Class Book 33b / SPEECH MR, ASHMUN, OF MASSACHUSETTS, IN REPLY TO THE ATTACK OF C.J. INGERSOLL UPON DANIEL WEBSTER. Delivered in the House of Representatives of the U. S., April 27, 1846. Mr. Ingersoll, having obtained leave of the House to' make a personal explanation, pro- ceeded to read a repetition of liis charges against Mr. Webster. After he had concluded, Mr. AsHMUN asked leave to reply, but objection being made, the Speaker put the question upon granting leave, and it was decided in the affirmative— Yeas 125, nays 22: jd Mr. ASHMUN then proceeded as follows : Mr. Speaker: I thank the House for the emphatic vote just taken. I was very confident that the member of this House were too just, as well as too gen- erous, to deny me the liberty of a reply, after the repeated, deliberate, and cold- blooded ebullitions which the member from Pennsylvania had been permitted to exhibit on this floor. [The Speaker called Mr. A. to order.] I presume, Mr. Speaker, that it has been perfectly in order for the member '''from Pennsylvania to employ the most abusive epithets while he has been speak- ing, and even while reading- from a carefully written paper, attacks upon an ab- sent gentleman, and that gentleman a distinguished member of the United States iSenate ; and it would be a litde extraordinary if I may not enjoy any similar latitude in reply. « [The Speaker said it was not in the power of the Chair to decide as to ques- tions of order as to personalities between a gentleman present and another who IS absent ; but as between members present it was his duty to preserve decorum in debate, and he should discharge it.] Mr. AsHMUN resumed. I shall endeavor to keep myself stricdy w^ithin the ^rules, but I shall also discharge my duty. I was saying, when interrupted, that "[ had entire contidence that, after the repeated, deliberate, and premeditated as- saults which the member from Pennsylvania had made against the Senator from fiiy own State, the House would neither be so unjust or ungenarous as to refuse m opportunity of reply. The House and the whole country ha'^e been both surprised and morlitied at the scenes which have recently been acted upon this Hfloor. The House had, upon many occasions, been denounced in various quar- ^„ters of the Union for the violations of good taste and good manners which are "exhibited here in debate, and in the conducting of its business. But upon the present occasion an oflence has been committed against higher obligations than those either of good taste or good manners. It is a mortifying and mournful spectacle to see this Hall converted into a theatre for these repeated and gross vituperations. Instead of being a Hall for deliberation upon public interests, it is made the vehicle of slander, and especially of slander against the characters of the most meritorious and distinguished public men of the nation. One would have supposed that the member from Pennsylvania had lived to a sufficient age, and had been long enough in pablic life, to have learnt, in some measure, to ap- J. & G. S. Gideon_. printers, %^ predate the value of reputation to a public man. And is it not astonishing that, without any apparent adequate motive or provocation, he sliould make such re- peated, deliberate, and persevering attempts, not in the warmth of debate, but in M'riting, with premeditation, to destroy the fame of a man who has long served his country in the most distinguished and responsible stations of the Govern- ment — a fame that is the common property and common pride of his country- men ? AVhat possible motive, which can prompt an honorable man, can be ima- gined for this course \ If tliis attack had been made by a young, ambitious mem- ber, who sought distinction to himself by assailing those who are far above him, there might be some semblance, if not of excuse or of palliation, yet of motive of some kind, for the act. But what motive, what palliation, can be pleaded or imagined for a member who has been so long in public life as the author of these slanders \ The member has informed the House that it was upwards of thirty years since lie first met Mr. Webster in this House. From that day to this has he received from him the slightest cause of personal offence? When or where? I appeal to the House, 1 appeal to the nation and the world, whether ]Mt. Webster, in his speeches, in all his many and great speeches, has not been wholly and entirely free from personalities ? He had never been guilty of the least act or word which could have been possibly construed into an oflence against the member from Pennsylvania, unless, possibly, there might be one which is rankling deep in his breast — the unpardonable sin of having let him alone ! of having never taken the least notice of him ! It may be, that a clear insight into the member's character may have induced Mr. Webster to have as little to do with him as possible. To some minds this would have been the deepest sting; and whether this is the solution of the course which the member has pursued, I leave others to judge. Why, then, Mr. Speaker, was it, that, on the 9th of February last, when the attention of the House was engrossed with the consideration of great and grave questions, involving the prospects of peace and war, as connected with the Ore- gon question, and when that member, as chairman of the Committee of Foreign Aftairs, was, by courtesy, permitted to close the debate — why did he, I ask, at such a time, instead of making a dignified, statesmanlike reply to those who had preceded him, and opposed the resolution which he had introduced, volun- teer to go entirely out of his way to make a personal attack upon an absent man — an attack wholly unconnected with the subject in hand, and in the course of which he put forth, gratuitously, the most injurious assertions and insinuations, all of which have been since proved to be utterly false and unfounded? What motive, what palliation, or shadow of excuse, can be alleged or imagined for such conduct ? Mr. Speaker, the member from Pennsylvania told us tliat he first met Mr. Webster in public life in this House thirty-three years ago. I should have thought that this allusion would have recalled recollections that should have made^ the member pause, hesitate, and tremble, before he ventured upon this course ot vituperation and slander! Does not the member's conscience at once point to an occurrence in that Congress which, one would think, should liave admonished him never again to assail a highminded and honorable man with his malignant slanders ? Does not the remembrance of that Congress bring to his mind the name of a genUenian of the highest talent and intelligence, the most exalted standing and attainments, the most chivalrous honor, and the purest principles, who then represented the State of New Jersey? Need I remind him of the name of Stockton? That noble and highminded man was slandered to his face, and openly falsified in this Hall ; and can it be possible that the member has forgotten the terrible relribution that followed — the "scarifying process" which was then so memorably inflicted upon the shinderer? Tradition tells, to this day, of the withering, scathing, blasting torrent of eloquence which injured and in- dignant virtue, in the presence of the House, poured upon the author of the cal- umny, until, unable longer to endure the agony that was consuming him, the man who had uttered the base libel left his seat, and went out of the Hall crying like a whipped school-boy. I should have thought that this punishment, which so immediately followed the crime, would have proved a sufficient warning against the commission of a similar offence. One effect it has had. The