decidedly expressed to IMr. Conrad in a conversation which, 
 cording to Slade's own statement, occurred wiUiin twenty minutes afterwards. Nay, this is not 
 all. It is apparent from Conrad's testimony that, for some time before leaving the chamber, I mani- 
 fested the same feeling of anxiety for the passage of tlie bill, and dissatisfaction at an unseasonable debate. 
 This appears from the testimony of other Senators. If, then, we suppose this last testimony to co ver a 
 period of twenty minutes, we have proof that at the very moment when Cranston represents me as de- 
 claring that I would not vote tor the bill, I was expressing to my associates in the Senate an anxiety and 
 impatience for its passage. Much of the same character is his pretence of friendship for me ! ! After 
 telling a foolish falsehood about " a certain postmaster," he speaks of our intercourse " as con/iaZ as 
 his efforts could make it," and as my jealousy and spleen would permit. Cordial ! What does he mean 
 by the word ? Does he not know — is he not aware — that every man who knows him and his course to- 
 wards me, knoirs also that if he ever approached me, it w^as either as a spy or an assassin ? His cordiality 
 toicards me ■' Why the term itself is ridiculous. And then my jealousy ! Has he forgotten his in- 
 trigues in 1S38, to defeat me and place himself in tlie Senate? Has he forgotten the measures concocted 
 in iVIiddlebury lor that purpose — the treachery in which he involved a man now in his grave, and who, 
 for that reason, shall be nameless — the caballing with others who shall be nameless, because I believe 
 they are now sick of him and ashamed of their agency in the matter — his sudden sickness at Montpelier 
 at the result of that election ? Does he suppose I was ignorant of his efforts, during thewhole period 
 of our association as Representatives of the same State at Washington — of the fact not only that he was 
 endeavoring to traduce me, but that he was Ccirting his wife about the State to berate me even in public 
 rooms, in public hotels, and in the presence of those who were actually congregated there ? Does he 
 suppose me ignorant of his grovelling selfishness and his reckless ambition ; and does he believe that if 
 he ever approached me under the guise of friendship, with my knowledge of his character, derived 
 from thirty years observation, I could regard his advances in any other light than those of heartless hy- 
 pocrisy? Does he imagine that his gross libels laid before the convention at Montpelier, and which 
 were so decidedly stamped with reprobation by the vote of that convention, will be attributed to a cordial 
 or friendly feeling? or that his wretched pamphlet in which, instead of furnishing proof to sustain his 
 libels, he endeavors to escape under the smoke of invective, general abuse, and new hes to extricate him 
 from old ones, will be regarded as either the fruit of his cordial feeling towards me, or his christian chari- 
 ty for all men ? 
 
 Here I beg leave to protest against the application of his remark, that '-some men suspect the bo- 
 soms of others to be the seat of the same passions that embitter their own." Heaven knows that I never 
 suspected my bosom to be the seat of the heartless duplicity and hypocrisy which c h:uracterize Wm. 
 Slade : and I do not believe that the bitterest enemy I have will attribute them to me. 
 
 But the most laughable part of the Governor's book is his grave conclusion, as to his "means of de- 
 fence" against my "attack," which has "compelled him to expose me!'"' The "evidence" presented by 
 his reply, "which can not be otherwise than mortifying to every man in Vermont, especially as Mr. P. w 
 still one of its Senators,'" &c. This paragraph would furnish material tor much comment. My attack 
 upon him was simply a defence against his t'alsehoods. He made an aittick upon meat Montpelier! 
 No ! I suppose the stories circulated there, and which he was called upon to prove, got afloat with- 
 out his agency — they were probably started, not by him, but by those nameless gentlemen who figure so 
 conspicuously as his informants. Out upon such hypocrisy. He know? — the world knows, that he was 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 the propagator of the wliole, anJ that the wretched farce of a conimiiipe of liis tool.'' was »ot up t.> . 
 I>lf- fiini to present l.iinseh'as a witness. 
 
 But Ids ''means of defence" — "the evidence presented," by his reply. Wiiat are those means — tliat . > 
 dence? The only rvidencc presented is that of Cranston. As to his'favorite tonic, which exudes in every 
 paragraph, it is left witliout the least attempt at proof. Not a word is to be found in it of evidence of my I 
 "intemperance" in 1842; but he repe:its his charges over and over again, in liie face of the most conclu- 
 sive evidence to the contrary, and very gravely calls it ''evideiue presented. '' To be sure he publishes the 
 .statements of Ezra Mead and Chas. Adorns, one referring to 1841, and the other to 1844, and wliich were 
 alrccidy before the public, but forgets to tell the public that the convention who had the statements before 
 them, a-s well as tlie testimony of several gentlemen, who knew as much aljout the matter as Meach or 
 Adams, atuxched as little credit to their statements as they did to those of Wm. Slade. 
 
 As to Meach and Adams, I having nothing to add to what I said of tliem in my appeal. For the ben- 
 efit, however, of those "who have never seen the appeal and never will," it may be well to suite, that 
 Ezra Marsh was disposed of by the admitted fact that, notwithstanding wiiat he pretends to have ob- 
 served in 1841, he openly and decidedly advocated my re-election down to the summer of 1844, more 
 than three years afterwards, and was only induced to lend himself to the conspiracy, at the last moment, 
 by a delci^ation from the Burlington clique, who had the adroitness to operate upon his weakness. 
 Charles Adams had not only contradicted his own statements in repeated instances, as is shown by the 
 testimony of Gen. Nash and Mr. Fletcher, but had given the lie to all his slanders by gravely proposing, 
 after all, to make me chief justice of the Sup. Court. 
 
 As to exposure, the public will judge who is exposed. Whether I am exposed most by the outpouring 
 of Wm. Slade's gall, or he most by the exhibition of his falsehoods, is a question for them. In my 
 judgment his nakedness is exposed, so that all the professions in the w6rld will never cover it. The 
 "mortification," however, is explained, "as Mr. P. is still one qfits Sauitors.''\ No doubt Mr. Slade is mor- 
 tified. In his opinion, too, the people of Vermont would be more honored by having for their represen- 
 tative in the Senate, what is commonly called here, the spil-box. But I think it very doubtful whether they 
 would agree witli him; and, I may be permitted to say, that it will probably be a great rchile beft>re they 
 will do themselves that honor. 
 
 Of the general tone and character of the Governor's book, I have little to say. It speaks in this res- 
 pect for itself. Its talsehoods and misrepresentations I have already exposed. Of its reasoning, if rea- 
 soning it can be called, I will give one example, which will sulficc for the whole. 
 
 It will be observed that "the committee" inquire for instances in which Mr. P., "without sufficient 
 causes neglected his appropriate duties." In answer to this, .Mr. Slade and Mr. Hall bring forward th.- 
 charge about the distribution bill in 1841, set forth in Mr. Hall's letter. In mv appeal I adduce the evi- 
 dence of the journal of the Senate, showing that I voted 59 times upon the call of the ayes and noes on 
 that bill, and on every occasion when my vote was important, and that I voted for its tinal passage. I 
 add that the "journals of the Senate give the lie to all pretence of a dereliction of duty,'' &c.. How docs Mr. 
 Slade get along with this? AVhy, in the first place, lie interpolates an invention of his own about mv 
 being "seen to and taken care of,'' and then abandons the charge of dereliction of duty, and flies off with 
 his u.sual rant about a Senator "getting mad," and "drinking liquor," &c., &c. 
 
 Now, no man who reads my appeal can fliil to see that the journal is cited as shewing that there was 
 no omission of duty. Mr. Slade felt the force of it. He could not answer it, but runs off as usual upon 
 his favorite topic, which I discussed in another part of my book, as if the journal was adduced for a dil- 
 ferent pnrjiose. This, indeed, is the chai-acler of his whole book; whenever he is pressed wiih the evi- 
 dence on any point, he sings out 'intemperance' — 'intemperance' — a topic about which he has told lies 
 enough to discredit him forever. And, then, when he comes to that part of my appeal in which I ex- 
 pose his false statements on that subject, he very gravely asserts, for the benefit of those '-who have 
 never seen the Senator's book and never will," that I do not deny it. Again, he disjoints my argument, 
 applies expressions made with reference to one subject to another, and fhus misrepresents nie through- 
 out. For instance, wlien I endeavored to show, in answer to my supposed dereliction of duty, that no 
 harm was or could be done in reference to the tariff bill, he flies off again in the same caniiiig strain, 
 and very gravely draws this very wise inference that "it seems never to have entered his head that his con- 
 stituents and the country have an interest in his moral character and conduct.'' This is what I call j.ettifog','^- 
 ing — and of the worst stamp — because it involves a falsehood. He knew when he perused that passage 
 that I used the expression in reference, not to his general charjjes against my moral character, but to the 
 specific charge of neglect of duty. The book is full of this sort of trickery, but I will not pursue this 
 topic. 
 
 I do not deem it necessary to reply to Mr. Slade's invective and general abuse, much less to his com- 
 ments bpon conduct which he imputes to me. Having shewn the statements upon which he founds his re- 
 marks to be a vile and malicious fabrication of his own, I leave him to all the consolation and all tin- 
 credit which lie can derive from his hypocritical commentary. If he imajines that he has gained any 
 thing by his tirade about the f.r/i;/)i/io»i I made of myself in the Senate chamber — " the honor of Ver- 
 m.ini"— " the horrible and terrific sublimity" of the " Senator's wrath," kSrc, &c.— let me remind him 
 that the people of Vermont will look, but look in vain, in the evidence presented to them, for the slightest 
 authority or justification for it ; and if astonishment and disgust be excited, it will be at the reckleJsnesjj 
 and infatuation of the man, who, while holding the hi^'h station to which they had so reluctantly pro- 
 moted him, could be so regardless of his oirn honor aiul their honor, as to exhibit to them and to the 
 world such a specimen of shameless disresjard for all (he dictates of truth and decency. While he is in- 
 rtictmu: upon tluni and upon me his moral lectures, they can not fail to apply his comments to the case of 
 .1 li;ill..u pr. t. mil r lo piriy and superior sanciiiy, who ir» thus ilrK.nd and r\[in-^'d. ^\'\\rn he t.ilks 
 
27 
 
 «l" tlic iiiriiience of exixuiplu " upon tlic young, whose principles and diameters are forming: for future 
 life," ihcy will be apt to think of the example of such a " leader in Israel," and its influence upon llie 
 yoiins professor ; and they will be apt to remind him that the efiect of a man's exam])lc is £rciicrally 
 most discernible in his own household ; and after the illustration \vc have had of his pious and tnUhful ex- 
 ample there, they will be prone to advise him to make as fcto comparisom as possible. 
 
