.vV^ 
 
 <^ 
 
 
 
 lV^ 
 
 
 S o. 
 
 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <> "• • » * .,G V 
 
 
 A'" 
 
 •^ 
 
 ~ . • • • 
 
 9 
 
 <* 
 
 * *> 
 / 
 
 
 jP-7*. 
 
 =« 
 
 •rfC$ 
 
 ; ii 
 
 
 
 

 »0* 
 
 -c- 
 
 Jo 
 
 
 ,<* 
 
 * Ho * 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 v* ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
GOV. SLADE'S REPLY 
 
 TO 
 
 SENATOR PHELPS' APPEAL 
 
V/i' 
 
 GOV. S LADE'S 
 
 REPLY 
 
 TO 
 
 SENATOR PHELPS 
 
 APPEAL. 
 
 BURLINGTON: 
 CHAUNCEY GOODRICH. 
 
 1846. 
 
£$£ &> 
 
 
 5340 
 
 4YS*- 
 
TO I£E PEOPLE OF VERMONT. 
 
 A book has recently appeared, and been circulated throughout this State, to which in ap- 
 pedned the name of Samuel S. Phelps, containing an " Appeal to the people of Vermont," 
 in professed vindication of its author from certain "charges" made against him, upon the 
 occasion of his re-election to the Senate of the United States. The charges consist of cer- 
 tain statements made by the Hon. Hiland Hall, the Hon. Ezra Meech, Charles Adams, Esq. 
 and myself, upon an investigation into the conduct of Mr. Phelps, immediately previous to 
 the senatorial election. Those statements were in the form of replies to a Circular of the 
 Hon. Alvah Sabin, Justin Morgan, and David M. Camp, who had been appointed a com- 
 mittee by a meeting of the Whig members of the Senate of this State, for the purpose of 
 the investigation, and were read in a general meeting of the Whig members of bothbranch- 
 es of the General Assembly. 
 
 To that appeal, so far as it relates to myself, I deem it my duty to reply. Before doing if, 
 however, I will give a general account of the book, as well for the more perfect understand- 
 ing of what I have to say, as for the additional reason that my reply will probably fall into 
 the hands of some who will not have seen the Appeal, and who may desire to know what it 
 contains. So far, indeed, as I am concerned, I should like, if I could conveniently incur 
 the expense, to give the Appeal entire, that its statements, its reasonings, its language and 
 its temper might fully appear. 
 
 The book contains 43 pages. The author commences by expressing the "high sense" 
 he entertains of his "accountability for the manner in which" his "public trust has been 
 discharged," — says his "character as a public man is public property," — speaks of the 
 "decisive verdict" of his re-election, and says he owes it to those who supported him, to 
 " show them that their confidence was not misplaced." 
 
 He then proceeds to characterize the investigation into his conduct as an "inquisition 
 more extraordinary than is to be found in the history of this or any other country," and 
 speaks of it as an invasion of " the sanctity and confidence of the domestic fireside," and 
 an attempt to "gather up gossiping tales in relation to his private and confidential inter- 
 course." 
 
 He then complains that the committee were " personally hostile" to him an<l 
 their inquiries to men equally hostile — three of whom were candidates forliis place, and act^ 
 ing in concert to sacrifice him — that most of their testimony was hearsay — such as " would 
 not, in any justice court in Vermont, have settled the title to a card of gin 
 that "the scandal thus scraped together was enforced with all the zeal and power which 
 the conspirators could command." 
 
 Having thus introduced the matter, Mr. Phelps proceeds to examine the M cha 
 brought against him. Before proceeding to give an account of this examination, I will, in 
 order to make the matter more intelligible, here introduce the circular of the committee 
 (which Mr. Phelps has omitted,) together with the communications in reply to it, o: 
 the introductions, and commencing where Mr. Phelps commences quoting them, and 
 ding in brackets, and italicizing, the parts omitted by him, Mr. Marsh's reply he on. 
 tirely. 
 
Circular of the Committee. 
 
 Montpelier, October 16, 1844. 
 
 ,$,> ; At a meeting of Democratic Whig Senators, holden at the Senate Chamber, yester- 
 day th«- undersigned were appointed a committee, with instructions to address to you respect- 
 ful inquiries touching certain reports in circulation, injurious to the character of the Hon. 
 ad S Phelps. 
 
 M 1 11 v gentlemen very sensibly feel the weight of responsibility resting upon them in rela- 
 the approaching election of a United States Senator, and in their behalf we confident- 
 ly apply to you for the light and information necessary to guide our action. 
 
 We presume we need not say, it is commonly reported that our Senator, within the last 
 five years, has sometimes exhibited appearances indicative of the fact that he indulged in the 
 use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage. We wish to learn from gau such incidents as may 
 have come to your knowledge, either by your own observation, or ttirough the testimony of 
 others whose assertions yon could not discredit, in relation to this matter. 
 
 Il is also charged against Judge Phelps that he has not, at all times, maintained that digni- 
 fied vet kind and conciliatory deportment, which is best calculated to reflect honor upon the 
 hi^h "office he holds, and elevate the character of the State which he, in part, represents; 
 that he has sometimes, without sufficient cause, neglected his appropriate duties, and has 
 indulged in lan^ua^e querulous, vituperative, vulgar or profane, about others whom lie ought 
 to respect and esteem. If these charges be, in your opinion, well founded, we would then 
 inquire whether the cause is to be sought in a defect of physical or moral power, in an aber- 
 ration of intellect, or a servitude to passion and feeling induced by habits of improper indul- 
 gence. 
 
 We make this application as well in justice to Judge Phelps, (as he has been understood 
 to refer to you for information) as for the purpose of removing the doubts of those for whom 
 we act - and we address you in writing, from having been informed that some of your num- 
 ber have expressed a preference for this mode, if it became necessary to address you at all. 
 
 \s the time is near when the election must be made, we should be gratified if your answer 
 or answers could be had before the adjournment of the Senate this afternoon. 
 
 Copies of the above have been addressed to the Hon. S. Prentiss, W. Upham, H. Hall, S 
 Foot W. Slade, G. P. Marsh, and S. C. Crafts. 
 
 Very respectfully, &c. ALVAH SABIN, 
 
 JUSTIN MORGAN, 
 I) M. CAMP. 
 
 My Reply. 
 
 Having referred, in the introduction, to his habit of drinking, and said that it was more 
 apparent.duririg the.long session of the 27th Congress, than at any previous session, I proceed- 
 ed to say — 
 
 - several weeks during that session, he was confined to his lodgings under the care of 
 l),,,i Sewell, with whom I was intimately acquainted, and of whom I occasionally made 
 inquiries as to Mr. Phelps' conditi in, and from whom, a* well as from others, I understood 
 that his ill health drinking. He was, during this confinement, at 
 
 a private h .use, a little east of Capitol Square, to which I understood he had been persuaded 
 ,,, r ,., | iwn's Tavern, on Pennsylvania Avenue. [Indeed Gov. Crafts told mc thai 
 
 hi had advised Mr. I"< van's. His condition was a subject of conversation, and 
 
 of painful regret among thi I > m >nt Delegation and others. 
 
 Mr. Phelps lodged, during a portion of one of the sessions of the l JS7th Congress, ( I am not 
 mrl which* Mrs. Smiths, on Capitol Hill. Mr. Everett of Vermont, Gov. Morehead 
 
 of K en ti ' \d Mr. Warren of Georgia, and others, boarded with him. I lodged 
 
 in an adjoinin j houst . and undt r stood from M Everett and others of the mess, that Mr. Phelps 
 was, a good dealofthe tunc, under the influence of liquor, nd was troublesome. It was a mat- 
 I!, boarded, I F the long session of tht 27tk 
 
 Congr Pitman's, l, with Mr. Evans of Maine. Mr. FiUmore of New York, 
 
 others : an i flen said in my hearing, that he was so much 
 
 under the influ liquor, wh is to produce very unpleasant f eatings among the, 
 
 hoard: is. no ' / among the female members of the family, of whom Mrs. Evans was one. 
 
 J understood hi removed from then- to Brown's Tavern.] 
 
 Am ni' f your in ■'■' me information in regard to Mr. Phelps hav- 
 
 tiuie, without sufficient cause, neglected his appropriate duties. " A reply to 
 
 this inquiry seems to involve the necessity of stating the facta in connexion with his vote on 
 
the tariff bill of 1342. That bill (I mean the bill that became the present tariff law) having 
 passed the House, had been before the Senate for some time, when the 'Jay arrived which it 
 was supposed would terminate the deb.it,>. Greal anxiety was felt for the result, which was 
 regarded as doubtful, and many members of the House were in the Senate Chamber to wit- 
 nels the debate. I was there among the rest. I observed, during the day, that Mr. Phelps 
 appeared very much excited. I was informed— by whom 1 cannot now remember— that he 
 had become offended, at some supposed slight or "want of attention of some Senators, and 
 used opprobious language in regard to them, and declared with oaths that he would not vote 
 on the bill: and I understood in the course of the day, that several Senators had made in- 
 effectual efforts to sooth him. Sometime after sun down— the Senate being still in session, 
 and it being expected that the final vote on the tariff bill would be taken that night— Mr- 
 Cranston, a member of the House from Rhode Island, came to me at my lodgings, and said 
 that Mr. Phelps was acting strangely, swearing that he would not vote, and requested me to 
 go to the Capitol and see if something could not be done. 1 immediately repaired to the 
 Senate Chamber, and found that Mr. Phelps was not in his seat. I inquired of the door- 
 keeper, at the southern entrance, where he was, who informed me that he was in a small ante- 
 room, just at the entrance, with Mr. Conrad of Louisiana, who, 1 understood, was endeavor- 
 ing to persuade him to vote. This I learned from the door keeper, as well as from others. 
 I returned into the Senate Chamber, where I remained until the debate closed — Mr. Wood- 
 bridge of Michigan, being the last speaker. The Secretary was, thereupon, ordered to call 
 the yeas and nays. 1 immediately went to the floor keeper and asked him where Phelps and 
 Conrad were, who replied that they had left the ante-room and gone into some other part of the 
 capitol, he did not know where. I requested him to go for them immediately. He went and 
 found them, and they came 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 Secretary called the name of Mr. 
 Conrad, who answered in the affirmative. He then called Mr. Phelps, who did not answer, 
 but turned round to Mr Conrad, who was standing behind him, and said " Conrad have 
 you voted .'"—to which Mr. C. replied that he had. I stood some 15 or 20 feet from them 
 and heard the whole distinctly. The Secretary then again called Mr. Phelps, who answered 
 in the affirmative, and the bill was carried by a majority of one. 
 
 I conversed with the whole of the Vermont delegation, including Gov. Crafts, on the sub- 
 ject, the next dav, and stated the occurrence as I have here done. 
 
 Mr. Phelps had, at the previous session, as I have understood, declared that he would not 
 vote for the land distribution bill, under circumstances similar to those connected with his 
 refusal to vote for the tariff; but of that I had no personal knowledge. 
 
 [/n reply to your inquiry as to the causes of Mr. Phelps' conduct, I hare only to say, that they 
 nrc tn be found in his < tcessive jealousy and violence of feelings— not arising from the use of 
 intoxicating liquors, though muck aggravated by it. He was, manifestly, under the influence of 
 liquor during the evening of the passage of the tariff. 
 
 I need not say that your questions have embarrassed me— not because I have any doubt as to 
 what reply J ought to make to thcrn, but because it is exceedingly unpleasant to state such facts 
 with regard to anybody ; and yet neither my respect for you, nor my sense of duly, permits mc 
 to refuse an answer.] 
 
 1 am, &c. 
 
 Gov. Crafts' Reply. 
 
 After an introductory paragraph, he says: — 
 " From the latter part of April, 1842, until the close of the 2?th Congress, I v ted with 
 
 Judge Phelps in the Senate of the United States, and for about seven months of that time I was in 
 daily intercourse with him. On my first arrival at Washington, I took lodgings with him, for a tew 
 days, and occupied the same room. His boarding house being situated on Pennsylvania Avenue, 
 and preferring' a more airv situation during the summer mo some eight or ten days. I re- 
 
 moved mv lodgings to Capitol Hill, and within a few weeks there- Phelps took new 
 
 lodgings in my vicinity, and continued there, through the summer. I not only saw him daily, in 
 the Senate. hut generally every day, either at his quarters or a« mine. The same frequent intercourse 
 also continued through the winter session. I have been thus particular, to show what my opportunities 
 were to become acquainted with his general conduct, &c. Excepting about ten or twelve days 
 sryut the latter end of July and first of A '• wae good, and his attendance in the 
 
 Senate and Committees was as regular as that of the During those ten or twelve 
 
 days Judge Phelps was very unwell, ar.d was confined to his bed for about a week, and under the 
 care of Doct. Sewell. He was not only very eick. but very low-spirited— eo much so that I became 
 considerably alarmed. During his sickness iv-' U W*a during 'his r 
 
that the present tariff bill was under discussion in the Senate ; and it wa3 only but a day or two 
 before the final vote was taken on said bill, that Judge Phelps had been able to resume his seat ia 
 the Senate, and for only a short time each day. Judge Phelps had assured me that he would be 
 present to vote on the passage of that bill, for it was understood that, without his vote, the bill could 
 not pass the Senal .id not appear in his Beat at the commencement of the ses- 
 
 sion, some of the n me to me, and expressed their fears that he would not attend, and 
 
 requested me to go and persuade him to attend. I informed them that he had promised to be there, 
 and if he did not attend, seasonably, I would go for him ; but he soon after came into the Senate, 
 and voted for the bill.* 
 
 I have stated the above transaction more paticularly as I have been informed that a report is in 
 circulation that he had been disposed to withhold his vote, regardless whether the bill should pass 
 or not, and that it was only bj extraordinary exertions of some of the Senators, that he had been 
 induced to attend. 
 
 While I wasal Washington, I never saw Judge Phelps drink more than one solitary glass of 
 wine, and no distilled spirits whatever ; nor did I ever see him when I supposed he had been using 
 any; nor do I believe that he was in the habit of using any, privately, during the time I was at 
 Washington. His general intercourse with the Senators and other gentlemen, was civil and cour- 
 teous, and he had many firm friends in the Senate." 
 
 1 am, &.c. 
 
 To this reply, as given in the appendix of -Air. Phelps' Appeal, he lias appended the fol- 
 lowing note, from the star at the close of the last paragraph but two. 
 
 " Gov. Crafts has confounded the bill which passed on the 5th of August, commonly called the 
 •little tariff,' with the present law, which was passed on the 27th. What he states here, occurred 
 on the 5th, v hen 1 was unwell, and not on the :27th, when it appears from all the testimony, that I 
 was present during the day. The -error, howi important. The material question is, 
 
 whether the occurrences stated by .Mr. Slade took place. If they did, it is scarcely possible that 
 Gov. Crafts should have been ignorant of them." 
 
 It seems, then, that, although Gov. Crafts stated the "transaction more particularly," in 
 order to coin: • representation "that Judge Phelps had been disposed to withhold 
 
 his vote," and that it was "by extraordinary exertions " that he attended, he nevertheless 
 made the very great mistake of referring to another orcasion than that on which I alledged 
 that the withholding of the vote was threatened, and far removed from it, too, in point of 
 time; as the ' little tariff' — (that is, the bill " to extend for a limited time the [then] present 
 law laying and collecting duties on imports,") was passed on the '-I'r.h of June — more than 
 two months before the occurences stated by me, — and yet Mr. Phelps deems the error " not 
 important .' " 
 
 Gov. Crafts' letter to Mr. Phelps. 
 
 In addition to the foregoing reply of Gov. Crafts to the committee, Mr. Phelps gives, in 
 his appendix, a letter to him from Gov. C. giving an account of his examination before a 
 meeting of the Whig members of th ire touching this matter. As 1 desire to 
 
 omit nothing which Mr. Phelps l . re that part of the 
 
 letter on which he relics in his appeal — the only part, indeed, which properly bears upon 
 the issue between us. It is as follows : — 
 
 " I was asked why I h 1 you to leave Brown's and seek other quarters. I informed 
 
 them that, on my arrival at Washington, I found you temporarily hoarding there — that it was not 
 your intention to tarry there daring the hot weather — thai we had, together, examined several 
 boarding-houses on Capitol Hill, but found noil could be accommodated to our minds, at 
 
 the same house, or »( '•hat I saw any thing 
 
 to create a suspicion thai you frequ< . but that I thought the Hill, 
 
 more airy, would tx summer months I was then 
 
 asked whether 1 bad any US 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 . . ra took one glass of wine, and I believe no more." 
 
Ml. Hairs Reply. 
 
