H. OF R.] Abolition of Slavery. ble was taken into consideration. Cases may be found where there was a want of proof of vigilance and ordinary care, or where the property was insurable in the ordinary way, or where it has been exposed to new risks, against which the Government could not properly be made a partner with the importers or owners. Such cases have been, and very properly, too, rejected. The last case of this kind, I believe, which was acted on by Congress, was that of George and William Bangs, in January, 1830. It was a case of goods destroyed by fire. But, sir, on turning to the proceedings of the House upon this case, I find it to have been one clearly excluded by the principles of the report of the Committee of Ways and Means in the case before us. The case of Bangs was one of neglect and want of ordinary care. The gentleman who is now the oldest Representative of Rhode Island upon this floor [Mr. PEARCE] was among the number who opposed the bill, and be opposed it on the ground that the argument urged in its support "would establish a bad precedent"--" would lead to the conclusion that Government would guaranty all goods imported, which, through neglect, might be destroyed in the store, or which might be exported by coastwise navigation from the North to the South." He denied that there was any analogy between this case and that of the goods destroyed by fire at Savannah, and upon which the duties were remitted. The honorable chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means of the present House was also among the number who opposed the bill in favor of the Bangs. He did it expressly on the ground that "the effect of the passage of the bill would be to encourage the importing merchants to neglect their business. He attributed the fact of this claim being made to the remissness of the importer, who ought, as every merchant who knows his business does, to have insured his property. This was a case, he contended, of gross and palpable negligence; and if the House should adopt the principle of the bill, we would have our tables crowded with memorials whenever a fire takes place in the United States. The merchants in the interior of the country had as good right to claim a remission of duties on goods destroyed by fire as the importers." Sir, I accord most fully with these views, and the principles upon which they are founded. But, sir, a broad, marked, and manifest principle distinguishes the case now before the House from the Bangs case, as thus represented. In a case not only deficient in proof of ordinary vigilance on the part of the importer, but thus marked by proof of "gross and palpable negligence," I should feel it my duty, as every other member of this body would feel it to be his duty, to reject the claim. Sir, the argument of such a case does not touch or affect the merits of the present one. Thus much, Mr. Speaker, have I felt it my duty to say in relation to precedents. I will venture to affirm, that while numerous precedents of remission can be adduced, covering all of the principles of the present case, and stretching even far beyond it, not one case will be found rejected, wherein the facts set forth are not distinguishable in point of strength and merit from this case, and therefore not deserving of weight as authority against it, even with those gentlemen who wish to be governed by precedent. But, sir, I appeal now to those naked principles of justice and policy, which this House and Congress ought and may safely adopt, as decisive of all cases. I ask not to have this Dana case regarded as an exception to all general principles of legislation, but as coming fairly and rightfully within those general principles which * See Gales & Seaton's Register of Debates, vol. 6, part 1, p. 622. [JAN. 16, 1837. ought to be recognised in all legislation towards the mercantile community. These are the principles laid down in this report of the Committee of Ways and Means. And let it be established that, in those cases, and in those cases only, will Congress remit duties on goods destroyed, where 1st. The goods were, when destroyed, in their ori ginal state as imported, and had not entered into the mass of commodities destined for the immediate consumption of the country. 2d. Where the circumstances of the loss are such as not only to excite no suspicion of fraud, but as expressly and directly to exclude the possibility of it. 3d. Where the loss could not have been covered by ordinary insurance, or guarded against by the caution and diligence of a vigilant and prudent man of business; and where the evidence to all these points is full, direct, unquestionable, and of the highest nature the case will permit. Sir, I ask the allowance of this Dana case only upon those principles, as a case justified in every requirement of those principles beyond any controversy or question. I can conceive of no danger or possible injustice to the Treasury of the Government by adopting these fundamen. tal rules of remission. I can conceive of no sound argument that can be adduced on the opposite side, that will not do injustice to the commercial interests of the country. Surely Government cannot desire to pursue a policy that shall work injustice to the vigilant importing merchant, nor to speculate upon his inevitable misfortunes. If the merchant, under any case that can be conceived of as coming within the principles I have adverted to as the just ones to control this case, can stand up against the loss incurred, without any fault on his part, of the original cost and expenses of importation of the goods so destroyed, surely the Government may well abstain from exacting of him the payment of duties upon the property; and surely, moreover, the Government that is unwilling to relax its demands upon the unfortunate merchants in a case of such extreme hardship must be regarded as slow indeed in the encouragement of honest enterprise. I trust such is not the character of our Government. Be that as it may, I have discharged my duty towards the claimants in this, and every similar case. After further debate, and before any question was taken upon the bill, The House adjourned. MONDAY, JANUARY 16. ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. The unfinished business of the morning hour was the petition presented on Monday last by Mr. ADAMs, from forty inhabitants of the town of Dover, in the county of Norfolk, in the State of Massachusetts, praying for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia; the pending question being on the motion of Mr. LAWLER that the petition be not received. Mr. BYNUM was entitled to the floor. Mr. HOWARD requested the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. BYNUM] to yield the floor, with a view to enable him (Mr. H.) to make another effort to give the States a chance of getting in their petitions. There were more than half the States in the Union that could not have the opportunity. He proposed to suspend the rule, to enable him to offer a resolution that the States be called for petitions in reverse order. Mr. BYNUM said he would have great pleasure in yielding the floor for that purpose, if it should be understood that he would be entitled to the floor when this petition should next come up. He thought the House JAN. 17, 1837.] Memorial from District of Columbia-Protection to Commerce, &c. should suspend the rule, to enable the member from Maryland to submit his resolution. Mr. ADAMS said he hoped the rule would not be suspended. He begged the House and the Speaker to recollect that this state of things Mr. W. B. SHEPARD rose to a question of order. A motion to suspend the rule he understood not to be debateable, and he hoped the Chair would enforce the rule. The SPEAKER said the motion could not be debated. Mr. ADAMS called for the yeas and nays on the motion to suspend the rule; which were ordered, and were: Yeas 123, nays 58. So the rule was suspended. Mr. HOWARD then offered the following resolution: Resolved, That in calling the States for petitions on this day, the Speaker do call in the reverse order, beginning with the youngest Territory. Mr. ADAMS called for the yeas and nays on the adoption of the resolution; which the House refused to order. And the question was then taken, and decided in the affirmative: Yeas 125, nays 33. So the resolution was adopted. Petitions and memorials were then called for in the reverse order of States and Territories. Mr. E. WHITTLESEY said, it having been the sense of the House that petitions relating to the abolition of slavery should not be discussed to-day, he begged to state that he had several such in his possession, but that he refrained from offering them, under the hope that, when he did offer them, he might be heard for a few moments in relation to the direction which he thought should be given to them by the House. MEMORIAL FROM DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. The SPEAKER presented a memorial from the grand jurors of the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia, soliciting that hereafter no petitions may be received or entertained by Congress, from societies or inhabitants of the non-slaveholding States, for the abo lition of slavery in the District of Columbia. Mr. PINCKNEY moved to lay the momorial on the table. Mr. WASHINGTON called for the reading; and it was read accordingly. Mr. GRAHAM called for the yeas and nays on the motion of Mr. PINCKNEY; but the House refused to order them. And the question was then taken, and decided in the affirmative. (H. or R. The SPEAKER said the effect of the motion would be to suspend all action, and to leave the petition exactly where it was. And the question was taken, and decided in the af firmative: Yeas 89, nays 37. So the preliminary question was laid on the table. Mr. LAWRENCE presented the memorial of George Hallett, and four hundred merchants of the city of Boston, praying Congress to establish steam and other vessels for the protection of the navigation of ships of the United States coming on our coast in the winter. Mr. L. adverted briefly to the fearful loss of life and property which had taken place on our coast during the last year, to an extent unprecedented in our history. This loss was to be attributed in part to the want of a good system of pilotage, but mainly to the fact that vessels coming, after very long voyages, on a bleak and wintry coast, and short of provisions, required some pro. tection and assistance which their own crews were not able to render. He moved that the petition be refer red to the Committee on Commerce, and expressed a hope that some action would be speedily had upon the subject. The petition was referred accordingly. During the day, a number of petitions, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, were presented; which were, in every instance, met by the motion to lay the preliminary motion of reception on the table, and which motion prevailed. After the reception and disposal of several resolutions of inquiry, The House adjourned. TUESDAY, JANUARY 17. KEEPING THE JOURNALS. Mr. UNDERWOOD asked the consent of the House to submit a resolution, which he desired might be read for the information of the House. Mr. JARVIS objected to the reception of the resolution and to its reading. Mr. UNDERWOOD said, if the Clerk would return the resolution, he (Mr. U.) would state briefly its substance to the House. Mr. ADAMS said, if the gentleman from Kentucky was permitted to read the resolution, he (Mr. A.) hoped no more objection would be made to members reading papers in their places. The SPEAKER said the question could not be debated. Mr. UNDERWOOD inquired if it was in order to make a brief statement of the contents of the resolu So the memorial was ordered to lie on the table. Mr. HIESTER presented the petition of 240 females of his