 If Mr. Slade supposes that 1 am disturbed by bis book, or regret its ajipearance, he is gTOS.sly deceived. 
 If any thing were wanting to exhibit to the world the tenii^cr, and spirit, and i)urpose, with winch ins 
 assaults have been made ujion me, this outpouring of his gall will, I think, be satisfactory to all. No 
 man can wade through its pages without perceiving that the man who c;in inflict such a performance 
 upon a sensible community, is utterly incapable of either truth or justice towards mc. Whoever read.s 
 it, will see the origin of tlie famous'invcstigatinn at Montpelicr, and the utter want of all pretension to 
 credibility in the principal witness. The candid and enlightened reader will see in it more to counteract 
 and disarm the vile slander in his communication to the " committee," than in all the comments which 
 I can make, or even in the united testimony of the whole Senate. Those who have not known him as I 
 have, and who are ])rone to judge of men by their jirofessions, may indeed be surprised at the exhibition 
 he has made of himself; but those who have long been aw'are of the rottenness within the whitcd sepul- 
 chre, and who have learnt from observation that Ihe most guarded hypocrisy sometimes overleaps and 
 betrays itself, will find no occasion for wonder. It may seem to some extraordinary, that any man hav- 
 ing pretension to respectability or standing, more especially a candidate for public confidence and favor 
 —an everlasting candid ite for office— should betray to the world the base motives by which he is actua- 
 ted, and the ut^er disreH:ard of decency or truth which marks his course. But let such men consider 
 that long familiarity with devious courses, especially if successful, generates an overweaning and fatal 
 confideifce. The ro2;ue, who has long depredated upon his fellow men without detection, presumes, at 
 last, too much upon his adroitness, and falls a victim to his ov.-n over-confidence ; and the man who has 
 succeeded in deceiving the world by arrogant, bold, and clamorous professions of piety, is prone to de- 
 ceive himself at last; "and, in the end, ra.shly to rend the veil by the attempt to make it cover too much. 
 
 If such an emanation from any man having pretensions to respectability is calculated to excite .surprise , 
 the consideration that this compound of malignity and falsehood comes from an arrogant pretender to 
 superior sanctity — from one who trumpets from the house-top his professions of cluTstian charity and 
 benevolence — of patience and submission to the ills of life, and of forbearance and forgiveness toward.s 
 enemies, or supposed enemies, is calculated to excite a very difierent feeling. If there be any thing at 
 ■which the human mind and the human heart revolts, it is this disgusting contrast between such practice 
 and such professions. The indulgence of such depraved and grovelling passions, under the garb of chris- 
 tian pretensions, exhibits poor human nature in its most degraded aspect. To see the professing chris- 
 tian, who pretends to be governed by the spirit and precepts of the gospel, fabricating the most malig- 
 nant falsehoods to the injury of his neighbor— falsehoods which have neither proof nor plausibility to 
 sustain them — for which neither apology nor execuse can be found, and no motive can be assigned, 
 but the gratification of the worst and most degrading passions, goes further than anything else to excite 
 a doubt of the genuineness of even Christianity itself. To see this done, moreover, under the impudent 
 pretence of a sense of duty, when the pretender must be conscious that he is following, not the example 
 of his master, but that of the unclean spirit* whose peculiar characteristic is said to be, that he is "a liar 
 from the beginning," is by no means calculated to abate our astonishment or diminish our disgust.. 
 We are led mvoluntarily to inquire how such an incongruity can subsist in the human bosom, and what 
 must be the sensations of such a man when he approaches the throne of mercy with the prayer to be 
 forgiven " as he forgives,'" or when he lurks about the altar with the language of devotion on his lips and 
 the dagger of the assassin in his sleeve. Familiarity, however, will reconcile a man to almost anything^ 
 Judas "himself, probably, partook of the last supper with as much gusto as the true friends of his Lord. 
 And the practice of hypocrisy, from the days of Judas to the present, has tended to harden the heart and' 
 blunt the moial sensibilities, till the hypocritical pretender becomes insensible to enormities front 
 which the man of less arrogant pretensions would shrink with horror. 
 
 Mr Slade thinks it a pity that I disregard advice. Let me give him mine. He may not like the source 
 from whence it comes, but I believe his truly religious friends will commend it to his attention. Let 
 him, instead of troubling himself with my morals, /wfc u-i</!m, and examine the condition of his own 
 keart — let him cleanse the inside of the cup and platter, to which his empty pretensions liave given so 
 much outside garnishing. Especially would I commend to him a revision of his early studies — the pre- 
 cepts put into his hands in his childhood, before his moral sense was perverted by metaphysical and Je- 
 suitical discussions, and his selfish and vindictive passions had acquired an ascendancy over his con- 
 science and his judgment. Even the humble primer may well be revised. It contains the decalogue.. 
 In it he will find the 9th commandment, which I commend t(j his special notice. He probably has for- 
 gotten it. In the ardor of his political race — in the steeple chase of all sorts of political hobbies, and in 
 his zeal to astound the public with his proficiency in all sorts of ultrai.sm, he has apparently lost sight of 
 those laconic but pithy and intelligible precepts upon which all morality rests. Possibly he may be dis- 
 posed to expunge that command from the decalogue ns unnecessary or inconsistent with his system of 
 morals. Unfortunately for him, however, it must remain there to his eternal condemnation, as a lasting 
 proof of the emptiess and insincerity of his pompous professions. 
 
 I commend it again to his notice. It may not indeed make him a better man — indeed there is no hope- 
 of this while he cherishes the fiendish- malignity so apparent in his conduct — but it may be of service to 
 him ill his political jugslery, (if indeed he expects any longer to impose upon tlie world,) by saving him 
 from tlie indiscretion and the exposure of again thrusting his cloven foot through the thin gauze of hid 
 religious profession. It iiiav at Ica-it teach him caution, and preserve liim from the ridiculous and de- 
 
28 
 
 graded position which lie now occupies. It may leach him the folly of again attempting to impose upon 
 the public by aflected fright at a spirit of his own conjuring up — a phantom of his own creation ; and bv 
 rolling up his eyes in affected pious horror at a string of falseh.ooas of his own invention. And it mav 
 induce linn to reflect, that affected zeal for the cause of morals, and anxiety for the honor of the Sta-' 
 will not go far to recommend him to a people who have the intelligence to discover that all this zeal ;• 
 anxiety are but a grovelling and selfish ambition, desiring an office at the expense of its neighbor ; ana 
 that this story about which he makes so much ado, is but the effusion of his own depraved heart and 
 perverted brain. And here I take leave of Wm Slade and his falsehood.?. I leave him to communion 
 with himself and his own conscience. If he cm derive any consnlaiion from that source, it is well. I 
 am sure he will derive none from the verdict of a discerning public. 
 
 SAMUEL S. PHELPS. 
 
 Note. — ^Tliere is one other passage in Mr. Slade's appeal which I ought perhaps to notice. It is the 
 insinuation on [uige 24, that I was delinquent on the occasion of the passage of the annexation resolu- 
 tions. He says that some of my con.stiluents are desirous of answers to the questions, " where he was 
 when the Senate was ready to take the vote on those resolutions — whether any .Senator made an effort to 
 gtl him in to vote — and if so, whether the effort was effectual — and if not, what connection it had with 
 the success of the Senate on that occasion .''.' I have no objection to answering these questions ; and I 
 do so by saying, that there is not a particle of truth in any of the insinuations contained in these in- 
 quiries. Here is another instance of Wm. Slade's inventive propensities, and if he will put his insinua- 
 tions in the form of a direct statement susceptible of an issue, I will prove him as great a liar in this par- 
 ticular as I have done in others. When the Senate was ready to take the vote I was present, and ready 
 to vote. I voted ten times on the call of the ayes and noes on that bill, the evening of its passage. I 
 lost but one vote, which was not important ; and as for any disinclination on my part to vote, or efforts 
 on the part of others to get me to vote, such an insinuation is utterly destitute of all foundation. The 
 idea that the recess of the Senate had any connection with my absence, if I were absent at the moment, 
 is perfectly absurd ; except so far as this, that it is a matter of courtesy in the Senate when an important 
 debate terminates abruptly, to give lime for notice to members not at the moment in their seats But as 
 I was known to be in ilie minority, it is ridiculous to suppose that the majority would feel compelled to 
 suspend their jiroceedings on my account. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 No. 1. — Hon. Gcprs:e Evans, of.Mitine. 
 
 W.^siiivcTON, Decfinhcr Cil, 1844. 
 Hon. S. S. Phelps. — De.\u Sin : I have received your -note of 19th instant, in wliii-h you repeat 
 certain rcpri'.sentations that have been made to your constituency, respecting your course of proceedings 
 nt the time the act of August, 1842, revising the tariff of duties on foreign imports, was (^n its pjissage in 
 the Senate ; and requesting me to state my recollection of tlie circumstances, to wliich these representa- 
 tions have reference. 
 
 lions have reference 
 In rr 
 
 or any 
 
 Circular addressed to the members of the Senate by Jilr. Phelps, to which the communications from them are 
 
 responsive. 
 
 City of W.^shin'gtox, December 19, 1844. 
 
 Gextlemen: A representation has gone abroad among my consiiiuency, under circumstances which 
 require of me to notice it, that on the 27ih day of August, 1842, the occasion of passing the tariff bill, 
 (now the existing law,) I, having " taken offence at some supposed slight or neglect," (on the part of 
 my associates in the Senate,) not only "used opprobrious language in regard to them," but "declared, 
 Willi oaths, thai I would not vote on the bill" — i. c. the Utriff bill, — that ''several Senators had made in- 
 effectual efforts," during the day, " to soothe me," — that when the question on the bill was put, I was 
 closeted in an ante-room of the Senate, with a Senator " who was endeavoring to persuade me to vote,'" — 
 and that at hxst, after being sent for, I came into the Senate while the clerk was calling the yeas and nays — 
 declined to vote when my name was called in its order — and after the roll was tailed through, refusing to 
 vote until my name had been called twice, and finally voting with apparent reluctance, which vote saved 
 the bill by a majority of one ; — and that during the day I acted strangely, swearing tliat I would not vote 
 upon the bill. 
 
 Will vou do me the favor to state your recollection on the subject, and inform me whether, to your 
 knowledge, I, on that day, or any other, refused to vole, or expressed a purpose cither to withhold my. 
 vote or to vote aijainst the bill, — whcihor any persuasions were used by any Senator to induce me to 
 vote, — whether 1 was absent when the question was put — and, in general, what was my course in regard 
 to that measure, — whether, in short, you discovered in my course any wavering or reluctance to dis- 
 chai^e fully, promptly, and cheerfully my duty to my constituency, which on that occasion was under- 
 stood on all hands to be to vote for the bill. Very respectfully, &c., 
 
 SAMUEL S. PHELPS. 
 
 )ns nave reicrencc. 
 
 In reply, I very cheerfully state, that I have no recollection or knowledge whatever, that on that day, 
 
 any other wJicn the bill wa; under consideration, you refused to vote upon it, or threatened not to 
 
29 
 
 vole, or used any language indicating sucli intentions, or that any ellurts were made or deemed necessary, 
 by any Senator, to soothe your feelings or to persuade you to vote, or that you were absent fiom the Sen- 
 ate at any time when a vote was likely to be taken. Whether you voted at the first call of your name, 
 or not, or whether you was at that moment in your seat, I camiot say. Nothini; is of more common or- 
 currence, as you are well aware, than the temporary absence of Senators from their seats, when a vote is 
 about to be taken, who are still in attendance, and come in in season to be recorded. Of this, no com- 
 plaint is made ; and it is never understood to indicate, in the smallest degree, any want of attention, or 
 tardiness in the performance of duty. As Chairman of the Committee on Finance, by wliom the tariff 
 act was reported to the Senate, it was my business to watch its progress and to urge its passage. Some 
 doubt was entertained by many Senators whether it would finally pa.ss. It was my duty, as far as po.s- 
 sible, to be well informed in that respect, and to ascertain how many vol's could be relied upon in its 
 favor, and to take care that it should not be pressed to a vote in the aijsence of any of those who were 
 friendly to it. I invariably counted upon your vote in its favor ; and never, to my recollection, fell the 
 slightest apprehension in regard to it. If you had been absent from the Senate, especially under circum- 
 stances inaicaling that you did not intend to vote, it is scarcely ])ossible that I should have been ignorant 
 of it; and I am sure that I should not have ventured upon pushing the question to a vote under such a 
 state of things. I knew tlie vote was to be a close one, and should have run no such hazard as that of tak- 
 ing the final question in the absence of any of those upon whose vote I counted. If anytliing occurred 
 from which an inference has been drawn by any person, that you did not intend to vole for the bill, or 
 that you voted reluctantly by the persuasion of other Senators, it either was wholly unknown to me at 
 the time, or was of so trifling and unimportant a character as to have entirely escaped my memory, and 
 to which I could not then have attached any consequence. 
 