 Having stated that he had been a member of Congress from the time Mr. Phelps entered 
 the Senate, to the 4th of March 1843, — spoken of his "jealous temperament,'' which often 
 "rendered him, as well as (hose about him, quite uncomfortable," and " made him, at times, 
 ■extremely averse to the performance of his Senatorial duties" — the most prominent instance 
 of which, coming within his knowledge, occurred when the land distribution bill was under 
 consideration in the Senate, in 1841, — Mr. I hill proceeds as follows — 
 
 " Before the passage of the bill by that body, some person came to me in the House of Re- 
 presentatives and said the vote was about to be taken — that it was likely to be close, and that 
 Mr. Phelps was in an angry inood, and declared he would not vote, and requested me to go 
 and see if 1 could not exert a favorable influence over him. I accordingly went over to the 
 Senate, found some Senator speaking, and Mr. Phelps, 1 think, walking in the lobby. I ac- 
 costed him mildly, and inquired how the vole would stand, and if the bill would pass. He 
 answered me sharply — he did not know, and did not care — that he was not going to vote 
 »jpon it. After a few more words, either at my suggestion or his own, we went together into 
 a small adjoining room, within ready call of the Senate, and held a conversation of half an 
 hour or more. Mr. Phelps appeared highly excited, and in the conversation, my efforts were 
 directed to pacify him and persuade him to vote. He complained of leading Whig Senators 
 — naming several of them — said they did not notice him, but treated him as if lie was nobody, 
 — that he had no friends there, or in Vermont — talked of a plot against him, but without 
 specifying particulars — said he would not vote on the distribution hill — that he would never 
 give another vote in the Senate — that he was going to resign his seat in the Senate — that 
 he had his resignation already written and in Ins pocket — that he should send it to the Gov- 
 ernor, and pack up and go home. These declarations in regard to his not voting, and having 
 his resignation in his pocket, were often repeated. 
 
 [/re this conversation, the manner of Mr. Phelps was violent, and his language coarse and abu- 
 sive towards several prominent Whig Senators; and oaths were frequently used. Finding 
 that my efforts to appease him, and to induce him to vote, made no apparent impression on him, 
 ■I left him. Mr. Phelps did, however, vote for the bill — the vote, I think, being taken en the 
 succeeding day. 
 
 I understood from others, upon whom I could not but rely, that Mr. Phelps had a similar" 
 difficulty about voting for the tariff act of 184*2, but I had no conversation with him in regard to 
 that vote. I have seen Mr. Phelps in a similar state of mind to that before mentioned, at several 
 ■other times, and heard from him similar remarks in regard to his political friends and particu- 
 larly in regard to leading Whig Senators. 
 
 In ansicer to your inquiries as to the cause of this excited state of feeling, I can only say that, 
 judging from the appearances of Mr. Phelps, at the times aboce mentioned, I did, in common 
 with all others, with lehom I conversed on the subject, attribute, the singular state of mind to the 
 vse of intoxicating drink. It is, perhaps, proper for me to state, that I have never seen Mr. 
 Phelps make use of intoxicating liquor, and that I have not been in a sitution to know whether he 
 ■did, or did not, except from its apparent effects. 
 
 It is but justice to Mr. Phelps to add that it is within my personal knowledge that his services 
 in the Senate, when not in the state of mind before mentioned, Kane been highly valuable, particu- 
 ■larly in the examination of private claims.] 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 Mr. Mccch to the Committee. 
 
 After referring to a request that he would communicate to the committee, and statins that 
 he was at Washington from the latter part of December 1840, to the middle of March°lb41 
 during which time he had, "frequent intercourse" with Mr. Phelps, he proceeds as follows: 
 
 " I regret to say that, during the time thatl was there, the conduct of Senator Phelps was 
 marked with great impropriety, and occasioned great uneasiness in my mind. He was much 
 out of his place in the Senate, insomuch that members of that body, and of the House fre- 
 quently said to me that I must take care of him. In his conversation with me he was quite 
 often fretting, scolding, and finding fault with the Senate, that the Senate paid no attention 
 to him, and, in a vulgar way, saying they turned their back upon him ; and frequently 
 threatened that he would resign and go home; and on one occasion, stated that he had his 
 resignation written and in his pocket; and I took great pains, as a personal friend, to ap- 
 pease him and calm his turbulence. 
 
 I have further to say that, during all the time, he was often greatly excited by the free use 
 of liquor: and I consider, that to this cause is to be attributed hia Strang.'- tits of spleen and 
 •ungovernable conduct. I thought then, and still think, tint his conduct wa« vnry far f r o t ^ 
 
3 
 
 riL' l »t, and that he was an unsaf-- depository ef public power— an unsafe public agent, and that 
 it is dangeroo ■ t i enti a il to 3uch hands the great interests of the State of Vermont. 
 
 [I hart: ever been the person il friend of Mr. Phelps— was favorable to his election; and noth- 
 ing but a high sense of xchat I otce to the public has induced me to make this statement.] 
 
 1 am, Aic. 
 
 Mr. Adams to the Committee. 
 
 "I was at Washington in January last, [1844] and remained there some short time. I 
 stopped at Gadsby's, but, soon after I arrived, was desired to move to Mrs. Buck's, where, 
 among others lion. Samuel S. Phelps boarded. 1 was told that he had been sick some two 
 or three weeks, and was given to understand that his sickness was occasioned by the free use 
 of liquor, and that the presence of a friend from Vermont might be of service to him ; and 
 having always felt a warm friendship for .Mr. Phelps, and with the sole view of benefitting 
 him, if I could, I took up my quarters at Mrs. Buck's. Mr. Phelps had then recovered, and 
 1 had the pleasure of seeing him in his seat in the Senate. 
 
 Soon after I arrived, Mr. M'Daffie made his great speech in opposition to the tariff; and, 
 from subsequent events, it appeared that Mr. Phelps expected to reply, but the floor was given 
 to Mr. Evans, the chairman of the committee. Mr. Phelps was in a rage about this, and used 
 very strong language, savin- that he would take no further part in the Senate. And I was 
 there told that he neglected to meet with the committees of which he was a member, and that 
 Governor Morehead called on him and endeavored to persuade him to return and discharge 
 his duty. 
 
 I had frequent conversations with the family, and with members, and they all concurred in 
 representing that the conduct of Mr. Phelps was strange, irregular and ungentlemanly ; and 
 all attributed it to the excessive use of liquor. At many times while I was there, he appeared 
 to be greatly excited, and, as I believe, wholly by the use of liquor, and to such a degree as 
 to render him unfit for the discharge of any public duty. 
 
 His language in the family, and in the hearing of ladies, was gross, and unbecoming a gen- 
 tleman, and while at table, seemed to produce great restraint. [So far as I observed, there 
 was, at that time, but little intercourse or conversation between him anil Mr. Foot, who boarded 
 at the same table; and in conversation with me] Mr. Foot denounced the conduct of Mr. Phelps 
 in the most emphatic manner. 
 
 I was greatly chagrined and mortified at Mr. Phelps' apparent neglect of duty, and with the 
 grossness of his language, and had no doubt then, and have no doubt now, that the whole was 
 owing to his immoderate use of strong drink. In consequence of the feeling thus produced, I 
 hasted away from Washington sooner than I had otherwise intended. 
 
 1 make this statement in no hostility to Mr. Phelps. 1 have always admired him as a man 
 Of high order of talents — a clear-headed and sound jurist, and one of the best judges in the 
 State ; and it pains me to see such talents prostrated, and such a mind made powerless for 
 good, by an uncontrollable habit of drinking ; and it is only from a conviction that 1 owe the 
 State a duty, thru 1 am willing to say a word about it." 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 Mr. Marsh's Eeplv. 
 
 New Y,.rk, October, 24, 1844. 
 GeRTLEM v ' Daring the firs' iwo weeks of the last session of Congress, the ill health of a mem- 
 ber of my family, and other occupations, employed my whole tune, when not engaged in the House, 
 and I had, therefore, no opportunity for a observation in regard to Judge Phelps' habits 
 
 and general deportment. In b • f that time, as well as from week to week, daring the 
 
 remainder of the session, I received from the ■ immunications of inmates of Judge P.'s 
 
 boarding-house, Bach in! - led me to thi.ik I should best consult my own self-respect, and 
 
 most promote my own quiet and thai of my family, (who were with me,) by avoiding a free inter- 
 course with Judge P ; and my communication with bun was, with few ai mited to the 
 interchange of formal civilities, I fo ae particulars of the information above alluded 
 t". becan and for the better reason that two of the gentleman from whom I re- 
 ceived ii, are ] ■ D written to by yon, ami I am bound to 
 presume that an honorab what they, as gentlemen, and as public men, owe to you, under 
 the circumstances, will constrain them to state to you, with freedom ami minuteness, what they 
 have so often communicated t< 
 
 |UtltB)H hew referred to, were Meam. Upiian rind Foot, who made verbal communication! to th» 
 <"ommittoo in reply to their circular. 
 
There were complaints in regard to Judge Phelps' occasional absences from the senate, but Mr. 
 Upham is so much better informed in regard to this matter, than I can be, that I refer to him for 
 fuller information as to what I know only by report. 
 
 Yours of the 16th not having reached Burlington, until I had left town, was forwarded hither. 
 I have but this moment received it, and take the earliest opportunity to reply. 
 
 Yours, most respectfully, 
 
 GEO. P. MARSH. 
 
 Mr. Phelps commences his examination, with my statement. Having given the statement, 
 with the exception of the parts which I have enclosed in brackets, he proceeds to say, in the 
 first place, that it comes from a man who had been " for six years notoriously a candidate 
 for his seat in the Senate," and " laboring to supplant him ; " — and in the next place, that 
 all that is material in the statement, in regard to his conduct on the day of the final vote 
 on the tariff, is mere " hearsay " — "gossip"; and that, "stripped" of that, it "amounts 
 simply to this, that [he] was absent. from [his] seat in the Senate at the moment the ques- 
 tion was put — a circumstance of daily occurrence in the Senate and which, [he says] led 
 to no practical result, as his vote was recorded and the bill saved." He thereupon pro- 
 nounces " the whole story, in all that is material," to be " a vile fabrication," and says he 
 will prove it. 
 
 He then adverts, specially, to that part of the statement in which I said I was informed 
 that he had been offended at some supposed slight or want of attention on the part of Sena- 
 tors, and used opprobrious language, and swore he would not vote,&c, and says — " Before ad- 
 verting to the testimony [to prove this a " vile fabrication,"] let us note the state of things 
 in the Senate at the time this misconduct is supposed to have occurred." He then goes 
 somewhat at length into " the state of things" — the defection-of Tyler — the veto of the Bank 
 bill — -the tariff as "the last and only remaining hope of the whigs" — and the uncertainty 
 as to its passage, — and then scouts the suggestion that "during this day of anxiety and 
 excitement, when the hopes of the whig party were at stake," he could have declared with 
 oaths, that he would not vote for the tariff." [Let the reader remember this.] 
 
 " And now," he says, " let us hear the testimony of the members of the Senate, on the sub- 
 ject" He then refers to the statements of all the Senators who voted for the bill — which he 
 gives in the appendix to his appeal — and says — " It will be seen that not one individual 
 among them has the slightest knowledge or recollection of any mattets laid to my charge." 
 "The inference," he adds, "is irresistible — no such things occurred." 
 
 I will here pass, for a few moments, to the appendix, containing the statements of Sena- 
 tors, on which Mr. Phelps relies to prove my story "a vile fabrication." They are in the 
 form of replies to a circular addressed to them by Mr. P., in which he 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 which he 
 makes no allusion) and asks the Senators addressed, to state their recollection on the sub- 
 ject, and " in general, what xvas [his] course in regard to the larijl'-'' 
 
 If my limits permitted, I would give these communications of the Senators entire, but they 
 occupy too much space to allow me to do it. Some of them, as those of Mr. Woodbridjje, 
 Mr. Wright, Mr. Berrien and Mr. Williams, contain general statements with regard to 
 the positions of the writers, on the question, and the reasons of their votes. Others, 
 like that of Mr. Porter, state the obstacles which had to be encountered in the passage of 
 the bill. Mr. Mangum refers, almost exclusively, to Mr. Phelps' general course on the 
 tariff question, and his services on the Committees of Indian Affairs, and Claims — his only 
 allusion to the real question in issue, being in a postscript to his reply. Nearly all the 
 Senators addressed give replies to the inquiry as to "what was [Mr. Phelps'] course in re- 
 gard to the tariff" — in relation to which they use expressions like this — that he had 
 " manifested a deep interest in its favor," and been its "fast and steady supporter," &c. 
 Mr. Woodbridge is quite strong on the subject — commencing his reply with — " I am both 
 surprised and grieved to learn that it has been imputed to the Hon. Mr. Phelps, that he was 
 hostile to the principles of the tariff law of 18 PJ " ; — while Mr. Choate closes his reply 
 thus — " From what I knew of your settled opinions, and hid observed of your habitual 
 course, in the Senate, 1 should have been profoundly astonished to have discovered on 
 such a day, or at any time, any such unwillingness." 
 
 With all this, which does not affect the question in issue — excepting against Mr. Phelps, 
 as I shall show hereafter — there are mingled such declarations as the following — " I have 
 no recollection of any declaration, or oath by you, that you would not vote, nor of your 
 
10 
 
 having used cpprobious language." — " I have no recollection of your being absent when 
 the bill was put to vote" — " If any of these circumstances occurred, they were unob- 
 served 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 
 individual 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 mav have taken 
 place of which I knew nothing, or which I do not now recollect." — " I paid but little at- 
 tention to the action of others, (says Mr. YYoodbridg tare no knowledge as to 
 where precisely .Mr. Phelps might have been, when the final question was taken. The 
 Journal,. I think, must sliow." Such are some of the ways, in which a icanl of recollec- 
 tion in regard to the matter is expressed kl the replies. 
 
 Some, however, go farther than this, and say that they do not think any such things- 
 could have taken place, because of 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 take 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 circum- 
 stances indicating that you did not intend to vote, it is 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,, vrent out foF relief,, from the fatigue of a long, 
 sitting, into adjoining rooms, within call, and suggest that perhaps the absence of Mc Phelps,, 
 might have- been from that cause. 
 
 Such is the substance of the-replies. I retain tc my summary of the Appeal. 
 
 Mr. Phelps now comes to- that partcf the statement in" which I speak of going to the Senate 
 chamber, and learning from' the door-keeper that he was in the ante-room, with Mr. Conrad., 
 and refers, for a contradiction of it,, to a letter to him front the door-keeper, which he gives in 
 the appendix, and which I shall presently introduce. 
 
 He then describes the ante-room,, as a small room close by the southern entrance to the 
 Senate chamber, for depositing hats and cloaks,, and to which " Senators occasionally retire 
 for private conversation," and says that the' door-keeper's letter peeves that he did not go in- 
 to it at all. The letter, he says, shows also,. that my statement tkat the door-keeper told 
 me that Messrs. Phelps and Conrad had gene from the ante-room into some other part of- 
 the Capitol, was 'false,' and yet "that it led to one of the vilest features in the whole con- 
 spiracy" — the " some other part of the Capitol" having been interpjeted r " 1 jc says.. by " one 
 of the tools of the conspirators," at Mont pel ier r to mean "the refractory in the basement," 
 where they had gone " for something to drink." lie refers triumphantly, to the door-keeper's- 
 statement in regard to the length of time he was out r and makes himself merry, upon my 
 "activity and vigilance," during his " five minutes" absence. 
 
 He then makes some general remarks, among which be say.- that he has u no distinct 
 recollection of the occurrence''' — that "probably [his] movement [going out] was intended 
 as a finesse to ctop the discussion " ! — that "such movements are not uncommon,." — and^ 
 that, " probably, had he | Mr. Conrad] not followed me, 1 ahooid pro seeded as far 
 
 as I did" ! ! He adds that his iuilure to vote would have done no mischief.- because had" 
 the bill been lost, there were Senators who would have "moved a reconsideration of the 
 vote the next morning !" and then winds up with — "//ie Governor has made muck ado about 
 nothing^' 
 
 Mr. P. bestows a "passing ivAice" upon Mr. Cranston's alledged call 0:1 roe, and a letter 
 addressed to me by Mr. C. fa copy of which he Kent to Mr. Phelps), which he gives in the- 
 appendix to the appeal. This latter I shall present in another place, with Mr. Phe 
 marks upon it. 
 