les- son has not, it seems, been wholly thrown away; it has served to teach him never again to make his slanderous attacks in the presence of the individual slander- ed! And I agree with my colleague, (Mr. Adams,) that the member from Penn- sylvania would not have ventured to make the assault in the presencetof Mr. Webster. No, sir; he would sooner have bitten off his own tongue than to dare to suffer it to utter what it has, if that gentleman had been present to hear and reply. But he is not here ; and for any immediate defence against remarks, however injurious and false, he must depend upon the feeble eftorts of his triends in this Hall, and his own well-established fame. The long life of the member from Pennsylvania has been remarkably distin- guished for his slanderous attacks upon the first and purest men in the nation. The ruling passion again manifested itself in the case of another of the most ir- reprochable and incorruptible men of modern times — I refer to the late Chief Justice Marshall, against whom, and the associate judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, he made the charge of corruption in the decision macle by those judges sustaining the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States. It was imputed to them that they were influenced by pecuniary personal in- terests, by reason of owning stock in that bank, and Chief Justice Marshall was compelled to resort to the humiliation of making a formal denial of the foul im- putation through the columns of the public press. The same habit of vitupera- tion and slander seems still to burn brightly in the breast of the member. Age throws no chill upon it ; and neither shame, repentance, nor remorse gives hope of change. The honorable member, the other day, with a boldness, and an apparent, I might almost say an audacious simplicity, which I have never seen surpassed, remarked, " that among all the hard things which had been said of him, he never knew his truth to be called in question!" He must, indeed, be very blind, or very deaf, or both, to have spoken this sincerely. Does he not know, does not this House know, does not all the world know, that his truth in preferring these charges is the very thing which is called in question ? When he has again and again breathed out his aspersions against the greatest and best men of the coun- try, the first question which every man who loves his country has put, is this : " Is it true?'' But if he has been so unfortunate as not to know in what esti- mation his truthfulness is held— if he has not heard it called in question hitherto, he must prepare himself to hear it now, in a manner that will leave no room for mistake. Sir, in what character and position does the member from Pennsylvania stand before the House and the nation ? He is at once the accuser of Mr. Webster and the tvitness I And as he has taken upon himself to prefer tlie charges, and offer himself as the witness to prove them, it becomes important to inquire and consider who this accuser is, and what is the character of this witness. He has proposed to bring into this House, from the secret and confidential recesses of the State Department, certain memoranda of documents and records which he avers to exist there; and he asks us to take his statement of them upon his per- sonal veracity — his truthfulness— (or he offers no other evidence. Whether such documents or records exist — whether a fair or a garbled account of them has been given to this House — how mucli is fiction, and how much is fact — all this we must take upon his veracity. Now the member has given us, upon dif- ferent occasions, his version of what he professes to have found in the archives of the State Department. AVhat have the House before them on the other side? The President of the United States, in answer to a solemn call for these very- records, has, in a message to this House, declared that they are deposited under a seal of secrecy and confidence which was too sacred for him to break, even at the requisition of the House of Representatives. But the member from Penn- sylvania, with a boldness which is unparalleled, rises here in his place and does not blush to say to the House, that although the secrecy of the Department was too sacred foi the President to invade and violate, yet that this member has found a way to get at them, and he reads to the House a statement which he asks us to belief is a true and impartial account of them ! And we are asked to take all this upon the solid and impregnable ground of the personal veracity of the hon- orable member from Pennsylvania. Is it not then important to inquire who and what this witness is? What, sir, is the history of the transaction of which this is part ? On the 9th day of February, to which I have before alluded, the member from Pennsylvania brought before this House several specific and distinct charges against Mr. Web- ster. He did this in a most imposing manner — with an ominous shake of the head, a solemn gravity of countenance, and a signiticant pointing of the finger, that was well calculated to produce the impression that he perfecdy understood what he was saying, and was ready to meet the responsibility which the state- ment might impose upon him. The charges which he made were as follows, viz : '• Out of this controversy arose the arrest of Alex. McLeod. What he intended to state now- consisted of facts not yet generally known, but which would soon be made known, for they were in progress of publication, and he had received them in no confidence, from the best au- thority. When AIcLeod was arrested, Gen. Harrison had just died, and Mr. Tyler was not yet at home as his successor. Mr. Webster — who was de facto the administration — Mr. Web- ster wrote to the governor of New York, witli his own hand, a letter, and sent it by express, marked "private," in which the governor was told that he must release McLeod, or see the magnificent commercial emporium laid in ashes. The brilliant description given by the gentle- man from Virginia of the prospective destruction of that city in the case of war, was, in a mea- sure, anticipated on this occasion. McLeod must be released, said the Secretary of State, or New York must he laid in ashes. The governor asked when this would be done? The reply was, forthnntk. Do you not see coming on the waves of the sea the Paixhanguns? — and if McLeod be not released, New York will be destroyed. But, said the governor, the power of pardon is vested in me, and even if he be convicted, he may be pardoned. Oh, no, said the sec- retary, if you even try him you will bring destruction upon yourselves. The governor was not entirely driven from his course by this representation. The next step taken by the administra- tion was to appoint a district attorney, who was' to be charged with the defence of Alexander McLeod — the gentleman who was lately removed from oflice — and a fee of five thousand dol- lars was put into his hands for the purpose." These, it will be seen, are distinct allegations; but they are all false — false in the detail, and false in the aggregate ! It was true that a letter was sent by Mr. W. to the Governor of New York, but it contained no such matter as the mem- ber averred.