 Very respectfully, your obedient servant, GEORGE EVANS. 
 
 Xo. 2. — Hon. Ritfv.s Choutc, of J\I(tssachuselts. 
 
 Sexate Chamber, December 30, 1844. 
 
 Dear Sir : I received, a few days since your letter of the ]9th instant, in which you state that a re- 
 presentation has gone abroad, accusing you of having expressed a determination not to vote for the exist- 
 ing tariff", on the day of its passage — of being absent from your seat, with the purpose of avoiding the 
 vote; and of declinmg, until the second call of your name, to answer, after you had resumed your place; 
 and in which you ask me to communicate my recollectio)i upon the subject. J do so with pleasure; yet 
 I can only say, in a word, that I have not the .slightest remembrance of remarking, or suspecting, or hear- 
 ing of any disinclination or indifference oo your part, towards the performance of that most important 
 duty. I recollect perfectly, the general occurrences of the day — the discussion- -the anxiety as to the is- 
 .sue ; and I particularly recollect that, in all the speculations which I heard concerning the probable result, 
 it was assumed as matter of certainty, and of course, that all the Whig Senators from New England 
 would vote for the bill. I never felt a moment's doubt that such would be the case. Certainly I discov- 
 ered in yourself no indication of unwillingness, fully, promptly, and cheerfully to discharge your duly to 
 your constituency and to the country ; and 1 may add, that from what I knew of your settled opinions, 
 and had observed of your habitual course in the Senate, I should have been profoundly astonished to 
 have discovered, on such a day, or at any time, any such unwillingness. 
 
 I am, very truly, your obedient servant, RUFUS CLIO ATE. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Phelps, Senator of the United States. 
 
 No. 3. — Hon. J. J. Crittenden, of Kentucky ■ 
 
 Washikgton, February 1'2, 1845. 
 
 Mt dv.ar Sir : I retrret that the pressure of other engagements should have so long delayed my an- 
 swer to your letter of the 19th of December last, which, however, did not reach ine till long after its date. 
 I should not have permitted a moment's delay, if I had supposed it would have been of any material con- 
 sequence to you. This explanation will, I trust, be a sufficient apology for me. In respect to the in- 
 quiries contained in your letter, I can only say, that I have no knowledge of any of the circumstances 
 which you inform me have been charged against you, as imputations on your conduct as a Senator, in 
 reference to the tariff bill of 1842. I have, no recollection of any declaration or oath, by you, that you 
 would not vole for that bill; nor of your having used on the occasion any opprobrious language in regard 
 to your associates, in the Senate; nor of any persuasions having been necessary, or having been used, to 
 induce you to vote for that bill. Nor have 1 any recollection of your being absent when the bill was put 
 to the vote, or of your delaying your vote, or manifesting any reluctance or backwardness to give it. If 
 any of tliese (!ircumslances did occur, they were unobserved by me, or have been totally forgotten. The 
 interests and wishes of your constituents were understood to be in favor of that bill, and you were re- 
 garded and confided in by all, I believe, as one of its friends. My recollections, which are no doubt 
 quite imperfect on the subject, will not enable me to speak more positively or piu-ticularly. 
 
 I have the honor to be, with respect, &c., yours, &c., J. J. CRITTENDEN. 
 
 No. 4. — Hon. IVilitam IVoodbridge, of ..Michigan. 
 
 Senate of the United States, December 30, 1H44. 
 I am both surprised and grieved to learn that it has been imputed to the Hon. Mr. Phelps, of the Senate 
 
 of (he Tfiiii-d Struf^'- th;M 'i<' Wfis- lioj-tilr |o tin- pvir'-ipl"- of the t.iriiT low ■■'I" ]?i-^. ^T•'^i•^' ''•e''n m\ ^If 
 
30 
 
 present <luiiiig the aclioii ul'ilie tienale uj)Oii thai law, 1 am reqviested to stale my itcoUcctions ol' \\ Iiat 
 occurred on the occasion, and especially as to whether Mr. Phelps, on the day of the passing of that 
 law, or on any other day, refused to vote in il.s favor, or expressed a jiurpose of either withholding his 
 vote, or of voting against it? Whether any persuasions were used by any Senator to induce him to 
 vote? "Wliethcr he was absent when the question was put? And, in general, what was his course in 
 regard to that measure? My recollections, on this subject, arc neither minute, nor very distinct ; I was 
 myself opposed to that law, except as a measure of last rescn-t. In other words, I greatly preferred the 
 plan of a t;iritf, prepared and matured in the Senate Committee on Manufactures, commonly called "Mr. 
 Simmons' Bill." 1 preferred it because it assumed the " home valuation" as the standard by which to 
 apportion duties in lieu of the " foreign invoice," — I preferred it, because while it gave equal protection 
 to all the products and manufactures of our country, (except those of iron, sugar, and perhaps coffee,) 
 it at the same time preserved the " land distribution law," — I preferred it for other reasons, not neces- 
 sary to detail. What may have been Mr. Phelps's preference on this point, I do not know, — my im- 
 pression is, tliat lie also preferred the plan of "Mr. Simmons's bill." Bi^ that any gentleman conver- 
 sant with tlie action of tlie Senate on that interesting matter, and especially with The course pursued by 
 Mr. Phelps, should endeavor to bring into doubt the sincerity and earnestness with which that emineni- 
 ly talented Senator sustained the policy of protecting the home industry of the country, is to me certainly 
 matter of much surjirise I am mduccd, on the contrary, to believe tliat the prevaihng sentiment in the 
 Senate then was, that Mr. Phelps was desirous to carry that policy to an ultra extreme, and especially 
 80 far as regarded what was deemed the great staple of Vermont. I particularly recollect that, at some 
 period during the progress of the bill through the Senate, a proposition being adv;uiced for varying llie 
 duty, by either diminishing or increasing it beyond the standard fintUly settled m the bill, Mr. Phelps 
 became much excited by the apprehension that his political associates, or at least some of them, wei-e not 
 disposed to provide in the bill for protecCicn enough of the staple article of tcool, and he urged with great 
 fervor, and great pou-er too, both in the Senate and out of it, the justice and the necessity of protecting 
 snffidentlij that important product of the agriculture of his Stale; and I should consider I't altogether in- 
 consistent with the whole tenor of his course — to suppose, that Mr. Phelps could have proposed to him- 
 self to withhold his vote upon the final passage of that bill, or to have voted against it, unless upon the 
 obnoxiou.s supposition that the Senate should refuse all fair and reasonable protection of that important 
 product of his Suxte. Certainly, I know of no " persuasions used by any Senator" to induce that gen- 
 tleman to vote for the bill. As to whether " he were in his place or not, mid voted U]jon the final pass- 
 age of the bill," the Journal of the Senate happily furnishes testimony fai- more conclusive than the fiil- 
 lible memory of man. Understanding that tlir fate of the bill would probably be determined by a sins;le 
 rote — deeply impressed by the consideration of the importance of that vote, and earnestly cndeavoriugto 
 discover and to pursue the path of duty /or myself individually, 1 paid but little attention to the actions of 
 others, — and have no knowledge as to where, precisely, Mr. Phelps might have been when the final 
 question was taken. The Journal, I think, must show. As to the zeal, and abihty, and eminent power 
 with which INlr. Phelps has uniformly advocated the policy of protecting the home industry of Uic coun- 
 try, 710 question tvill be made by any one who will take the trouble to read his pruited argument on that 
 subject. WILLIAM WOODBRIDGE. 
 
 IVo. 5. — Hon. J. F. Simmons, of Rhode Island. 
 
 Washington', Januai-y 9, 1845. 
 
 Mr DEAR Sir: In answer to your letter, addressed to Mr. Huntington and others, requesting that I 
 should state my recollection of your course upon the bill imjiosing duties upon imports, when before the 
 Senate in August, ISiH, I have to say, that I have no very distinct recollection of what occurred on the 
 day referred to, as applicable to yourself, but iielieve that if your course had been such as to bring in 
 question your hearty support of that measure, it could not have failed to make an impression which 
 would have been retained by me ; for not only myself, but I belit ve all the friends of protection in the Senate, 
 at all times relied upon your co-operation and support as confidently as upon any member of the body. 
 I am, faithfully, yours, ' J. F. SIMMONS.' 
 
 Hon. Samuel S. Puki.j's. 
 
 No. G.—Ilon. X. P. Tallnuidge, of .\hc York. 
 
 Madison, W. T., .Tanuary 14, 18-15. 
 
 Dear Sir: Your letter a.sking my recollection of your course in the Senate of the United States on 
 the tiiriff bill of lH42 was duly received, and I take the earliest opportunity to reply; and I slate without 
 liesitation, thai I have no knowledge of your having expressed a purpose either to vote again.si the bill, 
 or to withhold your vote. I am not aware that you ever doubted or waveretl in relation to it. TJiere 
 ■were Home who expressed themselves in consultation against the ]>assage of any bill without the "distri- 
 bution chiuse," as it was c;Uled. I am unable to say wlunlicr you were one of thai number. But I am 
 quite sure, we had not a mure decided tariff man in the Senate tluui youiself, and I am not aware of 
 any indisposition or lelucUmce on your part to vote for the bill when it cainr fnnu the IIoMse. In sliort, 
 I Imvc no recollection of any thing in your conduct on that occasion, which tends to inii>licatc your cha- 
 racter as a jmblic man, or evince any indisposition on your part to the faithful discharge of your public 
 duly. Very truly, yours. 
 
 Hon. S. S. PiiELi-V. .N. 1'. TALLMADUli 
 
31 
 
 No. 7. — Hon. .7. S. Porter, rf Michigan. 
 
 Wasiiinctos, Dercmlcr 20, 1?44. 
 
 Dear Sir: Haviii£: been of the number of Wlii£;;s in the Senate wlio \vere most anxious for the pnss- 
 ao-e of the tarilf l)ill of 184-2, (witliout reference to the land distribution section, against whicli Mr. Tyler 
 had opposed the insuperable barrier of the veto,) I have a very distinct recollection of the obsUicles to 
 be overcome in order to accomplish that object It is certainly matter of surprise to me to learn that you 
 have been suspected in any quarter of a want of fidelity to that measure. The sin2;le and only dans^er 
 that threatened the bill, as is well known screw out of an unwillingness of a portion of the Whigs to yield 
 the land clause. It was to meet and overcome this, that tlie eiforts of the friends of the bifl were di- 
 rected. Nme Whigs were known to l)e;igainst it. Not all of these, however, were so on account of the 
 ab-sence of the " land section." But there were two others, who had indicated a purpose to vote agixinst 
 it for that cause alone. The position of these eleven gentlemen was well known, (as indeed was that 
 of every otiier member,) and it was therefore evident that the measure must be lost unless a portion of 
 them would yield. Those two and those only did yield, and by their votes, together with. those of four 
 members of the opposite partv, we succeeded In carrying it by a majority of one. You were always ac- 
 counted one of the earliest and most reliable friends of the bill. Indeed, I never heard your position .se- 
 riously questioned. I well remember, however, that when the yeas and nays were being Uiken on the 
 question of engrossment, (as they always are in alphabetical order,) you were not in your seat to re- 
 spond. But Talso well recollect, that other members were out when their names were called. This 
 practice is very common, pending a debate that has been long protracted. On such occasions it is not 
 uncommon for nearly liaif the members to be in the adjoining rooms, but always within the call of the 
 messengers of the House. The cause of your absence at the moment, I supposed to be the same which 
 operated on others — an impatience to sit under what was deemed a wanton consumption of time in de- 
 bate, at that late day, in one of ihe longest sessions of Congress ever held. I have no knowledge what- 
 ever of your having uttered a threat, that you would either vote against the bill or withliold your vote ; 
 but as 1 sat next you, I had occasion frequently to notice indications of much irritation on your part 
 from the cause I have mentioned. I do not believe this feeUng was stronger with you than with many 
 others, although your outward manifestations may have been more apparent than theirs. There were 
 many circumstances of a minor character attending the progress of the bill in the Senate, of which I have 
 only'a general recollection, that were well calculated to try the patience of those who from the first were 
 the warmest friends of the protective policy. I know of no one, who seemed to feel the severity of this 
 test more than yourself. Very respectfully, dear sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 Hon. S. S. Pheli's. A. S. PORTER. 
 