 He then proceeds to the statement of Mr. Hall — whom he contemptuously denoni 
 " one Hiland Hall" — and having copied that part of it, which 1 have not included in brack- 
 ets (see p. 7) commences his commentary by saying — M This twaddle, ip gravely put forth by 
 a candidate for the Senate of the United States, as a dereliction of duty." " Happily, how- 
 ever, (he adds) the journals of the Senate give the lie to all pretence of a dereliction of 
 duty." " I meet this charge boldly with the journal in my hand. It shows that 1 voted 
 fifty nine times on the call of the ayes and noes, on that bill [the land bill] at that session. 
 And yet such miserable twaddle is intrpijucod to show me unworthy the confidence of 
 my constituency." 
 
n 
 
 He then seems to admit that he did threaten to resign, but says, it was "under the in- 
 fluence of constitutional dejection, aggravated by ill health, and by a dissatisfactionwith 
 '[his] position." He omits, it will be observed, in giving Mr. Hall's statement, all that part 
 of it, in which he speaks of Mr. P.'s ''violent manner" — of his "coarse and abusive lan- 
 guage"' — of his " frequent oaths" — and of " the cause of this excited state of feeling." 
 
 I !>' then proceeds to s-ay, that " Mr. Hall's rigmarole" about his abuse of leading Whig 
 Senators, is scarcely deserving ef notice ; and yet that it " seems to have been a favorite 
 topic" of Mr. Hall, Mr. Meech and myself. 
 
 After talking of a plet against him, which, he says, existed there [at Washington] and 
 *• was developed at Montpelier," and of which he "expected to find Mr. Hail the cats- 
 paw," he gives a new turn to his defence, by claiming that Mr. Hall's statement is abroach 
 of confidence. " Mr. Hall, (he says) takes me into a private room for private and confi- 
 dential conversation," and " what has the world to do with this conversation ?" 
 
 Having thus disposed of Mr. Hall, Mr. Phelps makes some general remarks about his 
 assailants having attacked his "private character and habits" and invaded his "domestic 
 and social circle at Washington," and says the charge of intemperance is a "stale" one, 
 ■"passed upon by the people of this State" in his repeated election?. 
 
 He admits, however, that the matter of intemperance is a fair topic for discussion, " if my 
 habits ate such, as to disqualify me, in any degree, for the faithful and effective discharge 
 of my duties ;" and then goes on with a somewhat detailed account of his labors on com- 
 mittees during tire 2d Session of the 27th Congress — which, however, according to his 
 owr. account, were mostly closed during the winter, and before the time of his confinement 
 under the care of Doct.SewelL, as stated by me. 
 
 He then refers to the Journals of the Senate, and the Register of debates to disprove his 
 alledged absence from the Senate, and confinement under the care ef Doct. Sewell ; and 
 ■replies to my statement that I understood from Doct. S., that his sickness was the effect of 
 excessive drinking, by saying — " I have a note from Doct Sewell, in which he denies hav- 
 ing given occasion or authority for any such statement." 
 
 Judge Meech is next introduced. Before examining his communication, Mr. Phelps has 
 a page upon matters and things in general, in regard to the judge : — says " he has many 
 good qualities, but is imperfect, like the Test of us," — "lacks sagacity and shrewdness," — 
 has been "unstable and inconsistent, " — "at one time a Jackson candidate for Governor, 
 and at another-, chairman of a public meeting, got up in favor of the United States Bank ;" 
 • — callshim a"catspaw fer a certain unprincipled faction in Burlington;" and says that "he 
 has been induced by a set of malignant intriguers to put his signature to a letter he never 
 wrote, and to express in it an opinion entertained at their dictation," 
 
 With this introduction, he proceeds to Mr. Meech's statement, which, he argues, cannot 
 he true, from the presumption that if it were true, " Mr. Slade and Mr. Hall, those two 
 ■faithful guardians of the interests of the State," would have found out the facts and stated 
 •them. He then scouts the idea that anybody said to .Mr. Meech that he "must take cars 
 of him." [Perhaps if he will inquire of Mr. Everett, he may find out something about 
 thisl] 
 
 lie then proceeds to dispose of what the judge says about his "often fretting and scold- 
 ing and finding fault with the Senate, and saying, in a. vulgar way that Senators turned 
 their backs on him" — by saying that the judge employs, in his description, " the language 
 of a scullion, picked up in his own kitchen," and that he " makes himself ridiculous by in- 
 flicting upon the public mind such a piece of twaddle," — and that what was said, was 
 " free and confidential." 
 
 As to the fact stated by the judge, that " he was often greatly excited by the free use of 
 liquor," he does not deny it, but goes off thus, — " Here we have a touch of the old story of 
 intemperance, about which I have now only to say, that my life for the last fifteen years 
 has not been spent under a bushel, and that thore are, at this day, very i'cw men more 
 exposed to genera! observation than myself, and every man observing me, must judge for 
 himself." 
 
 He proceeds to say that Judge Meech has been in favor of his election to the Senate, 
 and closes by an admonition to him to beware, hereafter, " in what hands he places his 
 conscience or his reputation." 
 
 He next conies to Mr. Adams, — says he has never "encountered such a specimen of 
 hypocrisy, duplicity and heartless treachery" — speaks of him as " a fellow who came to 
 ■Washington in the winter of 1844," and that " nobody then knew- his business, or who 
 paid his expenses," — calls him " a treacherous sooundrel,"~savs that he went to Was!:- 
 
12 
 
 in^ton f as a spy, hired to scrape the common sewers of scandal, for material which might 
 suit the purpose of his employer.-," and "has proved himself worthy of the employment" 
 
 He then undertakes to disprove Mr. Adams' statement by affirming that he advocated his 
 election to the Senate, and gives a letter addressed to him by Mr. A. after his return from 
 Washington, in which he spoke of his (Mr. P.'s) " depression of spirits," — his " melancho- 
 ly"— his "talents" and his " power of doing good," — says " your fame, your power as a pub- 
 lic man, depend on the course you now take," — urges him to " put forth all [his] energies 
 in the discharge of [his] public duties," — and closes by saying — "for God's sake dont, by 
 giving way to personal leelings, cast yourself down." [It is a pity he has not followed this 
 good advice.] 
 
 lie closes by suggesting that Mr. Adams is " partially insane" and says that, at anv rate, 
 there is, " an evident derangement of his moral perceptions," and that he is "entitled to 
 no credit." 
 
 And here closes the Appeal. I hope I shall be excused for occupying so much space 
 with the summary of it. If any portion of it has been offensive to any reader, J beg he 
 will excuse me, and consider that it is all found in a book that has been written and 
 published by a Senator of the United States. 
 
 There may be those who doubt the necessity of a reply to the Senator's appeal, — who 
 see in the appeal itself, enough to convict its author of the substance of all that has been 
 alledged against him, and who believe that, whatever may be wanting in that evidence to 
 complete his self-destruction, is made up, and more than made up, by the spirit and temper 
 and langunge of the appeal, and the strange infatuation of giving it publicity. 
 
 Perhaps I do not greatly differ with these persons in their premises, though I do entirely 
 in their conclusion ; for although the former are clear enough to all who will carefully 
 read the book and reflect upon it, there may be those upon whose minds the Senator's bold 
 flourishes and false issues may make an impression ; while, to a much larger class, who 
 have not seen the book and never will, (for it seems, for some unaccountable reason, very 
 difficult, at this time, to find a copy) it will be (as it has been) represented as an extin- 
 guisher, which nobody can answer. 
 
 Under these circumstances, I do not feel at liberty to remain silent I have therefore to 
 bespeak the candid and patient attention of the people of this State to the reply which I 
 deem it my duty to make. 
 
 Before proceeding to it, however I desire to say, once for all, that I shall have nothing to 
 say, in the way of self vindication from the charge of "falsehood" and "conspiracy" with 
 which every part of the appeal relating to me — as it does, indeed, to all — abounds. I have 
 lived to little purpose, if I have not established a reputation for truth, which will render 
 such a. defence unnecessary. But I am liable to mistakes — to see things through a dis- 
 torting medium — to misrecollection. In regard to all these sources of possible error, let 
 Mr. Phelps have the benefit of every serious doubt which shall be left on the minds of the 
 people of this State, after they shall have read and considered what I have to say. 
 
 One other preliminary remark. I enter upon my reply with a conviction that I am not 
 to contend lor mero victory over an adversary — not to 6trive to see how much harm I can 
 do Mr. Phelps — how much severity I can infuse into a reply to him, or how successfully 
 I can compete with him in the effort to divert attention from the true issue between us. 
 This matter is one of great public interest ; and not the least important question involved 
 in it is, whether, in a case oi manifest dereliction of duty, or gross immorality on the part of 
 a public servant, the truth is not to be stated when he presents himself to claim a renew- 
 ed expression of public confidence, 
 
 I now come to a more direct consideration of the appeal, so far as it relates to myself. It 
 is mainly directed to that part of my reply to the committee, which relates to Mr. Phelps' 
 conduct on the day of the final action of the Senate on the tariff! in which 1 stated that he 
 appeared very much excited— that I was informed he was offended on account of some 
 supposed slight or want of attention to him, and declared with oaths he would not vote ; 
 and that efforts were made to appease him ; — that Mr. Cranston came to my lodgings and 
 informed me that Mr. Phelps was acting strangely, swearing he would not vote, and re- 
 quested me to go and see if something could not be done — that I went and found that he 
 was not in his seat, but learned from the door-keeper and others, that he was in the ante- 
 room with Mr. Conrad, who was trying to persuade him to vote — that they remained out 
 until the yeas and nays were being called, when learning from the door-keeper that they 
 h*i left tio oato-ruum, I roquoatod hiro to gu fur thorn, and that tbey returned, and upon 
 
13 
 
 the third call of his name— the first of which was just as he was entering the chamber- 
 Mr. Phelps voted. 
 
 Before proceeding to consider the manner in which this statement is met by Mr. Phelps, 
 I will introduce a letter from Mr. Conrad — tn which I shall have occasion soon to refer — in re- 
 ply to one from me, making inquiry in regard to his agency in the matter. Mr. C. sent 
 a copy of the letter to Mr. Phelps, who has introduced it into the appendix to his appeal. 
 
 New-Orleans, November 30th. 1844. 
 Hon. Wm. Slade, 
 
 Sir : 1 avail myself of the earliest leisure time I have had, for some time past, to reply to 
 your letter of the 11th* ultimo, which reached this city during my temporary absence from it. 
 I cannot imagine how it should have become necessary to refer to a circumstance so very 
 unimportant as the one you allude to ; but as you 6ay that it is necessary for the vindication 
 of your character, t that 1 should relate what occurred on the occasion referred to, I do not 
 feel myself at liberty to decline your request. Instead of answering seriatim, the questions 
 you propound to me, I will succinctly narrate what transpired, taking care that this narra- 
 tion shall embrace, substantially, an answer to each of your questions. 
 
 The tariff bill, as you are well aware, encountered great difficulties in its passage, and the 
 debate on it, in both Houses was long, and somewhat tedious. On the day on which the final 
 vote was taken, the discussion had been protracted until a late hour, and the Senate having 
 been in uninterrupted session from 10 o'clock, A. M., the patience and even the physical 
 power of many members were nearly exhausted. Mr. Phelps, in particular, seemed 
 much annoyed at the long continuance of the debate, and manifested great displeasure when- 
 ever a member would rise to speak. 1 had an opportunity of observing this, as his seat was 
 near my own. At a late hour, just as it was supposed the question was about beino- put, some 
 member — I think Mr. Calhoun — rose and addressed the Senate at considerable length. Air. P. 
 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 ante-chamber, 
 where the hats of members are deposited, and I followed him. Seeing him take his hat and 
 move towards the door leading out of the capitol, I endeavored to dissuade him from going, 
 but he persisted in going. He proceeded down the stairs, and I followed him, until we reach- 
 ed the open air, outside of the building. There he stopped and became much calmer; 
 and after some little persuasion on my part, he consented to return; and, indeed, from 
 that moment seemed as anxious to get back in time to give his vote as I was, myself. When 
 we re-entered the Senate Chamber, the Secretary was calling the yeas and nays on the final 
 passage of the bill. My impression is, that both of our names had been called when we enter- 
 ed. I am certain mine had been ; but as it precedes that of Mr Phelps on the alphabetical 
 list, I cannot speak positively as to his. I also think that he rose at the proper time and re- 
 quested the Clerk to call his name and answered to it when called. 1 do not think that Mr. 
 Phelps was called "just as he entered the Senate Chamber." On the contrary, 1 think, as I 
 have already stated, that our names had both been already called in their regular order, 
 before we entered, and that his name was not again called until he rose and requested the 
 clerk to call it, and that he immediately answered in the affirmative. 1 have no recol- 
 lection of his having been twice called, nor of his asking me whether I had voted. It is 
 possible, however, that he may have done so. I walked up very close to the clerk's desk 
 when I asked him to call my name, and it is possible, therefore, that both the Secretary 
 and myself spoke in a low tone of voice. Mr. Phelps, on the contrary, went, 1 think, 
 directly to his seat, and was therefore at some distance from me. In the noise and con- 
 fusion that prevailed (the Senate chamber being crowded with members of the House of 
 Representatives) 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 efforts in re- 
 gard to him necessary," this is more than 1 can undertake to say. My intercourse with 
 Mr. Phelps has been very slight indeed — scarcely any out of the Senate — and! am, there- 
 fore, not familiar with his deportment, or his personal peculiarities, if he has any. 1 
 have already mentioned that he appeared very much provoked at the conduct of some 
 members in protracting as he thought, unnecessarily, and unreasonably, the debate on the 
 bill. I think it due to him, however, to state that I never, for an instant, imputed his 
 course to any wish to defeat the bill (of which he had ever been among the most stren- 
 uous supporters) but solely to some momentary excitement, acting on a temperament 
 perhaps naturally irritable. 
 
 * My letter was Hated on the 18th, two days after my reply to tho committee. 
 
 t My statement had boen pronounced to be fa'se ; ami was afterwards, expressly declared to bo to by Mr. Phelp* 
 la a 6*«rej&J W&jg ujecuof , <m. tte evening tMfirc Mi cl«*«>*. W. d. 
 
14 
 
 These are the circumstances, as well as I can recollect them, connected with th s oc* 
 currence. As it seems from what you say that they have been represented (I know not 
 by whom or for what purpose) in a manner calculated to prejudice Mr. Phelps, I am 
 gratified that I was not the channel through which they became public. 
 I remain, sir, very respectfully, vour obedient servant, 
 
 C. M. CONRAD. 
 
 I shall have some remarks to make upon portions of this letter, hereafter. 
 
 Passing, for the present, that part of my statement relative to what I observed, during 
 'Jie day, of Mr. Phelps' apparent excitement, and heard as to his declarations that he was 
 neglected and would not rote, &c, let us see how he meets the allegation in regard to his 
 absence from the Senate Chamber, and his being in the ante-room with Mr. Conrad. 
 
 After speaking of his absence as merely an "absence from my seat at the moment when 
 the question was put — a circumstance of daily occurrence in the Senate," and declaring that 
 Mr. Conrad and himself "were not in the ante-room together at all," Mr. Phelps introduces, 
 as proof to sustain these assertions, a statement of the door-keeper, Mr. Lamer — who, by 
 the way, when speaking at Montpelier of my statement, he professed to hold in contempt, 
 as a person with whom he had no sort of intercourse. Mr. Larner's statement is in the form 
 of a communication to Mr. Phelps, under date of the 1st of February, 1845, in which, after 
 an acknowledgment of a communication from Mr. P. making inquiries as to what transpir- 
 ed on the occasion -referred to, he says: — 
 
 " During the evening, you passed out the southern entrance two or three times, observing 
 that it was so warm in the Chamber, that you wished to go out into the air. On coming into 
 the Chamber, on one occasion, it was thought the vote was about to be taken on the final 
 passage of the bill, but it was 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." Im- 
 mediately after you left the Chamber, the lion. Mr. Woodbridge rose to address the Se- 
 nate, and after he concluded his speech the question was called for, and the yeas and 
 nays demanded. Mr. Slade, of the House of Representatives, came to the door, where I 
 was standing, and asked me if I had seen Mr. Phelps pas.- 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 1 made to Mr. 
 Slade. He immediately passed out the door and, in about five minutes.Mr. Conrad and your- 
 self 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 the ante- 
 room, endeavoring to presu ide you to vote. Mr. Slade is also mistaken when he say.- that 
 I informed him that Mr. Conrad and Mr. Phelps had left the ante-room and gone to another 
 j>art of the Capitol, and that he sent me in pursuit of them — that I found them and they 
 returned. 1 did not go in pursuit of you. It was Mr. Conrad that went for you as I have 
 •before observed. 
 
 The above is a true statement of what occurred on the night of the ol the tariff 
 
 act of 1842, as far as you were concerned." 
 
 Respectfully, &'•. 
 
