[Illustration: Engraved by H. Wright Smith from a Painting by A. B. Durand

 I live in the Faith and Hope of the progressive advancement of Christian Liberty, and expect to abide by the same in death. 

 J. Q. Adams. ]

 MEMOIR

 OF

 THE LIFE OF

 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 

 BY

 JOSIAH QUINCY, LL. D. 

 Justum et tenacem propositi virum, Non civium ardor prava jubentium, Non vultus instantis tyranni, Mente quatit solida. 

 BOSTON: CROSBY, NICHOLS, LEE AND COMPANY. 1860. 

 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1858, by PHILLIPS, SAMPSON & CO. , In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 

 Stereotyped by HOBART & ROBBINS, New England Type and Stereotype Foundery, BOSTON. 

 THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL SOCIETY, This Work, PREPARED AT THEIR REQUEST, IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED, BY THEIR ASSOCIATE, JOSIAH QUINCY. 

BOSTON, _June 1, 1858_. 

 PREFATORY NOTE. 

The ensuing Memoir comprises the most important events in the life ofa statesman second to none of his contemporaries in laborious andfaithful devotion to the service of his country. 

The light attempted to be thrown on his course has been derived frompersonal acquaintance, from his public works, and from authenticunpublished materials. 

The chief endeavor has been to render him the expositor of his ownmotives, principles, and character, without fear or favor, --in thespirit neither of criticism or eulogy. 

 JOSIAH QUINCY. 

BOSTON, _June 1, 1858_. 

 CONTENTS. 

 PAGE CHAPTER I. 

BIRTH. --EDUCATION. --RESIDENCE IN EUROPE. --AT COLLEGE. --AT THE BAR. --POLITICAL ESSAYS. --MINISTER AT THE HAGUE. --AT BERLIN. --RETURN TOTHE UNITED STATES, 1

 CHAPTER II. 

RESIDENCE IN BOSTON. --RETURNS TO THE BAR. --ELECTED TO THE SENATE OFMASSACHUSETTS. --TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. --HIS COURSERELATIVE TO THE ATTACK OF THE LEOPARD ON THE CHESAPEAKE. --RESIGNSHIS SEAT AS SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES. --APPOINTED MINISTER TORUSSIA. --FINAL SEPARATION FROM THE FEDERAL PARTY, 25

 CHAPTER III. 

VOYAGE. --ARRIVAL AT ST. PETERSBURG. --PRESENTATION TO THE EMPEROR. --RESIDENCE AT THE IMPERIAL COURT. --DIPLOMATIC INTERVIEWS. --PRIVATESTUDIES. --APPOINTED ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO TREAT FOR PEACE WITHGREAT BRITAIN. --LEAVES RUSSIA, 44

 CHAPTER IV. 

RESIDENCE AT GHENT. --AT PARIS. --IN LONDON. --PRESENTATION TO THEPRINCE REGENT. --NEGOTIATION WITH LORD CASTLEREAGH. --APPOINTEDSECRETARY OF STATE. --LEAVES ENGLAND, 59

 CHAPTER V. 

FIRST TERM OF MR. MONROE'S ADMINISTRATION. --STATE OF PARTIES. --SEMINOLEWAR. --TAKING OF PENSACOLA. --NEGOTIATION WITH SPAIN. --PURCHASE OF THEFLORIDAS. --COLONIZATION SOCIETY. --THE ADMISSION OF MISSOURI INTO THEUNION, 77

 CHAPTER VI. 

SECOND TERM OF MONROE'S PRESIDENCY. --STATE OF PARTIES. --REPORT ONWEIGHTS AND MEASURES. --PROCEEDINGS AT GHENT VINDICATED. --VOTESWHEN HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES DEFENDED. --INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE. --CONTESTS OF PARTIES. --ELECTED PRESIDENT OFTHE UNITED STATES, 120

 CHAPTER VII. 

ADMINISTRATION AS PRESIDENT. --POLICY. --RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS. --PRINCIPLES RELATIVE TO OFFICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND REMOVALS. --COURSEIN ELECTION CONTESTS. --TERMINATION OF HIS PRESIDENCY, 142

 CHAPTER VIII. 

PURSUITS OF MR. ADAMS IN RETIREMENT. --ELECTED TO CONGRESS. --PARTIESAND THEIR PROCEEDINGS. --HIS COURSE IN RESPECT OF THEM. --HIS OWNADMINISTRATION AND THAT OF HIS SUCCESSOR COMPARED. --REPORT ONMANUFACTURES AND THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. --REFUSAL TO VOTE, AND CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS. --SPEECH AND REPORT ON THE MODIFICATIONOF THE TARIFF AND SOUTH CAROLINA NULLIFICATION, 175

 CHAPTER IX. 

