difference of opinion existed between them on subjects in which he himself had felt an interest, his own opinions had been spoken to the President promptly and warmly, it might be at times too warmly for the disparity of years. In speaking of the Executive now, he had spoken of him as one about to be numbered with the past; as one with whom his own age was on the eve of exchanging mournful adieus, and upon whose ear the voice alike of flattery and of friendship, of low detraction and of manly enmity, would soon fall with the same heavy, cold, senseless effect. From first to last, since his entry into the hall, he had sat and silently heard the President denounced as a tyrant, branded, almost in the same breath, with the opposite epithets of usurper and dotard. Fortunately the feelings which inspired such language could not be communicated to posterity; they would sink into the same grave, they would lie buried in the same oblivion, assigned to most of those who cherished them. History, in her long drawn gallery, will present to coming time no portrait that can occupy a higher place than his who in life has been so traduced-nóne that shall stand forth in more simple, beautiful, living relief. The gentleman from South Carolina, in the course of his remarks, had drawn a comparison, as Mr. H. understood him at the time, between the President and the Roman Sylla and Marius, and the English Cromwell-between Andrew Jackson and the cold, cruel, fanatical Cromwell! the usurper, who rushed undismayed over the rights and liberties of the very people to whom he owed every thing save his existence, to seize upon a blood-stained protectorate. [Mr. PICKENS here asked the floor, which was yield. ed, and then stated that the application of his remarks had been misunderstood by Mr. H.; that his intention was not to institute the comparisons as supposed; that, in his remarks referring to the tribunes of the Roman people, and not to Sylla and Marius, as Mr. H. supposed, and in his reference to the course and character of Oliver Cromwell, he had simply meant to be understood as comparing the condition of our country with theirs; and our downward course to the same despotism, should we, under the coming administration, find that the fundamental principles of the constitution had been undermined, by a precedent established of executive interference in the successorship.] Mr. H. continued. He was gratified to be informed of his misunderstanding of the gentleman's allusion. In support of the fundamental principles of the constitution, that gentleman could not go further than he was willing to go. There was no sacrifice he would not be proud to make, no tie he would not freely sever, to preserve from violation that sacred charter. As to the character of Mr. Van Buren's administration, not having the gift of prescience, it was impossible for him to say what might be its results. He looked forward, however, with perfect confidence, to a continuance of the principles upon which the Government was now administered, and felt satisfied that, in this expectation, there would be no disappointment. That violence could be offered, that a blow could be inflicted upon the fundamental principles of the constitution by the present head of the Government, was a state of things which he could not conceive within the range of possibility. It would argue an unhallowed love of power, and a misapprehension or a ha tred of the free institutions of his native soil, in the bosom of the man. Is it, he would ask, likely that such feelings could now tenant the heart of Andrew Jackson' He would let the terms in which his friend from Tennessee [Mr. PEYTON] had spoken of the President, a few days back, answer the question. He alluded to the interview described by his friend between the President and one of the Tennessee Senators. Was he planning [H. OF R. schemes of power for himself or another, then? Was their talk of treason or unholy stratagem? No, sir, no; the gentleman from Tennessee told us it was of the grave— of dying-of his loved Hermitage, which he wished once more to see, and where he hoped his eyes might close. Can it be that such a man, after having toiled in the cause of liberty his whole life, should, when the grave and all its mysteries are drawing nigh, seek, as the last act of a glorious career, to impair the principles for which in boyhood be bled; the institutions which in riper years he aided to strengthen and perfect; and the free Government which, in the full maturity of manhood, he triumphantly sustained? Let it not be borne upon the winds; before such things can exist, the moral order of nature must be reversed. When Mr. HANNEGAN had concluded, Mr. HAMER rose and addressed the Chair as follows: Mr. Speaker: It is a fact well known to every gentleman who has been an observer of the signs of the times for a few years past, that the speeches delivered here have considerable effect upon the public mind. It is right that they should. The members sent here are presumed to have some knowledge of the nature of our Government, of the interests of the country, and of the manner in which the Government is administered. What they publicly declare, under such circumstances, in their places, under official and personal responsibilities, deserves to have an influence upon their own immediate constituents and upon the public at large. For three years past, I have frequently listened to speeches, made by gentlemen in the opposition, which I thought, at the time, deserved replies. Others thought