MR. DUNCAN, OF OHIO. 
 
 In House of Representatives , January 17, 1830—On I 
 the resolution providing for the appointment of 
 a committee to inquire into the defalcations of 
 Samuel Swartwout. 
 
 Mr. DUNCAN said he had been anxious to ob¬ 
 tain the floor for some days, to participate in the 
 discussion of this resolution, tout he had not suc¬ 
 ceeded in his attempts to catch the Speakers’s atten¬ 
 tion; and although he sometimes felt disappointed, 
 at the moment, that he was not permitted to do 
 something towards arresting the unbroken torrent 
 of abuse which has been daily and hourly poured 
 upon the heads of the Administration, from the first 
 day of the session to this time, yet he felt pleased 
 that his rights were deferred till now. The un¬ 
 bounded range which the debate has taken, and the 
 unlimited privilege tolerated by the Chair to those 
 who had entered the discussion, by which every 
 subject of the political or human character, proper 
 and improper to be talked of, here or elsewhere, 
 has been drawn into the vortext of discussion, and 
 all attempted to be made to bear upon this Admi¬ 
 nistration, to its prejudice, and to the destruction 
 of the confidence of the people in it, whose Admi¬ 
 nistration it is. I say that I do not regret that I 
 have been deferred until now, because the course 
 and spread the debate has taken gives me a wider 
 space to move in. I trust, sir, although I shall 
 deviate in many of the remarks I shall make from 
 the real question, I shall not be considered out of 
 order, provided my remarks go to reply to the re¬ 
 marks of those who have preceded me in this dis¬ 
 cussion; for I hold, sir, that when remarks are 
 made, in discussion, unfavorable in their character 
 to the reputation of the Administration, or any in¬ 
 dividual, whether in a public or private station, 
 «ven if the remarks be out of order, yet, sir, it 
 is right that they should be answered, at at all times, 
 
 I when justice and truth require it, without regard to 
 the question or measure immediately under consi¬ 
 deration. 
 
 Sir, in the remarks I am about to make, I shall 
 feel bound to answer many charges against the Ad¬ 
 ministration and the Republican party, made dur¬ 
 ing this debate. I am aware that many of those 
 charges were made in open violation of order and 
 the rules that regulate debate in this House. And 
 it may be said it is equally out of order to answer 
 charges, propositions, or arguments, which are 
 themselves out of order. This may be true in the 
 general, but never ought to prevail at the expense 
 of justice or reputation. I hope, then, sir, that I 
 shall be permitted, without interruption, to respond 
 to the charges to which I allude, and to indulge me 
 in this hope will be an exercise of no more liberali¬ 
 ty than has been extended to those who have made 
 them. That much I have a right to look for. That 
 much I will expect. 
 
 As to the object of the resolution, I presume 
 there is but one opinion. All will agree that 
 Swartwout’s defalcations, and the defalcations of 
 many other officers in this Government, ought to 
 be exposed; so ought all persons, public and pri¬ 
 vate, who either connive at them, or by whose 
 neglect they may have been permitted to occur. I, 
 however, am not aware that any substantial bene¬ 
 fit can grow out of the investigation now proposed 
 to be made. The objects desired to be attained by 
 the investigation, seem to me to be in possession of 
 the House and the country: that is, that the Go¬ 
 vernment has been defrauded out of near a million 
 and a quarter of money, and that the Conservative 
 Whig scoundrel, Samuel Swartwout, has done it, 
 and has placed himself far on the other side of 
 your investigation. If an investiggtian can be 
 made without additional fexpense and loss to the 
 
Government, or if any portion of the money can 
 be found, or if there are others within our jurisdic¬ 
 tion who may have been engaged in this stupen¬ 
 dous fraud, and who may be brought to punish¬ 
 ment by the proposed investigation, I am willing 
 and anxious for it, but I protest against the mode 
 proposed of raising the committee who shall make 
 this investigation. It is proposed to have 
 this committee appointed by the House. I 
 object to any innovation upon the usual 
 mode. It is the province of the Speaker to 
 appoint committees, unless otherwise ordered by 
 the House. I have some objections to “otherwise 
 ordering” the appointment of this committee. 
 First, because it will be a reflection upon the 
 Speaker, whose character and reputation are iden¬ 
 tified with the character, reputation and honor of 
 this body; and whose official course, while it con¬ 
 tinues as honorable, able, impartial and dignified 
 as it has been, merits the esteem of this House, and 
 will have the confidence of the country. Second, 
 because I believe that greater discrimination, and 
 less party partiality, will be exercised in the choice 
 of the committee if selected by the Speaker, than 
 will be exercised by the House. Third, because 
 there is less responsibility attached in the appoint¬ 
 ment by the House than by the Speaker. If by 
 the House, the committee is responsible. If by the 
 Speaker, we have the responsibility of the Speaker 
 and the committee. 
 
 It has been intimated that, should the committee 
 be appointed by the Speaker, it will be a “ white¬ 
 washing ” committee. Sir, I object to the appoint¬ 
 ment of the committee by the House, because the 
 Whigs and their “friends and allies,” the Conser¬ 
 vatives, have the ascendancy in this House, and a 
 majority of that oommittee will consist of Whigs 
 and Conservatives. Swartwout was a Con¬ 
 servative-Whig. I am confident every effort 
 will be used by the committee to whitewash the 
 black frauds and corrupt iniquities of Swartwout, 
 and blackwash the Administration. I object also 
 to the appointment of the committee by the House, 
 because a part of that committee may consist of 
 members who have formed and expressed an opi¬ 
 nion unfavorable to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 in relation to the defalcations of Swartwout, whom 
 I consider wholly unfit for a place on that commit¬ 
 tee. It would be as disgraceful for this House to 
 place such a member on that committee as it 
 would be dishonorable for him to serve on it. But 
 should the House determine that this investigation 
 shall go on, and that the House shall appoint the 
 committee, I hope that it will not be by ballot, as 
 proposed, but that it will be appointed viva voce , so 
 that the country may understand and see who is 
 responsible for the character of the committee. I 
 hope in this business there will be no dodging. I 
 hope every man will “toe the mark” and show his 
 hand. We act for our country, and not for our¬ 
 selves. Those we represent have a right to know 
 what we do. I say, if this committee is to be ap¬ 
 pointed by the House, let it be done viva voce. 
 Come out, gentlemen, and show your hands. I 
 hope we will see no skulking behind the “cotton 
 bags.” 
 
 Mr. Speaker, we have been tossed and rolled 
 upon the waves of party and the billows of faction 
 
 for some days, yes, some tveeks; ahd so high h. \\ 
 run the sea by party tempest, that we have been in 
 danger of losing sight of that harbor in which th< 
 vessel of State was destined to ride by the framer- 
 of the Constitution. There is danger of losing sigh 
 of those principles which must be considered fun 
 damental, and which must continue to be the basi: 
 of our Government so long as it is of a Republicar 
 character. 
 
 There is no better method of perpetuating oni 
 free institutions than a frequent recurrence to firs 
 principles, and a strict adherence to the letter of the 
 Constitution. Nothing short of these can secun 
 either perpetuity to the Government, or happiness 
 to the people. I believe that ours is a Governmen 
 of the people, and its principles recognise the righ 
 of the people to govern themselves, either by them 
 selves or by their representatives, legislative and ex 
 ecutive. The principle of self-government embra 
 ces and implies the capacity for self-government 
 and the right and the capacity for self-governmen 
 implies and involves the right to instruct those 
 whom the people may select to represent them ir 
 the law-making power, as well as those who maj 
 be appointed to execute the laws. Indeed, we maj 
 say that public opinion is the law in this country 
 No law can be executed contrary to the popula: 
 will, although it may have all the legislative anc 
 judicial sanction necessary to its existence; yet obe 
 dience and submission to all laws, while they exist 
 are the moral and political duties of every citizen 
 But, sir, one of the highest duties we as Repre¬ 
 sentatives owe, or can owe, to those we represent 
 is to sustain those measures which are the choict 
 of the people; and the strongest evidence that wc 
 can have that a given measure is popular with the 
 people, and that it is our duty to carry that mea 
 sure out, so tar as it depends upoR our official pow¬ 
 ers, is that we have been elected to office with re¬ 
 ference to that measure. When an Administratioi 
 is elected by the people, upon political questions in 
 volving their interest, the vote which is given ii 
 this election is an expression of the people in fa 
 vor of or against it, (as the case may be.) Th< 
 men who are elected, are but the instruments ir 
 the hands of the people to carry out the policy 
 involved in those questions. The correctnes: 
 of these propositions will not be openly de¬ 
 nied by any, but they have been obliquely anc 
 covertly denied by the whole Opposition of this 
 House. It is done indirectly, by making the broat 
 and unqualified assertion, that the will of the peo! 
 pie is not manifested in the official existence of thi: 
 Administration, that the people have been blindly 
 led into error by designing demagogues, and thai 
 the result of the elections is no evidence of whal 
 may be the wish or will of the people. Sir, this isj 
 carrying out a fundamental principle of the Fedr | 
 ral party, so recognized and practised upon by tha! 
 party, from the commencement of our Govern¬ 
 ment to this time, viz: that there is too much 
 want of integrity, intelligence, stability, and 
 moral rectitude with the common people for self- 
 government. Sir, I will before I take my seat 
 say more on this subject. I will dismiss it at thi: 
 lime with the only declaration which the basenes 
 of the charge will admit of; and on behalf of th 
 American people, I fearlessly pronounce the charg 
 
3 
 
 a base slander upon their intelligence, and their 
 ^ moral and political integrity. . 
 
 ^ But, sir, have the principles laid down m this 
 - discussion by gentlemen of the Opposition, corre¬ 
 sponded with these fundamental principles? Have 
 they not broken over every barrier that has been 
 erected for the preservation of those righ’s and 
 principles, which have cost so much? What terms 
 of reproach have not been used in denouncing this 
 Administration, and all its leading measures? Sir, 
 
 I repeat, I have ever heard that a want of confi¬ 
 dence in the intelligence, capacity, stability, and 
 moral firmness in the common people for self-go¬ 
 vernment, constitutes a leading feature in the prin 
 ciples of the aristocrats in other countries, and the 
 Federalists in this; but I have never seen that prin¬ 
 ciple so manifest, and so plainly developed, as it 
 has been in this discussion. These denunciations 
 are unwarrantable and indefensible in a political 
 sense, and revolutionary in their nature and ten¬ 
 dencies. If ever there was an administration of 
 the people since the formation of our Government, 
 or if there ever will be to its final dissolution, it is 
 o this Administration. If there ever were, or ever 
 will be, measures which were, or are to be, consi¬ 
 dered the measures of the people, the leading mea¬ 
 sures of this Administration are so. The chief of- 
 $ficersofthe Administration have been elected by 
 |the people with a full knowledge of their merits, 
 gtheir principles, and their capacities, for the eleva¬ 
 ted stations in which they have been placed. 
 
 The leading measures of this Administration are 
 »the measures of the people; all the prominent re- 
 ?commendations contained in the President’s Mes¬ 
 sage involve the same principles which have re- 
 "^ceived the decision and sanction of the people, af- 
 >^ter mature discussion and enlightened delibera¬ 
 tion; and now to denounce them in the unmea¬ 
 sured terms of reproach and defamation, as well 
 ~?”the Administration as the measures themselves, is 
 to deny, in direct terms, as well the capacity of 
 " the people to select their political representatives, 
 cas their capacity to judge of the fitness or unfitness 
 pof such measures as directly involve their highest 
 r , ^and their deepest interests, and perfectly in charac¬ 
 ter with the fact, that a want of confidence in the 
 integrity and intelligence of the people constitutes 
 a prominent and fundamental principle of the Fe¬ 
 deral or aristocratic party in this country. 
 
 The President recognises the fact, that our poli¬ 
 tical institutions are becoming more and more 
 under the control of the people, and that the growth 
 of intelligence is equal to the duties of their pro¬ 
 tection and preservation. The gentleman from 
 Tennessee [Mr. Bell] denies this, and refers us to 
 the “mob” in Pennsylvania, as an evidence that 
 such is not the fact; but that we are in a state of 
 disorder. And, sir, I affirm that our political insti¬ 
 tutions, and all the pure principles thereupon de¬ 
 pending, are in a high state of preservation and 
 durability; and for the truth of my affirmation, I 
 refer to the “mob” in Pennsylvania; and let me say, 
 that I look upon the proceedings of the Democracy 
 (“rabbfe,” as they have here been called) of Penn¬ 
 sylvania, as a most valuable evidence that there is 
 enough of the Revolutionary spirit of ’76 yet ex¬ 
 isting to repel any attempt at usurpation of power 
 not recognised by the institutions of our country. 
 
 The attempt at usurpation by the Bank Federalists 
 of Pennsylvania, was an attempt to establish 
 power, in violation of the Constitution, as well of 
 the United States as of the State of Pennsylvania. 
 
 It was an attempt at disorganization, a prostration 
 of our free institutions, and an effort to trample in 
 the dust the elective franchise. The workers of 
 such iniquity will only be known hereafter in in¬ 
 famy, and ought to be marked by the frown and 
 indignation of every patriot and friend to his coun¬ 
 try. It is to be hoped that the Constitution and 
 our free institutions, whenever and wherever as¬ 
 sailed, and attempted to be prostrated, as they were 
 by the hired Bank minions of Pennsylvania, may 
 find such a Democracy for their protection as that 
 which rallied to their standard at Harrisburg. 
 Such being the case, we have nothing to fear from 
 all the political demagogues, Bank vassals, and 
 stockjobbing gamblers that may array themselves 
 against the country and the Constitution. 
 
 It was somewhat amusing to witness the call of 
 Governor Ritner upon the militia, to preserve or¬ 
 der and put down the mob!! That was to say, 
 that he desired the Democracy, (for the militia are 
 the Democracy,) in their military capacity, to put 
 down the Democracy in their civil capacity, for 
 maintaining their Constitution, and their blood 
 purchased liberties; for it was all the work of the 
 militia, civil or military; the Democracy constitu¬ 
 ted the “mob,” and the “mob” constituted the mili¬ 
 tary. The difference was about the difference in 
 the boy’s alternate dinnerSj which was round dump¬ 
 lings one day, and square dumplings the next. 
 Bur if there had been any “puffing down ” in 
 the business, the object for which the militia was 
 called, viz: to put down the “mob,” Governor Rit¬ 
 ner, and his instruments would have been the 
 first who would have been “put down.” The 
 marble palace in Chestnut street and the Bank au¬ 
 tocrat Nicholas would have been the next objects 
 that would have been “put down,” and that would 
 have been all the putting down jhat would have 
 been necessary to have restored order to society 
 and duration to the free institutions of Pennsylva¬ 
 nia; and it seems that even that has not been ne¬ 
 cessary to secure the order which now prevails: 
 how long it may continue is a question that has its 
 answer in things not yet seen. Sir,I have said the 
 Democracy were the militia. This is the case in 
 general; but I have understood that a part of the 
 troops ordered from Philadelphia were of the white 
 fingered gentry, in number perhaps one thousand. 
 A thousand of the wasp-waisted gentry to quell 
 the Democracy of Pennsylvania—monstrous ! ! ! 
 Had this bandy-legged regiment (Whig militia) 
 come in contact with the Dutch Democracy, the 
 fight would have been a leg fight. It would have 
 been like the wattle races I have seen run in the 
 West; he that ran the fastest received the fewest 
 stripes. The Whig militia would have saved 
 themselves by the quality of their heels. I think it 
 was in the battle of Pharsalia, between the two Ro¬ 
 man generals, Pompey and Caesar, the former 
 headed by the patricians, (Aristocracy,) the latter 
 the plebians, (Democracy.) Pompey placed his 
 cavalry, which consisted of the young pa'r.cian no¬ 
 blemen, on the left wing of his army; ani Caesar 
 placed his pikemen (hardy Democrats) on the right 
 
4 
 
 wing of his army, who consequently faced Pom- 
 pey’s cavalry; just before the action commenced, 
 Caesar passed in front of his lines with the rapidity 
 of an eagle, to his pikemen, and directed them to 
 make the attack with great spirit and violence, 
 and at the onset to charge the young noblemen 
 with the sharp points of their pikes in the face; 
 saying that the preservation of the delicacy, beau¬ 
 ty, and uniformity of their faces and features 
 was a paramount consideration with them, and of 
 more interest than Pompey’s victory over the 
 troops of Caesar. His directions were obeyed; the 
 charge was made in the faces of the cavalry, who 
 instantly wheeled and fled. Such, sir, would 
 have been the flight of the white fingered militia of 
 Pennsylvania. The intrusion of the weapons 
 which the Almighty has placed at the end of each 
 Democrat’s arm, into the faces of Governer Rit- 
 ner’s partrician militia, would have instantly pro¬ 
 duced precipitate flight. I have nothing more to 
 say about the Pennsylvania “ mo&.” I would not 
 have said any thing on the subject, but have left 
 all discussion relating thereto to the honorable and 
 worthy gentlemen who represent that State, had 
 not other members interfered who have as little 
 interest in the affairs of Pennsylvania as I have, 
 and as littie business to meddle therewith. 
 
 The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bell] com¬ 
 plains that the President and Secretary recommend 
 economy, and, because this recommendation is pre¬ 
 sented to the public in each Executive document, 
 the people are thereby deceived, and says that such 
 frauds upon “the credulity of the people ought to be 
 stopped;” that is to say, the President and heads of 
 the Departments ought not to recommed economy 
 in the admininistration of the Government. I have 
 no doubt,sir,but what these Executive recommenda¬ 
 tions of economy greatly annoy the Federal party, 
 whose unremitting object seems to be to bankrupt 
 this Government, if there is no other way to break 
 down this Administration, and prostrate the Demo¬ 
 cratic party. Yes, sir, I have no doubt but that a 
 recommendation from the President and Secretary 
 to Congress, to be liberal, magnificent, and even 
 extravagant, in public expenditures, would have 
 been much more acceptable to the gentleman and 
 some more of his party. Such a recommendation 
 could have been used much more conveniently for 
 Whig President making, than an economical re¬ 
 commendation, and would have been much more 
 in character with the votes of the gentleman’s 
 party, which the journals display. 
 
 Sir, it has ever been a cardinal point with the 
 Democracy, and with every Democratic Adminis- 
 tratioe, to confine the public expenditures to the ab¬ 
 solute wants of the Government. Such a policy 
 is not only indispensable to the purposes of econo¬ 
 my, but indispensable to keep the Government 
 within the limits necessary to secure and perpetu¬ 
 ate liberty to the people. 
 