congressional district, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and moved that the same be referred to the Committee on the said District. Mr. W. B. SHEPARD objected to its reception. Mr. S. said that, whenever a proper opportunity presented itself, it was his intention to offer a few remarks on this subject. He did not feel disposed now to violate the agreement which had been made with his colleague, [Mr. BYNUM,] that this discussion should lie over; and he moved, therefore, that the further consideration of the petition be postponed until Monday next. Mr. DAVIS moved to lay the preliminary motion of reception on the table. Me. STORER inquired if the effect of the motion to lay on the table, should it prevail, would not be to reject the petition for the time being. The SPEAKER said it was in order so to do, but it was not in order to read the resolution itself. Mr. UNDERWOOD said his object was to submit a series of resolutions, declaring the sense of this House that it was not competent, under the constitution of the United States, to change, alter, expunge, mutilate, or destroy, the journals of either House of Congress; that the preservation of the journals of either House of Congress was a subject of national importance, and a fit subject of national legislation; that, after these journals had been faithfully kept and preserved- Mr. CUSHMAN called the gentleman from Kentucky to order. Mr. UNDERWOOD declared that he had not yet completed the brief statement of the contents of the resolution, though he had nearly done so. The CHAIR said he must request the gentleman from Kentucky to submit his motion to the House. H. OF R.] Public Lands-Executive Administration. Mr. UNDERWOOD said his motion was to suspend the rule to enable him to offer this resolution. Could he not read what was the purport of that resolution? The CHAIR said he thought not, the reading of the resolution having been specially objec'ed to. A member could not himself read what the Clerk was not permitted to read. After a few further remarks on the point of order, Mr. JARVIS, with a view to save the time of the House, withdrew his objection to the reading of the resolution. The same was accordingly read, and is as follows: Resolved by the House of Representatives, That the 3d clause of the 5th section of the 1st article of the constitution, in the following words, to wit: "Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and, from time to time, publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in their judgment, require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those pre-ent, be entered on the journal," confers no power whatever on either House of Congress, at a subsequent session, to change, alter, de face, expunge, or destroy, its journal, or any part thereof, when the same has been regularly and faithfully kept during a previous session, and duly published. Resolved, further, That the journals of both Houses of Congress, kept and published as aforesaid, after the adjournment sine die, become national archives; and that all attempts and acts of either House separately, or of both by joint resolution, to change, alter, deface, expunge, or destroy, either journal, or any part thereof, are violations of the constitution. Resolved, That the preservation of the national archives from mutilation, disfiguration, and destruction, is a fit subject of legislation. Wherefore, Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be directed to report a bill providing for the deposite of the original journals of each House, after their adjournment sine die, in the office of the Secretary of State; and for the punishment of every and all persons, their aiders and abettors, who shall alter, change, deface, expunge, or destroy, any part of either journal after such adjourn [JAN. 17, 1837. ferred to a select committee, to consist of nine members, with power to send for persons and papers, and with instructions to inquire into the condition of the various executive departments, the ability and integrity with which they have been conducted, into the manner in which the public business has been discharged in all of them, and into all causes of complaint, from any quarter, at the manner in which said departments, or their bureaus or offices, or any of their officers or agents, of every description whatever, directly or indirectly connected with them in any manner, officially or unofficially, in duties pertaining to the public interest, have fulfilled or failed to accomplish the objects of their creation, or have violated their duties, or have injured and impaired the public service and interest; and that said committee, in its inquiries, may refer to such periods of time as to them may seem expedient and proper." To which resolution Mr. D. J. PEARCE had offered an amendment, for which Mr. FRENCH had offered a substitute. Mr. McKEON said the reading of the resolution must bring to the attention of the House the fact that a large portion of its time had been expended upon the discussion of the various topics which had been introduced into the debate. He was deeply impressed with the necessity of confining any remarks he might offer within a narrow compass. He assured the House that nothing would have induced him to prolong a debate already too much extended, except that justice to those with whom he acted, and to himself, required him to notice some of the observations made in the course of the debate. When the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. WISE] was introduced, I viewed it (said Mr. McK.) as a measure novel in its character, and one calculated to establish a precedent which might hereafter be perverted. In the phraseology of the resolution I saw a power of unlimited extent intrusted to a committee of this House. I am not of that school which insists upon a search warrant to authorize you to examine your public offices, but I cannot