differently, and they were permitted to pass unnoticed. Some of these speeches contained the slang and falsehoods of letter-writers and unprincipled editors, polished and endorsed by the orator, and sent out to poison and mislead the public mind with regard to those who are in power. It was Some of us have thought we ought not to answer them, because it would occupy too much time. believed that we ought to transact the public business, and go home. I am as much opposed to the long desul. tory debates that occur here, involving the presidential and every other question before the country, as any one else. We carry these things so far that it has been remarked by more than one intelligent citizen that the House of Representatives was becoming a mere debating society-a club for the discussion of political questions. My opinion is, that we ought first to transact the public business, and then, if we have time to spare, let us debate these topics. The affairs of our constituents should be first attended to. It was for that they sent us here, and, when the duty is discharged, it is time enough to engage in making political harangues. But, instead of this, we waste the commencement and the middle of the session--nay, almost the whole period--with such debates; and, near the close of it, take up and pass some fifty or a hundred bills, decapitate a hundred more without much examination, and then adjourn. This, in my estimation, is all wrong. But what is to be gained by our remaining silent? If we do not debate, the opposition will. The time is consumed, and the vocabulary of our language ransacked for opprobrious epithets, to be heaped upon the Executive, upon this House, and upon the constituents who sustain both. Corruption, fraud, tyrant, usurper, slaves, are familiar terms here. These charges are made day after day, and remain uncontradicted, to go out to the country and circulate among the people. Are these charges true or false? That "silence gives consent" is an old maxim, which has much truth in it. The frequent repetition of these charges by the opposition, and the silence of the friends of the administration, will induce some portion of the country to believe them. If they are true, we ought to admit them; if not, we should pronounce them false. So far as I know or believe, they are false, and I therefore pronounce them so before the country. No one word is heard oftener in our debates here than the word "party!" The opposition gentlemen seem to be peculiarly fond of it. They are constantly appealing to us to disregard party considerations, and go for the country. There are parties in all free Governments. They arise from a difference of opinion among men in regard to the policy to be pursued by those who are intrusted with the administration of public affairs. Candidates, holding to opposite principles, present themselves for public favor, and the people decide between them. In other countries, especially in England, one party is said to be out of power, and the other in, as the one or the other may happen to be successful. It was formerly so here. At one time the federal party was in power, and at another time the republican or democratic party. But for a few years past a different mode of expression has been adopted. The opposition claim to be "the country," and denounce us as "a party!" We, who have been in power for eight years; we, who elect the President and sustain him and his administration, by the votes of a large majority of the American people; we, forsooth, are "a party," whilst a minority, struggling in vain to obtain the control of the Government, impudently claim to be the country! Now, there never can be a universal concurrence of opinion with respect to public men and public measures; and when the question has been fairly presented to the people, and a majority decide either one way or the other, that decision is virtually the voice of the country. Such a decision has been made. It was announced in 1828, and has remained unreversed until this time. We are the country, and have been during all that period. If there are either "parties" or "factions" in the case, they are to be found among those who manifest violent and persevering opposition to the will of the majoritya will so distinctly and repeatedly expressed by the sov ereign people of the United States. reer. [JAN. 5, 1837. a verdict of unqualified approbation upon his public ca What motive can he have to infringe upon the liberties of his fellow-citizens, or to overturn the consti tution of his country? None. His countrymen have conferred upon him every favor in their gift, and he has at tained the highest station which human power can be. From that station he is about to retire, leaving his country happy and prosperous beyond example, and attended by the benedictions of a just and grateful people. stow. But I will not enter upon his defence. If I were inclined to do so, under other circumstances, I have been saved the necessity of discharging this duty by the able and eloquent speech of my friend from Indiana, [Mr. HANNEGAN,] who has just taken his seat. He has treated this subject so much more ably than I could hope to do, that I will not attempt to tread upon the ground he has already occupied. Can any one fail to see why it is that these unfounded charges are so often repeated? Those who have studied the nature of the human mind are aware of the influence made upon it by repeated blows, followed up from time to time with untiring perseverance. This everlasting hammering in the same place will ultimately produce its effect upon the hardest material; and assaults made upon individual character, whether public or private, from day to day, for a series of years, if uncontradicted, will finally gain credence even among a man's friends. This is the secret of the merciless warfare which has been carried on against President Jackson. Another fruitful topic of discussion with the opposi tion is the inconsistency of the President and his friends in regard to the great questions of policy that have been agitated before the country for some years past. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON] has adverted to this contrariety of opinion. [Mr. ROBERTSON arose, and said that the gentleman from Ohio had misapprehended him. He did not speak of the differences of principle among the friends of the administration. He had said nothing of the terrible fed eralists they had in their ranks, nor of the discordant materials that composed their party; but he had attempt. self; that, from his own acts and communications, he might be claimed as the friend or enemy of the tariff, internal improvements, the bank, &c.] I have no disposition to fight the presidential campaigned to show that the President was inconsistent with himover again upon this floor; to imitate the old soldier, who shouldered his crutch, and showed how fields were won. But as reviewing seems to be the order of the day, and it has become very unfashionable to speak to the subject before the House, I will look back to some of the topics which have been introduced into this debate, as well as others that have taken place here. It has been quite common for the last three years to hear the President pronounced a usurper and a tyrant. Grecian, Roman, and English history have all been put in requisition, and carefully examined, from beginning to end, for the purpose of finding parallels and illustrations of his cruelty, tyranny, and usurpation. It is an easy matter to make these comparisons, and to call hard names. It requires very lit le talent and less reading. But gentlemen should remember that declamation is not argument; and that assertion is not proof. If these parallels are just, it must be within the power of those who use them to point to the facts which render the President obnoxious to the charges preferred against him. Why are they not given? In what particular has he violated either law or constitution? Let them name the instance, and give us the circumstances. General, indiscriminate condemnation will not satisfy the American people. When the cases are specified, it will be matter for investigation and argument whether they sustain the accusations so confidently made by his antagonists. Until then, I, for one, shall consider it as mere idle declamation. I do not stand here to pronounce a eulogium upon the President. His acts are before his country, and they have already, in the presence of his accusers, rendered Mr. H. said he accepted the gentleman's statement with pleasure; he had no doubt misapprehended the tenor of his observations. But he would tell the gentleman that, with regard to "terrible federalists," if he wanted to find them of the real black-cockade stamp of 1800, he might readily do so, and that in great numbers, among his own political associates. He believed the gentleman had never belonged to that school; but there were many of them among those who co-operated with him against the administration. The old black-cockade par ty, and their regular descendants and successors, who held the same doctrines, formed no small portion of the opposition. Look, said he, at Massachusetts, so highly complimented the other day by the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. PICKENS,] and you may there see on what side the remnant of the old federalists of 1798 are to be found. On this subject of the tariff, as well as upon several others, there is an old proverb which I can recommend to the consideration of gentlemen in the opposition. I know it is said by Lord Chesterfield and others to be rather vulgar to quote proverbs, but I confess I like them. Proverbs are usually the result of the accumula ted experience of successive generations of men. In nineteen cases out of twenty they are true. It is their truth which preserves them; if false, they would be for gotten. The one to which I allude is, that "those who live in glass houses ought not to throw stones." Do we differ in regard to the doctrine of a protective tariff? Pray, what are the sentiments of the opposition upon this subject? Have they any principle in common with regard to protection? What is it? Ask the nullifiers, the people of what is called (and I think she has earned the title here, if nowhere else) the gallant little State of South Carolina. Why, sir, it is but a short time since they were willing to peril every thing, union itself, rather than submit to a protective tariff-to a "bill of abominations." They deny the power of Congress to pass any such law, and hold all such enactments to be open violations of the constitution. But what say the opposition in the North and West? What are the senti. ments of the "American system" men on this subject? They believe that the Federal Government not only has the authority to pass such laws, but that it is a solemn duty we owe our country to afford them this protection. These are the gentlemen who are so grievously offended at the want of consistency among the friends of the administration! How is it in respect to internal