 There is nothing that can so much endanger the 
 free institutions of a country, and the freedom of 
 its citizens, as a rich and powerful Government. 
 If the people be rich and happy, the Government 
 must be poor. If the Government be rich and 
 powerful, the people will be poor and weak; for 
 the simple reasons that all rich Governments are 
 made so by the wealth of the people, and whatever 
 
 is taken from them to enrich the Government must 
 make them proportionately poor; and in propor¬ 
 tion to the wealth of the Government, so will it be 
 powerful, and in proportion to its power, so will 
 the people b« weak. If the Government is the 
 master, the people will be slaves; for both cannot 
 be rich, both cannot be powerful, nor can both be 
 masters. I hope there is no friend to his country 
 of this Congress, or of any other Congress to come, 
 in all time, who will hesitate to carryout the Presi¬ 
 dent’s recommendation of economy in the expen¬ 
 ditures of the Government. I say, I hope this re¬ 
 commendation may be unanimously sustained, but 
 I fear such will not be the case. We have a party 
 here (the party opposed to the Administration) 
 who seem to owe it as a duty to their principles 
 and their party, to oppose every measure that is re¬ 
 commended by the Executive Department, or 
 brought forward by its supporters. It is enough 
 that the Administration recommends a measure, 
 to rally in one concert howl the whole pack of 
 Oppositionists. The Executive and the Secretary 
 of the Treasury recommend economy, present an 
 estimate of the probable wants of the Government, 
 but various works of a public nature (and many 
 of them unconstitutional) are authorized by Con¬ 
 gress, and appropriations directed to carry them 
 on, to more than twice the amount of the esti¬ 
 mates; and if the means of the Government hap¬ 
 pen to fall short, then we have a general Federal 
 yelp of extravagance, extravagance, profligacy, 
 and ruin, by the very party—yes, by the very men 
 —who have been the means of involving the Go¬ 
 vernment and bankrupting the Treasury, by un¬ 
 constitutional and extravagant appropriations; and 
 these are the men who preach economy to the peo¬ 
 ple with their lips, but practice extravagance in 
 their hearts. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I entered upon this discussion 
 with great diffidence; not but what truth, facts, and 
 argument are on our side, but because it is impos¬ 
 sible to know where to find our enemy. They are 
 as inaccessible as the Seminoles of Florida, who 
 skulk beyond the swamps and within the dense 
 hammocks, or the Circassians, who secure them¬ 
 selves in and upon the inaccessible Caucasus of 
 Asia. Was it not for one feature in the principles 
 and conduct of the modern Whigs, they would be 
 impervious to defeat; they would be like brigands; 
 they would eat, drink, and sleep with the apparent 
 sociability of a friend with those who are the con¬ 
 stant subjects of their plunder. I say, if it were 
 not for one feature in their political conduct; that is, 
 never-ceasing hostility to the principles of Demo¬ 
 cracy; that is a paramount object, and before which 
 every thing else, moral, political, or religious, must 
 give way. That is the link which unites them as 
 close as the Siamese twins. Our enemies have no 
 name; or perhaps they have so many names, that 
 little advantage could be derived from advertising 
 them. The number of aliases necessary to desig¬ 
 nate them would swell the price of an advertise¬ 
 ment above their value. I believe that all honest 
 men regard a frequent change of one’s name as an 
 evidence of base dishonesty and fraud. If you hear 
 of a man giving himself the name of A B at one 
 of your neighboring towns, C D at another, and at 
 another E F, you will surely come to the conchi- 
 
5 
 
 sion that hs is a horsa thief, a robber, or something 
 of the kind. So in a political sense, suspicions 
 would justly be entertained of the political honesty 
 and integrity of a party who are perpetually 
 changing their names with the return of every ge¬ 
 neral and important election. There is no man 
 sufficiently watchful of his political rights, who 
 will not look upon such a party with jealousy 
 and great suspicion. Nor are the Federalists more 
 prolific of names than they are in principles. They 
 have a new code of principles for each election that 
 is presented. Whenever it is necessary to rally 
 upon a given election of general interest, they bap¬ 
 tize themselves with a new name, and make such 
 principles and maxims their watchwords as may 
 answer the particular case. Can I have your at¬ 
 tention, sir, while I trace up some of their inconsis¬ 
 tencies, practised for political effect. In 1796, 
 when Federalism had the ascendancy, and over¬ 
 shadowed every prospect of the country; in the 
 reign of terror, when it was common to wear 
 a black cockade, the term Whig was then consi¬ 
 dered an opprobrious term; it was synonymous 
 with Democrat, and both only fit for the lower or¬ 
 ders, or, in the Federal language of the times, was 
 fit for the common people ; while that of Federalist 
 was alone fit for those who were a little uncommon; 
 but now, for political effect, the same party have 
 taken the term Whig to themselves. The adoption 
 of this cognomen has answered them some purpose. 
 It has answered the purpose of gull ng a few of the 
 unwary; but the object of its adoption begins to be 
 understood. It is losing its charms. The Fede¬ 
 ralists will be compelled to take another name, to 
 meet the next Congressional and Presidential elec¬ 
 tions. The term Loco Foco is now given to the 
 Democracy by the Federalists, as a taunt and a 
 term of reproach. I shall not be astonished at all 
 if the Federalists should steal the name from the 
 Democracy, and baptise themselves with it, before 
 the year 1840. We will then have a Bank-Fede- 
 ral-Loco-Foco party to contend with. In 1812-14. 
 when war was declared against England for the 
 most violent and outrageous trespasses upon our 
 commercial and other rights, in the open violation of 
 the established laws, usages and custom-: of na¬ 
 tions, the Federal party, who were always a lit¬ 
 tle more attached to the Constitution, laws and 
 customs of England than to their own, and 
 always deadly hostile to France, said tauntingly, 
 “Why don’t you declare war against France, 
 and recover your French spoliations? You are 
 resting under national degradation. Fiance has 
 done you more injury than England.” Bui 
 * war was prosecuted against England, and termina¬ 
 ted with the memorable battle of the 8th of Janua¬ 
 ry, on the plains of N*w Orleans; a battle which 
 not only concluded the war, but shed a blaze of 
 « patriotism, and a halo of glorj over this country, 
 and this nation, which no other victory ever did, 
 and won laurels for those who gained it, ihat will 
 bloom in memory, when they (ay, and the gentle¬ 
 man from Kentucky, [Mr. Underwood,] who re¬ 
 joiced that there were no cannon fired here on the 
 8th of January,) shall mingle with the dust. But 
 the time came when, to save the nation’s honor, 
 and do justice to those whose rights had been vio¬ 
 lated, it became the duty of the Chief Magistrate 
 
 to call the attention of Congress, and of the Ame¬ 
 rican people, to the redress of the injuries which 
 we had sustained by the French spoliations, and 
 the only means left for President Jackson was to 
 recommend reprisals. At this, the whole Federal 
 party started, as if by one universal electric shock, 
 and said: What ! are you about to declare war 
 against France for the paltry sum of 25,000,000 
 francs? What! are you about to involve this nation 
 in a war with France, that must deluge us in blood, 
 and sink us in bankruptcy and ruin, for the paltry 
 consideration of 25,000,000 of francs? Are you 
 about to declare warasainst France, who assisted 
 you through with your Revolutionary struggle, 
 and to whom you owe a debt of gratitude you 
 never can pay, an obligation that never can be 
 cancelled, for the paltry consideration of 25,000,- 
 000 frahes? 
 
 Yes, sir, this was the cry then, and it was howled 
 as loud, as long, and as piteously as the crocodile 
 cry of corruption, corruption, and panic, panic, is 
 now howled. In 1811, when the recharter of the 
 old Bank of the United States was under Con¬ 
 gressional discussion, Mr. Clay, the now leader of 
 the Federal pai ty, denounced the Bank as uncon¬ 
 stitutional. He contended that Congress had no 
 power to incorporate a bank or any other institu¬ 
 tion, and that a Bank was a dangerous and an 
 unsafe institution, but now, sir, without any change 
 or amendment of the Constitution, and without any 
 material change in the policy of our country or 
 difference in our institutions, a Bank is the very 
 thing we want, and is perfectly constitutional. In 
 1816, Daniel Webster, whose opinions are constitu¬ 
 tional law is the political Koran of the 
 Federal party; and befire whose opiuions they 
 fall prostrate, kiss the ground, and worship as be¬ 
 fore Omnipotence, said that gold and silver was 
 the. only currency recognised by, and known to the 
 Constitution. It was the law of the land at home, 
 and the law of the world abroad. But now the 
 rag-tag shinplaster currency answers all the pur¬ 
 poses of a national currency, and is perfectly con¬ 
 stitutional with that gentleman and all his party. 
 In 1830, when the great political question, in which 
 all others were merged, was the recharter of the 
 Bank of the United States, Mr. McDuffie, chair¬ 
 man of the Committee of Ways and Means, made 
 a report in favor of the recharter of the Bank, 
 which was popular with the Federal Bank party. 
 Every sentence and word of th?it report was hailed 
 as good orthodox Bank Federal doctrine, and no 
 part of it was more popular than the following 
 passage, which constituted the objections of the 
 committee to a National Bank, and the avowed ob¬ 
 jections of the Federal party to such an institution. 
 In relation to a National Bank, (speaking of the 
 number of agents which the United States Bank em¬ 
 ployed, and their political influence,) he says: 
 “But the patronage resulting from the appoint¬ 
 ment—the annual appointment of these agents, 
 great as it would doubtless be, would be insigni- 
 cant and harmless when compared with that which 
 would result from the dispensation of Bank accom¬ 
 modations, to the standing amount of fifty millions 
 of dollars ! The mind almost instinctively shrinks 
 from the contemplation of an idea so ominous tb 
 the purity of the Government and the liberties of 
 
6 
 
 the people. No Government of which the com¬ 
 mittee have any knowledge, except, perhaps, the 
 despotism of Russia, was ever invested with a pa¬ 
 tronage at once so prodigious in its influence, and 
 so dangerous in its character. In the most despe¬ 
 rate financial extremities, no other European Go¬ 
 vernment has ever entered upon an experiment so 
 perilous. If the whole patronage of the English 
 monarchy were concentrated in the hands of the 
 American Executive, it may be well doubted 
 whether the public liberty wou'd be so much en¬ 
 dangered by it, as it would by this vast pecuniary 
 machine.” 
 
 This was the opinion of the Federalists in 1830, 
 1831, and 1832, in relation to a National Rank. 
 
 , So it was then, always was, and will be, the opi 
 nion of the Democracy of this country. This do¬ 
 cument had a circulation throughout the United 
 States that no other document ever had. It flew 
 through the country like leaves in the fall, fell upon 
 the highways, cross-roads, in the fields, and in every 
 door yard; those who could read, were compelled 
 to read it: and those who could not, had it read to 
 them; and no part of that report was used in ar¬ 
 gument in favor of the recharter of the United 
 States Bank more than that part which I have ci¬ 
 ted. It was used to put down and nullify the mere 
 suggestion which Gen. Jackson advanced, that a 
 National Bank might , perhaps, be established, with¬ 
 in the power of the Constitution, and of less dan¬ 
 gerous tendencies. But what will you think, sir, 
 of Federal consistency, when I tell you that no 
 sooner had Gen. Jackson vetoed the Bank of the 
 United States, and the people had, by an over¬ 
 whelming majority, sustained him in his course, 
 than the Federalists were for “a National Bank!” 
 Yes, sir, for a National Bank, with all its subju¬ 
 gating tendencies and u Russian despotism and in 
 1834, the Congressional elections turned upon the 
 question of a National Bank. 
 
 In 1834-5, when the General "Government was 
 receiving the notes of specie paying hanks m liqui¬ 
 dation of the land purchases, the Administration 
 was denoucced and the practice deprecated as de¬ 
 structive to the rights of the people and their inte¬ 
 rest in the public domain. It was rung upon every 
 change that the Administration was frittering away 
 the public lands, which were reserved in trust for 
 the use of the people, and taking in consideration 
 the shinplasters of irresponsible banks. True it 
 was, sir, that the spirit of speculation was about to 
 draw the whole public domain in its vortex. Those 
 who had credit could obtain bank notes by the 
 quire, and purchase hundreds of thousands of acres 
 of the public lands, perhaps to the loss of the Govern¬ 
 ment, as there was an uncertainty of the power 
 of the banks to redeem their paper, and to the 
 great injury and prejudice of the poor and indus¬ 
 trious man, for whose use the land is, and really 
 of right ought to be, held. Such was the rage for 
 speculation, and such was the system of monopoly, 
 that the country was threatened with the introduc¬ 
 tion of the feudal system, with the vacillating and 
 degrading tendencies peculiar to a system of land- 
 lor Is and tenants. 
 
 General Jackson, seeing the progress of these 
 overwhelming evils, recommended what was called 
 the specie circular to the Secretary of the Trea¬ 
 
 sury. The policy was adopted, which was to pro¬ 
 hibit the sale of a greater quantity of land fhan 
 320 acres to one individual, for any other kind of 
 currency than gold and silver. This measure had 
 the desired effect, viz: to bring a sound currency 
 into the Treasury, and in some degree to check the 
 rage for wild speculation, and to secure the pub¬ 
 lic domain from the grasp of the wealthy mono¬ 
 polizer. But no sooner was the specie circular 
 put into successful operation, than the whole pack 
 of the Opposition again raised the howl. The 
 Administration was denounced for declaring war 
 upon the banks, war upon the credit system, and 
 making an odious distinction in the currency be¬ 
 tween the Government and the people. There 
 was not a Whig whiffet in the country, but could 
 ask with great emphasis, “What, is the Admi- 
 nistsation about, to establish two currencies, one 
 for the Government, and one for the peoplel” 
 “The Government must have gold and silver, 
 while the people are to haveshinplasters.” Again, 
 in 1834, ’5, and ’6, the Federalists said it was un¬ 
 safe to depesile the public revenue in the local 
 banks. They were unfit fur financial agents, and 
 the “banks and local bank deposite system was in 
 character with the ruinous and destructive policy 
 of the Administration.” Well, in 1837, when the 
 banks suspended payment, locked up the public 
 revenue, and proved themselves faithless agents, 
 and unworthy of the confidence of the community 
 and the Government, and when, in consequence, 
 thereof, it became the duty of the President of the 
 United States to recommend a separation of the 
 Government finances from the banks, and the esta¬ 
 blishment of an independent constitutional Trea¬ 
 sury, then, again, was the whole force of the Fe¬ 
 deralists arrayed against the Administration, and 
 every possible motive but that which was good or 
 patriotic attributed to them. Ruin to the country, 
 desolation to commerce, destruction to the banks, 
 and prostration to every interest, public and pri¬ 
 vate, was sung from Maine to Mexico, and as in 
 the case of the Treasury circular, “ two cur¬ 
 rencies !!” “ one for the Government, and one for 
 the people,” was exclaimed and vociferated by 
 every Whig thing in the country. 
 
 Further, when General Jackson was run for 
 President, in 1824, ’28, and ’32, the Democracy 
 were warned most solemnly and lovingly not to 
 support a military chieftain for the Presidency. 
 We were told and admonished, in an apparent spirit 
 of patriotism and love of country, that all Go¬ 
 vernments had falllen, and,all Republics had been 
 subvened, by the destroying hands of military 
 chieftains and military ambition. Yes, sir, we 
 were told that “ war, pestilence, and famine” 
 would be our fate, if we should place a military 
 chieftain in the Executive chair. The hero of 
 New Orleans ought not to be made President of 
 these United States; we must have a civilian for a 
 President. But General Jackson was elected; be 
 served his first term, but. no military despotism 
 made its appearance. He was elected a second 
 time, and served out his term, but no military 
 despotism yet appeared. But there were some honest 
 persons of the Democracy who perhaps though 
 there would be more safety in bestowing the 
 Presidency upon a civilian; and a distinguished 
 
7 
 
 one, in the person of Martin Van Buren, was pre¬ 
 sented to ihe American people as the Democratic 
 candidate for the Presidency. But now it was dis¬ 
 covered that a civilian was not so safe as was 
 thought, and particularly the one now offered; and 
 a military chieftain was brought forward in the per¬ 
 son of Major General William Henry Harrison, 
 commander-in-chief of the northwestern army, and 
 offered as the competing candidate against the ci¬ 
 vilian already named. Yes, sir, in 1832 there was 
 danger, ay, ruin to the country and downfall of the 
 Government attendant on the election of the hero 
 of New Orleans to the Presidency; but in 1836 
 there was no danger in electing the hero of Tippe¬ 
 canoe to the same high station. 
 
 Again: when General Jackson was President, 
 the Federalists said Martin Van Buren adminis¬ 
 tered the Government. Jackson’s messages were 
 splendid documents in point of talent; they could 
 not be surpassed. All the objections the Federalists 
 had to them consisted in their hostility to the Demo¬ 
 cratic doctrines they contained; but they said Gene¬ 
 ral Jackson neither composed nor wrote them; they 
 were Martin Van Buren’s messages. But now that 
 Martin Van Buren is President, every leading mea¬ 
 sure and pro position „ of the Administration comes 
 from the Hermitage. Sir, I repeat the question 
 again: What confidence is to be placed in a party 
 who change theii name and their principles with 
 the return of every election? 
 
 Sir, in the ordinary pursuits of life, you would 
 repudiate a man who would be guilty of such con¬ 
 duct; you would consider him unworthy of your 
 confidence, or even of your charity. Such conduct 
 in an individual would justly make him the subject 
 of suspicion and criminal arrest. What confi¬ 
 dence, then, should be placed in such a party, when 
 the great principles of liberty are involved in their 
 political creeds and names? 
 
 But, sir, i have presented this array of Federal 
 inconsistencies, not merely for the purpose of ex¬ 
 posing the base practice of changing names and 
 principles for the unhallowed purposes of political 
 deception, but, also, to prove what I have already 
 stated, and what has been well known in reference 
 to the principles of the Federal party; which is, that 
 it is a pait of their faith, and a fundamental princi¬ 
 ple of their doctrine, that the common people have 
 not the intelligence, firmness, and moral integrity 
 necessary for self-government; and all these changes 
 of names, and professed changes of principles, is 
 base and blaek hypocrisy. 
 
 Sir, it is all stratagem and political fraud. They 
 have but one name, and that name they have had 
 1 from the commencement of the Government, and it 
 is significant of their principles. Their principles 
 are well established and well understood by the 
 reading and thinking community, and simply con- 
 0 sist in an attachment to all those institutions which 
 have for their object the dwarfing the sovereignty 
 and independence of the States; aggrandizing and 
 strengthening the Federal Government; the esta¬ 
 blishment of monopolizing institutions, which, in 
 their nature and all their tendencies, are calculated 
 to establish inequalities among mankind, and “to 
 make the rich richer, and the poor poorer;” conse¬ 
 quently, it is a cardinal point with them to subdue 
 ihe principles of Democracy, and prostrate every 
 
 man who has the patriotism and independence to 
 avow them. Sir, the siege of Democracy is older 
 than the siege of Tyre; and, like her besiegers, the 
 Federalists of this country have toiled to demolish 
 the institutions of Democracy, until their “heads 
 are bald, and their shoulders peeled,” yet they en¬ 
 dure, and strengthen by duration. 
 