but believe that, if you intend to examine any matter beyond the manner in which your public agents discharge the duties of their appointment, you will require something more than a resolution of this House. What does the original resolution propose? To examine into the official and unofficial conduct of those who are directly or indirectly connected with the public departments. This is the task which is to be allotted to a committee of this House. This is the inquisitorial tribunal you propose to create. If we appoint the committee, how can it proceed in the discharge of its duty? The power of this House can go no further than to examine into the official conduct of those who are in office, who receive their compensation at your hands, and who are liable to censure and removal for any breach of duty. In every point connected with your public offices, in every matter of an official character, you have the right and the power to exact a rigid, strict examination; but when you will attempt to inquire into the unof ficial conduct of a public officer, or to make the widespread investigation proposed by the resolution, the success of your investigation will depend more upon the disposition of those who may be called before the committee than on any power of this House to compel them to satisfy your inquiries. You will search in vain for a precedent for this movement in parliamentary history; but you may find one elsewhere. There can be found one direction to which it bears a strict resemblance. The command of this House to the committee may be found in that of Dogberry to the watch, a sweeping resolution to "comprehend all vagrom men," and to let all go who will not stand according to order. Let it be considered that we have several standing committees, whose duty it is to investigate the affairs of your departments. Let it be considered, also, that, but a few days since, we appoint ed a committee, at the head of which is the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. GARLAND,] which committee is daily engaged in the examination of one of the subjects referred to in this resolution. Yes, sir, the very point which, I believe, according to the mover of this proposition, gave rise to this proposed investigation. But in addition to these means which are within our power, the amendment of the gentleman from Rhode Island is offered. That amendment is, in my opinion, not open to the objections which may be made to the original proposition. It is in accordance with parliamentry practice. It is no part of the duty of a Legislature to undertake an exploring expedition in search of abuses; but if abuses are charged, it becomes a solemn duty to investigate them. The amendment proposes to create a tribunal before which charges can be made, and to examine into the truth of those charges. Suppose a petition was presented to this House, and referred to one of the appropriate committees, praying an examination into the manner in which your public officers discharge their duties, and setting forth that abuses existed. Your committee would ask the petitioners for specific charges, and if they were produced the examination would be made. I doubt very much whether they would inquire of your different departments and bureaus for something to sustain the allegation of the petitioners. But, sir, it appears that your standing committees, your select committee, the amendment, will not be satisfactory. Nothing will give sufficient latitude but the original resolution. I prefer sustaining the amendment, believing it cannot be perverted hereafter into a danger ous precedent; but if that cannot be adopted, I shall not be found denying investigation. I am willing to give every facility, and to afford ample means, to pursue the desired examination; to have the official transactions and correspondence of your public offices laid open. As the representatives of the people, we are bound to guard every department. We are bound to pour light into every portion of this Government. It is due not only to the country, but to the incumbents, to those on this floor who wish the examination, that some decision should be had on this subject, and that without delay. The debate which has arisen upon this resolution has resusci tated the denunciations and charges which we had reason to believe were long since buried. I have been surprised to observe the course of the present discussion. The same accusations of corruption, of proscription, and of abuses of every nature, which were made at the last session, with a view of operating on the then approaching political contest, are reiterated upon the present occasion. We ought to suspect that our fate has been that of Rip Van Winkle; that we have been sleeping quietly while the thunders of the opposition, louder far than any which reverberated through the Catskill, have been pealing over us, and we have been unconscious of the presidential contest which has just closed. If there is to be a repetition of those charges, it is full time we should be aroused. I have sought for new statements, but none are offered. Let it be remembered that the same representations which are made now were made before the struggle commenced; that the same evidence, sustained by the aid of the same distinguished gentlemen, was laid before the people of this country, and that the people supported him against whom these charges were intended to operate. Why do gentlemen stop even now? Why do they halt? Why not cross the Rubicon? There is still remedy left. If outrages upon the constitution, if violations of the liberties of the people, have been committed, why, instead of making the accusation, is not the individual who is the author of these evils made liable to the consequences of impeachment? If he has violated the rights of any of your citizens, any of the [H. of R. rights of any branch of the Government, why is he not placed in a situation where he