 No. 8. — Mtssrs. jMilkr mid Dayton, of Xew Jersey. 
 
 SE>fATE Chamber, .Tamtary 6th, 1845. 
 Dear Sir; In answer to your note of the 19th ult., I have the honor to say, that I have no knowledge 
 of your refusing to vote for, or expressing a purpose of either withholding your vote, or of voting a^nst 
 the tariff bill of 1842. I know you were present at the passage of the" bill, acting in concert with its 
 friends. There were some expressions of dissatisfaction at the prolongation of the debate, and you, with 
 others, niEUiifested impatience for the final vote to be taken; but I discovered no disposition on your part 
 to vote against a measure, of which I know you to be a warm and decided advocate and friend. 
 
 With much respect and esteem, I remain, yours, &c. J. W. MILLER. 
 
 Hon. Samuel S. Phelps. 
 I concur in the above. WM. L. DAYTON, 
 
 No. 9. — Hon. Richurd H. Bayard, of Delaware. 
 
 Senate Chamber, Janiianj llh, 184.", 
 Dear Sir : In reply to your letter of the 19th ult., I have the honorto sUite, tliat I have no recollection 
 of any opposition on your part to the tariff act of 1842, nor of any expressions of dissatisfaction by you 
 in relation to it. On "the contrary, my impression is, that the measure received your sincere and cordial 
 Yoiirs, truly, • RICHARD H. BAYARD. 
 
 support 
 
 Hon. S. S. Phelps, U. S. Senator, IVashington. 
 
 No. 10. — Hon. Thomas Clayton, of Delaware. 
 
 Washixgtov, December 27//t, 1844. 
 Dear Sir : Your note is before me reauesting my recollection of the events of the evening on which ilie 
 present tariff act of 1842 was passed, ana you request me to state the relative position of our £eat.s in the 
 Senate. You and I sit at the same line of desks, and there is but one intermediate seat between us. 
 After a long and tedious discussion of the tarilf bill, when almost every one had become wearied with the 
 discussion, and when all were anxious for tlie question, late in the evening Mr. Woodbridge rose to 
 speak. Soon after several members left their seats. Among these I remember Mr. Wright, Mr. Wil- 
 liams, and yourself. ^Ir. Woodbridn:e spoke a much shnrter time than was expected, and as soon as he 
 took his seat the question was put, and the roll was called. Mr. Wrl'_'ht and Mr. SVilliams came in 
 after the roll had been called through, but before the result was announced by the chair, and at their re- 
 quest their names were called, and they voted. When you voted there was nothing in the manner of 
 jivmi; your vol.- which drew mv atiention. ft may be' well to slate the u's.ige which prevails in the 
 
32 
 
 Snwvte 111 reference to this matter cf voting. When the roll is called and a member does not answer, 
 after the roll has been gone tlirough the Secretary never calls him again, but at /lis t«r»i request. I have 
 never seen this usaoe departed from, and it is founded on the obvious presumption, that the member not 
 having answered when the roll was called, declines to vote. Hence 1 infer, that when you returned to 
 your place your name must have been called at your own request. 
 
 During the whole discussion of tiiis bill, I looked upon you as one of its warmest friends. I neither 
 knew, nor heard, anything of your unwillingness to vote for it, nor of any efforts of others to prevail on 
 you to do so. Your absence, when the roll was ordered to be called, is accounted for by me to the fact 
 that Mr. Woodbridge closed his remarks much earlier than was expected, and the question was put 
 much sooner than any one could have hoped for. Very respectfully, T. CLAYTON. 
 
 Hon. S. S. Phelps. 
 
 No. II.— //on. ^. S. mile, of Indiana. 
 
 Washis-gtok, December 25, 1844. 
 Hon. S. S. Phelps. — Dear Sir : I very cheerfuDy comply with your request to state what is my re- 
 collection of your deportment towards the tariff bill (now act) of 1842, during its pendency in the Sen- 
 ate, though only a general impression remains in my mind. My statement might be summed in a 
 single word, to wit : that you were from first to last the interested friend of the bill, as well as its able 
 advocate. Any other manifestation on the part of a Vermont Senator, whose seat adjoins my own in 
 the chamber, must have arrested my attention. Very likely you, who though you more frequently than 
 myself engage in debate, still like me do occasionally grow impatient at that profusion of argument 
 ■which sometimes mars even the wisdom of the Senate, may have yielded to that feeling upon the occa- 
 sion of the final debate on the tariff bill, and tired of watching an ever-receding question, may have 
 momentarily absented yourself from the chamber. But that it was for the purpose of avoiding the vote, 
 or that you required persuasion to induce you finally to vote for the bill, could not, I am sure, have been 
 believed by a single Senator. The tariff of 1842, almost the only trophy the whigs have wrested from 
 a defective administration, is a monument too fini.shed and exquisite to have been carved by trembling 
 or by reluctant hands. Such were not those of either of the Senators whom Vermont, ever true, deputed 
 to do her part of that memorable work. I am, very respectfullv, vour ob't .serv't, 
 
 A. S. WHITE. 
 
 No. 12. — Hon. James Buchanan, of Pennsiih-ania. 
 
 Sekate Chamber, 28//» January, 1845. 
 Dear Sir : I have received your note of this date, referring to a charge which you allege has been made 
 against you relative to your course on the tariff act of 1842, and I can cheerfully state, that to my know- 
 ledge no such occurrence took place as that to w-hich you advert. I never doubted your friendship to 
 that measure, nor heard that it was doubted, until 1 received your note. 
 
 Yours, very respectfully, JAMES BUCHANAN. 
 
 Hon. Samiel S. Phelps. 
 
 No. 13. — Hon. J. T. Morehead, of Kentucky. 
 
 Washivgton-, .31st December, 1844. 
 Mv Dear Sir : I take ^rreat pleasure in conforming with your request, to state my impressions of 
 vour conduct and sentiments in ies|>ect to the tariff of 1842. I would remark, in the first place, that I 
 fiave no knowledge of any interposition on the part of the Whigs of the Senate or of the House, the ob- 
 ject of which was to induce you to vote for tiiat bill, nor do I know that you, at any time, declared your 
 purpose to oppose it. I was much in your company during the pendency of the tariff bill of 1842, and 
 so far from regarding you as occupying a doubtful position in regard to it, I believed you had the success 
 of it at heart as nmch as any other member of Congress. I am not disposed to confine myself to that 
 particular bill. I have ever found you devoted to the protective system, in all its details, and especially 
 watchful of the interests of Vermont ; and I avail myself of this occasion to add, that I consider your 
 ♦;ffortH in tiic Senate on that subject, of signal benefit to the cause. 
 
 With great respect, I am, my dear sir, your friend, J. T. MOREHEAD. 
 
 Hon. S. S. Phelps. 
 
 No. 14.— //on. 0. H. SmUh, of Indiana. 
 
 I.vDiANAPOLis, (Ind ,1 December 21, 1S44. 
 Df.ar Sir : Your letter of the 21st instant has been duly received, in which you inform me, (for the 
 first lime I had heard the report,) that you had acted as a Senator, in the passage of the tariff act of 1842, 
 in a way unsatisfactory to the friends of that measure, and dangerous to the passage of the act, was re- 
 ported by the enemies of your election. I do not distinctly recollect all the circumstances and individual 
 opinions relative to that measure while before the Senau ; but this much 1 can say, that I understood 
 you to be one of the firmest of its friends, though you, like manv of us, regretted to giveun the distribu- 
 tion feature of the first bill. I feel very confident that I never lieard anything Irom you indicating any 
 thing other than an honest desire to see that bill become a law; and I feel also very confident that you were 
 not one of those who came in at the last hour to save the bill, but was one of its constant and firm friends. 
 With rentimenis ofre<rnrd, your obedient servant, O. H. SMITH. 
 
 Hnn. .'^. S Pun p=. 
 
No. 15. — 11' n. ]t'ill'nim Sjinnruc, of fdiode Hand. 
 
 Providunce, (R. I.,) /A'Cfi/i^cr 31, 1844. 
 I Tim. Sa.muei. S. Philips. — Dk\k Sir : Ymir i-oiiununioatiun of the ;32cl in.staiit m;is duly recoived. I 
 iv'^ri't to lie:ir tli;Uyou was misrcpreseiitrd on the oco;i.sioii of your re-election to the Seiuitc of tlic Uni- 
 ted States. I liavo no recollection of any ;ict manifested by you in any v/uy in regard to the tariff act of 
 1842, wliich could afford the slightest foundation for the charge which you inform me was made iigainst 
 you. I have no knowledge, therefore, of any declaration on your part, that you would not vote for the 
 bill, or of any remonstrances or persuasions used, or thought necessary, by me, or anybody el.se, to in- 
 duce you to Vote. Nor am I aware of any wavering hesitation or reluctance on your part, in the dis- 
 charge of your duty, or of any purpose manifested by words or otherwise, to embarrass its passage. 
 During the whole time the bill was under consideration, you manifested a deep interest in its favor- 
 gave ii^essential aid and assistance in pert'ecting its details, and at all times, as it appeared to me, a cordial 
 and hearty support. So far, therefore, as your whole course in regard to it came under my observation, 
 it was such as to merit the approliation of its most zealous friends in every section of the country. 
 
 I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant, "WILLIAM SPPiAGUE. 
 
 No. IG. — Hon. Reuel JViUimns, of Maine. 
 
 Augusta, Fthriiar]i Olh, 184;')- 
 .' Devr Sir : On my return from BorUon, I find your favor of the 1st instant, and am .surprised by it3 
 contents. On the occnsion you refer to, 1 had made up my mind to vote for the bill, (although I did' not 
 like It,) if my vote was necessary to pass it. In coming to this conclusion, I was compelled to leave my 
 political frieiids, and do what seemed to mc indispensable to the preservation of the Government; and in 
 thus acting, I was excited by appeals from friends, and the intense interest of the question as I regarded 
 it; and hence took but little notice of the actions of others. I can only say, that in calculating tiie votes 
 for the bill you were included, and it was understood that unless I voted for it the bill could not pass ; 
 and if I would so vote with Wright and Buchanan, it would pass. As your seat was distant from mine, 
 and among your political friends, 1 could not know what was said among your friends, but I have no 
 recollection that any doubt was entertained of your course and vote on our side of the liouse. 
 1 am, very resnectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 ^ ' R. WILLIAMS. 
 