INFLUENCE OF MILITARY SUCCESS. --POLICY OF THE ADMINISTRATION. --MR. ADAMS' SPEECH ON THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS FROM THE BANK OF THEUNITED STATES. --HIS OPINIONS ON FREEMASONRY AND TEMPERANCE SOCIETIES. --EULOGY ON WILLIAM WIRT. --ORATION ON THE LIFE AND CHARACTER OFLAFAYETTE. --HIS COURSE ON ABOLITION PETITIONS. --ON INTERFERENCE WITHTHE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY. --ON THE POLICY RELATIVE TO THE PUBLICLANDS. --SPEECH ON DISTRIBUTING RATIONS TO FUGITIVES FROM INDIANHOSTILITIES. --ON WAR WITH MEXICO. --EULOGY ON JAMES MADISON. --HISCOURSE ON A PETITION PURPORTING TO BE FROM SLAVES. --FIRST REPORTON JAMES SMITHSON'S BEQUEST, 219

 CHAPTER X. 

MARTIN VAN BUREN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. --MR. ADAMS' SPEECHON THE CLAIMS OF THE DEPOSIT BANKS. --HIS LETTER ON BOOKS FOR UNIVERSALREADING. --ORATION AT NEWBURYPORT. --SPEECH ON THE RIGHT OF PETITION. --LETTER TO THE MASSACHUSETTS ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. --ADDRESS TO THEINHABITANTS OF HIS DISTRICT. --HIS VIEWS AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THESMITHSONIAN FUND. --HIS INTEREST IN THE SCIENCE OF ASTRONOMY. --LETTERTO THE SECRETARY OF STATE ON AN ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATORY. --LETTER ONTHE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. --RESOLUTIONSFOR THE LIMITING OF HEREDITARY SLAVERY. --DISCOURSE BEFORE THE NEWYORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY. --ADDRESS ON THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION. --REMARKS ON PHRENOLOGY. --ON THE LICENSE LAW OF MASSACHUSETTS. --HEORGANIZES THE OUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 268

 CHAPTER XI. 

SECOND REPORT ON THE SMITHSONIAN FUND. --HIS SPEECH ON A BILL FORINSURING A MORE FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE LAWS RELATING TO THECOLLECTION OF DUTIES ON IMPORTS. --REMARKS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANEXTENSIVE SERIES OF MAGNETICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS. --ONITINERANT ELECTIONEERING. --ON ABUSES IN RESPECT TO THE NAVY FUND. --ONTHE POLITICAL INFLUENCES OF THE TIME. --ON THE ORIGIN AND RESULTS OFTHE FLORIDA WAR. --HIS DENUNCIATION OF DUELLING. --HIS ARGUMENT IN THESUPREME COURT ON BEHALF OF AFRICANS CAPTURED IN THE AMISTAD, 302

 CHAPTER XII. 

WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. --HISDEATH. --VICE-PRESIDENT JOHN TYLER SUCCEEDS. --REMARKS OF MR. ADAMSON THE OCCASION. --HIS SPEECH ON THE CASE OF ALEXANDER M'LEOD. --HISVIEWS CONCERNING COMMONPLACE BOOKS. --HIS LECTURE ON CHINA AND CHINESECOMMERCE. --REMARKS ON THE STATE OF THE COUNTRY, AND HIS DUTY INRELATION TO IT. --HIS PRESENTATION OF A PETITION FOR THE DISSOLUTIONOF THE UNION, AND THE VOTE TO CENSURE HIM FOR DOING IT. --HIS THIRDREPORT ON MR. SMITHSON'S BEQUEST. --HIS SPEECH ON THE MISSION TOMEXICO, 328

 CHAPTER XIII. 

REPORT ON PRESIDENT TYLER'S APPROVAL, WITH OBJECTIONS, OF THE BILLFOR THE APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. --REPORT ON HIS VETO OFTHE BILL TO PROVIDE A REVENUE FROM IMPORTS. --LECTURE ON THE SOCIALCOMPACT, AND THE THEORIES OF FILMER, HOBBES, SYDNEY, AND LOCKE. --ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS ON THE POLICY OF PRESIDENT TYLER'SADMINISTRATION. --ADDRESS TO THE NORFOLK COUNTY TEMPERANCE SOCIETY. --DISCOURSE ON THE NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERACY OF 1643. --LETTER TOTHE CITIZENS OF BANGOR ON WEST INDIA EMANCIPATION. --ORATION ONLAYING THE CORNER-STONE OF THE CINCINNATI OBSERVATORY, 364

 CHAPTER XIV. 

REPORT ON THE RESOLVES OF THE LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS PROPOSINGAN AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN EFFECT TOABOLISH A REPRESENTATION FOR SLAVES. --FOURTH REPORT ON JAMESSMITHSON'S BEQUEST. --INFLUENCE OF MR. ADAMS ON THE ESTABLISHMENTOF THE NATIONAL OBSERVATORY AND THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION. --GENERALJACKSON'S CHARGE THAT THE RIO GRANDE MIGHT HAVE BEEN OBTAINED, UNDERTHE SPANISH TREATY, AS A BOUNDARY FOR THE UNITED STATES, REFUTED. --ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS AT WEYMOUTH. --REMARKS ON THE RETROCESSIONOF ALEXANDRIA TO VIRGINIA. --HIS PARALYSIS. --RECEPTION BY THE HOUSEOF REPRESENTATIVES. --HIS DEATH. --FUNERAL HONORS. --TRIBUTE TO HISMEMORY, 409

 MEMOIR

 OF

 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 

 CHAPTER I. 