* But it is not true that ''Gen. Harrison had just died, and Mr, 'The following is an exact copy of the only letter sent by Mr. Webster to Gov. Seward marked "p-iya that important question. But it is only important to examine this assertion as to its '' truth." Mr. Webster has denied it, saying that he had no recollectioa of having written any such note. The journal of that committee had been pro- duced here, and contained no proof of it, and the chairman of that committee had denied ail recollection of having received any such note ; and he also says that it would probably have appeared upon the journal, if any such written commu- nication had been made. It is probably true that a verbal conversation did take place between Mr. Webster and Mr, Adams and Mr. Gushing, on this subject — and, so far as this went, I most cheerfully admit that, in substance, the statement may be considered as true— but there was no writing. And this circumstance reminds me of the anecdote of the Indian who came one day to a farmer's house, determined in some way to make sure of a drink at the farmer's expense. Know- ing that the farmer was rather surly and tight-fisted, the Indian told him that he had just come across a brook, and that near a large white oak tree which stood in the bend, there was a noble deer, quietly feeding. He demanded a diam as pay lor the inibrraation, which the farmer readily gave him ; and the latter snatched his rifle and ran ofi' in pursuit of the deer; but no deer, or track of one was to be found. He came back, and charged the Indian with deception. " Did you not see the bend in the brook ?" said the Indian. " Yes." " Did you not cee the tree?" "Yes — but no deer." " Well," answered the Indian, "there are two truths to one lie, and that is pretty well for Indian!" The member had hardly come 'ip to the Indian's mark, although it would not be parliamentary for me to apply the word "lie" — Mr. B. Martin called to order. The Speaker said to Mr. Martin, that it was dlfhcult for the Chair to decide what language was or was not in order, as the House, in allowing personal ex- planations, had suspended all rules ; and the Chair has already required the gen- tleman from Mass. not to indulge in unparliamentary language. Mr. AsKMUN, resuming. I was about to say, and did say, that I did not apply that term to the member from Pa., because it would be unparliamentary to do so. His were mistakes ; and if he has spoken one accuracy to five mistakes, it is pretty well for him. Well, Mr. Speaker, these charges thus uttered on Feb. 9th, were all denounced by Mr. AVebster as false, and proved to be false ! What next did the gentleman.; from Pa. attempt to do ? Did he attempt to prove them ? No ! Did he retract them ? No ! But he informs the House that he went to the State Department in search of further materials. It was very natural, if, as he says, he has the free run of that Department, that he should go there ; and, following the bent of his inclination, he should make further strenuous efforts which would enable him, with greater show of evidence, again to traduce Mr. Webster. The result of these further researches was manifested by the production of a new series of charges which he brought and read here on the 9th of April, and of which he has to-day given us a new and more detailed edition, also reduced to writing. And now, sir, the first question which comes before the House and the nation — and it is highly important in enabling us to judge of the accuser and witness — the first question is, by what means, fair or foul, has this pretended information been extracted from the secret archives of the State Department? Again, I ask, by what means has iliis been accomplished ? Why, sir, this House, at the motion of the member himself, made a formal and solemn call upon the President to furnish us with this very information as to the expenditure of the secret service fund. The President, after much deliberation, has sent us an elaborate message, explicitly refusing to comply with the c^ll. The President has stated, that the Constitution and the laws, and the oath which he had taken, forbade him to ex- pose to any eye these secret srchives. He said that there was "a seal of confi- dence" upon them which he could not break, and which this House could not require him to break, unless it might possibly be in the case of an impeachment^ and he has given very satisfactory reasons why this secrecy should not be vio- lated. And yet, after all this, the member from Pennsylvania has stood up here in his place, and, with a boldness truly astonishing, proclaimed to the House that he has been prowling there: that he has knowledge of every thing relating to this subject; and that he got there all the information Avhich he has communi- cated to this House ! Now, I want to know how he got there ? The Pres- ident tells us that these records are under a seal of confidence and secrecy. Who broke that seal ? The member specially exempts the President and the Secre- tary of State. I exempt them. I have no idea that honorable men would have any thing to do witli such a transaction; that they would so far violate their per- sonal honor and public duty ! No, it was some underling that has been the base pander upon this occasion. No honorable man would thus sufler himself to be made use of. Who, then, is it that has furnished him with the key that has opened the locks ? Or had he one of his own in his pocket ready for use ? Or did he pick the locks, and break into secret archives which the President did not dare to enter I Who is the guilty agent ? If the gentleman does not reveal him, the responsibility of the whole thing must rest upon himself. Has any one else been pointed out? Has the guilty clerk been driven out of office for this great breach of ronfidonce I Has the gentleman, as a member of the Administration party, communicated to the Executive the name of the foul agent, in order that he may be jusdy punished ? No! nothing of tliis kind has been done! He takes the responsibiliiy of the whole affair upon himself — he chooses to shield his confederates, if any there were. It rests upon him. And yet the gentleman stated this mornin?, that these documents are in the keeping of one of the clerks. Dare he rise in Ins" place and state who that clerk is, and whether he has been a party in this business ? No ! He admits, then, that he has broken in and enter- ed where tiic President, without violating his oath, cannot do; and where even a call of the House cannot justify him in going! This is the manner in whicli the accuser and witness confesses that he obtained his materials ! There was an expression in the account wliich he has given of this discovery that struck me forcibly. He savs, that while searching in the Department for certain matters, 'no my i^r eat ainazement, I came upon other papers,'' &,c. Again, he says, "1 fell most unexpectedly upon others," &Lc. This descriptive language cannot but bring to the mind the idea of a man who has feloniously broken into a house \n the darkness of night, and who, while groping round and searching for plun- der of one description, to his ''great amazement" stumbles upon other that is more valuable, upon which he grasps and decamps— perhaps setting fire ^to the house in the hope that the confusion may cover his retreat. The member's con- duct seemed so stealthlike — Mr. Chipmax called to order. Mr. AsHMUN said he was perfecdy in order. The member from Pennsylvania has described the ma7i7ier in which, to his amazement, he had stumbled on the information, and I am merely attempting to give the graphic figure a little more life and coloring. Mr. Martin spoke to order, but the point was not pressed. Mr. AsHMCN resuming. This, then, is the history of the witness and accuser, as connected with this transaction. I make no further comment upon it uow, as there is matter of more importance to which I desire to call the attention oi the House. It is by these means that he avows before the world, that he has been enabled to utter the accusations against the distinguished Senator from Massa- chusetts. Let us now look a little farther into his history, in order to judge ol his credibility in relation to these accusations. He has brought an express charge, among others, that Mr. Webster had appropriated the public money to his own personal use, and had gone out of office a defaulter. Sir, the member from Pennsylvania, is the last man, if the public records show the truth, the very last man, who, I should suppose, should venture upon stirring up an inquiry into official peculations! I repeat it, I should have supposed that he would be the last man to charge another with the private use of public money! If memory had not lost its power, the records of Congress, one would have thought, would h..ve stared him in the face, and would have palsied his tongue in attempting to speak of the improper use of public money by a man in office. It may be possible — is it so ?