 Sir, we have had a prophetic destruction from the gentle¬ 
 man from Mississippi, [Mr. Prentiss.] as blighting as that 
 pronounced by the inspired prophets against Babylon He has 
 told us, in substance, that, if this Administration is to be con¬ 
 tinued, this Government must fall; your Constitution will be 
 rent, and scattered to the four winds. This would be bad. 
 Your free institutions will be prostrated and levelled with tfte 
 earth. This would be worse. This magnificent pile of noble 
 architecture will totter, tumble, crumble, and mingle with the 
 dust of the pyramids of Egypt, the temples of Greece, and the 
 obelisks of Rome ! Hardly a scratch or scroll will be found 
 upon the lofty columns that now surround us, to give name 
 to this magnificent temple of liberty to the curious and romantic 
 wanderer in after ages! All this is withering prophecy to the 
 philanthropist and the lovejr of liberty, but the worst is yet to 
 come; that which will be far more distressing to the lover of 
 science, literature, and politics. The gentleman concluded his 
 prophecy by the chilling threat, that if Martin Van Buren is 
 again to be elected President of these United States, he, the 
 gentleman, will do—what, sir? Take the Great Western, and 
 go to Liverpool! Yes, sir, the gentleman will expatriate him¬ 
 self from this Government. What a calamity ! It will be the 
 footing up of all the other calamities that await this people 
 and this Government, if this wicked Administration is to be 
 continued. 
 
 I think the Democracy, sir, will have to take this last threat¬ 
 ened calamity seriously into consideration. When I go home 
 I will lay the matter, in a proper manner, before the first De¬ 
 mocratic convention which mayjbe held in the distiict I have 
 the honor to represent. I will also consult some of my old aud 
 well tried friends in Democracy. Father Felter and father 
 Dawson are patriarchs in Democracy. They are experienced 
 in political matters. They are doctors in Democracy, and, 
 withal, sound, pure, and upright patriots at heart. Their 
 opinions on this important question will be of great weight. I 
 think the Democracy, so far as my district ia concerned, will 
 take such order on the question as will operated the best inte¬ 
 rests of the country. Should I have the honor of a seat in the 
 next national convention, which will be held for the Presidgn- 
 tial nominations of 1840,1 will lay the matter before the con¬ 
 vention, and if it shall be thought that the loss of the gentleman 
 as a citizen of the United States will be an injury paramount 
 to the benefits of Mr. Van Buren’s administration, why, Mr. 
 Van Buren “then, and in that case,” will be withdrawn, and some 
 less dangerous man shall be .taken up in his place. I know 
 that the Democracy will do what is right in the premises. But, 
 sir, I hope, if the gentleman should expatriate himself, and 
 “take the Great Western for Liverpool,” still it may not prove 
 the final end ol this Government. When Alexaader the Great 
 planted the Grecian standard in the soil of India, and was car¬ 
 rying his conquests into the interior thereof, and one victory 
 seemed to be gained to the glory, of the Grecian arms but to 
 give way for another equally glorious, in all these battles Al¬ 
 exander was found in the front ranks. (A most happy admo¬ 
 nition to some of our liveried gentlemen, who had better be-in 
 Florida, or at some other post where they would be doing 
 more service to their country, than hanging and lounging 
 about the city of Washington, each occupying the room of 
 two at all your balls, routs, and assemblies, where, 
 in some instances, there is nothing but women to fight. > 
 Some of his officers, in the most friendly manner, admonished 
 the King of the danger he was risking in thus exposing his 
 royal person, and the great interest that Greece had in the pre¬ 
 servation of his life. The King answered that the welfare of 
 Greece did not depend on the life or death of one man. So I 
 would hope, sir, that the. duration and welfare of this Republic, 
 does not depend on the presence or absence, or life or death, of 
 any one man. But this Republic may fall; yes, sir, it will fall, 
 as did the Assyrian empire, when the Medes were governed by 
 a mule, and from the same cause. CrcEsus, King of Assyria, 
 consulted the oracle Delphos, for purposes that related to his 
 future prosperity, and the prosperity of his empire. He was 
 told that when he crossed the river Halys. that a great empire 
 would be destroyed; and that when the Medes should be go¬ 
 verned by a mule, he would be in danger. He never dreamed 
 that it was to be his own empire that was to be destroyed 
 when he should cross the river Halys, and he thought the thing 
 impossible that ever the Medes should be ruled by a mule. But 
 after his empire was destroyed, and he made prisoner by Cy¬ 
 rus, King of Persia, he sent a gold chain, with a reprimand, 
 to the Delphic oracle f i so deceiving him; he was informed by 
 the oracle that it washi3 own empire it was meant should be 
 destroyed, when he should pass the river IlalUs, and that Cyrus 
 
8 
 
 was the mule who was to govern the Medee—a mule being a 
 mongrel beast, hall ass and half horse. And that Cyrus, being 
 the son of Cambyses, king of Persia, and Mandanis, daughter of 
 Astyagea, king of the Medea, he was of mongrel composition— 
 one-half of his blood Persian, by his father, and the other that of 
 the Medea, by his mother. So, sir, when this Republic comes 
 to be governed by a mule, (Federal sway,) it will fall, or it 
 will be subverted. Sir, what is the Federal party? A mongrel 
 composition consisting of part Bank and part anti-Bank, Ma¬ 
 sonic and anti-Masonic, Abolition and anti-Abolition, &c. &c. 
 Made up, sir, of the factions and fractions, and odds and ends 
 of all factions, bound together by no common principle or tie 
 but natural and unrelenting hostility to the Democratic party, 
 and the Democratic principles. When the day shall come that 
 this mule shall govern this country and this people, then will 
 our Republic fall, and our free institutions crumble to the 
 ground, and mingle with the dust of the free institutions of 
 other Republics which have fallen by the misrule of similar 
 factions and ambitious demagogues. 
 
 Sir, as an evidence that this corrupt Administration is soon to 
 be overthrown, the gentleman has presented us, in glowing co¬ 
 lors, the recent Federal victories in N<jw York. And the gen¬ 
 tleman attempted to amuse us with the effect that that Federal 
 triumph must have had upon the President. It is true that the 
 State of New York has given, at the recent election, a Federal 
 vote by a small majority, much smaller than it was the preced¬ 
 ing election. And I have no doubt but that the Federal suc¬ 
 cess last fall was the necessary result, to secure Democratic 
 success to the next Presidential election. Yes, sir, the ten 
 thousand tricks, stratagems, and base frauds, which were 
 used to deceive the Democracy, and to secure Federal success, 
 will recoil with ten-fold force upon the heads of the workers of 
 such base iniquities; and, besides, a defeat something like that 
 of New York was necessary tokeep up that Democratic watch¬ 
 fulness, so indispensable to the preservation of our free institu¬ 
 tions. With the rushing torrent of political prosperity, which 
 was the lot of the Democracy last fall, there was danger of fall¬ 
 ing into carelessness and apathy, from which we conld only 
 have been roused by some great violation of our political rights, 
 such as occurred in 1824, when the people by fraud, corrup¬ 
 tion, and bargain, were cheated out of the man of their choice 
 for the first office in their gift. But, sir, the Federal success in 
 New York, and the manner by which such a result was brought 
 about, will keep tip a laudable and wholesome Democratic ex¬ 
 citement, which will not be limited to that State, but will influ¬ 
 ence more or less the Democracy throughout the Union, and 
 will tell a woful tale for Federalism in 1840. 
 
 1 think the gentleman compared the effect of the New 
 York elections, upon the President, to the paralyzing effects of 
 the handwriting on the wall upon Belshazzar. I suppose that 
 hand was the shadow of the hand of the Almighty, and the wri¬ 
 ting was a divine prediction of the death of Belshazzar, and the 
 destruction of Babylon. Sir, I believe i» the interposition of 
 Divine Providence in national affairs, even at this day; and 1 
 think some of the Federal defeats which we have witnessed re¬ 
 cently bear a striking resemblance to the destruction of Baby¬ 
 lon, and some other of the ancient cities and kingdoms of the 
 old world, evidently by the hand of the Almhrhty. So, sir, 
 we have some striking evidences of the kindly interposition of 
 Providence, in the protection of our Government, and our free 
 institutions. That kind of interference which lighted the path 
 of Cyrus to conquest and gl ry, that kind of Divine interposition 
 which made him the instrument by which the proud city of 
 Babylon was destroyed, and the Assyrian empire dissolved, 
 Jsay I think we have some manifestations ofProvidencpyaror- 
 abletc, the duration of our free institutions, and the preserva¬ 
 tion of our Government. To say nothing about the traces of 
 an overruling Providence, which are to be seen through the 
 whole Revolutionary war—thatfshookoffthe shackles and chains 
 that bound us at the footstool of a British throne, and ma le us 
 ;t free people; that nerved our gallant ancestors, who success¬ 
 fully lighted the beacon of rebellion, and sealed with their blood 
 the charter that secures to us perpetual liberty; I say, to say 
 nothing of Him in that day of trial, who withheld the battle 
 from the strong and the race from the swift, we have abun¬ 
 dance of evidence of the same interposition in our second 
 struggle for independence. When the colossal power of Great 
 Britain, with her triumphant navy, and her invincibles of 
 Wellington, flushed with victory, and trained to pillage and 
 human slaughter, were posted on one side of the continent, an 
 innumerable band of mercenary savages, whose thirst was lor 
 blood, and whose pleasure and delight were concentrated in the 
 barbarous use of the tomahawk and scalping knife, and a 
 combination of Tories, Federalists, and the eastern moneyed 
 associations of our own country, combined tocrushour young 
 Republic at a blow; and yet, against this powerful odds, our 
 armies were led to victory, glory, and an honorable peace. 
 Again: it will be remembered tlie indignation which was felt 
 throughout the land, when the man of the people’s choice 
 in 1824 was bartered out of the high seat assigned him. The 
 elective franchise and the right of instruction (bulwarks of our 
 liberty) were considered as trampled upon, and the voice ofthe 
 country disregarded. This, sir, was true. > But as to theJfeffect 
 
 how short-sighted is weak man! We little thought, then, that 
 there was a secret wisdom at work far superior to the wisdom 
 of man. This providential interference afterwards developed 
 itself to our understanding, and the gratification of every pa¬ 
 triot, and every lover of freedom and of equal rights. The 
 secret consisted in reserving the man whom ire desired 
 should be President then . lor another time , when there 
 were duties to perform, which, I undertake to say, there 
 was ne other man in the United States who had the nerve and 
 the moral courage to do. Could we have been gratified in our 
 wish to place General Jackson in the Presidential chair in 1824, 
 his time would have expired (giving him two terms) in 1632, 
 four years before the expiration of the charter of the Bank of the 
 United States; the consequence of which would have been that 
 the Bank would have been rechartered, perhaps for all time, 
 with a capital unlimited and powers unlimited. Yes, sir, that 
 subsidizing and debasing institution would have been fastened 
 upon this Republic; it would have been a devouring cancer 
 upon the liberties ofthe people; and we, and our posterity in all 
 time to come, the subjects of a great moneyed oligarchy and 
 the serfs of a Bank autocrat. But the Constitution was saved 
 and the liberties of the country secured, by the timely interfer¬ 
 ence of Him who holds the destiny of nations at His will. 
 
 While I am on this subject, it will not be improper to notice 
 some curious circumstances of a national character which 
 seem, if not to partake of the supervision of which 1 have been 
 speaking, at least to have all the characteristics of retributive 
 justice. I allude, sir, to the rejection of the distinguished and 
 talented statesman and accomplished gentleman who now fills 
 the Executive chair of these United States. It will be remem¬ 
 bered that, during the late Administration, General Jackson 
 nominated, in the recess of Congress, Martin Van Ruren minis¬ 
 ter to the Court of St. James. "The Senate of the United States 
 — having a majority at that time opposed to the Administration 
 and the Democratic party, but since reformed by thepeople— 
 rejected the nomination, and Mr. Van Buren was of course 
 called home. What followed? Why, the people, the freemen 
 of the country, elected him Vice President of the United Sta:es: 
 elected him to the second office within their gift; placed him in 
 that same Senate, to preside over the same men who, for party 
 purposes, narrow party considerations, had rejected him. What 
 a triumph of principle and of retributive justice! But the 
 laudable and popular indignation for such base injustice did rot 
 stop there. Popular love and popular confidence, which he 
 had honestly earned, gave him the highest station within the 
 gift of the American people—a station which he is now filling 
 with honor to himself, dignity to his office, and to the highest 
 and best interests of his country. 
 
 There is another little matter, of the same character, which I 
 will just mention. 
 
 It will be remembered that General Jackson nominated one 
 Ben. Tappan, to the office of district judge of the State of Ohio— 
 as sound a Democrat and as pure a patriot as ever honored the 
 names, and, withal, of the first order of talents, ar.d of the mos t 
 unexceptionable deportment. This nomination, lor party pur¬ 
 poses, contracted grovelling selfish considerations, and for the 
 gratification of a vindictiveness which can be found in no party 
 except the sworn enemies of Democracy, was rejected. But 
 what do you think the people have done, sir? They'have placed 
 this same Ben. Tappan in the seat of him by whose vote the 
 nomination was rejected, and have consigned him (Ewing) who 
 voted the rejection to perpetual and everlasting “ solitude , and 
 the desert wastes of icater .” These things may not have been 
 brought about by any providential interposition, but they evi- 
 ddntly partake of that kind of retributive justice which is one of 
 the attributes of Providence. 
 
 I have said that the gentleman from Mississippi [31 r. Pren¬ 
 tiss] brought forward the alarm of Belshazzar to portray the 
 alarm of the President on hearing of the defeat ofthe Democracy 
 ( f New York. I thank the gentleman for the classical allusion. 
 1 w ill try to make something of it for my purpose. 
 
 Sir, the conduct* of the Federalists in i837, on the reception of 
 the news of their victories in several of the States, will well bear 
 comparison with that of Sennacherib, and many other tyrants 
 of his time, who were mere scourges in the hand of the 
 Almighty to punish the wickedness and idolatry ofnrankind. In 
 speaking of the sway of his power and of his conquests he said: 
 ‘‘By the strength of my hand 1 have done it, and by my wisdom, 
 for I am prudent; and I have removed the bounds of the people, 
 and have robbed them of their treasures; and I have pu: down 
 the inhabitants like a valiant man, apd my hand hath lound as a 
 nest the riches of the people: and as one gathereth eggs that are 
 left, have I gathered all the earth; and there was none that 
 moved the wing, or opened the mouth, or peeped.” 
 
 But this monarch, so august and wise in his own eye, how 
 did he appear in that of the Almighty? Only as a subaltern— 
 a servant sent by his master—the rod of h : s anger, and the staff 
 in his hand. The Almighty’s design was to chastise his chil¬ 
 dren, not to exterminate them; but Sennac erib had it in. his 
 heart to destroy and cut off all nations. W 1 at, thfn, will bs 
 the issue of this kind of contest between the fesigns ofthe A1 
 mighty and those of this prince. At the time be fancied him 
 self already possessed of Jerusalem, the Almighty, with a sin 
 
9 
 
 gle blast, disperses all hia proud hopes, destroys in one night 
 a hundred arid four-score thousand of his troops—putting a 
 hook in his nose, and a bridle in his lips, (as though he had 
 been a wild beast,) he leads him back to his own dominions, 
 covered with infamy, through the midst of those nations, who, 
 but a little before, had beheld him in all his pride and haughti¬ 
 ness. How was it with the Federalists in 1837, on hearing of their 
 victories'? These are the results of our strength; it is done by 
 our own power, for we are mighty. One gentleman [Mr. 
 Cushing of Massachusetts] said, in substance, in the name of 
 the rest of the Federalists, that the Democracy in Maine had 
 fallen before the power of Federalism like grass before the 
 scythe. But what did all thib vain boasting amount to? We 
 will see in the end. A Belshazzar feast was held at Faneuil 
 Hall—Daniel, (not the prophet) with all his officers and minions 
 assembled, and, after being harangued by Daniel and other Fede 
 ral high priests, retired to a place appointed, where the history 
 of the times say there were twelve hundred and three score 
 bottles of Champagne in readiness for the feast; all drank and 
 all “breathed deeper and freer than they had ever done.” But, 
 in the midst of their revelling, a handwriting was seen on the 
 wall, and when divined, it disclosed the appalling fact that 
 Missouri had closed her elections, and that the Democracy 
 had gained a triumphant victory over the Federalists. This 
 produced consternation and dismay. But the revellers receiv¬ 
 ed that kind of consolation that the queen-mother Nictoris gave 
 her son Belshazzer—that was, that Missouri was expected to 
 be Democratic. “Solitary and alone” ruled that State; all ex¬ 
 pected that the Federalists would be defeated. So they were 
 comforted, and the feast went on. But hardly had they taken 
 the next glass, when a voice thundered at the gates—the Fede¬ 
 ralists have been routed in Maine horse, foot, and dragoons, and 
 more than five thousand left dead on the field. Consternation 
 had not time to subside, when a courier rushed upon therp with 
 the intelligence that a battle had been fought in Maryland, and 
 the Federalists had been routed with dreadful slaughter. On 
 the heels of this death-dampening news came on another 
 courier with the news that the Keystone in the arch of the 
 Union had been replaced, and that a pitched battle 
 had been fought between the Federalists and the 
 Democrats of Pennsylvania, and thatthe former were over¬ 
 thrown, and six or eight thousand slaughtered; close to this 
 intelligence, followed one from Ohio,with the news that a pitch 
 ed battle had been fought, and the shinplaster Governor had been 
 overthrown, and upwards of fourteen thousand of his Federal 
 troops inhumanly and indiscriminately slaughtered, and 
 his whole Conservative troops cut off, not one man of this 
 self-styled “ Spartan band,” was left to take the news of the 
 sad disaster to Lacedcemon; close on this disaster followed the 
 news from South Carolina and New Jersey, with the melancholy 
 intelligence of the almost entire overthrow of Federalism in 
 both these States; in the latter, over a thousand Federalists 
 were put to the sword; last, though not least, came a courier 
 from Delaware, bearing the proud banner of Democracy, with 
 the inscription of victory, and the overthrow of Federalism ! 
 Federalism was overcome. The knees of the bacchanalians, 
 Belshazzar like, smote together. The air sickened; dumbness 
 and horror reigned; the wine cup dropped from the pale and 
 quivering lip; the Euphrates was turned from her channel; 
 the Persian troops marched in dryshod; the walls were 
 demolished, the citadel seized, and the city of Federalism was 
 destroyed, and its citizens put to the sword! How does this 
 prostration compare with the vain boasting of the Federalists 
 ©ne year before, and how very insignificant is the small and 
 temporary Federal victory in New York, when compared with 
 such a succession of triumphs, gained upon principle, and 
 under the broad stripes of the banner of Democraoy. 
 
