vancement of literature and the progress of the sciences, ornamental and profound-to refrain from exercising them for the benefit of the people themselves, would be to hide in the earth the talent committed to our charge-would be treachery to the most sacred of trusts." Again, from his late message of the 5th:

"In the present instance, it is my duty to say, that if the legislative and executive authorities of the State of Georgia should persevere in acts of encroachment upon the territories, secured by a solemn treaty to the Indians, and the laws of the Union, remain unaltered, a superadded obligation, even higher than that of human authority will compel the Executive of the United States to enforce the laws and fulfil the duties of the nation, by all the force committed for that purpose to his charge."

The government only can direct the aggregate industry of a nation, and, to enable it to do so, must be entitled to the proceeds of that aggregate industry.

The President asserts this principle in the following words:

Extract from his Ohio Letter.

"The question of the power of Congress to authorise the making of internal improvements, is, in other words, a question whether the people of this Union, in forming their common social compact, as avowedly for the purpose of promoting their general welfare, have performed their work in a manner, so ineffably stupid, as to deny themselves the means of bettering their own condition. I have too much respect for the intellect of my country to believe it."

These means can be nothing short of the whole property of the nation.

Mr. Speaker,-May I be permitted, sir, to justify myself for this great consumption of time in long quotations? My justificatian will be found in the magnitude of the subject. It is a question involving all human rights, all human liberties. It is all important, that it should be well understood. Let us not then, sir, grudge a little time, nor even much deep, profound reflection; nor a lavish waste of words, pen, ink and paper; besides, I fear the possibility of doing injustice in representing the opinions of your President, and therefore, determined that he shall make his own representation, of his own doctrines; and, sir, to what do they amount? Precisely to Raymond's doctrines. The unlimited will of the government controling the whole property of the nation for the purposes of beneficence. For the purposes of bettering the condition of the people, regardless of their will. If you, sir, will give your own attention to these doctrines of your President, proclaimed as fundamental laws, for the observance of the practical government, you cannot avoid seeing claims set up, in various forms, to unlimited power, derived from sources paramount to the constitution. In that case no farther analysis from me could be necessary. But, sir, I cannot now take leave of this quotation, without emphatically calling your attention to an analysis of the following most extraordinary exposition, proclaimed in the message. It requires some analysis. It is impossible that it can be understood by the American people at this time.

"Let us not be unmindful that liberty is power; that the nation, (alias government, not individuals,) blest with the largest portion of liberty, must, in proportion to its numbers, be the most powerful nation upon earth, and that the tenure of power by man, is, in the moral purposes of his Creator, (tenure of power again by divine right,) is, upon condition that it shall be exercised to acts of beneficence, to improve the condition of himself and his fellow men-(power from the Creator, unrestrained in will, to be exercised in beneficence, not carrying into effect the objects of the constitution.) While foreign nations less blessed with that freedom, which is power, than ourselves (a decoy duck) are advancing with gigantic strides, in the career of public improve ment; were we to slumber in indolence, fold up our arms, and proclaim to the world that we are palsied by the will of our constituents, would it not be to cast away the bounties of Providence and doom ourselves to perpetual inferiority ?"

Here, then, sir, we see the will of our constituents officially proclaimed, as the great obstacle to the best administration of our government. Twist it and turn it as you can, it still amounts to the same thing. It is true, this sentence is couched in terms of the most sophisticated abstraction. The best evidence that could be given both of the design, and fears of the author; but its terms cannot be mistaken. The President is comparing the organization of other governments of unlimited power, with ours, of limited power; and substantially declares, that so long, as our practical government, will condescend to be palsied by the will of our constituents, so long it will be inferior to governments not thus condescending. "Inferiority" is a term of comparison. What are the things here compared? Unlimited, with limited governments. The limited government will be doomed to perpetual inferiority, provided the administrators shall suffer themselves to be palsied by the will of their constituents. I defy the veriest casuist to put any other intelligible construction upon this sophisticated sentence. It will be farther confirmed by critically attending to the previous quotations, most artfully contrived for this result. Here, then, is seen the President's doctrinal notions for his practical administrative policy-unlimited will, unpalsied by the constitutional will.-Raymond identified God's vicegerents upon earth.