improvements under the authority of the General Government? Here there is a like inconsistency amongst our political opponents. In the South and Southwest, the power to construct roads and canals is most strenuously denied; but in the North and West it is almost universally claimed and conceded. It is with one portion of the country a most radical error to attempt the exercise of this authority, whilst in another region it is a part of the constitutional duty of the functionaries here to make large appropriations for this purpose. What a delightful harmony there would be among such gentlemen, if they were in power, and had control of the finances of the country! What discussions we should hear among themselves upon the constitutionality and wisdom of such appropriations! It would be the music of the spheres; a concord of sweet gounds. Their President would have no difficulty whatever in adopting a line of policy which would receive the unanimous support of all his party. Another very important subject involved in the political contests of the last three or four years is the Bank of the United States. What are the sentiments of the opposition with regard to this institution? As variant as the colors of the rainbow. The strict constructionists in the South deny the power of Congress to create such a corporation. Some hold that, if they had the power, it would be inexpedient to exercise it; and others that it would be excellent policy to create a bank with proper limitations. Another class believe the power exists, but that its exertion would be dangerous to public liberty; whilst the real" Simon Pure," thorough-going bankites, not only claim the authority, but insist that such a bank is indispensably necessary, as a great balance-wheel to regulate the currency and control the fiscal operations of the country. These are the men who are never weary in the discharge of their duty. They go about day and night, crying "distress, ruin, bankruptcy, and wretchedness;" to alarm and terrify the people with supposed dangers just before them, which are, in fact, never to be realized." No man can receive their votes for President, unless they believe he will lend his influence to the establishment of a great national bank. This is, with them, "the very bottom and the soul of hope." Which side would prevail in the new administration? Would the Executive be for a bank or against it? No mortal man can solve this problem. Not a man in the opposition will attempt to answer the question. Again, sir, we are told that the present Executive came into power under pledges to produce important reforms; that retrenchment and reform" was the motto of the party who elected him; and that the "reforms" have not been made. Pray, what are the reforms which deserve our attention? Are there any use [H. OF R. less offices that ought to be abolished? If so, name them. Does any officer receive too large a compensation? Let us know it. Are there any changes necessary in the organization of the departments, or in the laws regulating the action of particular bureaus? Point them out. I will go heart and hand with any gentleman for whatever is proper to be done in regard to these matters, and I dare say there will be a general co-operation on the part of my political friends in so laudable an undertaking. Let gentlemen either propose something as proper to be done, let them at least point out the evil, or cease their everlasting clamor about the violation of pledges on our part. How can reforms be made where every thing is already perfect? What surgeon amputates a sound limb? Who administers medicine to a person in the vigor of manhood, and perfectly free from disease? If there be either wound or blemish in the system, let it be made known; and we, who possess the law-making power, should forthwith provide a remedy. "Proscription" is one of the topics upon which the opposition delight to expatiate. It is of two kinds, according to their account of it: first of public officers, and secondly of the minority as a mass. As to the first, it is said that all are removed who are not of the domi. nant party; that none can be appointed who are not of the same faith; and that the road to honor and emolument is thus closed up to the minority entirely. A more unfounded charge than this was never made against any party of men since the world began. Why, sir, a majority of the offices in this city, held under the Executive of the United States, are now, and have been for eight years, in the hands of opposition men. Whilst this charge is repeated here from day to day, and reiterated by political partisans from one end of the continent to the other, the opposition clerks are quietly receiving their salaries in the different departments, receiving and holding their respective appointments from the President of the United States and the members of his cabinet! Is it otherwise in regard to the post offices? I know that in my region of country a large majority of the offices are in the hands of the opposition. I believe it is so throughout the United States, if we take the whole number of offices connected with that department. So you may find hundreds in the custom-houses of the samé political faith, enjoying the favor of this administration. What becomes of the charge, then, that no one can hold office but a democrat? It vanishes before the sunlight of truth, leaving not a trace upon the surface where it so lately rested. The proscription of the minority en masse is a subject I have never been able to comprehend. How