 No. 17. — Hon. Daniel Sturgeon, of Pennsylvania. 
 
 Senate Cuambf.u, January 28, 1845. 
 De:ar Sir: I received your note of this date, and can truly say it is the first intimation I have had 
 that you were the lukewariTi friend of the tariff act of 1842. I was a close observer of the action of 
 the Senators on the passage of that act, and so far from considering you the reluctant supporter of the 
 tariff act of 1842, I had reason to believe vou its friend and advocate. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, DANIEL STURGEON. 
 
 No. 18. — Hon. Silas Wright, o/ Aeji" York. 
 
 Albaky, Febniary \lth, ISA'). 
 
 Mv Dear Sir: Your letter of the 31st ult., was received in due course of mall, but official engage- 
 ments, wholly beyond my control, have compelled me to delay a reply until this time. You are cer- 
 tainly not mistaken in assuming that my personal dispositions towards you are now as they have ever 
 been during a very long acquaintance, such as to make it a pleasure to me to perform any act of 
 kindness towards you, and much more to do you justice in any matter whatever. 
 
 Your scat in the Senate chamber during the'last session of that body, and I believe diiring the whole 
 time you have held a scat in it, up to the close of the last session, was in front of mine, in the next tier 
 f)f seats, and so near that we could conveniently converse together sitting in our seats. I was in my 
 place in the Senate more constantly than usual on the day on which the question was taken upon the final 
 passage of the Uiriff bill of 1842, as my position in relation to that question made me a dee})ly interestea 
 spectator of, and partaker in, those proceedings. My previous attempts to obtain amendments to that 
 hill, witii the remarks made to sustain my motions to amend, had shown my dissatistaction with many 
 of the provisions of the bill, and failing to carry any material amendments, it was with great difhculty 
 that I brought my mind to the conclusion that 1 could vote in its flivor. The considerations which in- 
 fluenced that conclusion were stated to the Senate on the day to which you refer, that of the final pas- 
 sage of the law. During all my efforts to amend the bill, I very well recollect to have found you an ac- 
 tive opponent, usually speakiug, and always voting against my motions, unless, as I think was the fact, 
 you voted with mc to raise the duty upon coarse wool. My recollection also is, that in the course of 
 the proceedings of the Senate upon the bill, you made an elaljorate speech in its favor, going much far- 
 ther than I thought was sound or right in favor of the policy of protection, separate from considerations 
 of revenue, and coupled with prohibitions in both respects, as 1 thought, sustaining the objectionable fea- 
 tures of the bill. Upon no occasion did I hear you intimate a disposition either not to vote upon the pas- 
 «i>ire of the bill, or to vote acainst it; but, on the contrary, I at all times considered you one of its most zeal- 
 ous advocates and friend;;. ' On the day of tiie final pasr.age of the bill. I have no recollections of having 
 heard you irtirnafeany dirposition to defeat or impede its "passage, either by withholding your vote or by 
 
 5 
 
voting against ii ; and had I understood from y<JU, or from any bn<» flse, tfiat there was anv douLt about 
 your vole, 1 think i «hould have recollected it, as my constant impressinn during thai day wa;?, that the 
 iate of tlie bill depended rpon a single vote; and hence the peculiar responsibility I felt about my own 
 vote. 1 certainly did not, upon any occasion, urge you or any other Senator to vote for the bill; and 
 upon that day I do not remember to have held any conversation with you upon the subject, except that 
 you asked me, sitting in my seat, how I should vote, and I replied that I should soon make a declara- 
 tion to the Senate on that subject. My inference was, that you desired the passage of the bill and wished 
 to know how I should vote to enable you to determine whether or not it would pass. As to the report 
 of which you speak, about your hesitation in voting when your name was called, I cannot speak, for 
 this reason: You will recollect that the debate upon the final passage was protracted to a late hour. I 
 had become wearied, and the chamber was crowded and warm. 1 had been expecting a termination of 
 the debate for some time, and upon the chair being addressed by a fresh speaker, I left my seat and cross- 
 ed the lobby into the southerly of the Secretary's rooms, where I took a scat by the west window, front- 
 ing the avenue. I found Mr. Choate in the room, and passed a few words with him, when he left. I 
 had remained seated by the window, as it then appeared, and now appears to me, but a few moment.'?, 
 when the younger Mr. Bassett, one of the messengers of the Senate, came into the room in great haste, 
 and told me my name had been called. I went as rapidly as possible to the chamber, but found that the 
 list had been called through, and requested the Secretary to call my name, which was done, and I then 
 voted. My impression is, that one Senator, Mr. Williams, of Maine, came in and directed his name to 
 be called after me; though of this fact I will not be certain. Oilier than that, I did not hear any Senator's 
 name called or any Senator give his vote, but I heard nothing at the time, nor have I since, of your re- 
 luctance to vote, other than a casual conversation with your colleague, Mr. Upham, whom I met upon 
 his journey to Washington in November last, when he mentioned the reports about your conduct and 
 vote on the day of the passage of that bill. I expressed to him my disbelief of the reports, founded upon 
 the fact that I iiad never before heard a word about them, and I thought the occasion one when any such 
 facts as he said were reported to have been witnessed in your conduct and vote, would have been made 
 the subject of conversation in and about the Senate chamber. I have not the slightest recollection of 
 having noticed or heard that you luul laken offence at any person during that day, and I am sure I did 
 not hear you use opprobrious language or epithets towards any one upon that occasion, as nothing of the 
 kind rests upon my memory. I believe I have answered as fully as I am able your inquiries, but if 
 any further and mure specific call upon me shall be desirable, I hope you will consider yourself perfcinly 
 free to make it. With great respect, 1 am truly yours, SILA.S WRIGHT. 
 
 Hon. S. S. Phelps, L'. S. Scnalor. 
 
 No. 19. — ]Ion. I. C. Bales of Massachusells. 
 
 W.\sHiNGT0N', December "HAlh, 1S44. 
 My Dr..^R SIR : — I Imve no knowledge or recollection of any such occurrences as those to which 
 you allude in your letter of the 19th instant, to the Hon. J. \\ . Hiuitiiiglon and others of the Senate, 
 itnd am with great respect, yours, 
 
 Hex. S. S. Phelps. I. C. BATES. 
 
 No. 20. — //(')!. .'lU'xander Bim-oir, of Loxiis'umn. 
 
 Senate Cn.\MBEn, Januui-y 9/A, 1845. 
 Df..\r sir: — In rcplv to your letter enquiring of me whether I heard you use certain intemperate ex- 
 pressions, concerning'the 'I'ariff act of '4"2, or witnessed violent and undignified conduct on your part the 
 day that the final vote in the Senate was taken on that bill, I have to tmswer negatively. All that I re- 
 member concerning your conduct on the imporlant occasion referred to, is the fact that when your name 
 was first called, on the final vote of the Tariff bill of 1842, that you were not at that time in the Senate 
 Chamber, but that you and my colleague Mr. Conrad came into ilie Chamber belbre the result of the 
 vote was announced by the President of the Senate, and that you then voted, whether upon the first or 
 second call of your name 1 don't recollect. 
 
 1 am, very respectfully, yours,&c., ALEXANDER BARROW 
 
 No 21. — lion. C. »V. Conrad, of Louisiana. 
 
 New Ouleaks, December 2, 184 1 
 Hoy.-. S. S. Pnr.Lrs, — My Dear Sir : I received, some time since, a letter from the Hon. Mr. Slade of 
 Vermont, the purport of which you can collect from the enclosed copy of my answer to it. 1 did not 
 think I was at libery to send you a copy of Ins letter to me; but considered ihat justice required that 1 
 Bhould transmit you a copy ot'my answer. I should very mucli regret if the incident referred to should 
 have been by any one so exaggerated, or perverted, as to subjict you t.> any unplca.^int consequences 
 I remain, very .sincerely, your obedient servant, &., t.V:c., C. M. CONRAD. 
 
 New Orleans, .Norcmicr 30, 1844. 
 
 Hon. Mk. Siaoe,— Sir: I avail myself of the earliest leisure time 1 have had for some time past, to 
 
 reply to your letter of the 1 1th ult., which reached this city during my temporary absence. J cannol 
 
 imneine ho\r it should hare become ntcessanito refer to a circumalanee so very unimportant as the one you alludr 
 
 to: hut a.s yau s;iy thai it is nere>;<;ary /iic the vindi0ntion of your eharoctcr. that I sliould relate what oc- 
 
35 
 
 curred on ihc occasion vdcrred lo, I do not Iccl niyselfat libeity tn decline your rcjucM. Instead of an- 
 Bwerins seriatim the questions you pro])Ourid to me, 1 uill succinctly nanat.; what tnuismred, tnking care 
 that this narrative shall embrace substantially an answer to each of your .lucslions. 1 he tantl t)ill, as 
 vou are well aware, encountered great difficulties in its ixissa-e, and the debate on it in both Houses was 
 long and somewhat tedious. On the day on which the final vole was taken, the discussion 1»"-<1 '^c'''' pro- 
 tracted until a late hour, and the Senate havino- been in uninterrupted session from 10 o'clock A. M., the 
 patience and even the physical powers of many members were nearly exhausted ; Mr Fhelps, in par- 
 ticular, seemed much annoyed at the long continuance of the debate, and manifested ^reat displeasure 
 whenever a member would rise to speak. I had an opportunity of observing this, as Ins seat was near 
 my own. At a late hour, just as it was supposed the question was about being jnit, some rnemhcr (1 
 think Mr. Calhoun) rose and addressed the Senate at considerable length. Mr. Phelps suddenly rose 
 from his seat, apparently much excited, and passed by me, observing that he " would stay no longer, 
 or words to that effect. He went into the small antc-chambcr, (where the hats of members are deposited,) 
 and I followed him. Seeing him take his liat and move towards the door leading out ot the rapitol, I 
 endeavored to dissuade hinffrom going; but he persisted in going. He proceeded down the stairs, and 
 I followed him, until we reached the open air, outside of the building. There he sto]H. and became mucli 
 calmer • and after some little persuasion on my part he consented to return ; and indeed, from that mo- 
 ment, he seemed as anxious to get back in time to give his vote as I was inysell. When we i-<;^"tered 
 the Senate Chamber, the Secretary was calling the yeas and nays on the final passage ot th<^ hill. My 
 impression is, that both of our names had been called when we entered. I am certain mine had been; 
 but as it precedes that of Mr. Pliclps on the alphabetical list, 1 cannot speak precisely as lo his. _ 1 als" 
 think that he rose at the proper time, and requested the clerk to call his name, and answered to it wlien 
 called. 1 do not think that :Mr. Thclps was called ''jitsl as he entered the Senate Chaml)er; [ on the con- 
 trary, I think, as I have already stated, that our names had both been already called in their regular or- 
 der "tf/urc wo entered, and that his name was not again (tailed until he rose and requested the Clerk to 
 call it, and that he immediately answered in the affirmative. I have no recollection ot his having been 
 ^HiLnce'' called, nor of his asking me "wliether / had voted." It is possible, however, that he may have 
 done so. I walked up very close lo the Clerk's desk, when I asked him to call my name, and it i.i pos- 
 sible, therefore, that both the Secretary and myself s;)oke in a low lone of voioe. Mr. Phelps on the 
 contrary, went, I think, directly to his seat, tuid was therefore at some disUince from me. In the noise 
 and confusion that prevailed (the Senate Chamber being crowded with members of the House of Repre- 
 senUitivcs) it would not be at all surprising that Mr. Phelps should not have heard me when I gave my 
 vote. As to the ''cause of Mr. Phelps taking the course which rendered my nlTorts m regard to him ne- 
 cessary," this is more than I can undertake to say. My intercourse with Mr. Phelps has been very 
 slio-ht indeed— sccii-eely any out of the Senate— and I am therefore not familiar wiih hw deportment, or 
 hil personal peculiarities, if he has any. I have already mentioned iktU he appeared very much pro- 
 voked at the conduct of some members in protracting, as he thought unnecessarily and unseasonably, 
 the debate on the bill. I think it due to him, however, to state, that I never for an insUmt imputed his 
 course to any wish to defeat ihe^ill, (of which he had ever been among the most sUenuous supporters,) 
 but solely to some momentary excitement acting upon a. temperment perhaps naturally irritable. 
 