 Mr. Larner is, 1 have i i mbt, a very hoi . but 1 hv. 
 
 that, upon having his mind called to the sub ■-• and a hal . 
 
 ihg which time his attention had not ho, mi at all directed to ir, his recollection of minute 
 circumstances, occurring amidst the passing and repassing to be relied 
 
 infallibly accurate. But let us consider what he - 
 The lubst ince ment is this — that immediately Mr. Phelps leu the Se- 
 
 iber, Mr. Woodbridge rose to speak, — that after Mr. W. had concluded his 
 i (the las'i speech) and after the yeas and nays had been ordered, Mr. Conrad came 
 
 in the d< v .r and inquired u>r Mr. Phelps, and was informed be had passed out a/etc minutes 
 I thereupon went out alter him ; and that five minutes elapsed before he and Mr. 
 Phelps returned. 
 
 It seems then, in the first place, that Mr. Phelps left the Chamber immediately before 
 
 Mr. Woodbridge il rose to speak" — and, ol course, when the precedii - was about 
 
 closing; and yet the whole drift of his appeal — including the use he makes ol Mr. Conrad's 
 
 lent, th 1 1 he manifested impatience when mem hers " rose to speak" — is to create the 
 
 impression that it was the beginning of a new speech that made him impatient. 
 
 la the next pkv rs from Mr. Lanier's statement, that Mr. Conrad went out for 
 
 Mr. Phelps, after Mr. Woodbridge had done speaking, and after the yeas and nays had been 
 
15 
 
 demanded; while Mr. Conrad says that he returned with Mr. Phelps " while the Secretary 
 teas calling the yeas and nays" — thus performing the whole operation of finding Mr. Phelpc 
 and persuading him to return, while the Secretary was calling some forty or fifty nai 
 
 Again : Mr. Phelps says, and relies on Mr. Larner's statement to prove, that he j 
 out alone before Mr. Woodbridge began his speech. So, then, he was out alone <luri dlt the 
 whole of that speech. Where was he? and bow did Mr. Conrad find him, amid tho wind- 
 ings and intricacies of the building, — for it does not appear that he told the door-keeper 
 where he was going. 
 
 But this is not all. Mr. Phelps did not pass out alone, for Mr. Conrad says he went out 
 with him, and that, not when Mr. Woodbridge rose to speak, but when .Mr. Calhoun 
 (who preceded Mr. Woodbridge) " rose and addressed the Senate at considerable length." 
 
 Nor even is this all. Mr. Conrad says, he followed Mr. Phelps into the antc-room° and 
 thence to the outer part of the building. 
 
 Mr. Phelps, indeed, in effect, admits the error of the door-keeper's statement that he 
 went out alone, when, after declaring that he did not go into the ante-room at all, but 
 "reached his hand in," through the door and took his hat from "the second pen- from the 
 door," he says — " in that position (the position of taking his hat from " the peg") Mr. Con- 
 rad could not pass me, (the passage into the ante-room being narrow,) but from this posi- 
 tion he saw me move towards the door leading out of the Capitol." How could Mr. Con- 
 rad see him move towards the door leading out of the Capitol, when, according to Larner's 
 statement, used by him as true, he went out alone a few minutes before, and Mr. Conrad 
 afterwards came and asked lehcre he was? Mr. Phelps plainly contradicts his own witness I 
 
 The whole of this story thus vanishes at the touch. I have no doubt the door-keeper 
 believed it all true ; but I have not the same confidence that Mr. Phelps believed it true, 
 though it is difficult to say what he does, or does not, believe, when he contradicts his own 
 witness, and commits such a palpable blunder, as to declare, in one breath, that he had pas- 
 sed out alone, before Mr. Conrad came to the door, and in the next, that, from the posi- 
 tion of taking his hat from " the peg," Mr. Conrad saw him move towards the door lead- 
 ing from the Capitol. 
 
 Forced to abandon, as in effect he does, a reliance on the story of the door-keeper 
 that he went out alone, several minutes before Mr. Conrad, we find him fallino- back 
 upon an attempt to prove that he did not go into the ante-room with Mr. Conrad. 3 Proof 
 of this he thinks he finds in the expression of Mr. Conrad — "seeing him take his hat 
 and move towards the door leading out of the Capitol, I endeavored to dissuade him," 
 &c. In quoting, Mr. P. emphasises the words— "leading out of the Capitol, and aro-ues 
 that he could not have been moving towards the door of the ante-room from within^that 
 room, because that door does not lead "out of the Capitol" and that therefore he must 
 have moved from the place where he reached through the door of the ante-room and 
 took his hat from the " peg." But if the door of the ante-room does not lead out of 
 the Capitol, so neither does the next door from that, towards which they inoved from 
 the Senator's " peg," lead out of the Capitol, because there are several doors between 
 that of the ante-room and either of the outer doors of the buildino-. The truth i* 
 that every door between the innermost recesses of the building and the open air, lead 
 out of the Capitol ; and that was what Mr. Conrad meant, as is very evident when the 
 clause relied on by the learned Senator is seen in its connexion with the whole pa=sa<*e 
 in which it is found, which he took care not to quote. The passage reads- thus— ° 
 
 " Mr. Phelps suddenly rose from his seat, apparently much excited, and passed by me observing 
 
 j t! ' " wouldsta y no longer," or words to that effect. He went into the small ante-chamber 
 and I followed him. Seeing him take his hat and move towards the door leading out of the Capitol I 
 endeavored to dissuade him from going, but he persisted in going, He proceeded down stairs arid 
 1 followed him until we reached the open air outside of the building. There he stored and ho 
 came much calmer," &c. l1 ^ 
 
 It thus appears that Mr. Phelps went into the ante-room, and that Mr. Conrad followed 
 him. Followed him where] Why, of course, where he went— namely into the ante 
 room. And there he saw him take his hat and move towards the door' What door* 
 The first door that presented itself— the door leading from the ante-room, and, of course 
 leading towards one ot the outer doors of the Capitol, though between either of them and' 
 the door of the ante-room several doors intervene. 
 
 It appears, then, from Mr. Conrad's statement, that he and Mr. Phelps were mthe ante 
 room together, and that there he endeavored to "dissuade" the fugitive Senator "from 
 going, and that there the Senator " persisted " that he would go. It would «=eem more 
 
16 
 
 over, that it was a very convenient place for such an interview, and one where it would 
 naturally be holden, as Mr. P. says, in describing it, that the "Senators occasionally 
 retire to it for private conversation." 
 
 That the interview took place there, is further evident from the extreme improbability that 
 all this 'dissuading ' and « persisting ' took place in the passage leading from the Senate cham- 
 ber, while Mr. P. was in the (pretended) act of reaching through the ante-room door(on the 
 left of it) and taking his hat from " the peg." That was no place for such a dialogue ; 
 and besides, if holden there, it must have been in the presence of the door-keeper, who 
 usually stood in the passage, within arms-length of the ante-room door; and such a dia- 
 logue in his presence, would probably have left an impression that would have saved him 
 from the manifest error of stating, as he has done, that Mr. Phelps went out alone "a few 
 minutes" before Mr. Conrad came to the door and inquired for him. 
 
 I beg every bodv to excuse me for going into this detailed argument — as they will, 
 I am sure, when they consider, that I have but followed where the appeal of a Vermont 
 Senator has led me ; and when, moreover, they consider that he has used what he knew 
 to be the erroneous statement of the door-keeper, for the purpose of convicting me of 
 falsehood in regard to his being in the ante-room, that he might throw a shade of doubt 
 over my statement with regard to more material occurrences. I say more material, be- 
 cause 1 do not regard the establishing of my alledged interview with the door-keeper, 
 or even the alledged occupancy of the ante-room by Mr. Phelps and Conrad as very 
 material (as I shall soon show,) any farther than respects my exemption from imputed 
 mistake or misrecollection. Yet I deem it my duty now to re-affirm, as I do most deliber- 
 ately, that on going to the Senate Chamber, and rinding that Mr. Phelps was not there, 
 I did ask the door keeper where he was — (hat he told me he was in the ante-room icith 
 Mr. Conrad, and that, when, at the close of the debate, I inquired of him where they 
 were, he informed me they had gone out to some other part of the CapitnL In my statement 
 to the committee I said he went for them. I supposed he did, because I requested him 
 to do it, and I understood him to say he would. He says he did not go, and that is 
 probably correct. He also says I am mistaken in saying that I learned from him that 
 Mr. Conrad was endeavoring to persuade Mr. Phelps to vote. Possibly he did not sav this 
 to me in express terms; but of one thing I am certain, that, while standing with him'close 
 to the door of the ante-room, the sound of conversation within the room reached our ears, 
 and he said to me that it was Mr. Conrad and Mr. Phelps who were conversing there. 
 That I learned from someone that they were there, is evidentfrom the fact that Mr. Cran- 
 ston, as I shall soon show, learned it, at that very time, from me, as well as from others. 
 
 I now come to the material part of this case — a part which Mr. Phelps, having occupied 
 some live pages upon other matters — mostly circumstantial — says, " deserves a passing 
 notice." 
 
 Two days after making my reply to the inquiries of the committee, I addressed a 
 letter to Mr. Cranston, asking him to state his recollection as to the occurrences connected 
 with his calling on me in reference to Mr. Phelps' threatened refusal to vote. To that let- 
 ter I received the following reply : — 
 
 Newport, October 23, 1&44. 
 
 Dear Sin, — I have yours of the 16th instant, requesting me to state my recollection of calling on 
 you in relation to the vote of Senator Phelps on the t a r i f V quesrion. 
 
 I very well recollect that, on the day of the final passage of the Tariff Act of 1S42, in the 
 Senate, I had a conversation with Judge Phelps in the Senate Chamber, and was surprized to hear 
 him declare that he would not vote for the hill, and that it would be lost. I did not believe that he 
 would vole against it, or even withhold his vote, and yet I felt alarmed for the fate of the bill, from 
 the emphatic manner in which he spoke of withholding his vote. I immediately called on yon at 
 Mis. Sprigg's, and stated what had passed betw.-en Jndge Phelps and myself, an 1 requested you to 
 go to the Senate Chamber and see him You went Immediately to tlte Senate Chamber, and found 
 that Mr Phelps was no! in his seat, hut learned that he was with one of the Senators in the ante 
 room While the Secretary was calling 'he vis and nays on the bill, Judge Phelps came into the 
 Senate and voted tor the hill, and it passed hy one majority. Whether he answered at the first call 
 of his name or not, I cannol distinctly recollect. 
 
 With great respect, &c. R. B. CRANSTON. 
 
 Mr. Cranston having, upon Mr. Phulps' request sent him a copy of this letter, he has 
 placed it in the appendix to his Appeal, and appended to it the following 
 
 " Notk — As to what Mr Sladc ' learned,' it is evident Mr. Cranston knew nothing except 
 what he derived from Mr. £>lade himself. There is nothing else in my letter, exeppt my supposed 
 
17 
 
 declaration to Mr. C, which is given naked, and unconnected with any thing which might 
 serve to explain it; and testimony of an isolated declaration, without the conversation which 
 led to, or followed it, is never regarded as satisfactory. When Mr. Cranston comes to consider 
 that this declaration is utterly inconsistent, as he says, both with my previous and subsequent 
 conduct— that he had no sooner got Mr. Slade there, than I came in and voted for the bill 
 of my own accord, without any conference with Mr. Slade ; and when he conns to learn 
 that not a word was uttered or thought necessary, by any one, to persuade me to rote for it 
 —that all this story of my being closeted with Mr. Conrad is a mistake, and that no member 
 of the Senate ever heard of my threats to withhold my vote— he will he satisfied, I think, 
 that he mistook my meaning, altogether, in what he heard, and that he has done rue injus- 
 tice, not only in his premature and hasty representation of the story, but still greater in put- 
 ting the story into such ears." 
 
 Such is Mr. Phelps' note, appended to Mr. Cranston's letter in the appendix to the 
 Appeal. 
 
 I now turn back to the Appeal, and find/m page 11, the following commentary on Mr. C.'s 
 letter. 
 
 "All, which is important, (says Mr. Phelps) in his statement, is the assertion that I declar- 
 ed to him in the Senate Chamber, that I "would not vote for the bill and it would be lost." 
 Now it is easily proved, as the fact was, that Mr. Cranston was under a misapprehension in 
 this particular, it is apparent that, if any such conversation occurred, it must have been 
 some time before I left my s^eat, as stated "by Mr. Conrad ; for, as I was out of the chamber, 
 as stated by Mr. Larner, and as is apparent from the whole testimony, but about fine minutes, 
 there teas not time for Mr. Cranston to go to Mr. Slade's lodgings and bring him, while I was 
 out. This being the ease, the result, as is evident from all the statements, is, that while Mr. 
 Cranston was on this errand of kindness, 1 was in my seat impatient fur the question, and 
 complaining of the delay. If 1 had determined not to vote, I had nothing to do but to leave 
 the chamber and go home. Instead of that, it is fully proved that I was impatient to end 
 the debate, and get at the question. The true explanation of it is, that Mr. Cranston pro- 
 bably occrlicard some expression of impatience, and perhaps « threat to leave the chamber unless 
 the de'/ate ceased. Some remark of this kind, addressed to him or some one else, and which 
 he probably did not fully apprehend, startled him, and sent him off upon this unnecessary, 
 and as it proved, foolish errand to Mr. Slade. This is apparent from his own letter, for he 
 proceeds to say, ' I did not believe he would vote against it, or even withhold his vote, and 
 yet 1 felt alarmed' &c. ; and from his letter to me, in which he says—' 1 have only to add, 
 and I do it with pleasure, that, on no occasion before, or since that day, did I ever see or 
 hear any thing in your conduct that indicated a feeling of hostility, or even of indifference 
 towards that important measure ; but on the contrary, on all other occasions you appeared as 
 anxious for its success as any other member.' From all this, it is evident that, whatever he 
 may have heard from me, lie did not understand to what I hud reference. 
 
 " I hate erer considered Mr. Cranston an honorable man, yet I am somewhat at a loss to 
 explain his course in this transaction. lie boarded with me at that time, and must have 
 known that there was no intercourse between me and Mr. SSlade, and ought to have known 
 that if I were out of humor, he might as soon appease me by throwing a rattlesnake into 
 my bosom. His motives were doubtless good; but, if, instead of posting to Mr. Slade, he 
 had appealed to Governor Crafts or any of my friends in the Senate, he would have discover- 
 ed the mistake. By the indiscreet course he took (doubtless unintentionally) he merely af- 
 forded Mr. Slade an occasion for the gross fabrication which he has attempted to impose upon 
 me and my constituency." 
 
 I have italicized certain portions of the foregoing, to which I ask the special attention of 
 my readers as they go on. 
 
 As Mr. Phelps, in his note to Mr. Cranston's letter, professed to regard its statement of 
 his declaration that he would not vote, as " unsatisfactory," because unconnected " with the 
 conversation which led to or followed it," I thought I would make an effort to satisfy him 
 on this point, and therefore sent a copy of his Appeal to Mr. Cranston, with a request 
 that he would give me the whole conversation and the whole case, so far as he could recol- 
 lect them. To that communication I have the following reply, to which I trust I need not 
 ask especial attention. The italics are Mr. Cranston's. 
 
 N>:\\port, December 13, 1-1" 
 Hon. William Slade, — Dear Sir, — 1 have received your letter of the 28th ult. on the 
 subject of the pamphlet lately published by the Hon. Saumel S. Phelps of Vermont, in vin- 
 dication of his course in the Senate, nt the parage of the Tariff act of 1"5-12 — requesting my 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 attention to several of its statements, and asking more detailed information as to the occur- 
 rences, and conversation, which preceded and followed what I have stated to you of my 
 interview with Judge Phelps, in my letter of October 23, 1-1 1 
 
 Before proceeding to make the statements you request, I think it right to observe, that, 
 from the beginning of this controversy, 1 have entered into it with the utmost reluctance, 
 and that nothing but a sense of what it appeared to me I owed to one who, by my interven- 
 tion, had, unfortunately, been made a party to it, could have induced me to have made any 
 statement or disclosure on the subject whatever. I have now, no other than the most friendly 
 feelings to Judge Phelps, nor ever entertained any, and have, at all times accorded to hirri, 
 most willingly, his deserved character for eminent talents and upright intentions ; though I 
 could not but lament, in common with many others, that the peculiarities of bis temperament 
 were such, that those high qualities were, at times, overshadowed by feelings and tendencies, 
 of which Judge P. himself was, most probably, unconscious. 
 
 I proceed to state, at your request, the whole conversation which occurred between me 
 and Judge Phelps, at the interview refered to in my letter of October 23, 1-44, with the 
 attendant circumstances, so far as 1 can recall them. 
 