are they proscribed? Do they not enjoy all the rights and im munities guarantied to other citizens? Have they been disfranchised? What privilege has been taken away? Are not the courts open to them for redress of their grievances? Are not their persons, reputations, and property, protected by law like those of other citizens? If so, of what do they complain? Why, they cannot get office! This brings me to the consideration of the 100,000 office-holders, who are said to have been sustaining the administration for some time past, and to have conducted the campaign in favor of Mr. Van Buren. I can remember when I believed there was something in this story about the office-holders sustaining Mr. Van Buren, and being his principal supporters. It was asserted in that bold and confident tone which we so frequently listen to here, and I took it for granted gentlemen would not say so in that manner, unless it was well established. I have been deceived in that way more than once. Gentlemen rise and tell us that the South will do this, and the North will not do that, in a tone of authority that leads a young man, inexperienced in the ways of the Capitol, to be lieve they are authorized to speak for the whole scope of country indicated in their remarks. It is not so. I am older now, and understand these things. I have been behind the curtain here, which excludes our doings from the eyes of the American people; and when I hear and see these things, I attach just so much weight to them as they deserve. Such asseverations are often made by gentlemen whe, no doubt, believe them to be true, but who know no more about it than I do. Experience has shown that, in more than one instance, they were mistaken. [JAN. 5, 1837. But this is not the grand difficulty. We are told that professions and practice ought to go together. Now, the opposition profess to believe that our friends who are in office are unworthy to remain there; so they should be turned out forthwith. Again, they profess to have a mortal hatred for office-holders; and, of course, none of them would be willing to fill the vacancies! Here would be one of the greatest calamities that ever befel a free people—all the offices of the country vacant, and no one to fill them! One portion of the country would be too bad, and the other too good, to have any thing to do with public office, honor, or emolument! Gentlemen seem to forget that, besides these offices held under the Federal Government, there are more than But upon the subject of money, of mercenary motives a hundred thousand held under the State Governments. and influences, who has shown the strongest inclination Indeed, to make up the number of a hundred thousand to resort to such means to control public sentiment! under the former, I believe they count the army and Who are the friends of banks, of the Bank of the United navy of the United States, and all the pensioners! By States? Who are willing to sell extraordinary privileges what authority are they set down as friends of the for bonuses payable in money? Who are the supporters administration? Who asserts that these men, who re- of land bills and distribution bills? I do not speak of ceive the sums paid to them under the law, and not by the deposite bill of the last session. That was sustained the favor of the Executive, are less free than their fel- by a majority of my own political friends, driven to it, low-citizens? How are they dependent on the Presi- in some measure, by the force of circumstances, which dent for support? They are no more so than any other they could not fully control; but I allude to a permanent citizen of the country. But suppose what is said of them system, by which money for which the Government has to be true, we all know that the State, county, city, no use is to be drawn from the pockets of the people; town, and township officers exercise much more influ- and, after paying four or five sets of public men for col ence over the public mind than they do. Who has most lecting it, for legislating upon the subject, and for disinfluence over his neighbors, the sheriff of the county, tributing it again, we return to the State Governments the associate judges, where there are such officers, or a the balance, to be expended in such manner as they may postmaster in some little town? The former, unques- direct. The General Government has no right to do tionably. And, pray, who holds these offices in all the this-it is a fraud upon the people. The revenue should States, counties, and towns, in which the opposition have be cut down so as to meet the wants of the Government, the political power? Their friends, in almost every in- and nothing more; leaving all the fruits of individual instance. In what places do they vote for democrats, industry beyond that in the people's pockets, to be dis preference to men of their own party? In none that have come within the range of my observation. Have they any right to complain that we prefer our friends to our enemics, (and that is the proscription of which they complain,) when they do the very same thing themselves? They vote against men, and thus "proscribe them for opinion's sake." They will not allow them to hold of fice; and the only reason assigned is, that they do not like their political opinions. All parties do this. It is in the nature of man to sustain his friends, and to rally around those who agree with him in sentiment. We are charged with being influenced by the "spoils, ," and with relying upon them to insure our sucBy spoils" they