 These are the circumstances, as well as I can recollect them, connected with thus occurrence. As it 
 seems, from what you say, that they have been represented (I know not by whom, or for what purpose) 
 in a maimer calculated to prejudice Mr Phelps, I am gratified that I \vas not the channel through which 
 they became public. r'mvR\n 
 
 I remain, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, C. JM. L-UiNtvAi.>. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Slade, J\Iontpelier, Vennont. 
 
 P. S. Thinking it proper that Mr. Phelps should be informed of wlmt I have said in regard to him, 
 I have transmitted to him a copy of this letter. '-• "^^ ^• 
 
 Extract from Mr. Conrad's letter to Mr. Phdps, dalrd May 4, 184G. 
 "You certainly never did express a determinatioK not to vote for the bill. So far from it, d\ -uig the whole of 
 the conversation referred to, (the same referred to in his former letter,) yon expressed gre(U anxiety about its 
 fate, and appeared muck incensed ct some nf its friends and supporters, who, as you seemed to {kink, were endan- 
 gering its passage by protracting the debate to a venj unreasonable length. I do not recollect tliat a lime had 
 been°ixed for laking the vote by any formal resolution of the Senate, and my impression is that it was gen- 
 erally understood among the members on both sides that tl>€ vole should be taken that night ; ijou ap- 
 peared to think oitierwisc, however, and to suppose that there was n determination on the part of some numbers lo 
 continue the debate for an indefinite period.'' 
 
 He then .speaks again of our descending the stairs, and proceeds as follows: 
 
 " After the lapse of fl. few minutes, duri^ig which ice conversed on other matters, I proposed that we should 
 return to the Senate Chamber; to this you assented. When we entered we found, very miicii to my sur- 
 prise, (for I had not expected the debate to be so soon terminated,) the clerk calling llie yeas and nay* 
 on the final passage of the bill," &c. 
 
 No. 22.— Hon. W. P. Mangum, ofMrth Carolina. 
 
 I have been requested to state my recollections in regard to the Hon. Mr. Phelp.s' eour.se of action 
 
 •during the discussion of the tariff question, and at the close of the debate in 1848. I regarded him as I 
 
 pupposc every friend of the meaauredid, a fast and. -iteady .iupporltr, even to the verge of rxcessivc zeal. 
 
 of the priucip"les of protc':tioii contained in that lav. J think 1 canict be mi"takrn in supp^sins thai wa« 
 
36 
 
 llie universal opuiioii amuiig the whigs of the Senate. In regard to his habit.-* of apphcation to huisiiit; 
 Mr. Phelps, during that long session, performed very great, useful, and extremely lab'^rious and druu 
 ing duties, on the Committee of Revolutionary Clai'ms. 1 think there could have been no diversity "i 
 opinion in regard to the extent and the utility of these labors. My official position brought nie to an in- 
 timate knowledge of them. I said then, and think now, that the Senate and the countrv owed him much 
 for the able, impartial, and satisfactory manner in which he discharged those duties. The most of these 
 labors were closed before the end of the spring. During the summer of 1842, Mr. Phelps performed la- 
 Ijorious and extremely useful duties upon subjects coming from the Committee of Indian Affairs, and es- 
 pecially in regard to the vast interests growing out of the Choctaw claims. I liave long regarded those 
 claims as the most complicated, intricate, and difficult, that could be presented, and a.s enveloj)ed and ; 
 barricaded by the most ingenious, and I may [say,] stupenduous frauds, that I have witnessed in my public \ 
 life. The severe labor and eminent ability which Mr. P. brought to those questions, and the fearless 
 manner in which he successfully exposed them, enhanced, I think, greatly his reputation for legal ability 
 and acumen, and also for a finn, unshrinking moral coursige in the discharge of his senatorial duties. 
 
 Washington City, February, 1845. WILLIE P. MANGUM. 
 
 I am rtqucstcd further to state whether at the time of the final vote on the Tariff Bill Mr. Pheljis 
 manifested any disinclination to vote for the bill. If he did, I have no knowledge of it. I knew at the 
 time tlie precise state of the vote before it was given. L'pon the declaration of Governor Woodbridge 
 that he would vote for it (at about I think the time of lighting candles,) I knew it would i)ass by one 
 iuajority, and in tliat estimate the vole of IVIr. Phclp.^, wa.-: included. So far from the idea having oc- 
 curred to me that he was likely to prove delinijuent, I should have supposed it as soon of any other Sen- 
 ator from New En-land. WILLIE P. MAXGUM. 
 
 Pso. '23. — Hon. ll'm. D. .'tlnrkk, ofJ\Iariilaiul. 
 
 Skxate Ukited States, January llli, 184;). 
 
 Mt dear sir: — Your note making certain inquiries as to my recollection of your demeanor on the 
 occasion of the passage by the Senate of the Tariff law of 1S42, has 1 confess occasioned me no little sur- 
 prise, becau.se it is the first intimation I have had that there was supposed to be any thing peculiar or 
 objectionable in your conduct on that occasion. Had there been anyiliing remarkable or peculiar in yoiu- 
 conduct on the orcasion alluded to, it could not well have escaped my notice, both because I took a very 
 lively interest in the proceedings on that important bill, and because your seat in the Senate is 
 in close proximity to my own ; and I have pleasure in saying, in answer to your inquiries, that I saw 
 nothing in your conduct, nor dirt I hear any decku-ations or remarks from you, in the least degree irregu- 
 lar, or inconsistent, with the steady and consistent support it was well understood by all you would and 
 did give to the great measure then passed upon Ijy the Senate. 
 
 Witli very great respect, I am, dear sir, your obedient servant, AVM. D. MERRICK. 
 
 No. 24. — Hun. IVm. C. Rh-cs, of Virghxlu. 
 
 Casti.e IIii.i., ^'Ipr'il 13t/i, 184.'». 
 Mt dear sir: — 1 had the pleasure of receiving a day or two ago your letter dated the tJd instant, and 
 avail myself of the fir.*-l moment of leisure to reply to it. You inform me that on the ocaision of youi- 
 re-election to tlic Senate, in October last, there were several luatters of charge put in circulation, respect- 
 ing the mannrr in which you had jierformed your official duties, and touching more paj-ticularly your 
 conduct on the passai;:e of the tariff act of 1S4'2 — as that, in consequence of some supposed slight on the 
 part of some of your associates, you had used opprobrious language in legard to them, declared with 
 oaths that you would not vote on the bill, that you were absent iVom your seat when the question was 
 put upon the passage of the Ijill, that by being sent for you came in, and then declined to vote until your 
 name had been called three times. You desire me to sUtte whether I have any knowledge or recollection 
 of any of these circumstances, or of there being anything unusual in the manner of giving your vote, or in 
 your course generally on that important measure. I certainly have no knowledge or recollection of any 
 such occurrences as those above mentioned, nor of anything unusual or extraordinary in your manner 
 of voting or acting on the passage of the act of 184'2, for the adjustment of the Tariff. The only thing 
 that is impressed upon my memory, respecting your course upon the Tariff, is the very able speech you 
 made against the repeal of the a<'t of 1842, during the session of Congress befoi-e the last, and that I 
 shall ahvays retain a lively recollection of, as well as of the pleasant and friendly intercourse whicii 
 subsisted between us during the period of tnir association in the public councils. 
 
 I remain, my dear sir, with great respect and best wishes, truly and fiuthfully yours, 
 
 Sami'kl S. i'liELrs, Ksd. W. C RI\'ES. 
 
 No. 2'y.~Ilon. W,n. J. Graham, rfXortk CufoUna. 
 
 Kai.eioii, N. C, .iprU 16, 184o 
 Dear Sir : Your letter of the Qd instant was sent to my residence nl Hillsborough, and did not re.i' 
 me until to-day. You state that a communication was aiidrcssed to the Whig Convention of \'ermoni, 
 when about to select a candidate for the Senate in October last, charging m substance that when the tar- 
 iff bill of Augu.<5i, 1842, was under consideration in the Senate of the United States, you declared with 
 onths yott ^yould not vote for the bill ; tjiat much effort was used to procure your support to it ; that you 
 wereaosent when Uie question was put on the passage of the bill ; atid that, after being sentfor and calletf in, 
 you refused to vote until yournamenad been three times called; and ark for my re:o!lc.'tif>n as to the truth or 
 
37 
 
 falsehood of these .sevei-;il cluugcs. In reply I liuve to .sUUe, thai 1 nmember nothing; .i;'3iiit,' lo suhstaiUiale 
 niiv one oflhciii. I know that niauy Senators, (at least several, who finally voted for the hill, had determined 
 wlien it came from the House not to vote for it, beeause the provision for the distribution of the land pro- 
 ceeds had been abandoned; and that they ultimately yielded their objections and did vote for it. But I 
 have no remembrance of your being one of these. As to liesitation, when called by the Secretary to 
 vote, the only instance reniainins; in my remembrance is that of one of the Senators from Maine, who 
 did not vote tuitil after the call had ceased, (the present;) and who then went up to the Secretary's desk, and, 
 ascertainin;^ by casting up the yeas and nays that his vote was required to pass the bill, voted in its 
 favor. I shall at all times be pleased to hear of your health and prosperity, and am. 
 
 With tile Icindest remembrances, your friend and servant, W. A. GRAHAM. 
 
 Hon. S. S. Pheli's, Hcntdnr of U. S. 
 
 No. 2G. — Hon. Ifin. S. .-Jrchcr, of Virginia. 
 
 Washington, March 13, 1845. 
 I")K.An Sir : Your letter addressed to several members of the Senate, asking an expression of their re- 
 collection as reirards circumstances of conduct imputed to you in connexion with tiie juissage of the ex- 
 istin"- tarilVlawin the Senate, has been duly considered. I iiave to reply to your inqiiuy, that I have not 
 bcen^able to summon to my mind any recollection of the circumsU-vnces to which you refer, so £is to 
 authorize me either to affirm llicir accuracy or disaffirm it. I can only say, that nothing passed with me, 
 as one of the Senators of the "Whig party," partaking of the character of the occurrences alluded to. 
 1 am, very rcspeclfiilly, your obedient servant, VV. S. ARCHER. 
 
 Hon. Mr. Puelps. 
 
 No. '21- — Hon. John Henderson, of J\Iississippi. 
 
 Sen'ate Chamber U. S., .lanuary 20, 1845. 
 Dear Sir: I have examined the matters sot forth in the preceding pages. I was present when the 
 taiiff act of 1842 was ]iasscd, and now regret to confess that I felt myself constrained to vote against it. 
 I have no recollection whatever of tlie acts or conversation occurring in respect to yourseif, as before de- 
 tailed by yourself on this sheet. 
 
 Respectfully, yours, &c., JOHN HENDERSON. 
 
 Hon. Samiel S. Piieli-s. 
 