The following claims to power are taken from Mr. Rush's Report of 1825-approved by the Cabinet:

"To give perfection to the industry of the country;

"To draw out its obvious resources and seek constantly for new

ones;

"To augment the number and variety of occupations for its inha

bitants;

"To hold out to every degree of labor, and to every modification of skill, its appropriate object and inducements;

"To organize the whole labor of the country;

"To entice into the widest ranges its mechanical and intellectual capabilities;

To call forth, whatever hidden, latent ingenuity, giving to effort, activity, and to emulation, ardor;

"To create employment for the greatest amount of numbers, by

adapting it to the diversified faculties, propensities and situation of men, so that every particle of ability, every shade of genius, may come into requisition;

"To lift up the condition of the country;

"To increase its fiscal energy;

"To multiply the means and sources of its opulence;

"To imbue it with the elements of general as well as lasting strength and prosperity."

Mr. Speaker, were the American people ever before insulted with such monstrous and preposterous doctrines? Do they not amount to converting man from a natural being, endowed with rights and attributes from his God, into a mere governmental machine, to be bandied about at the fantastical will and pleasure of the government? This flighty ephemeral Æronaut, claims not only the control over all the property of the nation, but over the occupations of individuals, over mind and body, with power to lash up his obedient subservient slaves to the exertion of "every particle of ability, every shade of genius" at the governmental beck;-and when all this is done, then says the Æronaut"The farmer of the United States cannot but perceive that the measure of his prosperity is potentially full!!" Poor deluded, insulted farmer!! Ask thyself, is the measure of thy prosperity potentially full? Will it ever be under such fantastical notions and gilded promises? The farmer's prosperity potentially full!! Mr. Speaker! What potential nonsense!! What potential mischief!! What potential despotism !! Mr. Speaker! You cannot but perceive, sir, the general tenor and spirit which characterises the whole of these administrative quotations, You cannot but perceive the identity of the doctrines with those of the tariff encomiasts-to wit: The derivation of powers from sources paramount to the constitution-the utter subversion of all its wholesome restraining provisions, and the substitution of unlimited governmental will in their stead.

Sir, when I look at this vast subject-when I feel my appalling physical debility-when I look to the time already consumed, merely in getting through this exordium-and the arduous and perplexing task Į have before me, I am led to despair of my capacity for accomplishing it. But, sir, I consider this the last expiring effort I shall ever be permitted to make, for bringing back the American people to the contemplation of their own first principles-to the contemplation of their own original fundamental laws for saving American liberties, and with them the liberties of the whole human race. Impelled by the invigorating occasion, I must sir, proceed to exert in this great cause the last particle of mental and physical energy, now left me by an all-wise and indulgent Providence.

Let me, then, call your attention to the doctrines of the tariff bill, as ushered forth by Mr. Clay in his sublimated doctrinal speech.

Before I enter minutely into the examination of the particular parts of Mr. Clay's speech, I beg to be indulged in a few critical observations upon its general characteristics. In the first place, then, notwithstanding Mr. Clay had taken the precaution, to send up the most fervent invocations to the "Most High," for his divine inspiration, his burning incense seemed not to be an acceptable, holy offering, since his

anxious prayers proved unavailing; for after all these devotional efforts, I consider Mr. Clay's speech not to be the speech of a statesman -still less the speech of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The speech of the dignified Speaker of the House, should itself, be dignified. It should be liberal, candid and impartial. It ought to present a fair view of the question on both sides; and the grounds of the balance of his own motives, in favor of the side he deemed the right one. This speech partakes nothing of dignity, liberality, impartiality, or candor. It is below the level of the speech of dignified counsel, learned in the law, who feel a due regard for their honorable professional standing. It is the speech of a pleading lawyer, who has engaged with his client for a high fee, in a bad cause, to gain it right or wrong; and who feels himself under an obligation to call, into the most active exertion, all his powers of chicanery, and special pleading: Accordingly, Mr. Clay condescends to resort to false names, to misrepresentations, to concealment of parts of a connected system of facts, and of every other device to gain his cause, which his inflated imagination could invent. Mr. Clay's fee was great, though contingent-no less his prize than the Presidential Chair. As one conspicuons example of these devices, Mr. Clay nick-names his speech in the very frontispiece. He calls it, "Speech in support of an American System, for the protection of American Industry." Mr. Clay well knew that this was a false-nomer. That it was not an American system, for the protection of American industry, that he was recommending; but a discarded British system of British industry, he was recommending, to be introduced into the United States for the first time. That it was not "a genuine American system," as he sometimes calls it, but an imitative system, drawn from British example, and grounded in British policy. Many other examples of insincerity, and chicanery may be referred to in this most extraordinary speech; some of which will be exposed in its more detailed examination. The present one will suffice, in this general sketch. Its second general characteristic is, that of false coloring, or misrepresentation. Upon a critical investigation, it will be found to be deceptive, and illusory throughout; and, in some instances, the artifices are too slender, to impose upon the plainest understanding-candor is the first quality of true oratory. It will always be in vain, for the orator to attempt to win the hearts of his auditors, whilst they are acting under the conviction, that the orator himself is not sincere that he does not believe himself—that he is practising upon his own convictions, of his own superior intelligence, and of their ignorance, and credulity. Even such a suspicion would steel the minds of the auditory against conversion, or conviction.