— that this course had been taken to withdraw men's recollections and attention from his own delinquency, by making extravagant al- legations about the alleged peculations of others! The member from Pennsyl- vania had himself once held a public office under this Government. He had continued to hold it until he was turned out of it for official peculation by Gen. Jackson, within the very first month of his accession to the Presidency, ' Mr. Hopkins here rose to order, insisting that it was not in order to go into charges of peculation which had their origin as far back as the administration of Gen. Jackson. The Speaker replied that the House had tolerated similar charges when made by the gendeman from Pennsylvania, and ruled Mr. Ash.mun in order, as they were acting under a suspension of the rules. Mr. Hopkins appealed from this decision, and a debate ensued upon the ques- tion of order, in which Mr. Schenck, Mr. Bayly, Mr. Adams, Mr. Went- wouTH, and the Speaker, took part. Mr. TiBBATs moved to lay the appeal on the table, and demanded the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and being taken stood as follows, viz: yeas 90, nays 67. So the appeal was laid on the table, and Mr. Ashmun declared to be in order. Mr. Ashmun resuming. I had stated just before the interruption that the House must judge of the truth and weight of the accusation and testimony from the character and conduct of the accuser and witness, inasmuch as the' whole rested upon his testimony. I had remarked that he had been himself a public officer, and was dismissed by General Jackson immediately after he came to the Presidency, for abuses connected with the management of public funds. Every one will remember the pledge which President Jackson gave in his inaugural address to reform all such abuses. That member then held the office of district attorney for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, and one of the very first acts of General Jackson's administration was to reform that member out of office, and for the reasons already stated. I hold in my hand the volume of Executive documents of the first session of Congress 1839-'40, which contains a full and minute history of the transactions to which I allude. His term of office was four years. It would have expired in February 1830, and he had consequently less than a year of official life remaining when General Jackson came into office on the 4th of March, 1829. But so keenly did the old General scent out this iniquity, and whatever else may be said of him, no one ever doubted his charac- ter in this respect, that his honest indignation would not allow this person to remain in office for even that short remnant of time. He turned him out imme- diately, and appointed Mr. Dallas in his place. But, nevertheless, although he was removed in April, 1829, his official accounts were not closed, and the bal- ances due to the Government paid until 1839, ten years afterwards! Sir, in 1836, a suit was commenced against him in behalf of the United States, to re- cover the amounts due from him. He had been reported at the proper depart- ment as a defaulter, and he had presented a long list of enormous charges to affect the claim of tise Government. These charges were disallowed by the accounting officers of the Treasury. A suit was finally commenced in 1836, to recover the balance chimed, amounting to $37,000. To meet this claim he filed an account in offset, which contains items as monstrous as official eyes ever saw. The suit came to trial in the spring of 1837, and after all his efforts, with all the means which he had or could obtain to sustain him, a judgment was rendered against him amounting to $3,985.64, almost $4,000. This judg- ment was for the balance due the United States, recovered about May 1st, 1837, and yet the amount remained unpaid for nearly two years. The first payment was in March 17, 1838, of about 81,800, and the next and last was January 19, 1839. Then the balance being over $2,130 was paid. Thus it will be seen, ten years after he was removed from office by General Jackson, and two years after judgment was recovered against him, the account was finally closed ! Now, I say, if any gentleman will take the trouble — and I think that every one should, so that the whole public may know — to examine these documents, and investigate these accounts, they will find that he retained in his hands an immense amount of public money, and that when he was pressed to a suit he brought in by way of offset the most monstrous items of claim against the Go- vernment; and that, notwithstanding, a judgment was rendered against him by the court and jury, amounting to within a fraction of $4,000, and that he failed to satisfy tliat judgment for nearly two years after it was recovered ! How this famous account of his against the United States was made up, what was the character of his claims, may be learnt from these documents. It was a matter, much and publicly talked of at the time, and tradition still tells the story. One transaction disclosed in these documents deserves particular notice. It is that of the celebrated " Tea Cases," where the district attorney brought six hundred and fifty-four separate bills of indictment at one term of the court, and claimed separate bills of costs upon each. The grand jury under the advice and direction of the attorney returned these bills. There were two or three cargoes of tea. It was the duty of the district attorney to indict them, and one indictment against each cargo would have been sufficient for every purpose; be- cause if the law had been violated the whole cargo would have been forfeited. But instead of taking this course, he caused 654 separate indictments to be brought, for each parcel delivered at any one time. By this means the amount of costs was swelled to an enormous amount, ($3,814 80!) and claimed by the district attorney. Now, I know it may be said that this was all legal. It is true that Judge Hopkiiison finally allowed the claim, and his certificate is among the documents to that effect ; but he does also say in the certificate that the case is a novel one, and that '' it is apparent that great abuses mat/ 6e practised 6y an unnecessary and unreasonable accumulation of bills of in- dictment arising out- of the same transaction, and Congress may find it expe- dient to make some provision on the subject.'' So that while this practice was declared to be legal, it was pretty significandy denounced as an " abuse,'^ against the repetition of which Congress ought to provide. A large portion ot the claim, which the district attorney filed against the Government, consisted ot charges for " extra official services," as he saw fit to denominate them. These the Judge disallowed on the trial in the most emphatic manner, and the amount of his claim, $35,900, was reduced to $8,800, or to about one quarter