 The gentleman from Mississippi, [Mr. Prentiss,] after at¬ 
 tempting to expose what he supposes to be corruptions of this 
 Government, says that they grow out of the maxim and the 
 watchword, that to the victors belong the spoils. The gentle- 
 map from Tennessee [Mr. Bell] says that no reformation can 
 be expected while there are so many hungry expectants. There 
 is not a day nor an hour that passes but we hear some taunt 
 about the spoils party, hungry expectants, office holders, the 
 army of office holders, etc. Sir, I think I once before was com¬ 
 pelled to notice this hypocritical whining about office holders. 
 Where, I ask again, did we ever heai of a free Government 
 without office holders. What do gentlemen mean when they 
 talk about the army of office holders? Are there more officers 
 than are wanted to manage the Government? Then let them be 
 pointed out and removed. If gentlemen, who are constantly 
 harping about office holders, know of any superfluous ones, 
 they are bound, in duty to themselves and to their country, 
 by the nature of their office, and the oath they have taken to 
 discharge the duties of the office, to point them out, and to take 
 such order as would cause the instant removal of such worth, 
 less drones upon the public’store house. Is the number of 
 officers too great? are they derelict in duty? or are their salaries 
 t»o high? All these evils can be remedied if they exist; and I 
 iuvite gentlemen, who are evaporating so much of the public 
 money by denouncing the office holders, the spoils party, the 
 hungry expectants, etc. to point out the evil specifically, and 
 
 recommend the remedy. I will be foremost in carrying that 
 remedy into immediate practice. But, sir, I am inclined to 
 think that constant and incessant yelp about office holders does 
 not grow out of the fact that such evils, as 1 have represented, 
 exist. It is because the Democracy have the ascendancy, and 
 the Federalists cannot occupy all the offices, and all the spoils 
 themselves. This is the cause of all the Federal whimpering 
 about office holders and spoils party. 
 
 What is the course of the Federalists when and where they 
 have the ascendancy? So far as my experience goes in my 
 State, the Federalists clear the chess-board of every man who 
 is tainted with Democracy, whenever they have the ascen- 
 daney, when it can be done without prejudice to their party. I 
 have been informed that, under the late Federal-Ritner power, 
 almost every Democrat went by the board, who came under the 
 Eexecutive control, even down to the laborers on the publia 
 works. I may be in error; if so, some gentleman from Penn¬ 
 sylvania can correct me. I have little doubt but that the Fede¬ 
 ral reformation system will be carried to the full extent in New 
 York, during the short time the new powers will be permitted 
 to flutter in that State. 
 
 But, sir, let us examine this subject with a becoming care. 
 Such has been the constant murmuring about the office holders, 
 and the spoils party, that many of the honest and unsuspecting 
 people of this country not only think that there are ten officers 
 for one that is necessary, and that they are devouring the 
 substance of the people, but that all thp officers of this Govern¬ 
 ment belong to the Democratic party. Such was the impression 
 made upon my mind by the continual charge kept up by the 
 Opposition. I have recently taken- some pains to examine how 
 that matter stands, and, by information furnished me, which, I 
 think, may be relied upon with tolerable certainty, the Federal¬ 
 ists are the spoils party. There maybe some‘errors on both 
 sides of the calculation, but the errors on one side will probably 
 neutralise of off-set the other. Here is a table consisting of two 
 columns, one headed Federalists and the other Democrats; each 
 repre^efit the Departments with the aggregate number of offi¬ 
 cers of the party to which they belong, and the aggregate amount 
 of salaries paid to the officers and clerks, including the heads of 
 Departments. But, sir, lest I should be misunderstood, it is pro¬ 
 per to remark that I have no apology to offer for the office hol¬ 
 ders. I would rather be a comfortable and easy office holder, 
 than a hungry lean office seeker. I think the former far pre¬ 
 ferable to the latter. 
 
 LAND OFFICE. 
 
 Federalists. Amount. Democrats. Amount. 
 
 50 
 
 $56,200 
 
 48 
 
 $56,950 
 
 
 GENERAL POST OFFICE. 
 
 11 
 
 14,600 
 
 48 
 
 65,980 
 
 
 Auditor’s 
 
 Office. 
 
 25 
 
 31,200 
 
 30 
 
 38,075 
 
 
 TREASURY DEPARTMENT. 
 
 
 10 
 
 12,000 
 
 15 
 
 19,450 
 
 
 Register’s 
 
 Office. 
 
 
 24 
 
 27,050 
 
 none 
 
 
 
 First Comptroller’s Office. 
 
 
 13 
 
 12,250 
 
 4 
 
 7,500 
 
 10 
 
 Second Comptroller’s Office. 
 
 12.500 2 1,950 
 
 First Auditor’s Office. 
 
 4.500 11 14,400 
 
 Second Auditor’s Office. 
 
 15,000 5 - 5,900 
 
 Fourth Auditor’s Officb. 
 
 9.700 8 10,550 
 
 Fifth Auditor’s Office. 
 
 11.700 1 1,150 
 
 Treasurer’s Office 
 
 11,750 3 3.200 
 
 Solicitor’s Office. 
 
 2.800 2 4,650 
 
 STATE department. 
 
 37,800 4 10,385 
 
 $239,140 
 
 193 Aggregate, $269,065 181 
 
 239,140 
 
 In favor Federalists $29,925 
 
 The War, Navy, and Patent Office Departments are 
 not embraced in this estimate. I feel assured that in those 
 Departments there will be founjl to be a large majority of Fe¬ 
 deralists with proportionate salaries. 1 have no doubt but a 
 large proportion of the United States judiciary, officers of the 
 army and navy, and other United States officers, are opposed to 
 the Administration. I have assurances for wffiat I say from 
 those who speak the truth, and understand what they say. As 
 a portion of this information, I ask leave to read a letter and an¬ 
 swer which I hold in my hand: 
 
 House of Representatives, January 16, 1839 
 DearSir: If not inconsistent wi'li any rule you may have 
 laid down for your official or political conduct, I would be 
 pleased if you would inform me, 
 
 1st, Of the number of postmasters in the United States. 
 
10 
 
 2d, The aggregate amount ofsalary they receive in the year. I by General Jackson, to his political enemies, constituted with 
 
 3d, What proportion of them are supporters of the present 
 Administration. 
 
 Should it not be in your power to answer this last interroga¬ 
 tory with accuracy, inform me what you suppose to be the pro¬ 
 bable number. 
 
 I am yours, with high respect, 
 
 A. DUNCAN. 
 
 Hon. A. Kendall, Postmaster General. 
 
 To this communication I received the following answer 
 
 Washington, January 17, 1839. 
 
 Sir: I perceive no objection to answering unofficially your 
 letter of the 10th instant. I, therefore, annex replies to your 
 several interrogatories. 
 
 1. “What number of postmasters there are in the United 
 States?” • 
 
 The number of postmasters in the United States, on the first 
 day of December last, was 12,553. 
 
 2. “The aggregate amount of salary they receive in the 
 year?” 
 
 The compensation of postmasters for the year ending with 
 the 30th June, 1838, varied little from $921,034. 
 
 3. “ What proportion of them are supporters and friends©! 
 the present Administration'?” 
 
 I have not information which will enable me to classify the 
 postmasters, politically. Although, in making appointments, 
 friends of the Administration are preferred to enemies, when 
 their politics are known, there are many cases in which the 
 Department has no information on the subject, and it institutes 
 no inquiries into the politics of incumbents. It is believed, 
 however, that more than half the postmasters of the United 
 States are politically opposed to the Administration. 
 
 With high respect, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 AMOS KENDALL. 
 
 Hon. A. Duncan. 
 
 Sir, who are the spoils party? Who are they who are revel¬ 
 ling, rioting and luxuriating upon the toil of the people? Who 
 are the spoils party? Who the army of office holders and the 
 hungry expectants? This table and these communications an 
 
 me the greatest objection to his administration. 
 
 True this forbearance flowed from the goodness of his nature. 
 It is not uncommon to see some of our greatest and best men 
 sacrifice the higher end more valuable qualities of the head to 
 the passions and sympathies of the heart. Sir, the augean stable 
 ought to have been swept, and if the hickory broom was insuf¬ 
 ficient, the river Alpheus should have been turned from 
 its channel for that purpose. If Federalists are to hold 
 a majority of all the offices in this Government, using, 
 as they do, the means of the Government to advance their own 
 corrupt Federal principles, how are your Democratic institu¬ 
 tions to be perpetuated, and your principles maintained. Sir, 
 1 believe, w jth General Washington, that no President ought to 
 bring into office a man who is opposed to the leading measures 
 of Ms ad m mistration. It is political suicide, and for the same 
 reason it i s a duty that every Democratic President owes to his 
 election, to his principles, to the party who sustain him, and to 
 his country to remove those from office whose principles are 
 opposed to* the leading measures which he may have been 
 elected to carryout. I think great vigilance in this respect is 
 due from the Chief Magistrate; and if he is sincere in his princi¬ 
 ples, a n d deems them of the same importance that the people 
 did when they elected him, it is a part of hisduty, and a part 
 of the oath he has taken to faithfully discharge it. Sir, I 
 would like to see clean work in this business; I would like to 
 see the augean stable swept of all the Federal corruptions 
 which have been accumulating for many years, and which, So 
 long as they are permitted to remain, annoy and impede every 
 leading r easure of this, and of every other Administration, 
 calculated lo advance the interests of Democracy, the liberty 
 of the people, and to perpetuate the sovereignty of the States. 
 
 But, sir, I come now to speak of the charges of corruption, 
 profligacy, panic, and ruin, which have been rung in our 
 ears until our hearing has been wounded and our stomachs 
 nauseated. This howl of panic, ruin, and corruption, has 
 been a standing mean used by the Federalists from the com¬ 
 mencement of this Government to this time. It is a howl like 
 that of no beast on the face of the earth but that which makes 
 it. It is the howl of a demagogue, and is used for the purposes 
 
 ewer all these questions. Will the Democratic party be again 0 f political deception. It varies in its tone. It is sometimes 
 taunted with these epithets? They convey a base falsehood in j boisterous and terrific; it is sometimes more like the piteous 
 their application. Will the good sense and moral character of | an d deceptive cry of the crocodile. It varies with the causes 
 the American people be again ipsulted with the promulgation that operate upon the demagogues who make it. Sometimes 
 
 it proceeds from a robust political desperado, but more gene¬ 
 rally from the lean, lingering, lank office seekers; and the time 
 was when this howl had some effect with the people; but their 
 howl of corruotion, corruption! has become like the cry of 
 wolf, wolf, wolf! The people know the object, and by whom 
 the howl is made. They give it no attention. The charge of 
 corruption, panic, and profligacy, and its repetition, constituted 
 one-half that was said by the Opposition at the last and the 
 extra session, and cost the people of this Government mbre than 
 Stephen Girard’s estate was worth at his death. These charges 
 against the Administration were considered and investigated 
 by the people,, and with a full knowledge of the facts upon 
 which they were founded, and with a discriminating mind, and 
 a sound judgment, which rarely ever errs, when unclouded bv 
 falsehood or undeceived by misrepresentation, have expressed 
 a deliberate opinion, through the ballot boxiis, that the charges 
 of corruption, profligacy, and panic, are false. They are a 
 base slander upon the Administration, and a libel upon the peo - 
 pie, so far as panic is concerned, and made for political effect, 
 to advance Federalism. But, sir, it is time for me to raise the 
 general issue with the gentleman from Mississippi, [Mr. Pren ¬ 
 tiss,] and to present such facts as will sustain my plea. The 
 gentleman, in the outset of his long speech, said that there were 
 corruptions and base frauds committed by the officers olthis 
 Government, and that the Administration and the heads of De¬ 
 partments were cognisant of them, connived at them, parti 
 cipated in them, and were morally involved in all the guilt 
 and crime connected with them. This was his declaration; 
 and that he would present such an array of factsin support of 
 his charges, that no one dare contradict him, nor deny the 
 charges that he had thus publicly, and from hts place, made. 
 Now, sir, I, on behalf of this Administration, join issue with 
 the gentleman, and plead the general issue “not guilty.” 
 
 I have seen and heard the “array of facts which the gen¬ 
 tleman has brought forward to sustain the charges contained in 
 his declaration, and I heard with patience and attention the gen 
 tleman’s comments upon his array of facts; and I dare say that 
 the charges are not sustained. I dare say that the Administra¬ 
 tion, or the heads of Departments thereof, are not “guilty” I 
 admit that abuses have existed, and frauds upon the Govern¬ 
 ment committed by some of its officers. But I aaresaythe 
 Administration, or the heads of Departments thereof, were not 
 cognisant of them—did not participate in them—did not connive 
 at them, and are not morally involved in the guilt connected 
 with them; all these I dare say, and there are some other things l 
 dare say. I dare say that more faithful, economical, and pru¬ 
 dent Executive officers, so far as the heads of Depnrtments are 
 concerned, never administered this Government, than those of 
 the present Administration. I dare say two-thirds of all the 
 
 of a base slander upon them, and an insidious falsehood upon 
 those whom they have selected to manage their Government? 
 The Administration is denounced daily for removing persons 
 from office “for opinion’s sake;” and there was loud and bois- 
 teious complaint, I am told, by the Whigs of New York, be¬ 
 cause Mr. Van Buren did not renominate the base and infamous 
 seoundrel Swartwout. He being a Conservative, it was said he 
 was proscribed for “opinion’s sake.” Sir, this table shows that 
 the charge of proscription is as false as it is ungrateful. I look 
 upon General Jackson’s and Mr. Van Buren’s indulgence, while 
 in office, to their polittcal enemies, as their greatest fault. There 
 is no reason why the enemies to the Democratic party and the 
 Democratic principles should hold a large majority of the of¬ 
 fices, an J receive a greater amount of the emoluments of office 
 than the Democracy themselves, whose Administration it is, and 
 to whom the Government belongs. I say I think both General 
 Jackson and Mr. Van Buren have been derelict in duty in this 
 matter, both to their friends and to their country. 
 
 I think in this charge I am correct. The table which I have 
 exhibited, shows the facts upon which I made it to be true. I 
 am sustained in the principle by high authority. 
 
 “I shall not, while I have the honor to administer the Go¬ 
 vernment, bring a man into office of consequence, knowingly, 
 whose political tenets are adverse to the measures which the 
 General Government is pursuing; for this, in my opinion, 
 would be a sort of political suicide. That it would embarrass 
 its movements is certain. 
 
 GEORGE WASHINGTON 
 
 This is high authority; butl have still higher authority for 
 the ground I take, and it is the authority of a majority of the 
 American people. Patriotism guides the Democracy in this 
 country, and in every other, in the exercise of the elective fran¬ 
 chise. Our executive and our representative officers are elected 
 upon principle. Motives of patriotism are the ruling princi¬ 
 ples with the Democracy; they are not blind followers of men; 
 they are unlike their political enemies; they do not carry their 
 patriotism in their pockets, nor does their loyalty consist in 
 blind attachment and slavish devotion to associated wealth. 
 
 When, in 1828, General .Jackson was eljpted President, the 
 ticket that elected him had at its head the representation of,the 
 hickory broom, with the following words: “ To sweep the 
 augean stable.” This was significant of a wish on the part of 
 the people to have swept from office those who were opposed to 
 the Democratic principles and institutions of our country, and 
 amounted to instructions to displace from office all whose 
 “ political tenets” were adverse to the policy and measures 
 of the Democratic Administration, which that ticket was in¬ 
 tended to, and did, establish. I repeat, that the indulgence 
 6hown at the expense of principle, and the will of the people, 
 
11 
 
 public defaulters and fraudulent speculators, from the com¬ 
 mencement, of the Government to this time, and particularly 
 in this and the last Admistrations, were Federalists in princi¬ 
 ple, as they were scoundrels in practice, and violent opposersof 
 the Democratic principles, party, and administrations. 
 
 Further, I dare say that there have been fewer official 
 frauds and defalcations in this and the last Administrations, (and 
 1 speak with reference to the length of this Administration,) in 
 proportion to the amount of public revenue collected and dis¬ 
 bursed, by more than two hundred per cent, than existed under 
 any preceding Administrations. 
 
 Further, I dare say that more than nine-tenths of all the 
 money out of which the Government has been defrauded, origi¬ 
 nated by the banks and the connection of the Government with 
 them, and with the importirtg merchants and the credit sys¬ 
 tem—all darlings with the Federalists, and a part of the party 
 and the whole of their policy. Sir, the charge of fraud and cor¬ 
 ruption is made upon the Administration generally, and parti¬ 
 cularly upon the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr Woodbury. 
 These are grave charges against high, distinguished and respon¬ 
 sible officers of this Government, and if true, are matters of 
 grave import, in which the whole community have the deep¬ 
 est interest. If those who make them are sincere, and make 
 them in good faith, they are solemnly bound, by the nature of 
 their »ath and the duties of their office, to prefer articles of im¬ 
 peachment. But, sir, I dare say further, that that will not be done, 
 although gentlemen say that Mr. Woodbury stands convicted by 
 his own reports; yes, he stands convicted by evidence “out 
 of his own mouth.” Yet, sir, on behalf of Mr. Woodbury, and 
 without conference with him, or his consent to throw down the 
 glave, I challenge any member of this House to prefer articles of 
 impeachment against him. Sir, the Opposition could do no¬ 
 thing which would please Mr. Woodbury better. Sir, there is 
 no man in this House that would not recoil at the thought of 
 the indignation of a liberal and an honest community that" must 
 rest upon the head of him who would be foolhardy enough to 
 prosecute such an adventure upon an individual whose merits 
 secure him so large a portion of the public confidence and good 
 feeling. And as bantering, daring, and baisterous assertion is 
 the order of the day, and one of the modes of argument in this 
 House, and as I have as good a light to participate in this new 
 mode of discussion as any other member, I repeat the chal¬ 
 lenge—impeach Secretary Woodbury if you dare. But, sir, I 
 proceed to sustain my plea, and the assertions I have dared to 
 make in defence of this Administration, by facts and matters of 
 record. But, first, let me call the attention of those who hear me, 
 and those who may read me, that the President nominates ail 
 receiving, collecting, and disbursing officers; those who are 
 the defruiters were nominated by the President and confirmed 
 by the Senate. Mr. Woodbury has no control over those ap¬ 
 pointments. If unprincipled men get into office, and the Go¬ 
 vernment is defrauded thereby, it is unjust and unfair to hold 
 the Secretary of the Treasury responsible; responsible for the 
 conduct of officers, not of his appointing, and over whose con¬ 
 duct he has no control, except to detect them after a fraud has 
 been committed, and to recommend their removal from office. 
 Whatever moral or political evil may attach to the appoint¬ 
 ment of a fraudulent officer, nominated by the President and 
 confirmed by the Senate, neither the President nor the Secreta¬ 
 ry of the Treasury ought to be held responsible; for, as I said, 
 the Secretary has no absolute control over the appointment^ 
 and the President cannor be presumed to be acquainted with 
 the merits, morals, integrity, and qualifications of the hun¬ 
 dredth individual who i^ appointed to office, who may have a 
 portion of the control of the public revenue. He must rely up¬ 
 on the recommendation of those who are acquainted with the 
 applicant, and upon the Senate, who confirm his nominations, 
 and who have fifty times the opportunity to know the qualifica¬ 
 tions of the nominees that the President has; their body con¬ 
 sisting of that number, and their practical acquaintance coex¬ 
 tensive with the Union. 
 