 The most important measure which had been matured, and it wis possible to carry into 
 effect, at the session of 1842, was the tariff on imports adopted in that year. It not only in- 
 volved, to the highest degree, the reputation and standing of the Whig party, which had a decided 
 majority in both branches of Congress, and would have been deeply responsible for the failure 
 of such a measure, but, in my view, had the most intimate connexion with the future growth 
 and prosperity of the country, and especially with that portion of it, of which, at the time, 
 I happened to be one of the representatives. The bill for this purpose, after passing a se- 
 vere ordeal in the House of Representatives, was before the Senate, under circumstances 
 which excited in its friends the strongest solicitude with respect to its passage. The Whig 
 party, and the friends of protection, had a decided majority in the Senate ; but owing to the 
 fact that it had been necessary to separate the land distribution clause from the regular pro- 
 visions of the bill, in order to protect it from the veto, a certain number of Whigs were 
 disinclined to vote for it. The sentiments and views of all the members of the Senate had 
 been rigidly canvassed, and it was ascertained, to a certainty, that, if .Mr. Woudbridge of. Michi- 
 gan would waive his objections to the omission of the provisions respecting the land distribution, 
 the bill would pass by one majority. The bill had been the subject of discussion, for some days, 
 in the Senate. The debate, perhaps, had been unreasonably protracted, but it was believed that 
 the question on its passage would be arrived at, on the "day, when, visiting the Senate, I 
 held the conversation of which you request the particulars. 
 
 On entering the Senate chamber, I met Judge Phelps near the Clerk's table, and inquired 
 of him when they would probably take the question. He replied he did not know, but whenever 
 it should be taken, the bill would be lost. [ observed that I thought it had been ascertained to 
 a certainty, that it would pass by a majority of one. To tins he rejoined, that we counted 
 upon Senators in support of the bill, who would not vote for it. I remarked to him that then it 
 v. .is exceedingly important to our friends to know who those Senators were. He replied, 
 without hesitation, " / sm one of them." I told him we had no fears of (hut — we had no fears 
 that any man from Vermont would vote against the Tariff. He replied — " /'// be, damu'd if I 
 vote for /hut bill." I rejoined, that I regretted to hear him make such a declaration, and 
 hoped he would reconsider it. He was apparently much excited, at the moment, am! com- 
 plained of some of the Whig Senators, tiiat they did not notice him, but treated him with 
 contempt. 1 then left him. 
 
 At the session now spoken of, I boarded with Judge Phelps and Mr. Horace Everett of 
 Vermont, in the same block of buildings, and next door to yourself. On leaving Judge P., I first 
 called on Mr. Everett, and requested him to go to the Senate chamber, and have an inter- 
 view with the Judge, with a hope of recalling him to a right view of the subject. This Mr. 
 E. declined — saying he could do nothing with Judge P., and requested me to see Mr Slade. 
 I then called upon you, for the sane, as I deemed it, praiseworthy object, and you im- 
 mediately proceeded to the Senate, and found Mr. P. was not in his seat. I learned from you, 
 and others, that he was, at that lime, with one sf tin- Senators in the adjoining ante-room. 
 While the Secretary was calling the yeas and navs on the final passage of the bill, Judge 
 Phelps came in, gave his vote in the affirmative, and the bill pissed by ■ majority of one. 
 About one hour, 1 think, elapsed between the time I held the above conversation with Judge 
 Phelps, and the final passage of the bill. How long tin- Judge was absent from the chamber, 
 I am unable to say, as he was there when 1 left, ami absent when 1 returned. 
 
 Judge Phelps is under a mistake in supposing that I must have known that there was no 
 intercourse between you and himself, i never had, nt any tune, the least intimation that 
 there was any difficulty between you, until I received your letter of the L8th of Oct. 1844. 
 
 In connexion with this statement of the particulars of our conversation in the Senate 
 Chamber, which I have now detailed to you, I ought to add, in justice to Judge Phelps, 
 what 1 havo said to him, in rubstance, in my letter bearing date December 15, 1S44 — that, 
 
19 
 
 independent of the impression made on me by his declarations before stated, with respect to 
 the tariff bill then pending, " on no occasion, before or since that day, did I ever see or hear 
 any tiling in his conduct, that indicated a feeling of hostility, or even indifference, to that 
 important measure, but, on the contrary, on all other occasions, he appeared as anxious for 
 its success as any other member." 
 
 With great respect, 
 
 1 am your obedient servant, 
 
 R. B. CRANSTON. 
 
 Hero is the substance of the whole case ; and here I confess, I feel half inclined to 
 leave it, lay down my pen, and close my reply ; for if my indignation has been excited — 
 and I admit it has— by the treatment I have received from Mr. Phelps in regard to this 
 matter, it is changed by the sight of this letter, into a feeling of a very different character. 
 But I must proceed. 
 
 The letter of Mr. Cranston establishes the following facts: — 
 
 That, one hour before the final vote on the tariff hill, Mr. Phelps declared to Mr. Cran- 
 ston, in the Senate chamber, that ho should not vote for the bill, and that it would be lost; — 
 
 That on being kindly appealed to, as a representative of the interests of the Slate of 
 Vermont, ho replied — " I'll be da.mn'd if I vote for that kill ; " and 
 
 That he appeared much excited, and complained that some of the Whig Senators did 
 not notice him, but treated him with contempt. 
 
 It furthermore appears : — 
 
 That, on hearing this, Mr. Cranston immediately called on Mr. Everett, and asked him 
 to see Mr. Phelps, and endeavor to recall him to his duty — who replied that he could do 
 nothing with him ! and requested Mr. C. to call on me ;— 
 
 That he then called on me, with the same request — that I immediately went to the 
 Senate chamber, and, on arriving there, found that Mr. P. was not in his seat ; — 
 ^ That, lie (Mr. C.) learned from me and others, that he was, at that time, with one of the 
 Senators in the ante-room ; — 
 
 That while the Secretary was calling the yeas and nays, Mr. Phelps came in and voted ; 
 and 
 
 That about one hour elapsed between the conversation of Mr. Cranston with Mr. Phelps, 
 and the passing of the bill. 
 
 The great importance of Mr. Cranston's statement, and the attempt of Mr. Phelps to 
 throw a shade of doubt over the correctness of his first letter, renders it proper forme to 
 say, that Mr. C. was member of Congress from Rhode Island, for six successive years, 
 commencing with the 25th Congress — during the whole of which time he was greatly res- 
 pected for his frank, upright and manly bearing — being eminently a man "without f;arand 
 without reproach." No man in Congress was more uniformly wide awake to every thing 
 that was passing, and especially every thing which concerned the tariff The great inter' 
 est he felt on that question, will account for his interview with Mr. Phelps — his alarm on 
 hearing his declaration, and his promptly seeking some one who might aid in brincins him 
 to a sense ot hie duty. 
 
 Let me now consider some of the bearings of Mr. Cranston's statement. 
 
 By a very artful defence, Mr. Phelps labors to throw a shade of doubt over my whole 
 account of this matter ; and evidently thinks he has succeeded, when he ventures upon 
 the triumphant assertion, that all I have said and done in relation to it, has been "much 
 ado about nothing" But let us see. 
 
 In the first place, here is full, clear, explicit, and incontrovertible proof of the astound- 
 ing fact, that a Vermont Senator swore, in the Senate chamber, that he would not vote Jor 
 the Tariff bill of 1842; (a bill which he himself says in his appeal, "was the last and 
 only remaining hope of the Whigs ") and this, because he was mad with some of the Whig 
 Senators, for their supposed neglect and contempt of him ! Upon this fact I will not stop 
 to indulge in any comment, for I can make none that will not weaken its force. I leave it 
 to stand out, in its simple, naked, deformity, before the people of Vermont. 
 
 But let me examine the bearing which this fact has upon what preceded it. Referring 
 to what I said in my statement, of his apparent excitement in the course of the day — of 
 my being informed that he was offended, &.c, and used opprobrious language, and 
 declared, with oaths, he would not vote, and that Senators made ineffectual efforts to 
 sooth him — Mr. Phelps says — "It was this that startled the good people at Montpelier, 
 who did not appear to perceive that the whole story was a piece of gossip, and that 
 
20 
 
 the witness who put forth the story, in reality, knew nothing about it " ; and he, there- 
 upon, asks, with an air of triumph, who those several Senators were, who made efforts 
 to sooth him, and who the gentleman was, who "fabricated the story, and kindly put 
 it into" my "ears." If it were material, in the present state of the case, that these 
 questions should be answered, my reply would be, that I took no note of names, as I 
 doubtless should, if I had been "plotting" against .Mr. Phelps, as he says I was. I was 
 too anxious about him, and about the fate of the tariff bill, to do that. But who will 
 now ask mo for names'? I have proved that, in the very midst of the Senate Chamber, 
 and in reply to an expression of confidence that he could not misrepresent the interests 
 of Vermont — he said — " I'll be damn' d if I vote for that bill," — and will any body ask 
 me to show the several steps by which the Senator's wrath had risen to this pitch of 
 horrible and terrific, sublimity } Can any body believe that it reached it, without 
 finding vent in the presence of some one besides Mr. Cranston? And does anv one who 
 knows Mr. Phelps, believe that it produced no u opprobrious language" I As to attempts 
 to appease him, they may not have been made by Senators; but that they were made 
 by somebody, there can be very little doubt. 
 
 Il it bo said, a> it sometimes is said, I believe, that Mr. Phelps has the certificates of 
 some thirty Senators that he conducted very properly all that day, my reply is that there 
 are no such certificates. He has, indeed, communications from nearly that number of 
 Senators; but what are they 1 Why, the general drift of them, as I have shown else- 
 where, (p. 9,) is to prove that he was friendly to the tariff bill, and had been its decided 
 advocate. And this is confirmed, in substance, by Mr. Cranston and Mr. Conrad. But 
 who has denied this? Certainly I have not. And yet Mr. Phelps publishes these state- 
 ments, as though they disproved my assertion in regard to his conduct ; when the truth is, 
 that they not only do not disprove it, but they greatly aiiL r ravate the offence of swearing 
 he would not vote — since the stronger he proves bis friendship to line been for the bill, 
 the more outrageous appears his conduct in giving the rein to his passions, and suffering 
 them to gain an ascendancy over his judgment and Ins regard for consistency. 
 
 Besides the certificates which sustain the false issue thus raised by Mr. Phelps, most of 
 the Senators who have addressed him, say they do not remember that he swore he would 
 not vote, and used opprobrious language, &c.; and this he professes to regard as conclusive 
 evidence that " no such things occurred," So then the defence of the Hon. Senator is 
 made to rest upon a want of recollection, (the lowest degree of evidence) which, as every 
 body knows, may result from numerous causes, entirely consistent with the truth of the 
 thing not remembered. In the first place, whatever was said by Mr. Phelps in the pres- 
 ence of any Senator or Senators, might not have been as pointed and strong as was the 
 declaration in the presence of Mr. Cranston. In that case, it was not a casual remark, as 
 it might have been in the presence of Senators, but it was part of a conversation directly 
 upon the question of the passage of the bill, and in reply to an appeal drawn from Mr. 
 Cranston, by a preliminary declaration of Mr. Phelps, that Senators had been counted 
 on to vote for the bill, who would not, and that he was one of them. The declaration 
 thereupon made to Mr. C. was of a character not likely to be forgotten. Its connection 
 with the conversation ; its blunt and shocking profanity, and the real alarm it must have 
 produced, ( put forth, as it was, when the final vote was about lobe taken,) were calculated 
 to make an impression not easily obliterated. But casual remarks, indicating the same 
 thing, might have been made in the course of the preceding half dozen hours, without 
 exciting special alarm, and, nl course, without making an impression which would be re- 
 tained during two years and a half of absorbing cares for other things, and an entire absence 
 of distinct retrospection in regard to this. 
 
 And besides, there is. as we can easily see there would and should be, among men asso- 
 ciated as are the small body of Senators, a habitual disposition to banish from memory, 
 every thing personally unfavorable to each other, and to maintain, as far as possible, friendly 
 mal relations. 
 Nor let it be supposed that such declarations, as it is apparent from the character 
 of that mad': to Mr. Cranston must have been made to others — (though perhaps in a 
 modified form,) would have, al mice, acquired notoriety throughout the Senate Chamber, 
 Bince Senators would obviously feel a strong reluctance to speak, openly, of any thing 
 derogatory to the character nl their associates, — while another motive to quietness would 
 be found in a well-grounded apprehension that notoriety would but aggravate the spirit 
 in Mr. Phelps, which there would be a strong desire to allay. This want of general 
 aotorioty, is strikingly illustrated by the fact, that the declaration of Mr. Phelps in the 
 
21 
 
 presence of Mr. Cranston did not reach the ears of Mr. Evan?, who speaks in his letter to 
 Mr. P. of his extreme watch fulness in regard to the votes whicli could be counted on in fa- 
 vor of the bill, and expresses the opinion that if Mr. Phelps had been absent, under cir- 
 cumstances indicating an intention nut to vote, he should have known it ; and yet it is now 
 clearly proved, by Mr. Cranston, that, but one hour before the vote was taken, a Senator 
 who bad been friendly to the bill, swore he would not vole for it — and by Mr. Conrad, that 
 the same Senator, almost immediately after, rose from his scat, " much excited," and went 
 out, saying " he would stay no longer!" 
 
 Some of the Senators in their answers to Mr. Phelps, think it improbable that such de- 
 clarations were made by him, because of their inconsistency with his previous course. But 
 those Senators, it is evident, do not k?ww him. Those who do, know, that when he is ex- 
 cited — especially with liquor — motives either of consistency or shame exert but a very fee- 
 ble influence over him, — as it is evident they did not, in his interview with Mr. Cranston, 
 as well as in his interview, the year before, with Mr. Hall, and in his conduct as stated by 
 Messrs. M;ech and Adams. 
 
 I have spoken of the bearing of Mr. Phelps' declaration to Mr. Cranston, on the question 
 of his probable temper and conduct, preceding that declaration. Dut it has, also, a very 
 important bearing on what followed. Mr. P. takes great pains to create the impression 
 that his excitement was the excitement of anxiety for the fate of the bill, and that hie im- 
 patience arose from the protracting of the debate. Alluding to my remark that he "ap- 
 peared very much excited," he puts on an air of most profound gravity, and says — (p. (i.) 
 "That we were all excited at. that great political crisis, is not to be doubted. If I were so, 
 from excessive anxiety for the fate of the bill, it is a feeling in which the Governor himself 
 participated, if you can believe him." Again he says — (p. 10,) "That we should have 
 become impatient of unreasonable debate is not to be wondered at. And that my move- 
 ment was intended as a finesse to stop the discussion, is probably the fact. Such move- 
 ments are not uncommon. Indeed I have on other occasions, practiced the same." All 
 this is put forth, with as much apparent gravity, as though not a muscle of his face moved 
 when he wrote it; while, with equal gravity, he adds — "That I had no serious purpose of 
 leaving the Capitol, is evident from Mr. Conrad's statement, that, on reaching the open air, 
 I stopped of my own accord ; and probably had he not followed me, I should not have pro- 
 ceeded as far as I did." And yet notwithstanding all this grave pretence of having node- 
 sign to leave the Capitol — of excessive anxiety for the fate of the bill, and of going out as a 
 finesse to stop debate, this very going out was probably within 15 or 20 minutes after his 
 conversation with Mr. Cranston, in which he said not one word about the p.-otracted debate, 
 or about his impatience for the question, or about his "excessive an.\ e y for the fate of 
 the bill," — but, in a paroxysm of jeatousy and wrath at the supposed neglect and contempt 
 of certain Whig Senators, imprecated damnation on himself if he voted for it! 
 
 Again : Mr. Phelps takes very great pains to create the impression that his absence was 
 but for a very few moments — frequently repeating such expressions as these — " My ab- 
 sence from my 6eat, at the moment the question was put — a circumstance of daily occur- 
 rence" — "My temporary absence" — "The five minutes that I was out of my place" — 
 " As I was out of my place but five minutes, there was not time for Mr. Cranston to go to 
 Mr. Slade's lodgings," &c. One might think that Mr. P. supposed the duration of his ab- 
 sence was to be conclusively settled by the mere force of reiterated assertion. But let us 
 see what there is in the case bearing on this question. 
 
 The duration of his absence may be inferred. 
 
 1. From the fact that the speeches of Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Woodbridge intervened be- 
 tween his leaving the Chamber and his return. 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." This I well remember. He was 
 speaking when I entered the Chamber, and found that Mr. Phelps was out. He did not 
 make what is called a long, set speech — which he seldom does ; but it was such a speech 
 as his position, and the occasion demanded. His position was that of leader of the free 
 trade party in the United States, and the occasion one of the most important that has ever 
 occurred in the history of our tariff legislation. He spoke I think from twenty to thirty 
 minutes. The speech was noticed in the National Intelligence, in the following summary 
 manner. 
 
 "Mr. Calhoun said that, if the Whigs had lost the distribution measure, they had gained 
 another in this bill, which was more protective, and laid duties more unequally, than any 
 bill for protection, tohich had ever been passed by thai body." These positions, I reuiem- 
 
22 
 
 ber, he undertook to sustain somewhat in detail, attemping to show, in several particulars, 
 the highly protective character of the bill, and how it laid duties unequally, and more un- 
 equally than former tariff bills. 
 