part. Mr. J. R. Ingersoll, (brother of C. J.,) here interposed, and asked Mr. A. to yield him the floor, which Mr. A. said he would most cheerfully do. Mr. J. R. Lsgersoll then said : I regret the necessity which constrains me to take any part in this proceeding. From the beginning it has been the cause of much pain, and I have carefully refrained from every thing in connexion with it, except when duty has required me to give a vote. I have voted, and have done no more. In relation to the particular statement here made I am not at liberty to preserve silence. Thus far the controversy has been one in which my feelings of affectionate relationship were alone concerned. A different situation. is now created. I was counsel for the District Attorney in the suits with tha 10 United States. On the trial of the cause I was his only counsel. I know, Mr. Speaker, well know, the facts connected with the case. They were such as did not for a moment, that I have ever heard, excite a suspicion of official or person- al delinquency on the part of the individual concerned in them. He had long held the office of district attorney. Very large sums of money had, during a course of years, passed through his hands. It Avas interesting to himself, and, as might be supposed, scarcely less interesting to the Government, that his ac- count should be setded. He endeavored repeatedly, and for a length of time, to brine about a settlement. His eflorts were fruitless, no adjustment was made. He could not, in the nature of things, bring a suit against the Government, or otherwise compel what he so anxiously desired and sought. He, therefore, with the advice of counsel, gave notice to the proper department that he had some funds in his hands, and that he would require a suit to be brought against him as the only means of eflecting a final setdement ; and that, in the mean time, the fund should be invested for the benefit of the United States. An account of items was exhibited, amounting to more than a million of dollars, which he had officially received, and he was required to exhibit vouchers for the payment of them to the proper authority. He did so with entire clearness, and to the satis- faction of the judge and jury. The conduct of the district attorney during the whole transaction, in m) estimation, was perfectly honorable, and never, that I recollect, until this moment, heard a suggestion from any quarter to the contrary. It has been in a collateral manner only — one known especially to myself — that I have felt myself at liberty and under obligation to interpose. It is my intention,, from motives that will meet with an unhesitating response, motives of peculiar delicacy, to refrain, as much as possible, in the future, as I have done in the past, from taking any part in this controversy. Mr. AsHMUN resumed. I yielded the floor with the utmost cheerfulness to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, whose near relation to the other gentleman from Pennsylvania entitled him to be heard. And his high and honorable character also entitles him to instant and unquestioning credit as to any matter of fact which he may think it proper for him to state. But, how far his opinions upon this subject, considering the delicate and double relation, having, it seems, been counsel in the case, I leave it for the House to judge. He has not denied any statement which I have made. I agree that the documents do show that the dis- trict attorney did, more than once, urge that a suit should be commenced ; but did not the result of that suit show that the officer who had been reported a de- faulter was so to the amount of nearly $4,000 ? The honorable gentleman, who has just taken his seat, has given to this House his opinion that the whole course of the attorney in those transactions was honorable ! That may be his opinion,, but I do not think it will be assented to. I put it to the House to say, and the world to judge, whether it was honorable to bring 654 bills of indictment to ac- cumulate costs, when three or four would have accomplished every purpose of public justice? Mr. C. J. Ingersoll, (in his seat.) Did you read the printed testimony in that document ? Mr. AsHMux. I did. It consists of a certificate of two persons who had been- students in the attorney's office at the time, and also a certificate signed by the foreman of the grand jury, both of them dated some two years after the transac- tion. For what purpose were they obtained, if the conduct of the district attorney was free from suspicion, and not called in question ? But every lawyer knows that the grand jury, in relation to matters of this kind, is instructed, counselled, and directed by the district attorney. In matters of form, as to the nature, num- ber, and sufficiency of the indictments, he in fact controls. I ask, then, that upon these facts, which are beyond dispute, the House shall give just so muck 11 weight to the opinions which we have heard as they may think proper. I can- not doubt as to the judgment which the workl will pronounce. But, Mr. Speaker, let me ask further, if the conduct of this officer was so cor- rect and honorable, if it was never before called in question, why was it that on the accession of General Jackson to the Presidency he immediately tumbled him out of office in the manner before described ? This democrat — thus pure and un- suspected ! Why was the searching operation of reform so summarily applied to him ? The plain answer is, that General Jackson had scented out the abuse ; and his keen sagacity at once lighUy appreciated the Avhole case. Now, sir, it is by such a person, and under the circumstances which I have before stated, that these charges against Daniel Webster have been brought. They are charges of peculation, of personal and fraudulent use of public money,, and of having been removed from office and found a defaulter. What proof, or shadow of proof, has been produced to substantiate these accusations ? None.. They all rest upon the assertion of the member himself alone, unsupported by any thing. Mr. Webster has, in the most emphatic manner, pronounced them to he false. The only proof which the member from Pennsylvania has this morning brought us, is a repetition of his own assertions. I pronounce them FALSE, and there is not a particle of proof to sustain them. The member has this morning undertaken to assert that the secret service fund was taken by Mr. Webster into his own possession. This, again, rests upon his own assertion. But it is simply and entirely impossible. It is not only not true, but, in the na- ture of things, cannot be true. The whole fund is under the control of the Pre- sident, and not one dollar of it can be touched except by his order, or upon his certificate. I noticed the little by-play between the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Bayly,) and the member from Pennsyvania, and 1 understood it very well. It was very transparent. The member from Pennsylvania sought very readily to exempt President Tyler from any knowledge or blame of the transaction. I un- derstand his purpose ; but I know equally well that Mr. Tyler has said, and is ready to say, that not a dollar of this fund was expended except by his direction and with his approbation. And I know, further, that insidious efforts had been made to induce Mr. Tyler to take ground in this matter against Mr. Webster^* Mr. C. J. Ingersoll. By me ? Mr. AsHMUN. Yes, by you. Mr. Ingersoll. It is a lie — the lie of a coward. Mr. AsHMUN. Oh ! the aged Pennsylvanian — Mr. Ingersoll, in his seat. I'm young enough. Mr. AsHMUN. Yes, the aged Pennsylvanian intentionally uses words which, are calculated and intended to provoke me to a personal conflict, and divert me from my purpose. He is mistaken. I come from a section of the country that does not believe in duelling, nor in the use of bowie knives and pistols. We neither use such things, nor do tvefear them. (Cries of " oh no !" and laugh- ter.) Let gentlemen laugh if they think fit ; they cannot in that manner disturb my equanimity. But if the member from Pennsylvania, or any of his abettors, think proper to try my courage, let them attack me, and they will soon find out to their satisfaction ! I repeat the remark which I had made when thus interrupted. I believe that efforts have been made to get Mr. Tyler to take part against Mr. Webster. I believe that when the member from Pennsylvania found that he was to fail of getting proof in the quarter to which he first went, he made these efforts, or at least that they were made with his connivance. I understand that this has been publicly asserted in the newspapers, I will not vouch for all that appears in the * Note,— See Appendix, v/here the testimony of L. F. Tasistro proves this to be true beyond, question. 