 [Endorsed on my letter lo Hon. George Evans; the same answered by Mr. Evans above.] 
 
 No. 28. — Hon. .John J\I. Berrien, of Georgia. 
 [This letter of Mr. Berrien is also endorsed upon the same letter with INlr. Henderson.] 
 
 Senate Cha.mber, .January 20, 1845. 
 
 Dear Sir : I have no recollection of the facts and circumstances stated on the preceding pages, or any 
 others calculated to shpw your hostility to the tariff of 1842, when on its passage. On the contrary, I 
 ■considered you as one of its most decided advocates. My own position was this: There were certain 
 modifications which I desired to make of its details, wliich had been recommended by the Committee of 
 Finance, of which I was a member, which were rejected in the Senate, not, as I understood, upon their 
 merits, but from a fear that if the bill were amended so as to render it necessary to send it back to the House 
 ■of Representatives, it would fail there. I did not approve this course, and these amendments being thus 
 rejected without regard to their merits, and one of them particularly affecting the interests of my own 
 <-.onstituenls, 1 was compelled to vote against the bill. But before I did so, 1 stated to the two Senators 
 from New Jersey and tosome others, my determination if the bill was lost by my vote, instantly to move 
 its reconsideration, when I hoped lo obtain a more favorable consideration of the amendments which had 
 been rejected. This was rendered unnecessary by a change of determination, avowed very shortly before 
 the vote was taken, by one of ihe Senators of Michigan. My position and the responsibility, wliich in 
 the event that 1 have stated I was about to assume, of moving its reconsideration, made nic a very atten- 
 tive observer of the proceeding. I counted the votes, as I expected them to be given, and as they were 
 in fact given, and always numbered you among its advocates. It is an act of justice lo you lo add, that 
 I considered your argument at the last session as presenting so convincing a view of l!ie propriety of pro- 
 tectino- our domestic industry, that 1 subscribed for a number of copies, and circulated them amonj my 
 constituents. 1 am, respectfully, yours, JOHN MACPHERSON BERRIF:N. 
 
 Hon. Samuel S. Phelps, U. S. Senator. 
 
 No. 29. — Hon. J. IT. llantinglon, of Connecticut. 
 
 Norwich, .Ipril 15, 1845. 
 Dear Sir : 1 have received your letter of the 3d instant. In reply to the inquiry you make, whether 
 I have any recollection of certain ocurrenccs or circum.«tances wliich are specified in your letter, and 
 wliich vou observe are brought as charges a:,^ainsl you, and to wliich I now refer, I answer that I have, 
 no recollection that " on the day of the tinal passage of the tariff bill, August 27, 1842, you liad been of- 
 fended at some supposed slight or want of attention on the part, &c., and used opprobrious language in 
 regard to them, ana declared unth oaths that yon trould not vote for the bill, [i. e. the tariff bill,] and that sev- 
 eral Senator-, had made ineffectual efforts to soothe you.''' Nor have I any recollection " that you were absent 
 from y"ur scat when the quertion v.ns put, waL- jent for, and, coming in. refused to vote unii! your name 
 
39 
 
 had been called t)irce tiiiies." Nor do 1 recollect thai I was iniorMicd that Air. Conrad, of Loui.simis 
 "tf<K endeavoring to persuade yon to vote upon thai bill.'" If any such occurrences as are stated above too' 
 place, and I knew or heard of them, ihcy have escaped my recollection. 1 do remember that on one oc 
 casion, when it was expected that a vote would or mi^^ht soon be taken upon what I deemed an impor 
 tant question, 1 did not see you in the Senate Chamber, and I believe I inciuired of some Senator [pei 
 Jiaps your colleague. Gov. Crafts] where you was, or I observed you sliould be sent for; but I do nc 
 now recollect what that question was. Some time has elapsed since the taritl'act was p.issed, and occui 
 rences may have taken place connected with it of which I know nothing, or which I do not now recol 
 led. I have endeavored, however, to reply to your inquiry as to the matters mentioned in your letter 
 and to which I have referred in my foregoing answer, as far as I am able to reply to them. 
 Very respcciflilly, your obedient servant, 
 Hon. S. S. Phelps. J. ^V. HUNTINGTON 
 
 No. 30. — Hon. Samuel C. Crafts, of I'eniwnl. 
 
 [Copy of my communication to the committee — Mcssr.s. Sabin, Morgan, and Camp.] 
 
 Gentlemen' : Agreeably to your request, that I would state all the facts within my knowledge, respec 
 ing certain reporls in circulation injurious to the character of honorable Samuel S. Plielps, &c., I pre.ser 
 the following statement. From the latter ]>art of April, 1842, to the close of the t27th Congress, I wa 
 -associated with Judge Phelps in the Senate of the United States, and for about seven months of thi 
 time I was at Washington, and in daily intercour.^e with him. For a few days, on my first arrival ; 
 Washington, I took lodgings at tiic .«;ame boarding-house with Judge Phelps, and occupied the sam 
 room with him. This boarding-house was situated in Pennsylvania avenue, and preferring a more air 
 location during the summer months, aficr tarrying there some eight or ten days, I removed my lodgings 1 
 Capitol Hill ; and within two or three weeks thereafter Judge Phelps also removed his lodgings to th 
 vicinity of mine, and continued there through the .•tumnier. 1 not only saw him daily in the Senate, bi 
 generally every day, either at his quarters or at mine. The same intercourse continued also through th 
 ■winter session'. I have been thus particular to show what were my opportunities to become acquainte 
 ■with his general conduct, &c. Excepting about ten or twelve days in the latter part of July, or bcgi 
 ning of August, 1842, his health was good, and his attendance in the Senate, and on the committees, wt 
 as regular as that of any other member whatever. During the ten or twelve days above excepted, Judc' 
 Phelps was very unwell — was confined to his bed six or seven days of that time, and under the care ( 
 Dr. Sewall. He was not only very unwell, but very low-spirited. During this sickness I saw hii 
 every day. It was during this lime that the present tariff bill v.-as under discussion in the Senate, an 
 Judge Phelps had been unable to resume his seat in the Senate Inii a day or two before the question wt 
 taken on that bill, and even then but a short time each day. Jud<;c Phelps had assured me that he woul 
 endeavor to be present and vote on the passage of the said bill ; lor it was understood that without h 
 vote the bill could not pass the Senate. As Judge Phelps did not appear for some little time after th 
 Senate had called up the said bill, some of the members came to me and wished me to go for him, an 
 persuade him to take his seat. 1 informed them that he had promised to be there, and if lie did not a| 
 pear betbre the vote was called, I would go for him. But he soon after appeared and voted for llie bill 
 I state this transaction more ])articular!y, as I have heard that it has been represented that Judge Phcli 
 liad been disposed to withhold his vote, and it was only by the extraordinary exertions of some of ll 
 other Senators that he did attend. 
 
 While I was at Washington, I never saw Judge Phelps drink but one solitary glass of wine, and r 
 distilled spirits at all. I never saw him when I supposed he had been using any; nor do I believe 1 
 was in the habit of using .spirits privately, during the time I was at Washington. That his intercour. 
 ^vilh the Senators was civil and courteous ; and that to my knowledge he had many firm friends in tl 
 Senate. I am, gentlemen, very respccifully, yours, SAMUEL C. CRAFl'S 
 
 No. 31. — flon. Samuel C. Crnfla, of J'lrmo^xl. 
 
 CRAFTs^iiRY, December ^3, l^!4. 
 
 Hon. Sami'EL S. P«elps, — Dr;ir Sir : Your favor of the 9lh inst^mt has been duly received, and I lal 
 
 •great pleasure in complying with your request. I fortunately kept a copy of my communication to tl 
 
 .committee of the Senate, .and of course am enabled to give you the particulars of that statement, a cop 
 
 of which is enclosed. Upon its delivery 1 requested the committee, when they had read it, to return 
 
 .lo me ; this, however, was never done. When I attended the Whig Convention, I did it at the reque 
 
 ■of a member who al.-^o introduced me to the coiiveiilion. I was requested to inform the meeiing what 
 
 had observed in relation to your general conduct while I was at Wasliingion. I replied, that havii 
 
 given a statement in writing, which I presumed had been laid before the convcntioD, I would prefer ' 
 
 -iinswer such intpiiries ns any gentleman )>resent might be disposed lo make. I was then a.'jke 
 
 whether you answered lo the tirst call of your name on the passage of the tariff bill. I gave it as ir 
 
 impre.ssion that you did ; that I saw you when vou came into the Senate, and that you were in your sc 
 
 when you answered. 1 was then informed that Governor Sladc had said that l»c was present w hen tl 
 
 • Gov. Crafts has ooiifimndfil tlie billwliicli pa«sp(l on ilio 5Ih of An^Hst. commonly cnlletl thr <• little tarilT," willi tl 
 prescnl law, which was pu^8llri onthn'JTth. What hi' KtMet^ lirrr orrurrofl on thi' ,"lh. whfn 1 'Was nnwcll.and not on tl 
 .'Tlh, when it appears from all the Instlmonyllial I was present rliinnj tlif <iRV. 'I'lierrror. Iiowrvnr, is not important. 'I't 
 material qiieiiiinn is, whether the ocriirrriici!.s stated by Mr. Sladc took pUcc. If Ihcy linl, it !» c^caicely p«>-ibli' th 
 •iiov. Cratts lihuuld ha\>c t>ecn ignorant of them. 
 
39 
 
 |i vote of the Senate was tuken, and wlien your nanip was called ; und iliat your nninc had been callrd 
 
 * three times before you answered. I replied, that if Governor Slade was in the Senate ("hamber at tlie 
 time, and was positive that such was the case, it might have been so ; but it was my impression that you 
 answered the first time your name was called after you had taken your seat. I slated inat, to my know- 
 ledge, you had nianilcsted as sincere a desire for the passage of an eHcctivc protective tariff as any other 
 
 1 member of our delegation. That during the discussion of the tariff in the House of Representatives, 
 jwe had frequent meetings for the purpose of securing adequate protection on wool, and that you were 
 1 present at all our meetings, and that our exertions were effectual so far as very materially to increase the 
 
 * amount of protection contained in the bill as reported. I was then asked whether I could see you dis- 
 ! tinctly from my seat. I then explained the location of our seats in the Senate Chamber, and showing 
 
 ! that there was nothing to prevent my seeing and hearing you distinctly. IVIr. Hale afterwards stated to 
 I the meeting, that he was in the gallery at the time the vote was taken — saw you and IVIr. Conrad come 
 j into the Senate, and was very positive you answered at the first call of your name. I was asked why I 
 had solicited you to leave Brown's, and seek other quarters. 1 informed them that, on my arrival at 
 Washington, I found you temporarily boarding there — that it was not your intention to tarry tliere dur- 
 ing the hot weather — tliat we had together examined several boarding-houses on Capitol Hill, but found 
 none where we could both be accommodated to our minds at the same liouse, or we should have imme- 
 I diately left the Avenue. It was not that I saw anything to create a suspicion that you frequented the 
 i bar, for I saw nothing; but that I thought the Hill, being more airy, would be more healthy than the 
 ' Avenue during the summer montlis. I was then asked whether I had any knowledge of your using 
 ' wine or spiritous liquors freely- I answered that I had never, except on one occasion, seen you drink 
 either wine or spirits, and that was on a visit to the steam-frigate Missouri. After having been shown 
 I the ship, the captain invited us to the cabin, and asked us to take a glass of wine with him ; that you 
 took one glass, and I believe no more. I also stated that, soon after my arrival at Washington, you were 
 ! invited to dine with Lord Ashburton, where, to my knowledge, (having dined there afterwards,) wine 
 I was drank very freely. That you returned in good season, free from any apparent excitement, and gave 
 me a particular account of the company, the dinner, and the topics of conversation. I informed the con- 
 I vention, as there had been many different statements made, I was perfectly willing, if requested, to re- 
 I peat these same statements under oath. I do not recollect all the questions proposed ; but the above con- 
 tains the substance of them. 
 