 The notice of his speech is very much like that of the other speeches of that day — such 
 for example, as those of Mr. Smith of Connecticut, and Mr. Simmons of Rhode Island, 
 which wore thus noticed. 
 
 " .Mr. Smith of Connecticut condemned the bill as having in view the protection of one 
 great interest, at the expense of, and injury to, the others." 
 
 Mr. Simmons replied, and spoke in defence of the bill, as being necessary to the support 
 of the government and the protection of the great manufacturing, agricultural and other in- 
 terests of the country." 
 
 Such was the style of reporting most of the speeches of that day. It was reporting what 
 Senators spoke about, rather than what they said ; and it will, therefore, surprise no one to 
 learn that the whole of the ei^ht hours 7 debate of that day occupied but three quarters of a 
 column in the National Intelligencer; and yet Mr. Phelps, after endeavoring to create the 
 impression that he went out at the commencement of Mr. Wood bridge's speech (which 
 followed Mr. Calhoun's and closed the debate) — says, that it lasted but a very few moments, 
 and in proof of it, suggests that it occupied but "six or seven lines of the ordinary news- 
 paper column.*' 
 
 I feel perfectly safe in saying that the speeches of Mr. Calhoun and Woedbridge occupi- 
 ed from thirty to forty minutes — I think forty. 
 
 The duration of Mr. Phelps' absence may be inferred, 
 
 2. From the fact stated by Mr. Cranston, that an hour elapsed between the time he left 
 Mr. Phelps, swearing he would not vote for the bill, and the taking of the vote. He says 
 he called immediately on Mr. Everett, who sent hirn to me ; and that I immediately went 
 to the Senate Chamber, and found that Mr. Phelps was out ; and that he found him out on 
 his return, — which 1 am confident was as soon or sooner than my arrival at the Chamber. 
 As Mr. Everett and myself boarded within 40 or 50 rods from the Capitol, any one can es- 
 timate the portion of the hour consumed in Mr. Cranston's going and returning, including 
 the time necessarily spent with Mr. Everett and myself. 
 
 Finally, the duration of Mr Phelps' absence, may be inferred, 
 
 3. From a consideration of the temper in which he left the Senate Chamber, and the 
 work to be performed by Mr. Cranston or somebody else, during the absence. It was 
 nothing less than to persuade a man to vote, who had just said he would be darnn'd if he 
 would vote; and said it, too, in the Senate Chamber, with a full view of the consequence 
 of the refusal — a loss of the bill ; — said it in defiance of all the high motives which the 
 place — the occasion — the question — his own honor and consistency — and the interest of his 
 constituents and his country were calculated to impress upon him. To change a mind thus 
 excited, and screwed up under such a pressure of motive, to such a determination, — who 
 will say that this was a work of "five minutes" 1 When or where was such a case (if 
 there ever was another such) cured in five minutes or five times five ! 
 
 It thus appears, that during the whole time that Mr. Calhoun was endeavoring to show 
 the highly protective character of the bill, and how unequally it laid duties, compared with 
 former tariffs, and Mr. Woodbride was giving reasons for dispensing with his scruples on 
 account of the omission to provide for a distribution of the proceeds of the sales of the pub- 
 lic lands, Mr. Conrad was engaged in the no less important, and certainly not less difficult, 
 task, of making Mr. Phelps "much calmer," and securing a vote that saved the bill. From 
 my heart I thank him for his successful labor ; and every man in Vermont ought to thank 
 him. 
 
 But Mr. Phelps says there was ?J0such labor. Referring to Mr. Conrad's letter, he 
 — " This letter of Mr. Conrad shows conclusively that no persuasions were used by him to 
 induce me to vote." But how can he have a face to say this, when the very letter was be- 
 fore him, in which Mr. C. says, that when, having followed him into the ante-room, he saw 
 him lake his hat and move towards the door, he "endeavored to dissuade him from going," 
 and thai " he persisted in going } " For what panose was this "dissuading," but to induce 
 hui to return and vote; and for what purpose this li psrsistin-j," bat to get away from 
 voting. He was going, evidently, in the spirit and purpose just expressed to Mr. Cran- 
 and Mr. Conrad's labor, must therefore have been directed to the allaying of that 
 spirit, and preventing the execution of that purpose. He does not, it is true, give the con- 
 versation between them, daring the! half or three quarters of an hour; nor is it necessary 
 he should. It needs no revelation from him to enable us to form a correct idea of its sub- 
 
23 
 
 stance. He has kindly drawn a veil over it — which, for the honor of Vermont I do not 
 regret — and Mr. Cranston would evidently have done the same, if he had not felt impelled 
 by a sense of duty to me, as explained in his letter, to state the whole truth. 
 
 In regard, however, to Mr. I'helps' interview with Mr. Conrad, my belief is, that it was 
 not marked by all the violence of language which characterized the conversation with 
 Mr. Cranston ; and I am inclined to think he did not, as directly, as in Mr. Cranston's pres- 
 ence, express his determination not to vote. Mr. Cranston was a fellow-boarder, to whom, 
 probably, he had, in his periods of excitement, been in the habit of speaking, without the 
 restraint which he might possibly feel in the presence of Mr. Conrad, with whom, accord- 
 ing to Mr. C's statement, he had had but " very slight intercourse — scarcely any out of the 
 Senate." The "excitement" under which Mr. Conrad says he rose and left the Senate 
 Chamber was, evidently, the same excitement which had just found vent in the declara- 
 tion in presence of Mr. Cranston. This nobody can doubt. But here the pent-up jealousy 
 and wrath was differently manifested, namely, by " suddenly rising from his seal, muck ex- 
 cited,'" — saying " I icill stay no longer' — leaving the Chamber — taking his hat in the ante- 
 room, evidently with the intention of going home, and, of course, with an intention not to 
 vote — and " persisting" that he would go, in opposition to Mr. Conrad's efforts to " dissuade" 
 him from going. What was the manner of this persistence, — whether accompanied by 
 his usual complaint of Whig Senators, or by his customary profanity when excited, or by 
 a declaration, in so many words — "I will not vote," does not appear. If there was not a 
 spice of all this — notwithstandinghis peculiar restraint in presence of Mr. Conrad — it was 
 as unlike him, as it was unlike the spirit he had just manifested in presence of Mr. Cran- 
 ston. It is true, Mr. Conrad says that he did not " impute his course to any wish to defeat 
 the bill — of which he had ever been among the most strenuous supporters — but solely to 
 some momentary excitement, [what that excitement was, he must have known, but does 
 not state,] acting on a temperament perhaps naturally irritable." Nobody pretends that 
 Mr. Phelps had any wish, that is, any settled purpose, to defeat the bill ; but the excite- 
 ment arising, as we have seen, from jealousy of Whig Senators, and aggravated, probably, 
 by another stimulus than that of jealousy, was so strong and absorbing, as to make him 
 regardless alike of the convictions of his judgement, and of his own consistency, and in- 
 duce him to take a course which, but for Mr. Conrad, would, undoubtedly, have resulted 
 in the loss of his vote, and a defeat of the bill. 
 
 There is one feature of Mr. Phelps' Appeal, touching this matter of the tariff vote, 
 which strikes me very strangely. It is his apparent want of recollection of the interview 
 between Mr. Cranston and himself. The reader will have observed how he flounders 
 through this part of the subject, in the paragraph I have copied, (see p. 17,) in which he 
 professes to think that Mr. Cranston " indistinctly overheard some expression of his impa- 
 tience, and perhaps a threat to leave the Senate Chamber, unless the debate ceased ;" and 
 that " it is evident he did not understand to what I had reference." And there seems to 
 be- the same want of recollection relative to the transaction stated by Mr. Conrad — in re- 
 gard to which Mr. P. says, " I have no distinct recollection of the occurrence, yet I have no 
 idea that I entertained the serious purpose of leaving the Capitol," &c. 
 
 What does this want of recollection mean? I have proved by Mr. Cranston, that he 
 held a distinct conversation with Mr. Phelps, who complained of the neglect of Whi<r Sen- 
 ators, and declared, with a most revolting accompaniment of profanity, that he would not 
 vote ; and from Mr. Conrad it appears, that Mr. P. soon after, rose suddenly from his seat, 
 said he would stay no longer, and went out; and that, at the ante-room, Mr. C. tried to 
 "dissuade" him from going, and that he "persisted" he would go ;— -and I yet he has no 
 recollection of these occurrences! Nevertheless, he well remembers that he reached 
 his hand through the ante-room door, and took his hat from the peg ! That "peg" is a 
 thing to be remembered ! The rest is forgotten! I have no disposition to retort on Mr. 
 Phelps the charge of deliberate " falsehood," which he has so wantonly made against me ; 
 but if he is not guilty of falsehood, in this professed want of recollection, the^ultimation 
 must be that he was in no condition, at the time these occurrences took place, to remember 
 what he said or did. He may take which horn of this dilemma he chooses. 
 
 As to the precise place whore the interview with Mr. Conrad was holden, upon which Mr. 
 Phelps expends so much time, it is of no sort of consequence. I said it was in the ante-room 
 and say so still ; and in this I am confirmed by Mr. Cranston, who saye thai he tin n under- 
 stood irom me and others, that Mr. P. was in the ante-room, with a Senator. But Mr. I 
 may fix the locus in quo any where he chooses — higher up, or lower down, or out of 
 doors. After all it_was somewhere^ and notwithstanding his attempts at evasion, the ques- 
 
24 
 
 tion must be answered — why was it any-where ! Why, everybody will ask, was Mr. P. 
 followed out, and half or three-quarters of" an hour spent in " dissuading " him from going, 
 and "persuading" him to return ? Why did not somebody follow .Mr. Wright and Mr. 
 ims and others when they went out, as stated by Mr. Wright in his letter to Mr. 
 Phelps ! Who thought of "taking care" of them, or ef any body but the Vermont Sena- 
 These are questions which will be asked, and which cannot be answered, truly, 
 without Scattering to the winds all the pretences under which Mr. Phelps has labored to 
 shield himself from censure, and bring upon me what he knows to be unmerited reproach. 
 
 Mr. Phelps expends much time in attempting to show that he was not twice called after 
 he entered the Senate Chamber, and did not ask Mr. Conrad if he had voted, and that Mr. 
 C. did not stand behind him. These circumstances were stated by me, just as I recollected 
 them. There is but one of them about which I have, now, any doubt ; and that is the 
 position of Mr. Conrad. As there were many Senators standing up at that anxious mo- 
 ment, I may have innocently substituted in my recollection, Mr. Conrad for some other 
 Senator standing behind Mr. Phelps. But that Mr. P., upon the second call of his name, 
 (the first being just as he was entering the chamber) asked Mr. Conrad if he had voted, 
 is what my ears heard, and my memory distinctly retains. Yet this does not materially af- 
 fec' the main point ; and I now re-assert it only because it is true. While Mr. P. has ex- 
 pended pages of his book upon the mere circumstantials of my statement, the substance 
 of it has been, thereby, but the more firmly established. 
 
 If I needed further confirmation of the correctness of my statement, I have it, indirectly, 
 in 1 ho statements of Messrs. Hall, Meech and Adams. If the reader will turn to the 
 Ftatement of Mr. Hall, he will see almost a fac-simile of the Senator, as described by 
 Mr. Cranston, in the leading features of profaneness, complaint of Whig Senators and 
 declaration tint he would not vote. The same jealousy of Senators was strikingly exhi- 
 bited in hie i ns in the presence of Mr. Mooch ; while his "turbulence" as des- 
 cribed hv Mr. M. and his "rage" as described by Mr. Adams, look very much like the 
 spirit which dictated the declaration — which I have no wish to repeat — in the presence of 
 Mr. Cranston. All these gentlemen, moreover, declare that he was, on the occasions 
 described by thorn, under the influence of the free use of intoxicating liquor ; which also 
 corresponds with my own declaration in regard to his apparent condition, on the evening of 
 the passage of the tariff. 
 
 It will be recollected that the occurrences related by Judge Meech took place in the 
 winter of l-ll — 'hose by Mr. Hall in September following* — those by myself in August, 
 1842, and those by Mr. Adams in the winter of 1844. The same general features appear 
 m them all, while, as face answereth to face in the water, so do they all answer to what 
 Ins been often witnessed much nearer the place of Mr. Phelps' residence than the city of 
 Washington. The Daguerreotype itself never produced a likeness soperfectlv true to the 
 life. 
 
 I will only add, on this part of the subject, that, if Mr. Phelps has not been greatly 
 misrepresented by those who have the means of knowing, there is some reason for asking 
 him to " d ■ i ie h " on th i occasion of the passage of the Annexation resolutions 
 
 in ihe winter of 1845. He professes "a high sense of accountability " to his constituents, 
 ami will, therefore, doubtless be willing to tell them where he was when the Senate was 
 ready to take the vote on those resolutions ; — whether any Senator made an effort to get 
 h:m into vote — and if BO, whether the effort was effectual ; and if not, what connexion it 
 had with the recess of the Senate on that occasion. Mr. Phelps ought to be informed that 
 answers to these questions are desired by some of his constituents. 
 
 It now remains for me to consider Mr. Phelps' defence against the charge of intemper- 
 ance. There are three allu this subject, in my reply to the committee. First, my 
 M P . under the influence of liquor, during the evening of the passage 
 of the tariff. In regard to tins 1 am much mistaken if my readers have not found sat isfac- 
 . deuce of it in the exhibition he made of himself in the presence of Mr. Cranston. 
 It is the most charitable way of accounting tor bia language and conduct on that occasion. 
 l!:it h ■ has it lie rather avoids it, by entirely excluding from his Appeal, that 
 part of my reply to the committee which contains it. He has also, in the same way, 
 
 * Mr Hnll ssyi ha bad fOOQ Ml 1' I H a »imilar itnlo of mind, and hour J froiu him tlmilar re mil Li ia regard 
 ivi Whlf S« Ittun, bo. at ivvural other lituoi. beu hn ilalomcol, p. 7. 
 
25 
 
 avoided an issue on my statement with regard to his intemperance, while boarding at Mrs. 
 Pitman's, and Mrs. Smith's, which I shall more particularly notice hereafter. 
 
 The only part of my statement relating to his intemperance, on which lie seems willing 
 to make an issue, is, that he was confined at a house on the Hill, several weeks, during the 
 first session of the 'J7th Congress, (1842) by ill health, occasioned by "excessive drink- 
 ing;" and in regard to this, it will he observed, (p. 16 of the Appeal) that he makes no 
 issue on the alledged cause of his sickness, but merely on the question of its duration. To 
 show that 1 was mistaken in regard to this, he refers to the Journal of the Senate and the 
 Register of debates, for proof that, from the lS:h of Juno — when ho says he removed from 
 Brown's tavern to the Hill — to the adjournment of Congress on the 31st of .Wlgust, he was 
 in his place in the Senate, every day, excepting the 15, 1<>, 18, and 19, of July, when he 
 was, as he admits, confined by sickness— and the 7th of July and the 1!) and 22 oi August, 
 for which he assigns so cause. "Here are four days," he says, " magnified into several 
 weeks." He should have said five, because the Sabbath intervened between the Kith 
 and 18th. 
 
 Mr. Phelps' allusion to the Journal has sent me to the same source of information, where 
 I find that his name does not appear, either among the yeas and nays, or in any other Way, 
 from the 9th of July inclusive, to the 20th of the same month, excepting on the 14th. Nor 
 do I find his name "connected with the debates during thai time, as given in the Intelli- 
 gencer. This corresponds as to the duration of his absence — though not precisely as to 
 the time of its occurrence — with the statement of Gov. Crafts, on which Mr. Phi 
 much relies, in which he says — "Excepting about 10 or 12 days in the latter part of July 
 and beginning of August, his health was good, and his attendance in the Senate and on 
 the Committees, was as regular as that of any other member whatever. During the 10 
 or 12 days above excepted, Judge Phelps was very unwell — was confined to his bed 6 or7 
 days of that time, and under the care of DocL Sewall. Ho was not only very unwell, but 
 very low-spirited. During his sickness I saw him every day." 
 
 Here then, according to Gov. Crafts, was ten or Ucehe days, instead-of four, in which 
 he was "very unwell." and nearly a week' of that time confined to his bqd, with Doctor 
 Sewall in attendance. What was the mailer with him ? The only account Gov. C, gives of 
 it is that he was very low-spirited " ! Mr. Phelps, though he refers to this sickness — (his 
 four days being evidently a part of Gov. C's 10 or 12)— and though it was alledged to have 
 been occasioned by excessive drinking — does not deny it, but spends his whole force in at- 
 tempting to establish the immaterial point that it was not of "several weeks " duration. 
 I say immaterial, because, if he was sick from intemperance 10 or 12 days, or half that 
 time, the substance of the charge is established. 
 