12 papers; but from what I do know, and which I am not now at liberty to state, I • have strong reason to believe that, in this instance, they are true. And when I reflect upon the means that have been resorted to for the purpose of sustaining this detraction — when I hear it alleged that the secret archives of the Govern- ment have been broken into, I am not at liberty to doubt that other means equally- dishonorable have been tried. But, Mr. Speaker, I come back to the charge that Mr. Webster used the public funds. The member says he took into his possession $17,000. Where is the proof? It rests wholly upon his assertion. He says that he has obtained it in the secret archives of the State Department ; and in so saying he alleges his own shame, for he alleges that he has been where he had no right to go, and where he could not go without a violation of law and honor. The member also professed to read extracts from a letter, which he had also found in the secret archives, written to Mr. Webster from F. 0. J. Smith. How much which he has read in the hearing of the House was his own com- mentary interpolated, no man can tell. Those who remember the remarkable accuracy of the member when he undertook to give the House a version of the contents of a letter marked " private," from Mr, Webster to Governor Seward, can judge. The member adduces this letter as proof that money had been used to corrupt the public press in Maine. Not the Whig press, surely, for that was already right ; and I beg the gentleman to inform us how much it took to buy up the Democratic press in Maine? What is the price in the market of Demo- cratic opinions ? I know nothing about this matter, but I will venture to say, that if a thousand dollars were expended in disseminating information among the people, so as to enable them to judge of the propriety of adopting the conven- tional line of boundary, if that was the case, it would not be as bad as the ex- penditure of public money upon the party press in this city. The member him- self has voted at this session to give to the editors of the Union the whole print- ing of the House at prices fifty per cent, higher than was offered by good practical printers ! Blair & Rives, of the Globe, have both amassed fortunes out of De- mocratic expenditures upon the party press ; and Ritchie & Heiss are rapidly gathering a similar harvest. But this charge against Mr. Webster is all idle ! It is without the slightest foundation, except the veracitv of the member from Pennsylvania. How much his is worth, I am perfectlv'willing now to leave to the judgment of the country. The notice which I have thus taken of these charges has been necessarily brief. Neither the time allowed me, nor the fact that they rest upon alleged evidence, which is secret from all our eyes, except those of the member from Pennsylvania, will permit me to go further into the subject at the present time. They will receive the notice to which they are entitled hereafter; and, if an in- vestigation shall be ordered, they will appear to the world as I now pronounce them — false and baseless.* Mr. Speaker, I have done all that I intended to do, I have done what appeared to me a duty. I have stripped the veil from imposture, and endeavored to hold these odious slanders and their author up to the disgust and contempt of the com- munity. It has been no pleasant task ; and yet I should despise myself if I could sit still and hear these attacks in silence. I know that the people of ray imme- diate constituency — I know that the people of Massachusetts, would not forgive me, if I did not eagerly spring to repel the slanders which have been uttered on this floor against the distinguished citizen of whom they are so justly proud, and who is endeared to them by every act of virtuous patriotism which can adorn a * A committee was appointed on the same day to investigate tlie charges made by Ingersoll • ana they declared them all to be wholly without foundation. See Report, in ths Appetidix. public man, or illustrate the character of the Commonwealth which he so noblv represents. Mr. Speaker, I know that, until humanity is purified, and mankind becomes somewhat changed, there may be found some few persons who may be disposed to countenance and uphold the member from Pennsylvania in the course of atro- cious vilification which he has pursued ; yet, I have hope and confidence that men of all parties — gentlemen of honor — high-minded gentlemen, who cherish the character of our public men as part of the national treasure, will do full jus- tice to all the parties connected with these accasations; and that they will fix a mark upon the forehead of their author— a mark which shall stand there, to broad- en, to blacken, and deepen, until repentance, long, deep, and sincere, shall ap- peal to Mercy to blot it out ! APPENDIX A. The Select Committee of the House of Representatives, appointed to inve!5ti2:ate certain charges made by the Hon. Charles J. Ingersoll against the Hon. Daviei. Webster, for official mis- conduct while he iield the office of Secretary of SUite of i!>e United States, beg leave to report: That they have given to the subject referred to them a patient and laborious investigation, and have collected a large mass of testimony, the result of which, only, without going into its details, they deem it necessary to present to the House. The committee, in the first place, directed tlieir attention to the first charge against Mr. Web- ster — that, without the knowledge of the President of the United Slates, and contrary to usage, he had taken out of tlie hands of the ordinary disbursing agent and put into his own a portion of that part of the foreign intercourse fund, commonly known as " The Secret Service Fund," and appropriated it to his own use. The committee find that, by law, this fund is committed to the exclusive control of the President of the United States, who may, if he think proper, keep the money himself, and disburse it from his own hands ; or he may commit the keeping and disbursement of it to such agent or agents under his direction as he may deem it expedient to appoint. In consequence, as the committee presume, of the many and important duties which necessarily constantly occupy the whole time and attention of the President of the United States, so as to render it very troublesome and difficult for him, in person, to keep and disburse this fund and make up its account.s, he has always, from the first establishment of the Govern- ment, entrusted the discharge of these duties to other hands. As the Secretary of State of the United States is