 The gentleman, to support his broad and unqualified charges 
 of corruption and fraud, relied upon the defalcations of three 
 individuals. Their names, offices, and locations were as fol¬ 
 lows, viz: Spencer, receiver at Fort Wayne, Harris and Boyd, 
 receivers in Mississippi, and Linn, in Illinois. In order to know 
 the facts about these public officers, I addressed the follo wing 
 note to the Secretary of the Treasury, viz: 
 
 House of Representatives, Dec. 28,1838. 
 
 Dear Sir: The President’s Message is now under considera 
 tion in Committee of the Whole. Much blaYne is attached by 
 the Opposition to the Administration, and particularly to your 
 Department, (Treasury.) in consequence of some defalcations 
 wic.h appear in some of your official reports. The names of 
 Spencer, receiver at Fort Wayne, Harris and Boyd, receivers 
 in Mississippi, and Linn, in Illinois, are ptincipally relied on. 
 
 Will you have the goodness to inform me, by letter, what 
 amount has been eventually lost, by these officers'* Your early 
 attention to this request will oblige me, as I may find it neces¬ 
 sary to make some reply to the unqualified abuse that is new 
 poured forth upon the Administration and the Democratic party. 
 
 Very respectfully, A. DUNCAN. 
 Hon. Levi W oodeury, Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 | T^ the above, I received the following in reply: 
 
 Treasury Department, Dec. 31, 1838. 
 
 Sir: In answer to your letter of the 28th inst. I would ob¬ 
 serve, that in the document No. Ill, sent to the House of Re¬ 
 presentatives in January last, Mr. Harris, the receiver in note 
 No. 48, on page 39, is stated to have paid part of his balance, 
 and the remainder to be well secured. 
 
 In Mr. Boyd’s case, it is understood that the balance is well 
 secured and in the course of collection. Such is presumed to 
 be the balance against Linn, it being in suit, and one of the 
 sureties of the latter being Governor Duncan, of Illinois. He 
 was not in default when reappointed. 
 
 These officers were all dismissed, or they resigned, as soon as 
 the balances against them, appearing in the current returns, 
 were not paid over as directed, or satisfactory reasons not given 
 for postponement. 
 
 Spencer is not, and never has been, a defaulter on the books, 
 to my knowledge. He once delayed making a deposite, from 
 badness of the roads, but it was made as soon as they became 
 passable. 
 
 Iam, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 LEVI WOODBURY. 
 
 Hon. A. Duncan, House of Representatives. 
 
 Since the reception of this communication, I have examined 
 the reports offaulting officers, and find the statement, as here 
 represented, trie. It is due to the gentleman from Mississippi 
 to say that tb * document he read from was calculated to mislead 
 him. It did . Jt contain the answers to the correspondence of 
 the Secretaiy of the Treasury; nor does it contain the evidence 
 of the final settlement of the Government with these individuals; 
 nor the fact hat they were removed when actually found to be 
 in deiault, cr to be wilfully violating any impoitant order of the 
 Treasury Department. So much for the cases oi Spencer, Har¬ 
 ris, Boyd and Linn, so much relied on to prove the guilt offraup 
 and corruption. 
 
 But I said that this was an ccononical Administration. Sir, I 
 refer you to the messages of the President and the reports of the 
 Secretary of the Treasury. One of the principal features in 
 each, is a strong recommendation of economy in the expendi¬ 
 tures of the Government. What is it, sir, that constitutes ex¬ 
 travagance in our Government? It is the appropriation of mo¬ 
 ney for purposes named in the act of appropriation beyond the 
 amount of the Government estimates. The Secretary of the 
 Treasury presents Congress with revenue estimates. Now what 
 does extravagance consist in? Why, in appropriating money 
 beyond the amount of the estimates, and beyond the amount of 
 the income of the Government and her ability to pay. Who 
 makes the appropriations? Why, Congress! Then, sir, when 
 we have large and extravagant Government expenditures, by 
 which the people are oppressively taxed, who is to blame? Con¬ 
 gress; and I hesitate not to say, (and I challenge an examination 
 of the journals,) that, nine times in ten, the extravagant appro¬ 
 priations have been brought forward, sustained and carried, by 
 a majority of the Federal members of Congress. Yes, sir, by 
 the very men who cry extravagance loudest. 
 
 Bur, sir, I said that more than two-thirds of the Government 
 defaulters were opposed to the Democratic party, etc. Sir, I 
 hold in my hand a book containing the evidence of what I say— 
 a list of public defaulters from the commencement of the Go¬ 
 vernment until the time it was reported, 1838. It contains the 
 names, I think, of upwards of three thousand public defaulteis. 
 I am not acquainted with the politics of them, but I think I risk 
 nothing in saying, that more than two-thirds are, and have been, 
 opposed to the Democratic party. I judge of those I do not 
 know by those I do know. I do not, in general, mean personal 
 acquaintance. I say, as I have done, that defalcations are nu¬ 
 merous; they have existed from the commencement of the Go¬ 
 vernment, and they will continue to exist while the Govern¬ 
 ment exists, and while frail man continues to administer it. It 
 is contrary to human nature, and to all human experience, to 
 suppose that this vast political fabric should be managed, in all 
 its various and complicated interests and duties, without abuses; 
 and all that can be done to secure the Government and the peo¬ 
 ple from such abuses and frauds as have been practised, and 
 to provide against subsequent abuses, is to remove the causes 
 that hav6 existed, and to establish such additional checks as will 
 be most likely to secure a faithful and honest administration of 
 the Government in all its parts; at least, so far as human weak¬ 
 ness, frailty, and temptation, will permit. I think these will be 
 paramount duties to idle declamation,and that unlimited pour¬ 
 ing forth of bitter vituperation, and unqualified abuse, lor par¬ 
 ty purposes and President making. 
 
 In relation to the defalcations in financial trusts, the causes 
 seem to have had their origin and existence, in part, in the 
 banking system, and the connection of the Government with 
 the banks. It seems to me this must be conceded by all who 
 have honestly investigated the subject. Why, then, do those 
 who §are opposed to this Administration, denounce it in such 
 unqualified terms, as the cause ol all the abuses now presented 
 by the official reports of defalcations, as well of this Adminis¬ 
 tration and the defaulters under it, as those which have gone be- 
 
12 
 
 Sr 6 il f ° r Which U i3 x neithe r morally nor politically responsible? 
 fna’svstPm inS 1 ask ’ W ^° was U that introduced the bank- 
 HamBSS? m ' S C0 H nt , ry in a national sense? Alexander 
 ?x'a Who was - he * ° nc of the leaders of the Federal 
 if hao’fca i parl ^ ls ™’ and what P art 7 has i [ been, by which 
 The Federal party. To what party have 
 i,nrt« nn< i lpa A d i efau ters belonged? To the Federal party. Isay, 
 riHfL What Ad *n m '? ,rat ions have the greatest amount of defal- 
 cations occurred? Not this, nor the one which preceded it. Sir 
 Inna H n0W }° e *P ose the names of some of those who be- 
 so lm t ,H t i!fi Part , y wh ? are now crying corruption, corruption, 
 wnWhS S ° l ong ’ J. n concord wilh the cry of panic, panic, 
 with which we have been so long grated. Anri ctr ifToVn„u 
 
 onpr> the -so— And, sir, if I should 
 
 vSTnS’ break , down the ramparts of ancient grave 
 hone! wH. d i“’ hy ena like, into the grave, and disrobe the dead, I 
 Sir Snd an ample apology m the paramount law ofself- 
 S ce ; It was not I who began this exposition. Should anv 
 
 iTe lai/on mf K he t re orels ewli e re be hurt, the blame must not 
 « m ’ but upon those who have Wantonly provoked it 
 the ?> sir vi wiU Present, is that of one John 
 unon fhp r P ^ reS1 r e u• of i hese United States. He, sir, stands 
 upon the records of this Government as a defaulter to the 
 PJ hi fh 2 ,’ 898 ' T J ie his t°ry of this defalcation is under- 
 int -d ’ lb , t a , 6U , m of money was appropriated for furnish- 
 advanpp Pre w ldent S i h ° U i e ;,- Presideru Adams drew the cash in 
 »?* e r ployed ih, ls amount in purchasing a splendid 
 d horses, and other personal accommodations, 
 ij^/h® accounting officers could not allow. He refused to 
 flpHmiif- 6 t i he money - This amount, therefore, remains unset 
 tied to this day, and will until the last day. 
 
 Edward Randolph, a defaulter for $61,155 07, in 1797. 
 of i : ‘n ra m n did this ha PP pft under? In document 
 
 • , U1 > of last session, the collectors’ defaults, at the 
 ^ion if^oUa’rs 16 sbewn to be ) exclusive of interest, half a mil 
 
 Tu and damesE rwin. Document 111 exhibits a defal- 
 jo the modest sum of $80,000. Who has been bSnefit- 
 U u der-any man here to answer? What were the 
 politics of the base peculators? Whigs. 
 
 Vr^ e Mr - Bel l ofTennesse rose, and said, that the Messrs, 
 ffie Gl S obe e paSeJ d *] faUUerS ' ltwasa slander promulgated by 
 
 fr^, r ik D o^u Af i re iP°? ded ’ tbat he did not get his information 
 *7ih e Globe ; he obtained it from the records in the archives 
 t • 0Vernmei ? t; eviden ce of the highest character, and that 
 18 °P?!? t0 ^ h ? view of every one who desires to read. I 
 nop^ said Mr. D. it is not true. I would prefer to conceal, at 
 human weakness and depravity, rather than expose, 
 wnere irmay be done without public injury; but I would prefer 
 that such depravity as lam now exposing, did not exist. And 
 let me say, once for all, that I know nothing personally of the nu¬ 
 merous and wholesale frauds which I am now exposing. I am 
 ute ignorant of the men whom the records show to be the 
 perpetrators. These frauds, with the names of these who com¬ 
 mitted them, are matters of record, and the facts are spread over 
 the whole country, and known to all who read the journals of 
 ^ougress, and the reports of the Secretary of the Treasury 
 consequently, my exposition can neither affect the reputation 
 0t Tt,r° S ^ VV 10861 names 1 ex P° se or the cause ofjustice. 
 
 Mr. Kmg', late collector of Bath, Maine, seems to be a de¬ 
 faulter for the modest sum of $15,000. Perhaps the gentleman 
 now in my eye, [Mr. Evans,] can tell us what that gentleman’s 
 politics are, and whether he was not the late Whig candidate for 
 Governor of th at State; and whether, with all the corruptions 
 ol defalcation in which he is involved, he did not receive the 
 entire Whig vote of his State. 
 feo ride, but again: 
 
 Joseph Wingate and J. B. Swanton, late collectors at Bath 
 also i have not before me the amount of their defalcations; 
 Dut they are defaulters; and the former, since his defalcation, 
 uas been a Whig member of Congres, and most lovingly em¬ 
 braced by the whole party. The latter, for his violent abuse 
 or Democratic principles, has been rewarded, by the late 
 federal Governor of Maine, with a responsible office, the 
 /imcfions of which require a particular supervision 
 J the finances ef the county of Kennebeck. I ask an exami¬ 
 nation of the reports. It will be found that the collectors, re¬ 
 ceivers, and disbursing agents, all, or nearly all, support the 
 views which are now advanced with so much zeal for the en- 
 tire indemnity of this system of fraud and plunder. Examine 
 ico* mP 1 ^ 0 t0 tbe House of Representatives, February 28, 
 Ibdb. The loss by banks estimated at about $6,000,000; their 
 nominal debt was nearly double, but partly secured. This 
 amoun t is exclusive of interest: with interest, it will be near 
 
 An inspection of note 83, in the document referred to by Mr. 
 Duncan, shows thatjhe defalcation of Erwin has been the sub¬ 
 ject of judicial investigation, and that a judgment teas ob¬ 
 tained against him in October , 1830, for the sum of $92 685 11 
 feo much for the “slander of the Globe paper.” The extreme 
 sensitiveness of Mr. Bell in regard to this case, may be ac- 
 sounted for by the fact that Mr. Eioin is his father-in-law' 
 
 $20,000,000. I refer to the report to the Senate, Feb. 2, 1S3S, 
 Document No. 158. 
 
 The losses prior to General Jackson’s administration, by col 
 lectors and receivers, amount to $1,200,000; the nominal sum is 
 nearly double, but pat t of this sum is secured. It is probable 
 nothing will be lost eventually under Gen. Jackson’s adminis¬ 
 tration but by Littlebury Hawkins , or under the present Ad¬ 
 ministration but by Swartwout and Price. There will be 
 other defaulters, but their security will be good for their respec¬ 
 tive amounts. 
 
 Reckless, collector at Perth Amboy, has produced some 
 alarm; his defalcation was thirty or fifty dollars. He, so soon 
 as the defalcation was discovered, paid the amount. He was a 
 Democrat. He was misled by his predecessor. 
 
 But do we hear any thing from Arnold, the collector of the 
 same place, some years before, under the administration of one 
 John Q. Adams? He is in default for $80,000, not one farthing 
 of which was recovered; yet we hear no Federal murmuring 
 about that defalcation. He was a modern Whig. This wa 3 
 caused by the neglect of the Administration under which the 
 default occurred, according to the charges now preferred; and 
 it was under the Bank Administration. Why this muteness 
 about Arnold’s defalcation? All understood. 
 
 The loss on merchants’ bonds. This loss amounted to 
 $7,000,000, without interest. See detail of names and dates in 
 report to Senate, 6th July, 1838, doc. No. 503. There will be 
 found the name of G. W. Bruen, of the fiim of Thus Smith 
 and Co. in default for the modest sum of $800,000. I would like 
 to know whether or not he is a violent and noisy Whig in 
 New York. Perhaps the Whig gentleman now in my'eve 
 [Mr. Curtis] can inform me. And I would inquire of that 
 gentleman, if he did not make the motion in Common Council 
 to dismiss all Democrats in the city from office and public em¬ 
 ploy, even down to the lamplighters? 
 
 Edward Thompson, I think of Philadelphia, whom the re¬ 
 cords show to be a defaulter to a considerable amount, -say the 
 reasonable sum of $700,000, or more. Perhaps some of the 
 Whig gentleman from that city can inform us as to his polities. 
 W hig, I presume? Yes; silence gives consent. 
 
 All these base frauds and wholesale defalcations occurred un 
 der the United States Bank Administration, and before the pre¬ 
 sent Administration. They grew out of the wholesalegambling 
 system established, maintained and managed by the banks. 
 This system the Democracy of this country have always set 
 their face against. Who are responsible for the losses thus sus¬ 
 tained but those who, for party and pecuniary motives, sustain 
 and keep up the fraudulent system that gives birth and support 
 to them? 
 
 Collecting officers. Report of January 17, 1838, House of 
 Representatives, document 111, shows names of defaulting col¬ 
 lecting officers. 
 
 Reports of First and Second Comptrollers of the Treasury, 
 documents Nos. 2, 6, 48, and 186, of the House of Representa¬ 
 tives, show defaults of disbursing officers. 
 
 In looking through these documents, among many hundred 
 of Whig names I find that of James Monroe, formerly a captain 
 in the army, and is in default $4,115 44. I have understood 
 that this is one of the Whig members of Congress elect: 
 and I think I have seen him charged with having given $5,000 
 towards carrying the New York Whig elections. If so, would 
 it not have been mote honorable for him to have paid the debt 
 which he owed the nation? 
 
 Robert Brent. The name of this individual stands on record 
 with a defalcation annexed of $78,541. He was a Paymaster 
 General, (Whig) 
 
 Samuel Chaplin, late paymaster, defalcation ? 109,000, (whig.) 
 Amos Binney, late navy agent, defalcation $70,562, (W his.) 
 Joseph Kuhn, Delaulter for $22,621 55 (Whig.) 
 
 Miles King, navy agent, (whig,) defalcation not known. 
 
 But here comes Wm. McMurtry, purser, defalcation $17,991, 
 (Whig.) 
 
 Who next? Robert Randolph. Defalcation $25,097. 
 
 These are subjects worthy of investigation. Why not inquire 
 after them? They are Whigs. Their exposition would not as¬ 
 sist to elect a Federal President; and such an investigation would 
 expose the bankiug system. But why not investigate Thomas 
 M’Kenney’s connection with the old Bank of Columbia? how 
 much he owed it, and what did the Government lose? What are 
 his politics? Is he not the editor of a violent, raving, ranting, 
 and bitter Federal-Bank newspaper? Who now cries corruption, 
 corruption, as loud as any man in all Judea? 
 
 Bank defalcatipns. Look, sir, at the millions that have been 
 lost to the Government by the frauds of the banks, since 1817, 
 up to 1838, inclusive—all during the Bank reign. 
 
 Bank defaults in 1837. Yes, sir, 60 or 70 in number; all de¬ 
 faulters at one time. Yes, sir, in defalcation at one time to 
 more than $20,000,000. This was all right in the banks, though 
 the Government was made bankrupt thereby, the nation’s cha¬ 
 racter blighted at home and dishonored abroad. Indulgence 
 was given to them by the President and Secretary, and that in¬ 
 dulgence confirmed and continued by Congress. This indul¬ 
 gence was right because given to the banks. 'Yes, sir, the banks 
 
13 
 
 can defraud and bankrupt the Government, Whig collectors, 
 Whig receivers, and Whig disburse™, can rob the Government 
 of any amount, and Whig muteness and silence reigns, more 
 especially if that robbery be perpetrated under a Federal Ad¬ 
 ministration. Beside the indulgence and time given before to 
 the banks, as deposite agents, from May to October, 1837, for 
 $•10,003,000 at first, and then for 5 or $6,000,000, the Treasury 
 Department nave time and indulgence to numerous mer¬ 
 chants, on duty bonds } during the same period, for near five 
 millions more, though all were in default to the Government. 
 This was in the exercise of a sound and legal discretion, and 
 proved in the end beneficial to the United States. 1 say Con¬ 
 gress sanctioned this in September, 1837, and extended the in¬ 
 dulgence still longer. Both of these happened after real, as¬ 
 certained defaults, and were not previously, like the short time 
 taken by (he Department and the President, exercising the 
 same legal and sound discretion in the case of some receivers, 
 to inquire if a real default had occurred, and if the money 
 would not, without suit, be deposited as ordered. Yet the hue 
 and cry is, that the last is impeachable, but the first is right!!! 
 
 And because Mr. Woodbury, Draco or Nero like, will not 
 take a Democrat by the throat and strangle him the moment 
 he is under the least suspicion of officiaf defalcation, let his 
 means to satisfy the Government be what they may, the cry of 
 corruption must be rung upon every change, and the whole 
 Administration denounced as basely fraudulent, and as conniv¬ 
 ing at public peculation. All indulgencies that have been given 
 to defaulters, has been with a view to put it in the power of the 
 defaulter to liquidate the amount for which he may have been 
 in default; and so far as the present Administration, and that 
 which preceded it, is concerned, the result of such a course of 
 policy (where the particular case would admit of such indul¬ 
 gence) has been of advantage to the Government; and in all 
 cases of default, so soon as it was discovered that delay or in¬ 
 dulgence were either dangerous, or did not promise an advan¬ 
 tage, the individual have been removed; so has the defaulter, 
 under all circumstances, been eventually removed. I believe I 
 am warranted in saying that the Government has sustained 
 no loss by either neglect or indulgence to defaulters by the 
 Treasury Department, or any officer thereof, but, on the con¬ 
 trary, has been benefittedby indulgence. Sir, it is a curious 
 fact, that out of one hundred and fourteen collectors in nominal 
 defalcation—(nominal', I say, for many of the defalcations that 
 appear are not so, the settlement being subsequent to the publi¬ 
 cation of the defalcations)—near one hundred of them were 
 before General Jackson’s administration. So out of the whole 
 number of disbursing officers, more than two thousand were 
 under former administrations. 
 