mean either office or money. In regard to the former, the opposition claim a remarkable share of disinterested patriotism. If we believe their account of it, they have a great aversion to office; and yet, when did they ever let a good one pass by without grasping at it? I can imagine I almost see their "mouths water" sometimes for a taste of the "Treasury pap!" cess. posed of as each man may think proper. Such is the democratic doctrine; but the opposition will not go for this. The indications have been already given to the coun try. There is to be a coalition between a portion of the South and the manufacturing interests of the North. The preservation of the "public faith" is to be the pretext for collecting a surplus. The "compromise bill is said to have pledged the public faith! What an ab surdity is this! Sir, I would regard a violation of the faith of the nation with as much horror as any gentleman in or out of this House. A nation without faith is like an individual whose reputation has been totally de stroyed; they are both very properly excluded from all honorable associations. But how has public faith been pledged in this case? Can two or three prominent members of Congress make an arrangement, and obtain the passage of a law which is to bind all posterity? Have they any more power than their successors; and, if so, whence did they obtain it? The idea is preposterous. If it had so happened that Mr. Van Buren had not re- If they could bind us for ten years, they can do so for ceived quite votes enough to elect him, and the three fifty or a hundred; and what becomes of popular liberty? highest candidates had come before the House for The "compromise act" is of no more authority than our decision, we should have had great difficulty in any other law of Congress, and can be repealed or mod arriving at a conclusion. There would have been no in-ified at any time we may think proper. It will be sus trigue or bargain, of course! But when all the difficulties had been surmounted, as they no doubt would have been, and an opposition man elected, then we should have What would have been seen the beginning of troubles. the policy of his administration no man living can tell. His supporters would have been of all political creeds and complexions under heaven; as opposite to each other as the poles, and wholly irreconcileable. He could not have pleased one set of them without displeasing the others; and if he had compromised, and gone sometimes a little with one side, and then leaned a little to the other, he would have been doing precisely what they charge upon General Jackson, and would therefore have displeased them all! tained, however, I have no doubt, and an enormous amount of taxes thus levied upon the people, to be divided out again; keeping up swarms of unnecessary officers, and enriching one portion of the community at the expense of another. The money is never returned to the men who earned it. Again: it is charged upon this administration that it bas increased the annual expenditures to a large amount. Why do not gentlemen have the candor to tell the peo ple the cause of this increase? It is to be found in the increased population, offices, and wants of the Govern ment; in the appropriations for various national objects, fortifications, navy, &c. The removal of the Indian tribes west of the Mississippi, the purchase of their lands, and the wars we have had with them, are some of the principal items. Has there been any unnecessary expenditure? If so, point it out. Let us know what it is; and then we will ask ourselves why we appropriated the money. So of the corruption of which we hear so much. In what does it consist? Who has been guilty of it? In what department or bureau is it to be found? What is its character? General charges are easily made; but they are too indefinite. Let gentlemen assume the responsibility of making a distinct charge. In private life, if one man instigates a prosecution against another for an offence, and it turns out, upon investigation, that there is no foundation for it, and not even a probable cause for its commencement, the prosecutor is liable to an action of damages for the injury done to individual reputation. Are the characters of public men less valuable to them than those of private citizens? Are they not equally under the protection of the law? True, the prosecutor here might not be liable to an action; but if there should turn out to be neither ground for the charge, nor good reason for instituting the inquiry, public sentiment would render that justice to all concerned that is administered in the other case by the Judiciary of the country. If any gentleman will rise in his place, and state that he has good reason to believe, from information upon which he can rely, that fraud and corruption do exist in a particular department, either naming his informant or stating that it is improper to name him, I, for one, will vote for a committee, with ample powers to make a thorough investigation. If one committee is not enough, I will vote for more--for as many as are necessary to develop the true condition of the public offices, and to expose all the defaulters who may be found in them. This, I think, ought to satisfy the most fastidious. This House has been assailed. It has been denominated a mere "bed of justice, to register the decrees of royalty!" It seems that we sit here, without any opinions of our own, merely to register the edicts of the President! What is the pretext for this charge? Why, forsooth, we