peculiarly the confidentird adviser of the Pre- sident in whatever concerns the foreign relations of the country, he would seem to be the natu- ral and appropriate agent for the discharge of these duties, if he could perform them without detriment to other public business of higher importance. Accordingly, the committee find that, in the administration of General Washington, tiie elder Adams, and part of that of Mr. Jefferson, while the office of Secretary of State was held in succession by Mr. Jay, Jefferson, Randolph, Pickering, Marshall, and part of the time that Mr. Madison Jield that office under Mr. Jeffer- son, the whole of this fund was, under the direction and supervision of the President of the United States, received, kept, and disbursed by the Secretary of State. In the early part of Mr. Jefferson's administration the Secretary of State, without any la%v" requiring it, seems to have been relieved from the discharge of this duty, and the keeping and disbursing of this fund, under the President's direction, appears to have been passed over into the hands of agents, whose accounts, after receiving the sanction of the President, are settled at the Treasury. But no change has been made in the law or in the powers or duties of the President in respect to this fund from the time of General Wa.shinjton to the present day. This change must have been made for the convenience of the Secretary of State, and not from any want of confidence which Mr. Jefferson had in Mr. Madison. The committee have examined Mr. Tyler, the late President of the United States. He testi- fied that when he came into the Presidency he found the foreign relations of the country in a very delicate condition in certain particulars, which the committee do not deem it expedient to specify, requiring, in his opinion, the employment of confidential agents ; and, for reasons as- signed by him to the committee, he regarded his Secretary of State as the fittest person to select and employ them. Under an impression entertained both by him and Mr. Webster that this was the usual and proper mode, he suggested that the money should be disbursed by Mr. Web- ster ; and for that purpose placed in his hands a portion of the foreign intercourse fund which was then lying in deposite with Mr. Stubbs, the ordinary disbursing agent. This had not been done before for a long time. A knowledge of the modern usage in respect to the keeping and dis- bursing this fund, it is not improbable, led Mr. Ingersoll into the erroneous belief that this mo- 14 ney had come improperly, and without the President's sanction, at Mr. Webster's instance, into his hands. But there can be no doubt that tlie President had ample authority to commit to his Secretary the keeping and disliursino; of this money, and that he alone had a right to judge of its expediency. The committee find from the testimony that all the money put into his hands was placed there with the knowledge and sanction and by the order of the President, and so much of it as was necessary was disbursed in accordance with Ids views. A balance, not need- ed for the purposes contemplated, was afterwards returned by Mr. Webster to Mr. Stubbs, the disbursing agent, with whom, the testimony shows, there is usually on deposite a larger amount of money than is required to meet present demands. With these remarks the committee dis- miss this and proceed to notice the second charge. In that charge Mr. Ingersoll accuses Mr. Webster with using the public money to corrupt the party presses. Among the agents employed by Mr. Webster, under the authority of the President, as above explained, was Mr. Francis 0. J. Smith, of the State of Maine. There is in the Department of State, among the papers relating to the secret service fund, a letter from that gentleman to Mr. Webster, which contains an expression that, unexplained, might justly lead to the impression that he (Mr. Smith) had used the money of the Government in that way. The committee liave fully investigated this charge. They do not deem it necessary or expe- dient to go into a specification of the acts of this agent, who was employed in a secret service, or to inquire into the propriety of employing agents for secret service within the limits of the United States, and paying them out of the contingent fund for foreign intercourse, but will con- tent themselves with simply remarking, that the testimony they have taken fully explains what- ever is of obscure or doubtful meaning in this letter, and removes every foundation for a belief or even a suspicion that the public money was used or attempted to be used to corrupt the party presses. This brings the committee to the third and last charge — that when Mr. Webster went out of office he was a public defaulter. From an examination of his accounts, it appears that, when he retired from office, there was of the moneys that had been entrusted to him an apjtarent balance of $2,290 in his hands as stated by Mr. Inger.soU, The expenditure of this sum remained to be accounted for by him. There seems to have been delay in procuring vouchers from tiie agents whom Mr. Webster had employed for the moneys advanced by him to them. For a payment of a thousand dollars, which he claimed to have made out of the fund in his hands, he alleged the vouchers had been lost, mislaid, or not procured, and it has not yet been found or obtained, though efforts were made by him to find or procure it. These causes occasioned a delay in the settlement of his accounts for some eighteen or twenty months. In the autumn of 1844, the period having arrived when it was necessary for Mr. Stubbs to close his accounts at the Treasury, and Mr. Webster not having then procured the necessary vouchers, he proposed to pay the apparent balance against him, with the understanding ihat the Government should refund to him if he subsequently procured the evidence of his payments. This proposition, which proceeded from Mr. Webster, vv^as acceded to by the President of the United States. In the month of November of that year, Mr. Webster procured a voucher for a payment of #200, and paid in cash $2,090, the residue of the apparent balance in his hands. This money was remitted by him in part from Boston and in part from Philadelphia. In the following winter he visited Washington, and, on the 1st of February, 1845, presented vouchers for payments made by him while in office, and not before credited to him, to the amount of $1,050, which the President of the United States directed to be refunded, and that amount was then repaid to him. Mr. Webster was urged by Mr. Stubbs to collect and transmit his accounts and vouchers, that Mr. Stubbs might close his accounts with the Treasury, but the committee find no evidence of any threat of exposure having been made by the President which induced the payment of the apparent balance against him. If it be assumed that Mr. Webster was correct in his impression that he had paid the above mentioned thousand dollars out of the fund in his hands, and if to this amount be added the vouchers for $1,250, procured by him after his retirement from office, making together $2,250, and this last amount be deducted from $2,290, the apparent balance against him, it will show that the real balance in his hands when he went out of office was $40 only. On reviewing his accounts, the keeping of which was for the most part entrusted by him to Mr. Stubbs, the dis- bursing agent, the committee have been led to doubt whether on the final settlement an item of $500 was not by mistake carried to his credit which had been before allowed him. This error was pointed out to the committee by the disbiu'sing agent, hy whom the account was drawn up. and