 The losses alone, by two merchants, Smith and Thompson, 
 were more than by all the collectors and receivers, except what 
 may be lost by Swartwoul : 
 
 Swartwout had his appointment as collector ef the port of 
 New York in 1829, by General Jackson. This was one 
 ef the political errors of his life, and perhaps it has rarely fallen 
 to the lot of man to commit fewer. It is due to Mr. Van Buren, 
 and proper to say in this place, that he was opposed to the ap¬ 
 pointment of Swartwout, but more of this hereafter. During 
 this discussion, hozannas have been sung as usual to the Bank of 
 the United States. It collected the public revenue. It kept 
 safe the public revenue. And it disbursed the public revenue, 
 said one gentleman, (I believe Mr. Wise of Virginia,) and not 
 one dollar was lost while it had the management of affairs. 
 There are some mistakes in this eulogy upon the Bank. The 
 Bank never collected one dollar of the public revenue. The 
 Bank never disbursed one dollar of the public revenue, nor did 
 the Bank keep safe all of that that was deposited with it. 
 Swartwout received his appointment during the existence of 
 the United States Bank; and it may be fairly said, that it was 
 through and by the Bank policy and the credit system, that 
 the Government has been defrauded out of the amount of 
 Swartwout’s defalcation. 
 
 Sir, I have said that the Government has lost more, by ten 
 times, by banks, and its connection with them, and by mer¬ 
 chants’ bonds or the credit system, which is of the Bank or 
 Whig policy, than by all the individual collecting, receiving, 
 and disbursing officers that have existed since the commence¬ 
 ment of the Government. I also stated that there were fewer 
 losses sustained by public defaulters during the administration 
 of General Jackson and this Administration, so far as it had pro¬ 
 gressed, by more than one-half, than the average losses of all the 
 other administrations which preceded them, although the col¬ 
 lections and disbursements were more than double, and that the 
 heaviest losses sustained to each administration were by the 
 banks and the merchants, even in these administrations. I 
 have made the following table. It is taken from the records 
 and reports of the Treasury Department, and when, and where 
 ever examined, I think will be found to be correct. Here it is. It 
 shows the aggregate amount of defalcation in each administra¬ 
 tion, at the same time showing the amount lost by the banks, 
 private officers, and merchants, each in separate columns, and 
 the aggregate amount of the whole: 
 
 Y?- 
 
 Clp 
 
 c > 
 
 d. 
 
 II 
 
 T. Jefferso 
 
 1801 to 1809 
 
 John Adams 
 
 1797 to 1801- 
 
 Washington] 
 
 1789 to 1797. 
 
 Administra¬ 
 
 tions. 
 
 2 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 © 
 
 25 
 
 3’§ 
 
 w 
 
 3 
 
 © 
 
 3 
 
 CD 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 CD © 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 • 5*r 
 
 GO 
 
 
 •oiojaq piudon 
 spuoq uo joqtunu ui sqnnj 
 -op 000‘Z pun ‘uoubjisiu 
 -tuipB s.uosjpef -uag aiojoq 
 poiep ojb 000‘000‘9 S ‘asaqi jo 
 
 •lunouiB ui 000‘OOIf 
 PUB ‘UOUB.USlUIUipB e,uos 
 -ipef iBJouag aopun 0k Joao 
 jou] ‘spuiij osaqj jq •eiooqj© 
 Sutsmqs’ip jo ‘laqumu ui sqnuj 
 -op OSES -reau ’uib hunoiuB’m 
 000‘0SS‘k$ -reou ’Ogp ‘ssojSuoq 
 jo spe oiBAi.td Xq ‘sXbm snou 
 -BA UI poniiuoj PUB popios ||B 
 sopisoq ‘sjpoq oqi uo pouod 
 -or ureuioi jaX ojoip ‘gggj oj 
 suopBJjsiuuipB snoiAaad aqj ui 
 
 I & 
 
 S I 
 
 8 £ 
 2-s>r 
 ro “ 
 
 3 2 
 
 ® 2 o 
 
 a 3 2 § « o* 
 o* t— 5. o o § 
 
 g^ g ?ag. 
 
 S'So £§• 
 3 2 
 
 s S.* 
 
 o ~ P 
 
 2- 
 cT 
 o 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 39 
 
 £ 8 
 3 <a 
 0.-0 
 
 c 
 
 » 3. 
 
 Ho 
 
 a> » -<j 
 2 3® 
 ct> -1 
 
 ill 
 
 1- 3 
 
 o — 
 
 2*0 
 2 9 
 2 Q 
 
 » 3 
 a-2 
 
 CT> 5. 
 
 O- 
 
 
 5;o 
 
 o s = 
 '< S’ 
 
 93 
 
 a> 
 
 S 
 
 — :t> 
 
 O 
 
 •d % 
 M S 
 a 
 
 3 S. 
 
 S’ = 
 
 “tcnj 
 2 o 
 3 
 
 T) ® 
 
 S3 
 
 H. 
 
 Note. ‘Adtual loa^s from all of the above sources, 818,493,000’ 
 
 Total losses to the Government under each different Administration, by Banks, Collectors, Receivers,-Merchants' Bonis for duties, and disbursing dffifirs. 
 
14 
 
 Hie bank nominal losses ttere much greater than the 
 above sums under Monroe’s and J. Q,. Adams’s administra¬ 
 tions by de| )site banks that failed, and by others that failed, 
 whose bills the officers of Government had on band depreciated. 
 But all have been^ince paid, except the above balances. 
 
 All the losses by banks under Mr. Madison’s administration 
 were by taking depreciated paper, and they are estimated low 
 from that cause, at $5,000,000. 
 
 Most, if not all these bank failures happened while the United 
 States Bank Was in operation. The above does not include 
 losses by the United States Bank itself, by not paying full divi¬ 
 dends several years, and by seizing on others for damages. Out 
 of one hundred and fourteen collectors, only eighty are indebted 
 to any considerable amount, and the other thirty have paid, or 
 secured, or the sums are very small. But as a balance stood 
 unsettled, it must be reported by the public officers. Of sixty 
 to seventy receivers, against whom balances exist, near half of 
 the offices have been established in the last ten years, and 
 twenty to thirty of these defaults ate small debts, or secured, or 
 paid. Of the $200,000 estimated as a loss from 1829 to 1837, it 
 is after deducting all but one or two cases of any magnitude. 
 The rest will probably be in the end collected*, and not leave 
 over that sum if so much lost. More money actually has been 
 collected in one of the years under Gen. Jackson, from sales of 
 lands, than in any 8 or 10 years of any of his predecessors. Hence 
 the ratio or proportion of losses is small under him. Whole 
 number and amount of merchants* bonds for duties, unpaid 
 when due and probably lost, is eight thousand in number, and 
 near $6,500,000 in amount; and of these, $6,000,000 were not 
 under Gen. Jackson’s administration, except those falling due 
 about the time of the suspension of specie payments. So of the 
 number of disbursing officers in default, at least 2,300 were be 
 fore 1829, and only about 40 between that and 1837; and of the 
 whole amount, $4,250,000, all was earlier except about $100,000. 
 The aggregate of the losses since 1789, is supposed to be, after 
 every fair allowance, over $18,000,000. Yet, under Gen. Jack- 
 Bon’s administration, though lasting eight years instead of four, 
 and attended with greater collections of revenue, and especially 
 much greater from lands than any others, the whole losses 
 were only $900,000, instead of three millions, the average pro¬ 
 portion to each eight years. They were less than one-third ol 
 the losses under other Administrations, on an average. 
 
 Many of these immense losses sin cegl789, as well as several 
 others in 1820. in the sale of the public lands on credit, are to be 
 attributed to the ill regulated credit system for duties and lands, 
 and to the facilities and temptations to speculation and losses by 
 indiscreet bank credits. All happened under the United States 
 Band and pet hank systems!! 
 
 I trust, sir, I have shown that this Administration are governed 
 by no other principles than those of economy. That they have no 
 other interest at heart but that of their country, is manifest to all 
 who have impartially examined their progress. I trust that I have 
 shown that the three cases of official defalcation chiefly relied 
 onto prove corruption on the part of the Administration, have 
 nothing in them to warrant such a charge. I think, by the table 
 which 1 have exhibited, I have shown, conslusively, first, that 
 less money has been lost by defalcations of any and every kind, 
 during the Administrations of General Jackson, and of Mr. Van 
 Buren, so far as it has progressed, in proportion to the 
 amount of money collected and disbursed, than under any ad¬ 
 ministration which preceded them. I think I have shown that 
 tehtimes as much money has been lost to the Government by 
 banks, merchants and the credit system, as has been lost by 
 all the collectors, receivers and disbursers (the Swartwout case 
 excepted) that the Government has ever employed; and if I 
 have not shown that the Government must continue to lose 
 while it is connected with this swindling and gambling system, 
 (I mean the Federal Bank policy,) it is because it must be so 
 well understood that it is unnecessary. 
 
 Sir, every effort is now being made to saddle upon this Ad 
 ministration the defalcation of Swartwout, for party effect; but 
 it cannot be done. Swartwout had his appointment under ano¬ 
 ther Administration. The greater part of his frauds were com¬ 
 mitted before this Administration came into existence; and 
 those that were committed after, were effected in consequence 
 of a policy which was adopted before this Administration—a 
 policy which made it almost impossible for the Treasury De¬ 
 partment either to prevent them, or detect them after they 
 Were committed, until Swartwout had fled; and the policy in 
 this case was the Bank policy, and the connection of the Go¬ 
 vernment with it. 
 
 Sir, if ever candor is proper and becoming in any situation 
 —if it constitutes a human virtue, and ought to be associated 
 with any transaction of human life, it ought to be with the du¬ 
 ties of legislation. An honest and an unsuspecting community 
 ought to be represented in an honestand unsuspicious manner. 
 The people have a deeper interest, if possible, in having their 
 honesty and morality fairly represented than even their politi¬ 
 cal or civil rights. How degrading is it to the character of the 
 representative in any capacity, and more especially in that of 
 an; American Congressman, to play the part of a pettifogger, or 
 Seventh-rate county court lawyer—degrading himself and the 
 
 dignified station La occupies by practising little trickery for 
 mean, selfish party purposes. 
 
 Bir, I speak with referei.ee to attempts made too frequently on 
 this floor to bring tiie Administration into discredit, by prromu! 
 gating and magnifying every trifling error supposed to exist in 
 the management of the Government, and suppressing every 
 virtue and every quality of the Administration, entitling itto the 
 confidence of the people. 1 think I once before, on this floor, 
 remarked that it is as base and criminal to withhold the truth, 
 when it may be due to reputation, as to promulge that which is 
 false fur the purposes ofdetiaetion or slander. Can any candid 
 man fail to perceive, or will any just man tail to deprecate, the 
 practice which has been pursued in this debate of picking out 
 particular cases and reports, or passages from them, t and put¬ 
 ting them together, so as to produce an impression as to facts, 
 and as to the conduct of public officers, totally different from that 
 which results from a fair and entire view. My colleague [Mr. 
 Bond] deliberately accuses the President and the Secretary of 
 the Treasury, together with the Solicitor, Comptroller and First 
 Auditor, of a combined and studied effort to deceive the people 
 relative to the existing provisions that authorize or direct the 
 periodical inspection of the books and accounts of public offi¬ 
 cers; and he winds up by a deliberate assertion that 
 the documents sent to the House are, on this point, untrue. 
 
 Not content with thus making use of a palpable perversion of 
 the reports of the Solicitor and Comptroller, to found this 
 charge of falsehood against the President and the officers of the 
 Treasury Department, he takes occasion, by the same means, 
 to magnify his own sagacity and industry, parades before this 
 House, as something wonderfully novel, one of the best known 
 sections of the general collection act of 1799. Perhaps the very 
 law which is more frequently referred to, and is more familiar 
 than any other in the statute book, and quotes, as a discovery 
 due to his own remarkable acuteness, the very portion of thar 
 law under which the public officers, whom he accuses of being 
 ignorant of its provisions were, at the time, notoriously acting. 
 
 The Secretary ofthe Treasury had directed the Solicitor and 
 Comptroller, after ascertaining the facts of Swartwout’s defal¬ 
 cation, to suggest such changes in the existing laws as they 
 might deem advisable. It is their report from which my col¬ 
 league makes his selections. Those officers are not inspec¬ 
 tors ofthe custom-house proceedings and books, as directe/i 
 by laic; and that an express provision, requiring this to be done 
 from time to time, by a competent officer, from the Treasury 
 Department, is an obvious and important measure of precaution 
 and safety. 
 
 This suggestion hay colleague construes into a “ combined and 
 studied effort” to create a false impression as to the existing 
 laws,and says that.these documents are so far from truth, that he 
 is able to read an express clause from the statute book, which has 
 for more than forty years provided for the very inspection 
 “thatis now recommended as a grave and salutary remedy.’ : 
 And how does he do this? How does he fulfil his boasted pro¬ 
 mise? How are the President and the officers of the Treasury 
 convicted of falsehood, or gross ignorance? How is the search¬ 
 ing sagacity of the member himself established? Why, for¬ 
 sooth, all this promised prostration of the President, Secretary, 
 Solicitor, Comptroller, Auditor, and the whole Government, 
 which thunders so loudly in the index, all this self-glorifica¬ 
 tion of my colleague, and the astounding proof of his ability to 
 perform these “ searching operations (t® use his favorite 
 phrase,) turns out to be nothing more than reading to this 
 House a well known section of the old collection law, which 
 provides that collectors and other officers shall keep true ac¬ 
 counts, submit them to inspection when required, and forfeit 
 $1,000 in every case where they refuse so to do. Does this 
 prove what my colleague wishes us to believe it does? Does it 
 prove that regular inspections of the books and proceedings ol 
 the custom-house, by a competent officer of the Treasury De¬ 
 partment, are now directed by law? As well might you say that 
 the penalty imposed upon a smuggler made it unnecessary tc 
 direct by law the appointment ol a single inspector or tide-wait¬ 
 er that there was no need of a marshal or officer of police, be¬ 
 cause the satute declares that a counterfeitor or a thief shall be 
 ut in the penitentiary. The provision in question was weli 
 nown, but it is an inadequate provision. Did any one doubt 
 or deny that the Secretary of the Treasury might send a per- . 
 son to any custom house, specially to examine its proceedings? 
 
 Is there a word in the report of the Secretary, or in any of those 
 documents that expresses such a doubt? Were not the Solici¬ 
 tor and Comptroller,so sent under this very provision, in this 
 very instance? Yet my colleague attempts to create this im¬ 
 pression, an impression the very reverse of what is justly and_ 
 fairly to be deduced from the documents themselves. The pro-^ 
 vision in the old collection law is inadequate, totally inade¬ 
 quate. It is permissive, not directory. It was meant to pro¬ 
 vide for special cases, not to form part of a general system. 
 “The new and salutary remedy” which my colleague rid 
 cules, is not found in it, either directly or by inference. That 
 remedy is to direct, by positive law, periodical inspections, by 
 competent officers. If that is already done, let tke place in the 
 statute book be pointed out. If it is not, let us have no asser- , 
 
15 
 
 ddna to the Cdntraty'," and 'wo gross accusations, the support of 
 Which is attempted “by stringing together disjointed sentences, 
 and putting false constructions upon the official statements of 
 honorable, high-minded and competent men. 
 
 Sir, I ask your attention While I give a brief expose of the po¬ 
 licy, and the result of that policy, by which Swartwout was 
 enabled to commit the frauds which lie did, and'the embarrass¬ 
 ments under which the Secretary of the Treasury labored in 
 detecting him. 
 
 1. 1 believe the merchants’ bonds were deposited in the de- 
 posite banks in NeW York; so Was the amount of those bonds, 
 when collected, t» the credit of the Treasurer Of the United 
 States. Swartwout made up his account weekly with the 
 bank, on Saturday, at 10 o’clock. No account was ever exhi¬ 
 bited of moneys received by him for duties between Saturday 
 10 o’clock, and Monday morning. All moneys received after 
 10 o’clock on Saturday morning, and before 10 o’clock Monday 
 morning, were not deposited; or, if they were, they were depo¬ 
 sited in his name, and to his individual credit, and drawn upon 
 his individual check. This was the mean by which a portion 
 of the defalcation was effected, and unquestionably grew out of 
 the connection of the Treasury with the banks. It is easy to 
 perceive that this fraud could go on some time without detec¬ 
 tion, I believe near ©300,000 of the fraud occurred in this way. 
 
 2. Owing to the peculiar mahner in Which certain funds 
 came into the hands of the collector at New York,, (and per¬ 
 haps other ports,) and to the right which he had to retain a por¬ 
 tion of those funds in his hands, they were kept out of sight, and 
 indeed out of the knowledge of the Treasury Department. 
 This occurs in this way. When an importing merchant re¬ 
 ceives from his vessel a cargo of goods, upon which the duties 
 have to be paid in cash, in advance, the duty on which may be 
 known, that is, the class of goods and the amount of duty on that 
 particular class may be known; but it may take some time to cal- 
 Cula^aand make up the amount of duty that may be due on the 
 whole. The merchant, desirous to have the use of hie goods, 
 agrees with the collector to pay what the duties, when made 
 up, will probably amount to The collector, in this case, gene¬ 
 rally receives a sum amounting to more than the duties when 
 made up. In this he is justifiable, as he is bound to look to the 
 security and interest of the Government. He retains in his 
 hands what he supposes may he the overplus between what,he 
 has received and what may really be found to be due when the 
 account is made up. Transactions of this character are of 
 every day’s occurrence. The sum thus retained is not reported 
 (or may not be, and was not in Swartwout’s case) to the Trea¬ 
 sury, but was kept (as pretended) for the purpose of paying 
 back to the merchant what was due him. This surplus—if it 
 may be so called—in Swartwout’s case, has constituted, at all 
 times, a large standing fund, a part of Which; it is easy to per¬ 
 ceive, might be abstracted without the knowledge of any person 
 but the collector himself; without the knowledge of the Secre¬ 
 tary of the Treasury, or any officer of his immediate Depart¬ 
 ment. This fund, I believe, is called “cash deposited to meet 
 unascertained duties.” Yrotn this fund Swartwout abstracted 
 about ©150,000. 
 