 As to the duration of the sickness I might have been mistaken, but I teas not in regard 
 to the cause of it. 1 perfectly understand the "low spirits" of Mr. P. and as perfectly re- 
 collect the conversations I had with Gov. Crafts about his condition and the cause of it. 
 Gov. C. and myself boarded together, and had very frequent conversations in regard to Mr. 
 Phelps' condition ; and he made no secret — for it was no secret — that the sickness was 
 produced by intemperance. I well remember he told me that they kept liquor from him 
 during that confinement ; and this he repeated to me in the presence of others at Montpelier, 
 soon after he made his reply to the circular of the committee. I said in my reply to the 
 committee that "Ins condition was a subject of conversation and painful regret among the 
 Vermont delegation and others." This he omits in h s quotations from the reply ! 
 
 I stated to the committee that I understood from Doct. Sewall that his ill health was 
 the effect of excessive drinking. Under the head of " one mnr< '.exposed" Mr. P. 
 
 says that he has a note from Doct. S. "in which he d n h iviug given occasion or au- 
 thority for any such statement." Why does he not produce this note ! From the fact of 
 its being withholden, I have reason to suppose it may be very much such a note as the 
 Doctor sent to me, in reply to one asking him to state whether Mr. Phelps' sickness was, or 
 was not, produced by excessive drinking. His reply (dated, Oct. 29, 1844) was simply this — 
 " I am sorry not to be able to reply to your communication received yesterday. 1 have 
 ever made it a rule, and have adhered to it throughou', to regard whatever I do profession- 
 ally, as strictly confidential, when it may affect the feelings ot interest of the patient." 
 
 "Confidential w«hen it may affect the feelings or interest of the patient. Of course not confi- 
 dential when not affecting his feelings or interest. It was as much as to say — a disclosure 
 would affect the feelings or interest of Mr. Phelps, ar.d therefore I cannot make it. If I had 
 put such a question in regard to a sickness, say of Judge Prentiss, what would have been 
 
26 
 
 the Doctor's reply • Why, promptly, that it did not originate in the cause intimated. 
 And why not make the same re] ' The inference is in 
 
 able — he could ■ 
 
 If it be said that, upon the principle above I by Dr. S., he could have made no 
 
 disclosure to me at the time, as to the cause . my reply is, that he 
 
 Mr. l'li'lp?. While Mr. P. was 
 tic!:, I occasionally met Dr. S. — . th whoi . i whose family, I had, for years, been 
 
 on terms of the must I - piired after his patient. The character of 
 
 his coin plaint*^ as a subject I conversati . do secret. I did 
 
 not think of drawi n the Doctor, disclosing any secret 
 
 to me ; and did 
 
 atement as to the duration of this sickness. My 
 mistake originated in . two periods ber, which were eepara'ed. 
 
 The "10 or 12 days" in July was one of them. The other was in the foie part i 
 when he was at Brown's tavern — from s he says h rmont. 
 
 Neither the Senate Journal nor the daily account of debates in the Intelligencer, show that 
 he was in his place in the Senate, fiom the 30th of April to the : y. excepting the 
 
 3d and 4th of that month.* The Senate was not in session on the G'.h and Tih. 
 
 It would thus seem, that lie was detained fro:., lamber, at Brown's tavern, 
 
 nearly the same length of 1 . . . y, that he was sick on the hill, in July following; and 
 probably the associ.": .wo periods that led me to speak of a 
 
 confinement of "several 
 
 I said, in my reply tothe commillc, that I u ' Mr. P. was persuaded to retire to 
 
 the hill from Brown's tavern, and that Gov. C me at the time, that he had advised him 
 
 to leave Brown's. I didi I and persuaded ; hut Mr. P. infe d 
 
 infers justly, that itwas to get him away from temptation ; and he thereupon says h? "will not 
 stop to comment on the unparalleled meanness of such an insinuation." That Gov. Crafts 
 
 > me that he ad . ra's for the reason suggested, I m 
 
 atcly affirm; atld that he mile ihe same declaration to another — adding that if Mr. P. 
 remained at Brown's, he was afraid he would ruin himself- .' 
 
 But Mr. Phelps says that Gov. Craft's letter to him "clears him boldly and decisively from 
 such an imputation." I h that portion of the letter referring to this sul 
 
 p. G, — the substance of which is, that when he arrived at Washington, he found Mr. P. 
 boarding at Bru ffort to find a boarding house on the hill, where they 
 
 could both : iy from Brown's 
 
 lot that he saw any th I -eate a suspicion that Mr. 1'. "frequented the bar," 
 for " he saw nothing,"— but that the hill was " mot 
 
 Now, in the first place, Gov. Crafts is mistaken as to the time when my statement rep- 
 resents him to have advised Mr. P. to leave Brown's and go to the hill. It was not, as his 
 letter supposes, soon after his arrival in Washington— which was on the 30:h of April — 
 but it was when Mr. Phelps actually left Brown's and went onto the hill, which, as he 
 states, (p. 15,) was on the I velve days after his return from Vermont — that 
 
 being, as he states, on the 6lh. It was during that matters got into 
 
 such a state at Bi er \ov the Mr. 1'. to remove 
 
 to "a more airy location."! This mistake is about equal to a ■ lich Mr. Phelps 
 
 himself found it ] ,v;i. p. ti. 
 
 But this is nm the rd to this matter, for, 
 
 as to Lh I / i.) which his . lr. 
 
 (April30) to Mr. Ph i his place in the 
 
 Senate but r twelve days in 
 
 the latter part oj his .'. and Lis aUendanr. 
 
 Having 
 
 thus entirely forgotten Mr. P. 's abseo ■ the greater part of 
 
 •The Journal gives no rjdi : i is condition. Gov. C. 1 \t 
 
 that, upon Mr P.'l racot hti a tksrrt timt 
 
 each day. The Journal ihi : Mr. P. [ opnn il fur July, and find, fi i 
 
 plo, that.'oftwn calliofthi —of four on 
 
 ol mi on iim 7ih, l>. . ..:i the 3d uf April, when I turn from another tource ih:u he 
 
 w.i*, foi i ihl ily calU on that day. 
 
 1 might ■ ,ii tiiu list ol lh* of April, May, J 
 
 July, I find that of the 164 ealli taring that time !:■ 78— SBonly I 
 were during his Qljedgtd : 
 
27 
 
 the first twelve days in May, it can hardly I ;d that lie would rotain a very distinct 
 
 recollection as to his Gondilion during that - 
 
 Myreade:'s will hav ol r\ . in a pai my reply I • (p. 4) included 
 
 in brackets, and omitted in Mr. Phelp ' \ •.'. a atal im ml in r erance 
 
 whiles nan's and Mrs. Smith's. He . Pitman 1 mth or 
 
 more at the be ion, and at Mrs. & ue two months of the last ] 
 
 it — having been, in the intermed tavern, and aUa priva .Under 
 
 the care of Doct. Sewall, excepting when ibsent in \ 
 
 Verm ml boarded with him al Mrs. Smith's, when Mr. Cranston went for Mr. E. up 
 occasion of Mr. Phelps' swearing he would not vote, and when Mr. E id he could 
 
 "do nothing with him " ! 
 
 It is manifest from Mr. Phelps' omission of this part of my si itement, that he chooses 
 to avoid an issue upon it, though, if the statemei mtrue, he h is ample opporl 
 
 to show it. by the testim my [ have given as his fellow boai 
 
 .. Messrs. Evans, F i Young, al Mrs. Pitman's, and Messrs. Morehead, 
 
 Gamble, Warren and Evere I a M ■-. Smith's; to which I will now add, Judge Prentiss 
 and Gov. M itto >ks at Mrs. Pitman's ; and M ■. I !ra iston at -Mrs. Smith's. If my statement 
 is not true, it can he shown by so g mtlemen. Four of them — Messrs. Pren- 
 
 tiss, Everett, Mattocks and Young are in Vermont, within his immediate reach; one of 
 whom — Mr. Everett — is the individual to \ illy referred in my statement, as 
 
 having spoken to me of his cours s at Mrs. Smith's. One of them — Judge Prentiss — was 
 addressed by the committee, and o answt r. It |s to be regretted tint Mr. Everett, 
 
 Gov. Mattocks, and Mr. Young had not been addressed by the committee — as they 
 would have been, if I had had any thing to do with the proceeding. But it was de- 
 termined (why, I never knew) to address those only who were then present at Mont- 
 pelier. But these gentlemen are within reach, and Mr. P. can avail himself of their 
 knowledge of the case if he chooses. Evidently, however, he does not choose to go 
 into this matter. Indeed, he says, expTessly, (p. 14) "So far as this stale charge (of 
 intemperance) is concerned, I shall content myself with the evidence already before 
 the public, and shah leave it where the investigations of this redoubtable committee 
 lift it." And throughout his whole book, he treats the subject of his alledged intemperance, 
 as a matter with winch the public have nothing to do, excepting so faras it directly dis- 
 
 ies him for the "faithful and effective discharge" of his public duties ; which he 
 denies that it has, at any time, done, and especially at any time during the lono- session of 
 the 27lh Congress, (1842) to which my statement principally relays. To sustain this 
 denial, he refers to his labors on committees, in the winter of 1842 ; stating that between 
 th" 3 I of January and the 22d of March, inclusive, he presented to the Senate " fifty-two 
 reports, occupying a space of about 200 pages in the printed documents." Without feel- 
 . to disparage his labors as a member of the Committees on 
 
 is and Pen-ions, I must be permitted to say, that an examination of the "printed 
 documents" shows but 49 reports made by him within the time mentioned, "occupying a. 
 space" of about 155 pages. II • further says, " In the. course of the session, I made about 
 80 reports, in all, filling over 201) pages of the printed documents," when "(he printed 
 documents" show but 07 of his reports in all, (many of them very brief,) filling but 175 
 
 ) these variances, as a matter of very great importance, though, if it was 
 important that any boast should be made of the reports", it is, to say the least, well enough 
 to have the truth state 1. The variance need not have resulted from an error, either of ob- 
 c memory, because the truth rests en ir • "printed documents," to 
 
 which Mr. Phelps professes to refer for evidence, and which he m had before 
 
 h;m. 
 
 One thing, however, of some I irtance, has been disclosed, by the examination 
 
 into which Mr. Phelps' boast has led me. [l is, \ , the 13th of April, to the 27th 
 of July,(three and a half months) Mr. P. appears to h iva made no reports whatever. And this 
 
 committees suspended during these three, months and a half} 
 
 That M,-. Phelps performed valuable service on the committees of claims, especially of 
 Revolutionary claims, during the winter of 1842, is unquestionably true. That hVhris 
 capacity to perform thai kind of faSoY, and fo perform it lufefalfy, 1 cheerfully admi' But 
 
28 
 
 does he think that these lahors are to atone for his intemperance and failures in dutv, at 
 other times? Do not his labors, and his capacity to labor usefully, rather make his pre- 
 vious and subsequent indulgence and neglect of duty the more striking and inexcusable? 
 Is the complaint o. intemper mce and profane threats of ab ind ming bis post when crisisea 
 for important action arise, tobemel by - lying th it valuable labor his been performed at 
 other times ? The pe iple want It ipresentatives who may be counted on as faithful at all 
 times, — who will not, in fits ofj id anger — whether produced or not by intemper- 
 
 ance — refuse, in moments of peril, to i\o their duty. How much value would a farmer 
 put upon h:s horse, « Jgh he draws well on level ground, when he comes to a 
 
 sharp pitch, stops, — looks round — and runs back? He may be a very good-looking horse, 
 and have "great talents" to draw, but of what avail will they be, if, when " a pinch comes," 
 he says — ******. I waa going to put into his ra mth th • Senator's language, but 
 I forbear.- I will do no beast such injustice. Even Balaam's, when he opened his mouth, 
 did not swear, hut rather "forbade the madness of the prophet." 
 
 If a man, through intemperance, or fickleness, or jealousy, fails when the crisis comes, 
 he fails for the whole. " England expects every man to do his duty," said a noble leader 
 in a great crisis. And so does Vermont expect her Senators and Representatives to be 
 at their posts, with clear heads, and steady nerves, and strong hearts, to do their duty, 
 whenever her great intersts are at hazard — especially when it is known, as it was in the 
 case in question, that the fate of an important measure hangs suspended on a single 
 vote. 
 
 But, says Mr. Phelps — alluding" to the tariff vote — "still I was in my place and voted 
 in season to have my vote recorded;" and this he treats as a sufficient answer to all that is 
 Baid about his alledged threat not to vote. In reference to the statement of Mr. Hall, (see 
 p, 7,) that he said he would not vote on the land bill, he wa bold, and says — •• The 
 
 journals of the .Senate give the lie to all pretence of a dereliction of duty. I meet this 
 charge boldly, with the journal in my hand. Etsh »ws thai 1 voted 59 times on that bill." 
 And thereupon he pronounces Mr. Hall's statement " miserable twaddle,"* because, he 
 voted 59" times ! What strange logic ! Here is a Senator! who, on being asked whether 
 a bill, very important to his constituents, will pass, replies, "J donl know, and dont care — 
 / am not going to vote upon it." And, in another case, on being mildly ur^ed as a Vermonter, 
 to vote for a bill, still more important to the people he represents, h i says — "/'// be damn'd 
 if I vote for" it. And yel having finally voted on both of I er being seen to, 
 
 and " taken care of," he turns roun 1 and says, There, I voted ! and taking up the journal 
 contain:: : \\ ■ rec< irded vote, exclaims — this j lurnal " gives the lie to all pretence of a de- 
 reliction of duty," and with it I boldly hurl defiance at all my accu- 
 
 The people of Vermont can here see their Senator ! They see at once his logic, and 
 his standard of duty. In his estimation, it i be ol no importance what a Senator 
 
 says or does — how much liquor he may drink — how often he may gel mad, and swear l>e 
 will not vote, or how much expostulation and entreaty may be necessary to persuade him 
 to do his duty; if the journal shows that he finally Voted, it is enough ; and if, thereafter, 
 any one dares to state the facts, and to say that he thinks it unsafe to entrust power to 
 such hands, he must be charged with "falsehood," and "conspiracy," and held up to pub- 
 lic scorn and reprobation. 
 
 Ami this brings me to the consideration of agrave question, which is raised by the Appeal 
 before me, namely, whether the people have any thing to do with the moral character and 
 conduct, and habits o a Senatorjor Representative, or any other officer of their choice, 
 excepting so far as they directly affect the performance of his official duties. Referring 
 to his ii vith Mr. Hall, and the " violent, coarse,and •■•," and •• 
 
 there ii >, (attributable, as Mr. H. says, to "the use ol intoxicating drink," see his 
 
 statement, p. 7,) Mr. Phelps asks — "What have the world to do. with this* i . 7 " — 
 
 and in ring that he would not vote on the tariff* bill, he saj b — u To put 
 
 iduct, I did not do what I threatened to do ; and if I had, no 
 
 harm <• done," — putting tii" failure of hirm upon the ground that "if the 
 
 L> . J 1 had bee i ti Mi M i igum and Mr. Berrien were prepared t.« move a reconsid- 
 
 er, il o i next morning" I And with this accords the whole tenor ol his Appeal. 
 
 II U. have the world /<» d > with my viol mt, eg irae, ab isive and profane language, and the 
 intemperance which produced it! ind what harm was there in my profane threat that I 
 Would not vote ! Such is the idea that .Mr. Phelps entertains of the character and scope 
 
 * Twaddlo! & fnvorito word with th« Uarued isrator ; but DOwb«r» to b« found out of tb« pot-bouje vocabulary. 
 
29 
 
 of his representative responsibility ! It seems not to have entered his mind that his con- 
 stituents and country have an interest in his moral character and conduct. He seems 
 never to have thought of the deep and vital injury which an indulgence in intemperance* 
 profanity^ and wrathful passions, by a man standing in his high position, inflicts upon the 
 community. What a terrible effect must such conduct, and such an avowal of exemption 
 from responsibility, have upon the minds of young men, whose principles and characters are 
 forming for future life — perhaps for high and responsible public stations. Alas, for the 
 fate of a people, who can regard with approbation, or even with indifference, the Senator's 
 rule of responsibility ; and the character of whose public men shall be formed upon the 
 model exhibited in his Appeal to the people of Vermont. When, or where, in the whole 
 history of representative government, has there been formally set up such a claim of ex- 
 emption from responsibility as this 1 I look at it, and almost doubt the evidence of my own 
 senses, when I see a Senator gravely and self-complacently submitting himself, upon such 
 ground, to the judgment of the people of Vermont 
 
 And I regard with arTnost equal astonishment, his claim that all investigation into his 
 conduct — excepting that which is strictly official — is an unwarrantable " inquisition into 
 his private life," and a violation of "the sanctity and confidence of the domestic fireside." 
 No matter how intemperate, or profane, or vulgar, or passionate a Senator may be, — it is 
 all in "the domestic circle." The public boarding-houses in Washington — the rooms 
 around the Senate Chamber, and even the Senate Ch imber, itself, become by his presence, 
 strangely transformed into the sanctuaries of private life ! Such a claim is below the dig- 
 nity even of ridicule. 
 