will be required to defend his public character from these accusations? If we have watchful sentinels on the ramparts of constitutional liberty, let them not only sound the alarm, but let them seize upon him whom they represent to be an enemy of the country. That country has a right to demand this movement at the hands of those who are so desirous of preserving its interests from violation. Nothing is easier than to denounce. We ask for the evidences to support the charges they make-we ask for action. The Executive has been represented as a violator of his plighted faith, as one who had broken every pledge. Let us look to his inaugural address, which ought to be considered as an exposition of the policy which would characterize his administration. In regard to your foreign policy, he had stated that he would endeavor to preserve peace and cultivate friendship with all nations on honorable terms, and to adjust our differences in the forbearing spirit becoming a powerful nation, rather than the sensibility belonging to a gallant people. Has this been fulfilled? Do you find the violation of this pledge in the elevated position which our country sustains amongst the nations of the earth? He pledged himself to a spirit of compromise, equity, and caution, in regard to your tariff, by the promotion of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures; and if any encouragement should be given, it was only to those articles which might be found essential to our national independence. Let his messages to Congress show how far he has labored to discharge this pledge. He avowed his determination to reform abuses, by depending for the promotion of the public service not on the number, but on the efficiency, the integrity, the zeal, of public officers. Let the consequences of the toils of those agents, visible in the negotiation of foreign treaties, and in the happy results of the faithful discharge of duties within our country, be his defence on this point. He promised to facilitate the extinguishment of the public debt. Has that been discharged? Does not the contest here for the division of an immense surplus in your Treasury speak for him on this subject? Has not, during this administration, the novel spectacle been presented to the world of an immense republic, unshackled with a national debt? When the violence of political feeling shall have subsided, but one opinion, sir, will be given of the present administration; and if, as some gen. tlemen insist, the coming administration will be but a continuation of the policy of the present, the country may be congratulated on the prospect of a career of brilliancy and prosperity. It will be a continuation of a policy which seeks to enlarge the liberties of every citizen, and to promote the welfare of the Union. The corruption which exists in the Government is a fruitful theme. The dictation of the Executive, and his interference with the elective franchise, have been blazoned forth to the world. Sir, if we have had a dictator, he bears but little resemblance to the Sylla of other days. The Roman retired when the aristocracy had been armed with the sceptre, but our dictator is about to surrender his trust when the democracy is triumphant. Do gentlemen suppose that the intelligence of this country is to be deceived with this outcry? May we ask when and where this dictation took place? Who were the individuals who yielded, or the States that submitted to his commands? We hear of Tennessee! That State did not vote for the individual who is said to have obtained his election by the dictation of the Executive. If the dictation of the President was of any avail, it must have been united not only with omnipotence but omnipresence. Its results are seen in Maine, and at the same time in Louisiana-in the Atlantic States and in your far West. This charge (let gentlemen consider) of dicta tion and of corruption, reaches not only the Executive, but at those above that Executive. The poisoned arrows which are scattered strike not only those against whom they are aimed, but at the body of the American people. If there are corrupters, where are the corrupted? Are we to seek for them amongst the honest yeomanry of the land? Is this degrading character to be given to our countrymen? I trust we are not ready to look upon a majority of our fellow-citizens as obedient slaves, obeying the edicts of an imperial master. The sin of the Executive has been that he moved in unison with the people, and for this he is denounced. This is his crime, in the eyes of his opponents. I cannot believe that his course will at any time be deemed unpatriotic, or prejudicial to the institutions of our common country. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON] objected most strenuously to the proscription which had been carried out during the present administration. The opposition is distinguished, if we are to believe what we hear, by magnanimity, by generosity, by respect for freedom of opinion. Cases have been adduced to show the oppression heaped upon some of our fellow-citizens. I could not but observe the indignation excited amongst some of the opponents of the administration at the recital of instances of removals from office. I cannot speak of the merits of these cases; I am ignorant of them. I cannot, however, but look upon the denunciations which have been made against removals from office as an evidence of a policy which has not heretofore distinguished our opponents. I suppose that hereafter, in no part of the country where they hold the power, no man is to be removed who entertains opinions in accordance with those of the democracy. The guillotine which I have seen ready to do its office in one city of this Union is to be removed the victims are to be released. I have, I confess candidly, Mr. Speaker, some misgivings. Judg. ing from the past, I can have but little hope for the fu ture. "To know the right, and