The style of this speech is most peculiarly characteristic. Whilst it violates many of the most obvious rules of criticism, it is so sonorous, turgid and bombastic, that it seems, in its first impressions, to bear down every thing before it, and to cheat the mind of the just exercise of its common faculties. There is a peculiar selection, collocation and arrangement of the words composing each sentence, which produce the loudest and coarsest music. I hope to be excused for the comparison. It may be deemed a coarse one. It is recommended, however, because its intrusion is always involuntary, and therefore must be impelled by

some natural impulse of resemblance. I never commence reading this speech, but the coarse music of the chiming of well regulated church bells instantly appears to strike the tympanum of the ear, and to bewilder the mind with its coarse, sounding, gingling, harmony. But, sir, the resemblance exists only in the music. The coarse music of the church bells passes away, and leaves no trace of mischief behind it. Whilst Mr. Clay's gingling, sonorous speech is said to have produced the tariff-and with it, the total obliteration of every restraining provision in the Constitution. If so, it has produced a mischief, both deplorable, and irremediable; and the gingling, successful orator, will probably live to see the day that he will lament and weep over the fatal success of his own artifices-over the destruction of a federative government, which had, for nearly twenty-five years dispensed the best political blessings over a great nation, now wantonly torn to atoms, by the introduction of warring elements, or moulded into an odious, consolidated mass of despotism. The next characteristic of this gingling speech, consists of its duration, its continuation. It occupies above eight and thirty pages in close print, of a large pamphlet size. These pages form my text. With above 38 pages for my text, what must be the length of my sermon? It happened to be my fortune in early life, to be placed for my education, under the care of the late celebrated Dr. Witherspoon of Princeton College. The Doctor, although highly learned, was as much celebrated for the simplicity and elegance of his style, and for the brevity of his orations, as for the extent and solidity of his erudition. He lectured the class, of which I was a member, upon eloquence and criticism, and was always delighted with the exercises in that branch of science. Amidst all the refinement of the Doctor's learning, he retained much of the provincial brogue of his native town (Paisley in Scotland). The Doctor generally approached his class with great familiarity, with "How do ye do lads?" to which the reply was, "braly, sir, braly." He commenced his lectures in the simplest style of conversation. "Lads, if it should fall to the lot of any of ye, as it may do, to appear upon the theatre of public life, let me impress upon your minds two rules in oratory, that are never to be departed from upon any occasion whatever-"Ne'er do ye speak unless ye ha' something to say, and when ye are done, be sure and leave off." Frightful restraints upon modern oratory! The Doctor would proceed most methodically to impress upon the class, the sacred inviolability of each of these rules, and the indispensable necessity of their strict observance, by every pretender to oratory. Without positively asserting, that our untiring orator has violated both of these old fashioned oratorical rules, I hazard nothing in saying, that he has said a great deal more than he ought to have said; and he certainly did not leave off when he was fairly done. After saying a great deal more than he ought to have said, and much of which, I think he did not understand himself, he has made ten distinct points, for very little purpose as far as I can comprehend their meaning, except for continuation-for duration. The untiring orator seems to have cleared out on a voyage of many ports, with a determination to preserve its continuity, however unprofitable. Mr. Speaker, I find, sir, at this last stage of life, I am, myself, about to violate, I fear, both these sacred precepts of my beloved and revered preceptor. I