 3. “Duties paid under protests.” This constitutes a fund Which 
 puts it in the power of the collector to defraud the Government 
 out of almost any sum. It is as follows: An importing mer¬ 
 chant has received a cargo of goods (on which cash is payable 
 on demand) of a particular class, and, consequently, the sub¬ 
 jects of higher duties; so supposes the collector. The merchant 
 contends that his goods are not of such a class; the colledor 
 Contends they are, and demands the duty due on such goods. 
 The merchant, in order to avail himself of the use and practical 
 benefit of his goods, pays the collector the amount he demands, 
 but, at the same time, enters his protest, and commences suit for 
 What he supposes he has overpaid. The collector, hot knowing 
 what the result of the suit may be; and not knowing 
 whether or not he would recover the amount in controversy 
 from the Government, should he pay it over to the credit of the 
 Treasurer of the United States, retains it in his hands for his 
 own safety—and I believe the United States District Court has 
 decided that he has a right so to do, until a legal decision is 
 had. Should ha pay the money in protest over to the Govern¬ 
 ment on its reception, and the suit should terminate in favor of 
 the merchant, it has been doubted if he could get relief in any 
 other Way than through Congress—a slow method, and some¬ 
 what uncertain—before which dn execution might sweep from 
 tinder him his whole property. From this fund it is supposed 
 that Swartwout abstracted about ©150,000 or ©200,000, which he 
 had it in his power to do without the knowledge of the Treasury 
 Department, or the means of detection. 
 
 4. When the banks suspended payment, there were in num¬ 
 ber, of merchants’ bonds, ten thousand due for duties, and the 
 amount due on these was upwards of five millions of dollars. 
 2’he bonds were withdrawn from the banks, and an extension 
 given by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consequence of the 
 pecuniary embarrassments consequent upon the suspension by 
 the banks. At the extra session, Congress gave an additional 
 extension of nine months, as well upon those bonds on which 
 suit had been commenced as those on which it had not. The 
 
 withdrawal of the bonds from the banks, the extension of ttl' 
 die given on them, the" vast amount due, and the great num 
 ber of bonds thrown into the collector’s office, gave a new di- 
 rection^nd threw all the business in such confusion, that it seen!.- , 
 by the letter of Mr. Fleming impossible to know, lor a time, in 
 what situation the bonds and the business of the office were: 
 and if the officers themselves of the custom-house could not tell 
 in what situation things were, relating to the duties and bonds, 
 how was it possible for the Treasury Department to know any 
 thing about it, or to know so much as u> enable it to detect the 
 frauds which Swartwout was then daily and hourly commit 
 ting? The act of the withdrawal of the bonds, and their exten 
 sion, and the confusion' thereupon, not only put it in the power 
 of Swartwout to commit irauds, but obstructed the channel-’ 
 through which the information would have flown to the Secre¬ 
 tary, of the fact of frauds being committed, and consequently of 
 the power of detecting them. 
 
 5. The collector is bound to render quarterly accounts to tlx: 
 Treasury, but he has three months, after the expiration of each 
 quarter, to make up his accounts, and three months after the 
 expiration of his term of office before he can be considered 
 published or prosecuted as a public defaulter. Let us see to 
 what extent this legal privilege may have operated to the frau¬ 
 dulent purposes of Swartwout, and to the embarrassment of 
 the Secretary of the Treasury to detect his frauds. The banks 
 suspended payment on May 11th, 1837. Swartwout’s time ex¬ 
 pired on the 28th of March, 1838. Then it is found that he had 
 the advantage of the possession of the bonds to the amount of 
 ©3,000,000. The advantage ofthe extension given, (advantage, 
 because the Secretary of the Treasury was thereby prevented 
 from detecting him,) and all the confusion and embarrassment 
 thereupon. I say he had the advantage of all these for up¬ 
 wards of ten months next from the 28th of March. He had 
 three months before he could be called to a settlement, at the ex¬ 
 piration of which time he was called upon for a settlement by 
 the First Auoitor ofthe Treasuryjbutno settlement was obtained. 
 Immediately notice was given to his bondsmen,about which time 
 Swartwout sailed for England, having abstracted, of the public 
 money, upwards of five or six hundred thousand dollars, by these 
 last advantages which the law afforded him. Three months to 
 make up his accounts, the suspension of specie payments by 
 the banks, and the confusion and embarrassment produced by 
 that, and the withdrawal of the bonds, and the actual possession 
 of the bonds gave him. Now, sir, I ask, what vigilance, other 
 than that which has never been thought of since the beginning of 
 thiff Government, could have been practised by the Secretary of 
 the Treasury, to have detected Swartwout’s frauds, or to have 
 saved the Government from those which were practised by the 
 advantages which the policy of the Government and the laws 
 gave the collector, and over which the Secretary had no con¬ 
 trol? Sir, to censure the Secretary of the Treasury for a laches 
 in Swartwout’s frauds, is to censure him for the want of a vigi 
 lance which no one ever dreamed of to this time. To censure 
 him for a neglect of duty in this case, is doing him the base 
 injustice of Censuring him for the neglect of that which the law . 
 and the policy of this Government, and frauds of the banks, 
 with which its Treasury has been Connected, put it out of his 
 power to perform. So soon as the time arrived for the Secre¬ 
 tary to act, every vigilance was used to bring Swartwout to 
 settlement; and after he had absconded, every vigilance was 
 used, and is using, to detect the extent of his frauds, and to se¬ 
 cure the Government. Sir, to charge the Secretary with con¬ 
 niving at Swartwout’s frauds, or any other defaulter’s frauds, 
 or even with culpable neglect of official vigilance, is charging 
 him with that of which he is not guilty. It is charging him with 
 that which his high character as an honorable man, .his vigi¬ 
 lance and capacity as a public officer, and his reputation as a 
 patriot and friend to his country, ought to exempt him. And 
 further, I look upon.such charges as a slander from which the 
 laws of our country ought to protect him, as well in his indivi¬ 
 dual as in his official character. Sir, this war upon the Secre¬ 
 tary of the Treasury is but one of the thousand means used to 
 break down the Administration. All that can be made out of 
 the Swartwout defalcation, will be used to the greates* possible 
 extent, to prostrate the Administration, and to blight the popular 
 confidence in it. 
 
 It seems, it and other defalcations are to be used as a two- 
 edged sword, that is, to destroy the confidence of the people in 
 the Administration, by the cry of corruption and fraud, and to 
 bankrupt the Treasury for the same purpose, by extravagance 
 and profligacy in printing tons of worthless, and worse than 
 useless documents, relating to those defalcations. Sir, in cha¬ 
 racter with this effort we saw a resolution introduced the other 
 dav, and carried, authorizing and requiring the printing of 
 20,000 copies of a document purporting to be a report of defa] 
 cations and defaulters, with the correspondence of the Secreta¬ 
 ry of the Treasury with the supposed defaulters. Sir, I have 
 stated before that this document purports to be what it is not 
 It contains the correspondence ofthe Secretary of the Treasury 
 but it does not contain many of the answers and final settle 
 ments of and with those that ate represented to be defaulters 
 Many persons, living and dead, are represented in that docu- 
 
ment to be defaulters, who do not owe the Government a dollar 
 and some of them, I am told, have just, but unsettled, claim 
 against the Government. Sir, to publish it to the extent of th 
 resolution, was promulgating, in many instances, a falsehood 
 upon theliving and slanders upon the memory of the dead. 
 
 But, sir, I have another objection to printing this document. 
 It will involve a criminal profligacy in expenditure o’f fifteen 
 or twenty thousand dollars, which can answer no other pur¬ 
 pose than to put so much money into the pocket of the 
 printer. It will, sir, be putting so much money into the hands 
 of those whom I consider more worthless, if possible, than 
 the purpose for which the expenditure would be made. I 
 mean the mortgagor and pliant vassal of the Bank, the editor of 
 the National Intelligencer, and his catspaw and tool, the editoi 
 of the Madisonian, the Conservative!! 
 
 But, sir, these profligate expenditures and worthless appro¬ 
 priations, can go on so far as resolutions of this House can au¬ 
 thorize them. There is no check here. The Democracy are 
 in the minority. The united strength of the Whigs and Con¬ 
 servatives make a majority. They differ in name, but not in 
 principle. Conservatism is but another name for Whiggery, 
 and both, but othernames for Federalism They are like man 
 and wife. They are joined in the holy bands of political wed¬ 
 lock. They are flesh of one flesh, blood of one blood, and bone 
 of one bone. They will live together until separated by death. 
 Those whom the banks have joined together, let no man put 
 asunder 
 
 These evils are with the people. They can remedy them; 
 all I can do is to protest against them, which I will do while I 
 have a tongue to speak and a hand to write. 
 
 Each of these reasons constituted a sufficient objection with 
 me for voting against the resolution to print that document,and I 
 repeat, that I look upon such efforts to squander the public trea¬ 
 sure, and to bankrupt the nation, as done with a view to break 
 down the Administration, and destroy the Democratic party. 
 
 But, sir, what could induce the Secretary to connive at the 
 frauds of Swartwout? He was no friend to the Administration 
 or to the Democracy. He was a Conservative in theory and 
 practice; and, consequently, like all other Conservatives, op¬ 
 posed to both. I repeat, what ground is there to suppose that 
 the Secretary of the Treasury, or any other individual of the De¬ 
 mocracy concerned in the administration of the Government, 
 
 Not A bene. —After Mr. Duncan had finished the above re¬ 
 marks, Mr. Petrikin moved ‘the previons question.” Mr. 
 Stanly begged of Mr. Petrikin that he would withdraw for a 
 moment the motion for the previous question, until he (Mr. S.) 
 could make a remark or two. Mr. Petrikin consented, on 
 condition that Mr. S. would renew the motion; to which Mr. S. 
 consented. Mr. Stanly proceeded, and in the commencement 
 of his remarks insinuated that Mr. Duncan was an Abolition¬ 
 ist, and referred to a letterwhich he had seen and read in the 
 publiclprints, purporting to be an answer to some interrogato¬ 
 ries put to him, [Mr. D.] prior to his re-election, by the 
 Abolitionists. Mr. Duncan asked to explain. Mr. Stanly 
 gave way. Mr. Duncan said, that a few days before the late 
 election in Ohio, a number of the members of the Anti¬ 
 slavery Society in his district propounded sundry questions to 
 him, in writing, on the subject of the abolition ol slavery in the 
 District of Columbia, &c. These qustions he had promptly 
 answered; and, in his answers, deprecated slavery in the ab¬ 
 stract. He also had deprecated modern Abolitionism as 
 mistaken philanthropy, disorganizing in its tendencies, and, in 
 
 would connive at the frauds of Swaitwout, or any other Con* 
 servative. Why, sir, above all isms on the face of the earth. 
 Conservatism is the last and tail end ism. Yes, sir, in the 
 estimation of this Administration, Conservatism is sunk deeper 
 in base iniquity, foul corruption, and black hypocrisy, than 
 even modern Whigery itself. 
 
 But, in addition to this, Swartwout was conceived in 9 in, 
 brought fourth in iniquity, and reard in fraud. His father wee 
 base defaulter in Mr. Monroe’s administration. 
 
 It may be asked, why General Jackson would nominate such 
 a man, with such native suspicions surrounding him? I an¬ 
 swer, why did a Whig Senate confirm the nomination of a man 
 who had such native suspicions surrounding him? Why, also, 
 did the whole Whig mercantile interest of New York city 
 unite in recommending a man who had such native suspicions 
 surrounding him? We could retort. We might assert; that there 
 must have been a conspiracy to defraud the Government be¬ 
 tween Swartwout and the Whig merchants of New York; and 
 we might embrace some Whig Senators in the conspiracy. All 
 this we might do, and make out as strong a case of conspiracy 
 as the Opposition can make of “connivance.’' But, sir, wa 
 are incapable of making such a charge, as the New York mer¬ 
 chants and Whig Senators are incapable of entering into such 
 a conspiracy. 
 
 Mr. Speaker," I hope the leading measures recommended in 
 the President’s Message will be carried out. I look upon them 
 all as of vast importance to the interests of the country, but 
 more particularly that which relates to the collection, safe¬ 
 keeping, and faithful disbursement of the public revenue. It 
 seems to me that the highest interests of the country require 
 that that policy should be the policy of the country—I 
 mean the establishment of an Independent Treasury. Justice 
 to the laboring taxpayer requires it. Every interest, whether 
 commercial, mercantile, manufacturing agricultural, or 
 mechanical, and all other institutions, which have an 
 interest in a sound currency, and the faithful per¬ 
 formance of public andjprivate contracts, require it. But above 
 all, the financial interest involved in the management of this 
 Government, imperiously demand it; for so long as the present 
 system of the connection of the Government with the banks 
 continues, the Government and the henest laborer must continue 
 to be the prey of the lounging loafer, the stockjobbing gambler, 
 and the official peculator. 
 
 its character, dangerous to the Union. Mr. D. said, that part of 
 his letter in which he deprecates slavery in the abstract had 
 been published in many of the Federal sheets, and had been 
 most basely, unjustly and ungenerously commented upon 
 to his prejudice and with a view to identify him with 
 Abolitionism; whilst that part of the letter which 
 deprecates modern Abolitionism had been carefully kept 
 out of sight. Mr. D. said such base conduct was worthy 
 of the persons who would be guilty of it, and of the party 
 who would sustain them in it. Mr. Duncan was proceeding 
 briefly to expose the views he entertained in relation to slavery 
 in the abstract, of modem Abolitionism, and of the right of pe¬ 
 tition, etc. when Mr. Stanly interrupted him, and said that he 
 did not yield the floor to hear a speech; it was to hear an expla¬ 
 nation. Mr. Duncan said he would yield the floor, but as the 
 previous question was pending, and as he would have no op¬ 
 portunity to reply, he must first pronounce the insinuation that 
 he was an Abolitionist, a base falsehood and a foul detraction, 
 whether it dwelt upon the lips of the unprincipled calumnia¬ 
 tor, or floated on the breeze in the corrupt, poisonous, and 
 slanderous Federal sheets ef the day. 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF THE 
 
 HON, R. H. MENEFEE, OF KENTUCKY, 
 
 IN REPLY TO MR. THOMAS, OF MARYLAND, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 late defalcations in the executive department. 
 
 Delivered in the House of Representatives U. S., January 9, 1839. 
 
 Mr. Menefee said that he had intended to say not one word in this debate. 
 He had very decided, and, he trusted, well-considered opinions upon these 
 defalcations, but lie had preferred to reserve the expression of them for a fu¬ 
 ture occasion. It was true that scarcely any occasion could be more impor¬ 
 tant that the present; but time , also, was now become highly important, and 
 he was averse to consume any portion of it by any thing he could say. The 
 proposed investigation was very comprehensive in its range ; the session 
 would shortly expire, and, with it, the present Congress, The House, if it 
 meant to act at all, should act at once. 
 
 Sir, (said he,) my sole object in rising was to make an observation or two 
 upon what has just fallen, with such oracular solemnity, from a distinguished 
 gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Thomas.] That gentleman occupies, Mr. 
 Speaker, by your favor and otherwise, a high and conspicuous position in 
 the House ; having the benefit of th e presumption of being the ablest jurist in 
 the House.* That position itself is calculated to impart much weight and au¬ 
 thority to whatsoever he may here say or do. Yet, sir, not content with the 
 employment of his talents, (the respectability of which I do not contest,) from 
 the commanding ground on which he stands, the gentleman invariably sees 
 fit, in every debate, on all occasions, without discrimination, to invoke 
 to his aid instruments of influence and authority of quite a different descrip¬ 
 tion, and of more irresistible potency. He has a standing exordium for all 
 subjects, from a question of peace or war to a motion to adjourn. Never 
 does he open lips in the House, without upturned eyes, and hands on breast 
 demurely crossed, to protest, in the sight of high Heaven, that, though the de¬ 
 mons of party and faction and violence hold their horrid revels in the breasts of 
 others, he is the pink of ingenuousness and the predestinated elect of disin¬ 
 terested patriotism, utterly exempt from every mortal infirmity ! —sanctimoni¬ 
 ously devout “ that he is not as other men /” 
 
 My education and principles, sir, inspire me with an habitual and sincere 
 reverence for the sacred character. I am, therefore, overawed by the gentle¬ 
 man from Maryland, when he presents himself bedecked with all its dread 
 attributes, to display in debate all its high functions. It is, in some sense, 
 an abridgment of the freedom of speech, thus to force us who are “ in the 
 flesh” to concur in opinion with all that is said, and implicitly co-operate in 
 all that is done, by the gentleman from Maryland, under the aw'ful peril of 
 confronting, if we do not, the self-arrogated ambassador of Heaven ! The 
 
 * He is chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary 
 
2 
 
 intensity of the gentleman’s perfections is, therefore, actually unconstitutional. 
 My only expedient, then, is, to act the infidel in regard to the super humanity 
 of the gentleman from Maryland ; and, judging by rules applicable to mor- 
 tals, to pronounce, as l do, the opinion that his whole career as a politician, 
 in every part of it, furnishes irresistible proofs that the gentleman is under a 
 total mistake with respect to the qualities which most distinctly characterize 
 him. Of these qualities I do not speak ; but, sir, I will say that the gentle¬ 
 man from Maryland, notwithstanding the angelic habiliments in which he has 
 chosen to array himself, is most eminently human. Thus ranking him, I 
 proceed to examine his speech —not his revelation , sir. 
 
 In doing this, sir, I shall abstain as far as possible from a discussion of 
 topics of a more general nature which have been introduced by gentlemen 
 on both sides ; and, particularly, by the gentleman from Maryland. My 
 business shall be with the question immediately before the House ; which is, 
 “ Shall the Speaker be permitted to appoint the proposed committee, or shall 
 the House itself appoint it V* This question involves the essence of the 
 whole proceeding ; for every thing depends on the complexion of the com¬ 
 mittee. The Executive , through its organs, claims a preponderance in the 
 committee, with a view to control and direct its operations ; and, therefore, 
 distrustful of the House, insists on an appointment by the Speaker. This is 
 resisted, and all executive interference denounced. 
 
 This question, I think, sir, admits of easy solution, by recurring to the na¬ 
 ture of the proceeding in which the House is engaged. What is it? Stu¬ 
 pendous abuses of Government have occurred. The House of Representa¬ 
 tives, possessing the high prerogative of supervising, in some degree, the 
 whole machinery of Government, and animadverting upon its irregularities, 
 proposes to exert that prerogative in reference to these abuses. It is, em¬ 
 phatically, a proceeding by the House , in its cognizance over maladminis¬ 
 tration. The attitude of the House towards the Executive, in a measure of 
 this nature, though perhaps not exactly hostile, is certainly not the opposite. 
 This measure assumes that there is enormous wrong somewhere in the Gov¬ 
 ernment, into which it is one of the highest duties of the House to look. Its 
 extraordinary authority, then, being thus awakened, is it not natural that this 
 House should darken with a patriotic frown ? And when, by the acknowl¬ 
 edgment of the President, that wrong exists in the executive department, is 
 it not natural that this frown should be turned upon the Executive ? and 
 that it should not relax, if at all, until thorough examination should be made 
 by the House itself? the presumption, at least, being against the administra¬ 
 tion ? 
 