yet the wrong pursue," seems to be the fate of our opponents. Look at the city of New York, where the opposition, during the celebrated panic session, obtained power. The process of removal was fully carried out. The lamps in our streets were not allowed to be lighted by those who were democrats. Look to Philadelphia; one sweeping proscription, if rumor speaks truly. Look to Pennsylvania, when the Government of the State was changed. The offices given to those who had placed the present incumbents in power, and those who thought with the general administration proscribed, and their families, depending for subsistence on the emoluments of their humble offices, turned adrift upon the world. Sir, this proscription which they denounce they practice. Let not the charge be made against us until, by their example, they can enforce their advice with more authority than they can at present. Let not their indig. nation be excited against the administration, or their sympathy expressed in favor of its supposed victims, so long as they have on every side an opportunity of bestowing their sympathy on those who have suffered by the exercise of the power they hold. The administration cannot be justly liable to this accusation. Here and elsewhere it has been confidently asserted, by those who have examined this subject, that a large majority of those holding offices are opposed to the administration; and the sweeping proscription and persecution for expres sion of opinion cannot with propriety be charged against it. We have heard much of the war on the currency which has been waged by the present administration. The disturbance of our financial operations, the chaos of our commercial affairs, have been placed to the account of the Executive. The party in power for the past seven years has been carrying on, if any, a war on the United States Bank; and if that be a war on the currency, they [JAN. 17, 1837. must plead guilty. It has been a contest in which we have seen the concentrated wealth of the nation in arms against the Government and the people; and we have seen that contest concluded with the triumph of the people over an institution which had threatened to poison the very fountains of your prosperity. We have carried on a war against a system which carries within the most alarming elements. You have seen institutions invested with a power of creating a "paper currency," starting into existence in every section. You have seen a power placed in the bands of a particular class of men to control the fortunes of their fellow-citizens. You have seen prices rising, values disturbed, an unsettled and feverish state of public feeling. You have seen the swollen tide of speculation rushing from one end of the country to the other, bearing upon it every individual. Purchases made, not with a view to the natural operations of trade, but regulated alone by the credits which might be obtained. You have seen the favorable gale, swelling every man's sails; but now the tempest is seen, driving before it thousands, whose fate it will be difficult to predict. You have seen in this country, and on the other side of the Atlantic, gathering signs in the commercial horizon; anxiety, intense anxiety, pervading every section of the country. When the cause of the excitement is examined, when it is asserted that the overissues have been the main cause of the present state of things, when we are told to look back to the troubles in England in past years, and observe that the same state of things was produced by similar causes; yet when the effort is made by the Government to check this evil, by calling into circulation the constitutional currency of the country, with a view to give security to your financial operations, to give stability to the value of property, and to afford labor its just reward, it is denounced as tyrannical and oppressive. The question of currency, I am willing to admit, is intricate; but I do not believe it too intricate to be beyond the understanding of an acute and intelligent people-of a people whose pursuits render it necessary for them to watch every movement in the industry and finance of the country. They desire a sound currency, but not a currency which is given to them by holding their liberties at the will of any body of men. I cannot omit a reference to the allusions which have been made to the President during this debate. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. WISE] has traced his course from the period of his early obscurity to the present exalted station which he now holds. From its rise in hum. bleness, he has found the tenor of his life a broad and sweeping current, rolling onward uuder the living light of day and the steady gaze of the nation. Parallels are sought; but where? Are they sought for amongst the patriots whose reputations are interwoven with the bright. est epochs of the past? Are they found in some brilliant example of devotion to country, of fidelity to her institutions, of purity of purpose, of undying patriotism; amongst the Aristides, the Curtii, or the Catos? No, sir; we find them seeking for parallels in the most corrupt and degraded periods of the Roman Government. They find them in a Commedus or a Severus; in the vile, the profligate, and depraved emperors of a crumbling empire. Who is your modern Commodus? Shall I summon from his many battle fields the manes of the dead to be his defenders? No, sir; let the living attest his worth! Let them answer whether or not it was by collecting around him the abandoned Cleanders of his time he led your country through many difficulties up to the eminence on which be now is leaving her! Even in the highest excitement of a political contest, we ought not to forget the services of our public men-of those who "have done the state some service." The petty differences of party will disappear, but the results of the labor of those men never will be destroyed. For |