the settlement made. He proves that it was at his owii suggestion, and not at that of Mr. Webster, that this item was carried to his credit in the final settlement. It is not necessary to go into the particulars of the history of this item and of the cause of the mistake, if one was made. The committee deem it sufficient to remark that no blame is imputed to Mr. Webster, who they are satisfied was not aware, and probably is not now, that this item had been before credited to him; nor is the disbursing agent, who drew up the items of the final settlement, lia- ble to the charge of negligence. If it be assumed that this item was twice allowed to him, and that the final settlement was made in all other respects correct, then, in refunding to Mr. Web- ster, he should have been repaid $550 only instead of $1,050. Bat, if Mr. Webster M^as not mis- taken in the belief that he had paid the thousand dollars above mentioned, then the Govern- ment still owes him $500. The committee dsem any comments on the above facts connected with this charge unneces- 15 sary. In their opinion, there is no proof in relation to any of the charges to impeach Mr Webster's integrity or the purity of his motives in the discharge of the duties of his office' The value of this opinion is perhaps to some extent enhanced by the fact that, in their investi- gation, the committee, in observance of the usage in similar cases, have taken the testimony withoutnotice tohim, in his absence, without communication with him, or explanation from him. In conclusion, they beg permission to remark, that their investigation has btoiio^ht out facts (winch are embodied in the testimony) connected with the foreign relations of the country the dijfplosure of which^public policy would seem to forbid. On this subject, they entirely con- cur with the President of the United States in the views so fully and strongly enforced by him m his message at the present session, in answer to a resolution of the House requestino- a com- munication to It of the same ficts that ore embodied in the testimony taken by the committee and which, for reasons then a.'^signed, he declined to communicate or make public, except with \ _a view to an impeachment, and to furnish the proof necessary to attain the '^real ends of public 'V justice. He expressed the opinion that, even in that case, the House should adopt all wise pre- cautions to prevent the unnecessary exposure of matter.s the publication of which mio-ht iniur- riously aftect the public interest. No dissent from the views of that message was expressed by the House. The committee, tlierefore, think that these facts were laid open to their view with an implied understandin,^, both on the part of the President and of the House, that they would be made public only in the event of an impeachment, and of their being necessary for brino-in,"- to justice great public delinquents. Inasmuch, therefore, as no evidence has been exhibited to the committee, which can lay any foundation for an impeachment, all the reasons which induced the President to decline to make these facts public in the call of the House, return in their full force against their disclosure now. They therefore recommend, tiiat they be discharged from the further consideration of this subject, and that the testimony taken by them (which accompanies this report) be sealed up endorsed " confidential," and deposited in the archives of the House, not to be opened unless by Its order. And they report resolutions accordingly : Resolved, That tiie testimony taken in this investigation be sealed up by the clerk, under the supervision of the committee, endorsed "confidential," and deposited in the archives of the House, and that tJie same be not opened unless by its order. Resolved That this report be laid on the tal)le and printed, and that the Select Committee be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. Signed and submitted by SAMUEL T. VINTON, JEFFER.SON DAVIS, DANIEL P. KING, SEABORN JONES. APPENDIX B. After Mr. Ashmum had concluded his speech, a committee was appointed to inquire into the violation of the confidential archives of the State Department by Mr. Inp-ersoll. On the 12th of June, Mr. Schenck, chairman, made a detailed report of the testimony which the committee had •aken. Among the testimony was the following — "Levis F. Tasistro appeared and testified as follows : " 1. Q.Hestion by chairman. Had you ever any conversation with C. J. Ingersoll in relation to his charges against Mr. Webster, as Secretary of State ? If so, state when and under what circumstances such conversation was held, and what the conversation was. "■Jlnswer. I was approached, one or two days after the adoption of the resolutions by the House of Representatives, offered by Mr. Ingersoll on the 9th of April, by a messeno-er or page, who informed me that Mr. Ingersoll wanted to see me in the committee room. I went there, but did not find Mr. Ingersoll. I afterwards found him readino- a newspaper on one of the sofas or settees in front of the Speaker's chair, and to the right of the centre door. After some general remarks, Mr. Ingersoll said, that he had been told that I was a personal friend of Mr. lyler, and in the habit of constant intercourse with him. That he knew that Mr Tyler was possessed of information or facts which would enable him (Mr. Ingersoll) to substantiate his charges against Mr. Webster, and wished me to write to him to that effect, so as to dispose Mr. lyler to do justice in the premises. I promised I would write to Mr. Tyler and I did write accordingly. This is, to the best of my belief and recollection, all that transpired between Mr. Ingersoll and myself. "2(i Ques/ion. Did Mr. Ingersoll, in that conversation, say any thing about his disappoint- ment m procuring information in another quarter? State his precise language, or as nearly as vou can. ' b -& i i you can 16 "Jnsicer. I remember Mr. Ingersoll's saying something about having been disappointed in another quarter. I cannot state witli more precision what hinguage was used upon that occa- "3d q,uestion, by Mr. Dobbin. Name the person or persons to whom you first communicated this conversation of Mr. Ingersoll, and at what time and place such communication was made ; and whether you made it wuhout sohcitation. _ tv/t t^ • u* "^inswer. I first communicated the particulars of the conversation in question to Mr. Dwignt, in his parlor at Coleman's Hotel, on the same day the conversation took place, and in the strict- est confidence. The communication was made by me without solicitation, and without any other object but that of obtaining the views of the person with whom I was conversing." Mr. DwiGHT testified as follows — / " On the day after the speech made by Mr. Ingersoll in relation to Mr. "Webster, in an inter- ,- view with Mr. Tasistro, the subject of that speech was the matter of conversation, during which / Mr. Tasistro said, that Mr. Ingersoll had sent a messenger to him at the Capitol ; that Mr. In- o-ersoll stated to him that he wished to see him with a view of getting him to write to Mr. Tyler as to the course of Mr. Webster while in the cabinet under Mr. Tyler's administration, and for the purpose of affording him an opportunity to vindicate his good name before the country, wished Mr. Tasistro to write to Mr. Tyler on the subject. * » * Mr. Tasistro said further, that Mr. Ingersoll gave as a reason for his application, that he had been disappointed in other quarters. At the first interview on that day, Mr. Tasistro communicated with me confidentially subsequently I requested permission to inform Mr. Ashmun ; to which Mr. Tasistro assented. JdidinM^nMr. Mmun. ugeORGB A. DWIGHT." 1 ^