 But after all, as if half conscious that he cannot successfully shelter himself under these 
 pretences, he shifts his defence and says — " The charge of intemperance is a stale one," 
 and "has been repeatedly passed on by the people of this State." It was urged (he says) 
 on his first election, as Judge of the Supreme Court, in ISil — was repeated for yeirs 
 afterwards, during which he received seven elections to the bench, and was urged when he 
 was transferred to the Senate of the United States ; and after five years of service 
 there, he was " re-elected to the same post, in defiance of the testimony of Mr. Slade and 
 his coadjutors." He adds, " With these nine successive verdicts, I am satisfied ; and I do 
 not deem it necessary to present to the people of this State, any new evidence on the 
 subject." 
 
 Now, what does Mr. Phelps mean when he says the matter of his intemperance has been 
 " passed upon" by the people of this State ? Does he mean to assert, as his allusion to 
 the successive "verdicts" would seem to imply, that he has been acquitted? If he does, 
 he asserts what is notoriously untrue. I say this fearlessly, in the midst of a people who 
 have the means of knowing whether I speak the truth or not. There is not a man in Ver- 
 mont, who will dare to say that he has had nine successive verdicts, or even one verdict 
 of acquittal. 
 
 Mr. Phelps is a good lawyer; and so far as mere intellect is concerned, is capable of 
 being a good judge ; though he was a better lawyer than judtre. He has an iron constitu- 
 tion, capable, beyond that of most men, of resisting the effects of intemperance. When 
 he was first elected, there was much less feeling in regard to the impropriety of bestow- 
 ing public confidence on hard drinkers, thin there is now; and there is less now, than 
 there ought to be. Mr. P. made shift to keep pretty clear from the influence of liquor, 
 while actually on ike Bench; while his friends were always promising that h : would amend ; 
 and yet he did not, but grew worse, as 3i7io!orious occurrence, within a year, I think, (per- 
 haps some more) previous to his first election to the S m tte, gave terrible and mortifying 
 proof! During the long confinement which followed, hi had time for reflection ; and the 
 occasion was improved, to warn him against a continuance of the dangerous indulgence* and 
 urge him to reform. He promised that he would, and actually took the pledge ; and hopes 
 were entertained that the reform would be permanent. How vain those hopes were, the 
 result has proved. 
 
 In this state of things, he was brought forward as a candidate for the Senate. Along 
 with the most extravagant eulogies of his talents, and confident predictions that he would 
 be a second Webster in the Senate, his friends urged the fact of his temperance pledge, 
 and gave assurance that there was needed only the encouragement of an election to make 
 the work of reform effectual, and enduring. Thus, through his leading friends, did he 
 promise ; and this promise of reform, together with extraordinary management — which, ex- 
 perience has proved, is the most efficacious to secure a Senatorial election — he succeeded. 
 
 But the reform did not follow. The pledge was broken. Removed from the restraints 
 
36 
 
 of a position cm the bench — though thai had not been effectual — and thrown into the midst 
 of peculiar temptations, the old habits were resumed — with what effect the testimony of 
 >ch and A .' ■ lothing of my own, furnish proof. As might have 
 
 been expected, intelligence of I Vermont;— le very 
 
 general, that M Phe ps had fals ii id the pn 'nds, and verified th 
 
 ; was up >n this ground that the investigation was instituted. It was de- 
 ise, in a manner that it could not be resisted, and re- 
 sulted in bri which 1 have presented in the previous pages of this 
 Mr. I'n dps was thereupon re-elected. How far this election may be justly regard- 
 ed as a " verdict" of acquittal, may, perhaps, better appear upon an examination of its his- 
 tory, which In 
 
 I present this history of thr> election, not only for the purpose above indicated, but for 
 another, personal to myself. Mr. Phelps has th lught proper to impugn the correctness of 
 my Etati mi nt, on Ihe ground that my testimony was that of a candidate for the place he 
 occupied; and has endeavored to cast odium upi I what 
 
 was becoming a person thus Bituated, would have imposed silence on me, in an investiga- 
 tion into Ins coiid.ict. "It (says he, referring to myself) be has not been ■ .. 
 misunderstood, and belied, hs has been, : I work 
 
 Jo supplant me." Now I have . if it has been so represented, then I haee, been 
 
 "egreg ind ood and belied" — unless a laborious and ze barge of my 
 
 duties as a member of I igress, is to be d semed a laborious and zealous effort to supplant 
 my accuser. The connexion and obvious purpose ol the ahove remark Beem to justify, 
 and indeed, to dem ind from me, a brief statement of my position in regard to the Senator- 
 ial questii election. 
 
 Although 1 had been spoki to succeed Mr. Phelps, I seldom allowed 
 
 myself to spe ik of it, until th i year before the Senatorial election, when, my friends having 
 failed to secure my nomination for I . and afterwards, for the office I now hold, 
 
 there soon appeared a disposition, in various j me forward as a candidate 
 
 for the Senate in the follow The declarations to that effect become more open 
 
 and decided at th • - - ol the Legislature in October, when many members of botdi 
 branches of tin Gener '. , and others, voluntarily issured i - port 
 
 Thus the m Li^jr rested until the sumrn I 
 
 declined a re-election. Immediately upon its announcem there was a 
 
 Btrong m ivem ml for my n iminal j the friends of Mr. Phelps. 1 ily de- 
 
 clared that 1 was a ca it to be put aside by 
 
 any such movement 1 d • erm n ■ 1 to pr iv ■ <;. il p ssible, my nomination ; afld, for that 
 se, went to Burlington, the place " appointed for the State Com re than 
 
 a day in advance uf its rn re unavailing. I found m; mnded 
 
 by influences to induce my consent to b • a cand d ite, which it was verv difficult to resist 
 They came, not from th i fri snds Mr. Phelps alone, but from my r — from men 
 
 wh i desired my election to the S ■ late, but who said to me that it -.. - tnted that I 
 
 would not - ion in which my friends desired to place me, and where it was 
 
 deemed important for the success of the Whig ticket that I should consent to be placed — 
 because I wanted to be Senator; and thai t.i 3 \. my injury. But after much 
 
 anxious del . 1 I could no urgent importunities of 
 
 friends, a fial and repu sive denial, i , and su lected. 
 
 In the mean time It Phelps went through the . 
 
 rang in ; and 1 thai il v. ■ 
 
 Governor ropar for 1 
 
 in fact, I had I the nomination, with an expr ig that I would not be 
 
 a cand . th il Mr. Pliolp3 was everywher 1 the Wh 
 
 their only available on the grou jd, that a declining to 
 
 support him, migbl put al hazard th ■■ n that election.* 
 
 In th things the Leg . i.r 1 convened. Notwithstanding all that had been 
 
 done t ipon the Whig , a.- their only avail.: ite, there still ex- 
 
 i-spread dissatisfa 1. Il resulted in a private meeting of most, if 
 
 . ■ which it was determined that an investigation should be 
 
 ird to his alb nduct; and a 1 .. -, thereupon, appoint- 
 
 * A port of the operation w.i«, '" get men •lected 'o ihe E#gUlature, under :i plrdge to vote for Mr. Phelps, ami 
 (but tu socutg hn ak'C.ion, in ijulu oi tnj dcvetupamuiits of hi* eoadMt, irhiee ai.^hi bo muCe ul ilo::tpclior. 
 
31 
 
 eel, for that purpose. 1 was entirely unaware, even of tin existence of the meeting', until 
 after it was holden, and the course of proceeding determined on. 
 
 The Circular I have giv^ii (p. 4,) wis \\\ n result of th lI m seting, One of thr> gentlemen 
 addressed — Ju Ige Prentiss — leclined to answer. Tw i ofth sm — M sssrs. Upham and Foot 
 — made verbal statements to the committer;, which were, I bslieve, subsequently repeated, 
 in presence of a Whig meeting. I decided not to make a verbal reply, on the ground that I 
 thought it due to Mr. Phelps that what I had to say. should be in writing, and that a ver- 
 bal statement would, moreover, be liable to misapprehension, misrecollection and misrepre- 
 sentation, to my injury. 
 
 And bore I come loan important point, at which I have been aiming in this statement — 
 namely, the misrepresentation of Mr. Phelps, in asserting that I made my reply to the com- 
 mittee while a candidate for the Senate — which it was dishonorable for me to do. The 
 truth was, I did not reply, without making up my mind, and declaring to several of my 
 friends, that the reply would place me in a position in which I could not expect to be ur- 
 ged as a candidate for the Senate — as, in truth, from the moment of making it, 1 was not 
 — my decided friends declining to bring forward my name, during the whole of the protract- 
 ed ballotings. To all practical purposes, I ceased to be a candidate from the moment I re- 
 plied to the committee. Indeed, to all practical purposes, the question of my election had been 
 decided, the moment I consented to become a candidate for Governor, as the original movers of 
 my nomination intended it should be, and as I discovered it had been, soon after my arrival at 
 Montpelier. 
 
 There was another embarrassment I had to encounter. It was said that I was Governor, 
 and that it was unbecoming the Governor to condecend to mingle in the Senatorial strife. 
 To this I felt no inclination to yield ; for, independent of all other considerations, it was ap- 
 parent that it had been one of the purposes of Mr. Phelps, in managing to induce me to 
 accept a nomination for Governor, to place me, thereby, in a position where it might, wi'h 
 some plausibility, be said, that it would be undignitied for me to make any disclosures which 
 should affect the Senatorial election. I determined that I would not be thus silenced. Re- 
 garding my duty to the State as a paramount consideration, I deemed that I should best 
 consult my true dignity, by fearlessly performing that duty. And this seemed the more ob- 
 vious, an I my d ity th s m ire imperative, because there were very materir ' '"acts bearing on 
 the conduct of Mr. Phelps, at Washington, in regard to which no otic of those to whom the 
 Circular was addressed, excepting myself, could, probably, give any information. I allude 
 especially, to the information given me by Mr. Cranston, and the events which immediate- 
 ly followed. 
 
 To give a perfect idea of my embarrassment, I ought to add, that, after it had become 
 known that I should be addressed, by the committee, it was distinctly said to me, that I 
 was suspected of an intention to decline answering, and to " skulk from responsibility be- 
 hind the Executive chair." In a communication subsequently addressed to the committee, 
 and read in a Whig meeting, (drawn from me by the expressed regret of some friends that 
 I had answered the Circular,) — I stated this fact, and among other things said — "I inter- 
 pose the Chair between me and no kind of responsibility, fairly thrown upon me." 
 
 Such were the circumstances attending my reply, and the motives for making it. The 
 unfair attempt of Mr. Phelps to place me in a false position in regard to this matter, has 
 compelled ine to state my true position, (necessarily speaking more of myself than would 
 otherwise have been proper) and in doing it, to expose a portion of the management by 
 which he obtained what he now trumpets to the world as the last of " nine successive ver- 
 dicts in his favor. 
 
 I have only to add, in regard to these "verdicts," that all of them, and especially the 
 last two, were verdicts of forbearance, (forbearance that has been abused) rather than ver- 
 dicts of acquittal. The latter Mr. Phelps knows they were not ; and this whole community 
 knows they were not. The last was obtained by the means (among others) which I have 
 described, — to which I will add, a denial of my statement by Mr. Phelps, in a whig meeting, 
 on the evening before his election, so bold and imposing, as to force on some minds, I have 
 reason to believe, a momentary though reluctant doubt of its correct:: 
 
 There is a suggestion in the Appeal, upon which, though it may seem to be of not much 
 importance, I deem it proper to bestow a passing notice. f ; I Mr. Cranston's 
 
 calling on me to interpose my efforts to save his vole on the tariff, Mr. Phelps says, p. 11, 
 Mr. C. "must have known that there was no intercourse between me and Mr. Slade." 
 Mr. Cranston 6ays, in hie letter to me, that he was not aware of it, when he called on 
 me ; arid Mr. Everett evidently was not, when he tent him to me — and this, in both cases, 
 
32 
 
 for the best of reasons, namely— because it was not true. It is true that I have, a 
 various times, been abusively treated by Mr. Phelps ; but as he has long been in th< 
 habit of abusing, by turns, his best friends, I have scarcely been tempted to make it thi 
 occasion of withholding personal civilities, when I could, without the imputation of un 
 worthy condescension, possibly bestow them. There was, I remember, a few weeks 
 before the occurrence in regard to the vote on the tariff, a period, during which I coulc 
 get from Mr. Phelps no response to my salutations when I met him, because I had sue 
 ceeded in obtaining the appointment of a certain individual to a certain post-office, ir 
 opposition to his candidate ; but he seemed to get over it after a while, and our inter- 
 course was as cordial as my efforts could make it, and his lingering jealousy and splee 
 would permit. It is a well known characteristic of some men to see enemies ever) 
 where, and to suspect the bosoms of others to be the seat of the same passions that em- 
 bitter their own. 
 
 I cannot close, without adverting to the reason given by Mr. Phelps, for delaying the 
 publication of his Appeal. "Had it appeared (he says) at an earlier period, it might 
 have been regarded as an attempt to influence th 2 late election ; and I chose not to sub- 
 ject myself to any such charge." This forbearance may seem to evince a very excellent 
 spirit, to those who do not know, that, immediately on his return from Washington, last 
 March, he began, privately, to expatiate upon his case, in the hearing of individuals — to 
 read to them his certificates, boast of his means of annihilating me, and threaten to 
 write a book for that purpose. He knew then, and knows now, and may, perhaps, know 
 better, hereafter, that such a. proceeding was calculated do me a much greater injury than 
 any book he could write. Indeed, from the moment 1 learned what he was doing, I earn 
 estly desired the appearance of the threatened book, that I might defend myself from the 
 attacks made on me, upon the strength of its half revealed contents — attacks which pro- 
 bably had some effect upon the election (which he was so scrupulous about influencing !) 
 as it was said to me, pending that election, that I was very much blamed for having " so 
 much abused Mr. Phelps." His attacks were made in such a way that I could not meet 
 them ; and I was therefore obliged to submit in silence — to which I had become well nigh 
 reconciled, when The Book made its appearance. 
 
 A word by way of apology. There may be those who, whatever they may think as to 
 the completeness of my defence, and the strict justifiableness of making it, may, never- 
 theless, for the sake of peace and harmony, regret its appearance. If there are any such, 
 let me ask them to read carefully the Appeal — if they can find it ! — and after considering 
 the character of its attack on me, and my means of defence, let them say, whether I ought 
 to remain silent. Indeed I will go farther back, and call on every Vermonter to say, 
 whether, knowing what I did in regard to Mr. ['helps, it. was my duty to be silent when 
 inquired of by the committee, — whether I was not bound to speak out, when the hazards 
 of one six years were in danger of being continued and increased during another. 
 
 This reply has, I am aware, presented evidence which cannot be otherwise than mor- 
 tifying to every man in Vermont — and especially as Mr. Phelps is still one of its Senators, 
 and its honor is, in some degree, identified with his. To that honor I am not insensible ; 
 and, for the sake of i', I would fain have spared my assailant ; but he would not permit 
 me. Against every dictate of prudence and common sense, 1)3 has made an attack, which 
 has compelled me to expose him. 
 
 I have done ; — and if something very extraordinary shall not occur to change my pur- 
 pose, I shall never write another word on this subject. Within two days after the Appeal 
 made its appearance, I was informed, on good authority, that Mr. Phelps said he expected 
 a reply, and that he intended to have " the last word." In regard to the last word, I am 
 very much disposed to gratify him. I do not peceive that I shall find it necessary to say 
 any thing more upon the subject — having in ended to write so as to make myself understood, 
 and believing that all who shall honor me with a perusal of these pages will read, so as 
 to remember. I have spoken plainly, but with no disposition to be wantonly severe. The 
 severity of Truth — let whoever deserves it, feel. 
 
 WILLIAM SLADE. 
 
 January 31, 1846. 
 
 Erratcm. — Page 23, line 9th from bottom, for ultimation read alternative. 
 
%<? 
 
 A**uv 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 A* V ^ 
 
 ^ 
 ^ 
 
 ■> ♦ 1 
 
 
 
 •« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /\;-f 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ** 
 
 
 
 
 
 v s . 
 
 
 
 * ©2 
 
 
 V^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 
 - ^ 
 
 
 ■IrK" 
 
 >* :j 
 
 
 
 
 °x. 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 'o , 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,~