 Indeed, sir, the gentleman from Maryland distinctly confesses that the ad¬ 
 ministration is responsible for the defalcation; and founds, as will be seen, 
 his whole argument on that confession. 
 
 [Mr. Thomas here intimated that he meant to say that the opposition held 
 the administration responsible for the defalcations.] 
 
 Sir, I have but one mode of reaching the meaning of gentlemen in debate ; 
 which is through their language. Of occult meaning I know nothing. The 
 gentleman did say , and twice repeat, that the administration was responsible ; 
 and argued from thence that it was but just to the administration that it 
 should be allowed the choice of its own modes and instruments of proceed¬ 
 ing ; treating the action which the House proposed taking on this subject as 
 simply a means to enable the Executive to ascertain whither those vast sums 
 of money had gone, and, if practicable, to recover them ; coupling with his 
 
3 
 
 argument a pointed insinuation, if not a positive charge, against the mer¬ 
 chants of New York, and certain banking institutions in that quarter, of 
 criminal participation in the defalcations. 
 
 [Mr. Thomas again insisted that he did not mean to say that the adminis¬ 
 tration was responsible, or that the committee was desired to aid it, &c.; that 
 when speaking he wa 's pressed for time, &c.] 
 
 Sir, I repeat, that with covert meanings I do not and cannot deal. I 
 correctly state the gentleman’s language, which harmonizes most completely 
 with his argument as I have given it. Over and over again did he declare 
 and exclaim against the unfairness of refusing to the administration an oppor¬ 
 tunity of “ defending ,” and “ excusing ,” and “ vindicating ” itself? I am 
 not unconscious that the gentleman spoke under a pressure, as he says ; but 
 he altogether mistakes in supposing that it was a pressure for want of time. 
 It was a pressure of quite a different kind. It was a pressure which, over¬ 
 coming for an instant the self-possession of the gentleman, revealed the truth 
 unbidden. In a political sense, and with respect to these defalcations in 
 particular, the gentleman was in extremis; that was the pressure. And the 
 explicit acknowledgment of executive responsibility escaped from the gen¬ 
 tleman’s heart (an organ not always employed when the tongue is) as a dy¬ 
 ing declaration. Such spontaneous ebullitions of truth are the more to be 
 valued and respected when proceeding from the gentleman from Maryland, 
 because so seldom occurring; nor the less so because sought to be strangled 
 by their parent so soon after their birth. 
 
 But, sir, it required no admission from the gentleman from Maryland to 
 establish the responsibility of the administration for these abuses. We have 
 the admission of one whose authority is supreme, the late President of the 
 United States. In his triumphant career of conquest over the constitution 
 and laws of his country, he reached, in the vicissitudes of the warfare, a point 
 where it was, in his opinion, necessary to forego a small portion of power, or 
 to assume unqualified presidential responsibility for the acts of every officer 
 in the executive department. This exigency arose in the campaign of 1834. 
 But it scarcely produced a momentary pause in the advance of the Executive. 
 By his celebrated protest of the 15th of April, of that year, he not only ac¬ 
 knowledges, but studiously claims “responsibility for the entire action of the 
 executive department.” As his ambition would tolerate no divided power, 
 so his magnanimity would tolerate no divided responsibility. As his strong arm 
 ruled all, he interposed his broad shoulders to bear all. He seems in some 
 instances to have seized even barren power, simply for the sweets which its 
 responsibilities afforded. Sir, that chief always associated the idea of power 
 with that of responsibility. To his successor he has transmitted power ; let 
 that successor take with it those responsibilities which in his hands attended 
 it. He stands bound by solemn instruments, under his hand, to “ follow .” 
 Let him pot hesitate or falter. “ Here is the bound the President is re- 
 i sponsible “/nr the entire action of the executive department .” The collector 
 
 at New York belonged to “ the executive department,” and by his “ action” 
 has plundered the Treasury of nearly a million and a half of dollars ! Let 
 the valiant successor claim, as the predecessor did, the responsibility attach- 
 ing to this huge abuse. Ptjpsidential responsibility was the chosen weapon, 
 but of late, in the good woflk of demolishing co-ordinate departments, and 
 exalting the Executive on their ruins ; let not this President so suddenly cast 
 it ingloriously away. 
 
 Do not understand me, sir, as admitting either the powers or the responsi- 
 
4 
 
 bilities claimed by the late President. Il is not necessary that I should ad¬ 
 mit or reject them. Had these defalcations occurred under any other admin¬ 
 istration, it might be proper to ascertain the true constitution?! responsibility 
 of the President and his associates in the administration. Tt is enough to 
 apply to this administration that measure of responsibility which is claimed 
 by itself. In passing judgment upon these defalcations, it is just and proper 
 to subject the administration to the operation of its own principles; which, 
 if true in 1834, when power was sought, are not less so in 1839, when delin¬ 
 quency is to be answered for. The administration stands estopped from con¬ 
 testing its responsibility for these misdeeds. 
 
 There are other considerations which should require this administration to 
 stand responsible for these defalcations. It has already passed into history, 
 that this administration (for I do not distinguish it from the preceding) was 
 constructed on the overthrow of that which was terminated on the 4th of 
 March, 1829. That administration, thus overthrown, is now , I believe, uni¬ 
 versally admitted to have been wise, pure, and patriotic; yet it was overthrown. 
 In the war waged against it, the administration was held responsible for every 
 evil of Government. There was at that day no complaint of insufficient 
 laws. The whole poison was represented to lurk in the administration of the 
 laws. The administration was regarded as the box of Pandora, from which 
 sprang all the distempers of the State. It was execrated as the tree which 
 bore the fruit, 
 
 “ Whose mortal taste brought death into the world, 
 
 And all our wo,” 
 
 Every shaft was winged at the administration ; every blow was levelled at it. 
 Throughout the whole assault, it was every where proclaimed that a change 
 of administration was the potent medicine for all these disorders ; that the 
 stagnation and obstruction which had engendered these alleged ills would give 
 place to free and vigorous action ; that, like the revolution of 1688, a change 
 of administration would infuse fresh blood into the Government, regenerate 
 it, and quicken it into the most animated beneficence. But, sir, it is needless 
 to enumerate the promises which were made, and the consequent expectations 
 entertained, from a change of administration ; for, as all imaginable evils were 
 ascribed to the administration, so all imaginable blessings were to result from 
 its overthrow. 
 
 If, therefore, the recorded principles of executive responsibility which I 
 have mentioned should not be employed against this administration, with re¬ 
 spect to these defalcations, can any thing be more just than to apply to it the 
 principles upon which it acted, throughout , against the preceding adminis¬ 
 tration 'i 
 
 But the gentleman from Maryland, without contesting the general responsi¬ 
 bility of the administration, imagines he discovers a.peculiarity in the defal¬ 
 cations at New York, by which the administration is wholly exonerated ; 
 a peculiarity resulting from the circumstances attending the appointment of 
 the officer. To this exonerating peculiarity I ask the especial attention of 
 the House and (if one so inconsiderable as myself could hope to secure it) of 
 the nation. This peculiarity, as stated by the gentleman himself, affords an¬ 
 other instance, so extraordinary with him, of previous confession involuntarily 
 escaping. 
 
 What does this exoneration consist in ? In this, simply : the President of 
 the United States, according to the gentleman from Maryland, icas highly 
 suspicious, if not actually apprized, of the unfaithfulness and corruption of 
 
the officer, when he nominated him to the Senate! And, he triumphantly 
 exclaims, the Senate was notified that causes of suspicion existed against the 
 rfhominee, and yet did not reject him ! That it was a whig Senate ! and, ergo, 
 lorsooth, that the President is innocent and the opposition guilty of all the 
 mischief resulting from the appointment! 
 
 It gives me profound pain, sir, to be obliged to lay my sacrilegious hands 
 on so divine a structure of logic as this. Not presuming, then, to advance 
 upon so impregnable a conclusion, trusting to the prowess of a feeble mortal 
 arm, I approach it under cover of the great Moloch before whom the gen¬ 
 tleman himself for a series of years has been accustomed to prostrate himself 
 in worship. By him the constitutional revelation has been made, in the cel¬ 
 ebrated paper adverted to, that the “ selection of officers is made by the 
 President; and the negative given to the Senate, without diminishing 
 his responsibility, furnishes an additional guarantee,” Has the gentleman 
 forgotten this revelation ? or, addicted himself to dabbling a little in political 
 divinity, and consequently a judge of spurious articles in that line, does he 
 now publicly repudiate the gospels of that day ? 
 
 If, then, sir, presidential responsibility was not allowed (as matter of pre¬ 
 rogative) to be, in the least degree, diminished by the constitutional associa¬ 
 tion of the Senate , how uttterly futile and unworthy of reply is the effort of 
 gentlemen, not only to diminish but to desfroy that responsibility by assert¬ 
 ing that the appointment of the officer was recommended by a number of 
 private citizens , said to be opposed to the administration ! 
 
 The gentleman from New York, too, [Mr. Cambrei.eng,] whose unpre¬ 
 meditated confessions are also of high authority, in his effort to establish this 
 exonerating peculiarity , informs the House, with the most innocent simplici¬ 
 ty, that he perfectly understood the character of the collector at New 
 York ,, and knciv him to be faithless and incompetent; represented the fact 
 to the President , and protested against his nomination ; and actually pre¬ 
 dicted the defalcations which ensued! “ Angels and ministers of grace !” 
 xohat a defence ! Tearing from the President the only foundation upon which 
 a rational defence could be predicated—the charitable presumption that 
 lie was ignorant of the character of the officer, and fixing upon him, by the 
 infatuated officiousness of his own friends, an actual personal knowledge that 
 he was appointing to a post more demanding fidelity than any other rela¬ 
 ting to the revenue , an individual of deeply suspicious if not positively cor¬ 
 rupt character! I hand over the administration on this point to the tender 
 mercies of its own friends. 
 
 The consideration of the subject now before the House furnishes a proper 
 occasion to examine the doctrine, now universally received by the adminis¬ 
 tration and its adherents, that upon the legislative department , upon Con¬ 
 gress, , lies the responsibility of these defalcations, because of the imperfect 
 state of the law , to the entire exoneration of the Executive. 
 
 Without demonstrating the utter inconsistency of this doctrine with that 
 of presidential responsibility for all executive action, as asserted by the late 
 President, or its intrinsic fallacy, I must be indulged to present a curious, 
 and, I think, highly important, historical reminiscence, intimately connected 
 with the doctrine in question, .and, I am sure, peculiarly edifying to the 
 friends of the administration. It is an event of 1828, when the elements 
 were conglomerating into the mass of which the party now in power consists. 
 
 It is within the memory of every one, that nearly all the alleged abuses of 
 that day were pronounced (as I before stated) to be administrative , and there- 
 
6 
 
 fore remediable by a change of administration. But there were a few points in 
 which the laws were impugned, and proposed to be reformed. Amongst 
 others, the laws organizing the Treasury Department (in which the late de^ 
 falcations have chiefly occurred) attracted the observation and censure of the* 
 party ; and at that time, as now, alterations of the laws in that Department 
 were strenuously urged. Accordingly, the wand of reform was waved over 
 it, and a committee of this House raised in 1828, of which the gentleman 
 from New York [Mr. Cambreleng] was a member, specially instructed, 
 amongst other things, to inquire “ whether an effective system of ac¬ 
 countability', and, for the collection of the public dues ,” was established in 
 the Treasury Department—an inquiry identical, as will be perceived, with 
 that which is now applicable. That committee, the famous Retrenchment 
 committee of 1828, in obedience to their instructions, entered vigorously 
 upon the consideration of these complaints against the latos regulating the 
 Treasury Department; and, in answer to the question with which the House 
 had charged them as above stated, report: “ Why, for any purpose of pub¬ 
 lic security , an account should make such complicated, various, and reiterated 
 transits , your committee are at a loss to perceive ; the direct effect, howev¬ 
 er, is to increase the labor, and, consequently, the number of public officers .” 
 
 * * “In the present age, greater simplicity and economy have been intro¬ 
 
 duced in tho management of botl^ public and private affairs. If these forms 
 were simplified , your committee believe” that the most favorable results 
 would ensue. 
 
 From that proceeding, then, when analyzed, it appears that the grievance 
 with the party then was, that the laws of the Treasury were too rigid, too 
 complicated ; that they implied too great a distrust of the integrity of not 
 only public officers, but of mankind in general ; that no “ purpose of public 
 security” demanded such intricacy of checks and guards ; that economy was 
 not duly consulted in this multiplication of labors and officers ; the pro¬ 
 posed remedy for all which was, “ to simplify the forms" of that Department. 
 
 The evil was not a want of security, but that there was an unnecessary de¬ 
 gree of it! Not that the action of the Department was too loose, but too 
 rigorous ! 
 
 Now, now, sir, after the lapse of ten years of absolute ascendency, (no al¬ 
 teration such as was proposed having been made or attempted in the laws of 
 the Treasury,) the party again lift up their voices in complaint against the 
 laws of the same Department. But how altered the complaint ! It is now 
 thundered forth, from the President of the United States down to the clerks 
 of the custom-houses, that the laws are too weak ; that officers are too few ; 
 that the existing guards and checks are insufficient; that all is too simple ; 
 that the public treasure is being sunk by millions into hopeless dejalcations ; 
 and that the Executive despairs, without legislative aid, of any longer con¬ 
 ducting the Treasury with safety to the public ! The proposed remedy for 
 which now is, not relaxation of the laws, as in 1828, but checks and guards, ± 
 
 bars and bolts, dungeons and infamy, arrayed like “ Gorgons dire,” in terror 
 over the executive officers at every step ! All confidence in official fidelity 
 utterly lost! The whole human race regarded as gangs of undetected felons ! 
 
 The laws, then, being the same in 1838 that they were in 1828, with re- ^ 
 
 spect to the means of public security, whence, I demand, this calamitous dif¬ 
 ference in their effects ? Whence this frightful degradation of official mor¬ 
 als 1 The answer is plain. The laws are differently administered ! But, 
 
7 
 
 sir, I forbear to enlarge on this part of the subject. It conveys a deep and 
 impressive moral, which the nation will draw for itself. 
 
 In ascertaining, therefore, the true nature of the contemplated proceeding 
 of the House, it may, I think, be assumed, with the utmost confidence, that, 
 subjecting this administration to its own principles , or to the precedent and 
 authority of its own practices in like cases against, others, it is exclusively 
 responsible for all these defalcations—from the thousands in the West to the 
 millions in the East—regarding them as administrative abuses. 
 
 Under this view of the question, could any thing be more monstrous than 
 the demand of the Executive, through his responsible friends here, to be al¬ 
 lowed to control and direct such proceedings as the House may institute in 
 regard to his own maladministration? The only contest now is, who shall 
 control and direct these proceedings—the Executive or the House ? All de¬ 
 pends on the composition of the proposed committee of investigation. The 
 struggle is, “ Shall the House elect , or the Speaker appoint , that committee?” 
 The Executive demands the appointment by the Speaker ; on the other side, 
 the action and authority of the House itself are invoked. 
 
 Sir, this, I repeat, is plainly a proceeding by the House , on behalf of the 
 people. The Executive has nothing to do with it. It is beyond his functions. 
 It is founded on a power supervisory over the whole Government. It in¬ 
 volves a display of prerogative, such as that occasionally exhibited by the 
 House of Commons, whilst English liberty was in process of consolidation. 
 To the House itself therefore, ought to belong, and must belong, the exclu¬ 
 sive direction of this operation, in its extent, objects, and instruments. The 
 will of the House ought to govern in all that concerns it, especially in the 
 instruments employed to execute twill, in the selection uf instru¬ 
 
 ments, the Speaker might or might not express the will of the House ; while 
 a selection by the House itself necessarily would express it. The Executive 
 dreads (and it has cause to dread) the uninfluenced action of this House upon 
 these abuses. Hence the paroxysm of eagerness to secure the appointment 
 of the committee by the Speaker of the House instead of the House itself! 
 
 Sir, as 1 have too much respect for my character as a Representative to 
 make, irresponsibly, an unwarrantable assault upon the presiding officer of 
 this House, so I regard too highly my character as a man, to affect for him a 
 respect which 1 do not entertain. His friends, in their anxiety for his ser¬ 
 vices in this delicate proceeding, have chosen to bring his official character 
 under review ; and thus, in some sense, extort from members opinions re¬ 
 specting that functionary which, however profoundly entertained, they might 
 have anxiously forborne to express. For myself, however, I feel no embar¬ 
 rassment. 1 am here in the capacity of a Representative of the people, with 
 high duties to perform. No considerations of respect for any public func¬ 
 tionary, much less of unfelt respect, can be allowed to interfere with the 
 stern and full performance of those duties. Of the Speaker of the House, 
 then, I form my opinion upon his official acts. I judge of the future by the 
 past; and, thus judging, I make free to pronounce that in his past action he 
 furnishes to the Executive the amplest guarantee that no exigency in the af¬ 
 fairs of the administration can possibly arise, to which his devotion will not be 
 found completely adequate. He knows full well the qualiries which recom¬ 
 mended him for the distinguished post he now fills; and that, as a party was 
 to be served, inflexible political integrity was not a desideratum. And, sir, 
 he has been true to those who elevated him, and true to the qualities for 
 which he was elevated. Look at his acts, public, recorded. Has he not 
 
striven to win the character and wear the laurels of an unscrupulous instru¬ 
 ment of executive will , without having allowed one opportunity to pass 
 unimproved'? Nor has he been unsuccessful. 
 
 But, sir, if the Speaker were above all exception ; if his public acts could 
 be effaced, and future independence inferred from past subserviency; if, sir, 
 you could (as the gentleman from Maryland invariably affects to do) harness 
 up patriotism, like another Pegasus, and soar aloft high above the influence 
 of power, or party, or mortal dross, and act (as the gentleman from Mary¬ 
 land invariably affects to speak) as the spotless instrument of Heaven in works 
 of tenderest mercy to man, still, in an emergency like this, I could not and 
 would not, in view of the dignity and prerogatives of the House o f Repre¬ 
 sentatives, intrust to you this power, which executive influence is so urgently 
 striving to secure to you. After what has transpired, in debate and otherwise, 
 on this question of “Who shall direct this investigation?” it is my opinion 
 that but one course, honorable to the House, remains ; and that I have already 
 indicated. 
 
 Allow me, sir, in conclusion, to say that there is not the smallest hope of 
 effective investigation into these alarming abuses, if you trust any thing to the 
 Speaker of this House; because it is now manifest that such an investigation 
 must deeply affect the administration ; and his paramount allegiance is to the 
 head of that administration, the President. It is vain to hope to strike the 
 administration through him. Fabricate your thunderbolts, and hurl them as 
 you may at the administration, for these deep delinquencies, they fall harm¬ 
 less if aimed through him. He is, sir, a non-conductor between public jus¬ 
 tice and this administration. The House must aim over him, by exercising for 
 itself its own just authority