agree in sentiment with the President, and therefore sustain his measures! Was ever argument more futile? Who elected the President? The people. Who elected the members of this House? The same people. Do they not vote for both because they approve of their political opinions? Undoubtedly. Are not the President and the majority of the members of this House of the same political party? Is it strange that they should agree in regard to great leading measures of policy? Who would anticipate any thing else than an agreement? I desire to speak respectfully of arguments advanced here, and will therefore not say that this is childish, but really it is one of the strangest specimens of parliamentary logic that I have ever heard. Pray, who rules the opposition? Whose edicts do they register? Do they sit here to register the edicts of a distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, of another from Massachusetts, and of a third from South Carolina? If not, how does it happen that they agree so cordially and entirely with the three great leaders in all their political opinions? The fact cannot be denied that this agreement does exist; and if the argument is good with respect to us, it applies equally to the opposition. If we are the President's "slaves," they are "slaves" to the opposition leaders. The President, it it said, is popular; that he rules the country and guides public sentiment by the aid of this personal popularity. What a lame and impotent conclusion! True, he is popular, but it is because he deserves to be so, from his eminent talents, his democratic principles, and his faithful and extraordinary public services. If other gentlemen wish to be popular, VOL. XIII.-81 [H. OF R. let them pursue his footsteps, adopt his principles, and render such services, and then they will attain the ob ject of their wishes. The people of this country have but one desire in regard to public affairs-it is to see their Government well administered. They elected Andrew Jackson because they believed he would thus administer the Government, and they have not been disappointed. Who is it that complains of him? They are the men who told us, in 1824 and in 1828, that if Jackson succeeded the country would be ruined; the men who told us the same thing in 1832; men who invoke war, pestilence, and famine, rather than devotion to military glory; but who, during the late campaign, huzzaed for military chieftains louder than ever we did at any period. They are now endeavoring to convince us that they were right, that we have been ruined; and that all their predictions have been verified. Do they think we will believe their declamation in opposition to the evidence of our own senses? When was this country ever more happy and prosperous than at this moment? Never since the Government was first organized. The laboring classes of the community--the farmer, the planter, the mechanic, the manufacturer-are all grow ing rich. Land, and all its products, bear a higher price than they have for many years; yet gentlemen will have it that we are ruined. The laws protect every man in the enjoyment of all his rights-personal liberty, personal security, and private property; in all his im munities and privileges-religious, civil, and political; still gentlemen insist that we are ruined. Sir, the peo ple will not believe them. When they feel themselves happy at home, and learn from every intelligent American, of every party, that our country now stands high. er abroad, on account of the manner in which our intercourse has been conducted by this administration with foreign nations (France included) than it ever did in any former period, they will not believe any man who asserts that they have been injured by those who have held the reins of power for the last eight years. [Here Mr. H. gave way to Mr. ANTHONY, on whose motion the House adjourned. The subject did not come up again until the following Tuesday, when Mr. H. concluded his remarks, as follows:] Before I resume the thread of my discourse, I must submit a few observations with regard to what fell from me the other day, when I addressed the House. I know how easy it is for what is said here to be misunderstood and misrepresented; and it appears that my positions have been greatly misunderstood by some who heard me. It is said that I demanded specific charges of fraud before I would vote for a committee of inquiry. Not so, sir; I require some gentleman to assume the responsibility of pointing to the department, bureau, or office, where the fraud is to be found, and of asserting in his place that he has good reasons for believing it exists. Then I will vote promptly for an investigation. Sir, I have been understood to say that those now in power are not a party. I said no such thing. The country is divided into parties, and perhaps always will be; and one of those parties is now in power. What I complain of is, that the opposition, who are in a minority, and have been for years, should arrogantly claim that they are the country, and we but a party. I insist that, if any party can be called "the country," it is ours; for in a free country the voice of the majority is virtually the voice of the country, Again, sir, I stated that I had been behind the curtain since I came here, and had been undeceived with regard to many operations of public men. I directly referred to this House, and to the schemes and plans concocted and carried into execution by those who oppose the administration. I spoke of the curtain which conceals us |