 I remain, very sincerely, your friend, &c., SAMUEL C. CRAFTS. 
 
 t 
 
 ISo. 32. — Michael J.arner, doorkeeper of the Senate. 
 
 Washingtov, Febrttary ], 1845. 
 
 Sir : In answer to your communication of this date, in which you desire me to state, " whether I wa.s 
 
 doorkeeper at the time of the passage of the tariff act of 1842, and to state what my recollection of that 
 
 transaction is," I liave to .say, I did'keep the door at the south entrance to the Senate Chamber at the 
 
 time alluded to, and recollect distinctly that you were in your place in the Senate during the greater part 
 
 of the day. During the evening you passed out the south entran<;e two or three times, observing that it 
 
 was so warm m the Chamber that you wished to go out into the air. On coming into the Cliamber on 
 
 one occasion, it was thought the vote was about to be taken on the final passage of the bill ; but it was 
 
 I not, and the discussion was continued. You then came out of the Chamber, and remarked, that " you 
 
 were tired of the discussion, and would go." Immediately after you left the Chamber, the Hon. Mr. 
 
 I Woodbridge rose to address the Senate, and after he concluded his speech, the question was called for, 
 
 t and the yeas and nays demanded. Mr. Slade, of the House of Representatives, came to the door where 
 
 1 was standing, and asked me if I had seen Mr. Phelps pass out. I told him that he (Mr. Phelps) had 
 
 passed out a few minutes before. Mr. Conrad came to the door immediately after, and asked where Mr. 
 
 . Phelps was. I made the same reply to him that I made to Mr. Slade. He immediately passed out the 
 
 door, and in about five minutes Mr. Conrad and yourself returned to the Chamber, and gave your votes 
 
 for the passage of the bill. Mr. Slade is mistaken if he supposes that I informed him that Mr. Conrad, 
 
 of Louisiana, was in an ante-room endeavoring to persuade you to vole. Mr. Slade is also mistaken when 
 
 he says that I informed him that Mr. Conrad and Mr. Phelps had left the ante-room and gone to another 
 
 i part of the Capitol, and that he sent me in puisuit of tliem — tliai I found them, and they returned. I did 
 
 I not go in pursuit of you ; it was Mr. Conrad who went for you, as I have before observed. 
 
 The above is a true statement of what occurred on the night of the passage of the tariff act of 1842,. 
 as far as you were concerned. Respectfully, yours, 
 
 Hon. S. S. Phelps. MICHAEL LARNER. 
 
 No. 33.—/.. //. Machen, Clerk of the Senate. 
 
 Office of the Secretary of the Sexate, February 6th, 1845. 
 
 Sir: In reply to your note, requesting me to state the circumstances, to the best of my recollection, 
 attending the calling the yeas and nays on the passage of the tariff act of 1342, and especially as to an 
 alleged liesitation or refusal to answer to your name when called, I have to state — 
 
 1st. That although I find, upon a reference to the original list of ayes and noes, taken on an engrossing 
 •he amendments to the tariff bill, the 27th of August, 1S42, that they were called and recorded by me, \ 
 have no recollection of any unusual circimistance whatever attending the transaction. 
 
 2d. That in the pertbrmance of my official duties, as a clerk in the office of the Secretary of the Senate, 
 I have Ijcen in the nabit for several years past of taking minutes of the proceedings of the Senate in tlieir 
 
Jegislaiivr caparity, making fuU lin? journal l-1 tiic Si .-, ■ k.: ihc rt-vi.sion oi ilie i-M'--!f:;a;y, and railing 
 iiainrs olllie S'tnulois, wli<;never llie voles have br.en taken in a Irgislaiive session, by ayes and n 
 ihai 1 know of no member of the Senate who lias an.swcred with more promptness t)r distinctness to 
 call when made, than yourself; and that your position on the lloor is nearly in front of ilie Secreta 
 table; I have no diftiiulty whatever in hearing add recordin;^ your vote. 
 
 3d. That in calling the names of Senators, I have considered it proper, when no response h?s 1 
 made, or heard, to rail the second time, except in cases of kn<'wn Eickness or absence, when the nan 
 called but once. After the call is over, the state of the vote is ascerU'Jned, and the list is handed to 
 presiding; officer of the Senate, who announces the result. Should any Senator, desire to vote aftci 
 name ha.s been once pa-ssed, he rise.s in his place, addresses the President of the Senate, or requests 
 Secretary to call his lame. But it has not been the practice in the Senate for the Secretary or any 
 acting in his stead to repeat the call of any Senator, al'ter tiie names have been pa.osed over in alphabe 
 order, unless the Senator himself should so request. The duty of the Secretary ends when the call 
 been made, the votes counted, and the list handed to the presiding officer, and it would be regards 
 presume, as an official impropriety if he endeavored by repeated calls to increase the aggregate vo 
 either the one side or the other; and this impropriety would be the more reprehensible anj glarin 
 proportion to the importance of the subject, and as the affirmative luid negative votes approaches 
 equal division. I have the honor to be, your obedient servant, 
 
 Hon. S.VMIEL S. Phei-ps. ' L. H. MACHEI 
 
 No. 34. — Mr. Cranston (o Governor Slmle. 
 
 NFwponT, Oclober 23, ISA 
 Dear Sir : I have yours of the 18th instant, requesting me to state my recollection of calling on yt 
 relation to the vijti; of Senator Plieljis on the tariff question. 
 
 I very well recollect that on the day of the fmal passage of the tarilTact of 1842, in the Senate, I b 
 <onver.sation with Judge Phelps in the Senate Chamner, and was surprised to hear him declare thi 
 would not vote for the bill, and that it would be lost. I did not believe he would vote against it, or 
 witlihold his vote, and yet 1 felt alarmed for the fate of the bill from the emphatic manner in whic 
 spoke of withholding his vote. I immediately called on you at Mr. Sj^riggs, and stated what had pt 
 between Jud?c Phelps and mj'self, and requested you to go to the Senate Chamlier and see him. 
 went immediately tn (he Senate Chamber, and found that Mr. Phelps was not in his seat, but learned 
 lie was with one of the Senators in the ante-room. While the Secretary was calling the ayes and 
 on the bill. Judge Phelps came into the Senate and voted for the bill, and it passed by one major 
 whether he answered at the first call of his name or not, I cannot distinctly recollert. 
 
 In ereat haste, vfcc. 11. B. CRAXSTO 
 
 Extract of a letter from J/r. Crmislon to S. S. Plulps, dated December 15th, 1^44. 
 
 "In answer, I have to sivy, tlm' all I have said or written in relation to your vote on the tarif 
 of 1842, is contained in my letter to Gov. Slade, (a copy of which I herewith rnclose you,] in ans« 
 his letter to nic, dated Oclober 18th, 1844, in which he appeal.s to me to confirm or deny mIkiI h 
 stated in relation to the nassngc of the larifl'. I have only to add, and I do it with pleasure, that < 
 occasion before or since that day, did I ever see or hear anything in your conduct that indicated a ft 
 of hostility, or even indifference, towards that importan tnicasure; hut, on the contrary, on all other 
 sions you'apiieared as anxious for its success as any other member." 
 
 I am, &c. ■ 11. B. CRANSTO 
 
 jS'oTE. — As to what Mr. Slade '• learned" it is evident Mr. Cranston knew nothing, except wh 
 derived from Mr. Slade himself. There is nothing else in the letter except my supposed dedarati 
 Mr. C, which is given nalted and unconnected with anything which might .<;erve to explain it — an 
 timony of an isolated declaration without the conversation which led to or followed it, is never reg 
 as sjitisfactory. When Mr. C. comes to consider that this declaration is utterly inconsistent, as he 
 both with my previous and subsequent conduct — that he had no sooner got Mr. Slade there than I 
 in and voted for the bill of my own accord, without any conference with Mr. Slade, and when he con 
 learn that not a word was uttered or tlioutrht necessary l)y any one to persuade me to vote for it — tk 
 this story of my being closeted with Mr. Conrad is a mistake, and that no member of the Scnati 
 heard of'iny thrcat.s to withhold my vote, he will be satisfied, I think, that he mistook my meaning 
 gether in what he heard, and that he has done me injustice, not only in his premature aiid hasty : 
 ieniaiion of the story, but still greater in putting the story into such ears. 
 
 Liit nfayes and noes on the pasxage of the tariff act, .higust U7. 1842. 
 
 AvF.s. — Mes.?rs. Barrow, Bales, Bayard, Buchanan,* Choate, Conrad. Crafu:, Crittenden, Dt 
 Evans, Huntington, Miller, Morchead,"Phelps, Porter, Simmons, Smith, of Indiana, Sprague, Sturf 
 Tallma.l-e, While, Williams,' Woodbridge, Wright'~24. 
 
 NoEs.--.Mcsrs. Allen, Archcr.t Bagby, Benton. B''.rrien,t Cfdhoun, Clayton,^ Cuthbert, Fulton, 
 h.iiTi,t HenderMon.t Kin", Linn, Mangum.f Merrick,! PrcPton,1 Rives, t Sfv'c-, 9> -N n'' <^r.n— * 
 Tuppan, Walker, Woodbury, Young — 23. 
 
 nmiooiHl' t Whig? 
 
 89 w 
 

 
 
 
 
 lO 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 ..^^ 
 
 
 
 *>t 
 
 O 
 
 ,*^'... 
 
 
 '^ 
 
 -^ v 
 
 v^-S 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 .C" 
 
 
 \\ ^.-^ /4i 
 
 ^y " " " * <^>, 
 
 -^a^ :^ 
 
 ^^ * 
 
 ,0' 
 
 ^^■'-v. 
 
 o V 
 
 S^t. 
 
 <^. 
 
 
 v'^:. 
 
 % ■ 
 
 "v/'H^ 
 
 ''^^^ 
 
 
 ^% 
 
 ^o 
 
 "oV" 
 
 A^ 
 
 ^HO. 
 
 
 
 '-oil 
 
K^ 
 
 
 wo y--^^ V 
 
 '^. •--' >s.°' 
 
 
 
 ♦ ^y 
 
 L» «<» • 
 
 
 ^-^^■i^ 
 
 '^ 
 
 v^, 
 
 ^b 'o, » • A 
 
 
 A' 
 
 ^-"^ A^^ 
 
 V 
 
 ^o - 
 
 y ' 
 
 
 
 
 • •• 
 
 V" 
 
 Jb^ i*^ 
 -^v^^ 
 
 C*-'2^\„ " 
 
 o > 
 
 
 •^.. A^"" *'^ 
 
 .,^- • • 
 
 *0 ,-> 
 
 % 
 
 ■i^ 
 
 ^"d' V 
 
 ^: 
 
 <v?a" 
 
 '^x-. V 
 
 WERT BQOKBINDTNG 
 
 JAN '^'issg 
 
 Graniviilc, I'A 
 
 'a . t • 
 
 *H 
 
 b V 
 
 "O"' 
 
 
 •.^ 
 
 ,«iv' 
 
 
 o * 
 
 -J.^ 
 
 
 ^<e. 
 
 
 « . 
 
 
 
 / -'^^ '^-^^ •.'==^^<»' ^h^ o. '>^ii^.'