BIRTH. --EDUCATION. --RESIDENCE IN EUROPE. --AT COLLEGE. --AT THE BAR. --POLITICAL ESSAYS. --MINISTER AT THE HAGUE. --AT BERLIN. --RETURN TOTHE UNITED STATES. 

John Quincy Adams, son of John and Abigail Adams, was born on the 11thof July, 1767, in the North Parish of Braintree, Massachusetts--sinceincorporated as the town of Quincy. The lives and characters of hisparents, intimately associated with the history of the AmericanRevolution, have been already ably and faithfully illustrated. [1]

 [1] See "Letters of Mrs. Adams, with an Introductory Memoir, " and "The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, with a Life of the Author, " by their grandson, Charles Francis Adams. 

The origin of his name was thus stated by himself: "My great-grandfather, John Quincy, [2] was dying when I was baptized, and his daughter, mygrandmother, requested I might receive his name. This fact, recordedby my father at the time, is not without a moral to my heart, and hasconnected with that portion of my name a charm of mingled sensibilityand devotion. It was filial tenderness that gave the name--it was thename of one passing from earth to immortality. These have been, through life, perpetual admonitions to do nothing unworthy of it. "

 [2] John Quincy represented the town of Braintree in the colonial legislature forty years, and long held the office of speaker. 

At Braintree his mother watched over his childhood. At the villageschool he learned the rudiments of the English language. In after lifehe often playfully boasted that the dame who taught him to spellflattered him into learning his letters by telling him he would prove ascholar. The notes and habits of the birds and wild animals of thevicinity early excited his attention, and led him to look on naturewith a lover's eye, creating an attachment to the home of hischildhood, which time strengthened. Many years afterwards, whenresiding in Europe, he wrote: "Penn's Hill and Braintree North CommonRocks never looked and never felt to me like any other hill or anyother rocks; because every rock and every pebble upon them associatesitself with the first consciousness of my existence. If there is aBostonian who ever sailed from his own harbor for distant lands, orreturned to it from them, without feelings, at the sight of the BlueHills, which he is unable to express, his heart is differentlyconstituted from mine. "

These local attachments were indissolubly associated with the eventsof the American Revolution, and with the patriotic principlesinstilled by his mother. Standing with her on the summit of Penn'sHill, he heard the cannon booming from the battle of Bunker's Hill, and saw the smoke and flames of burning Charlestown. During the siegeof Boston he often climbed the same eminence alone, to watch theshells and rockets thrown by the American army. 

With a mind prematurely developed and cultivated by the influence ofthe characters of his parents and the stirring events of that period, he embarked, at the age of eleven years, in February, 1778, from theshore of his native town, with his father, in a small boat, whichconveyed them to a ship in Nantasket Roads, bound for Europe. JohnAdams had been associated in a commission with Benjamin Franklin andArthur Lee, as plenipotentiary to the Court of France. After residingin Paris until June, 1779, he returned to America, accompanied by hisson. Being immediately appointed, by Congress, minister plenipotentiaryto negotiate a treaty of peace and commerce with Great Britain, theyboth returned together to France in November, taking passage in aFrench frigate. On this his second voyage to Europe, young Adams begana diary, which, with few intermissions, he continued through life. While in Paris he resumed the study of the ancient and modernlanguages, which had been interrupted by his return to America. 

In July, 1780, John Adams having been appointed ambassador to theNetherlands, his son was removed from the schools of Paris to those ofAmsterdam, and subsequently to the University of Leyden. There hepursued his studies until July, 1781, when, in his fourteenth year, hewas selected by Francis Dana, minister plenipotentiary from the UnitedStates to the Russian court, as his private secretary, and accompaniedhim through Germany to St. Petersburg. Having satisfactorily dischargedhis official duties, and pursued his Latin, German, and French studies, with a general course of English history, until September, 1782, heleft St. Petersburg for Stockholm, where he passed the winter. In theensuing spring, after travelling through the interior of Sweden, andvisiting Copenhagen and Hamburg, he joined his father at the Hague, and accompanied him to Paris. They travelled leisurely, forming anacquaintance with eminent men on their route, and examining architecturalremains, the paintings of the great Flemish masters, and all thetreasures of the fine arts, in the countries through which they passed. In Paris, young Adams was present at the signing of the treaty of peacein 1783, and was admitted into the society of Franklin, Jefferson, Jay, Barclay, Hartley, the Abbé Mably, and many other eminent statesmen andliterary men. After passing a few months in England, with his father, he returned to Paris, and resumed his studies, which he continued untilMay, 1785, when he embarked for the United States. This return to hisown country caused a mental struggle, in which his judgment controlledhis inclination. His father had just been appointed minister at theCourt of Great Britain, and, as one of his family, it would have beento him a high gratification to reside in England. His feelings andviews on the occasion he thus expressed:

"I have been seven years travelling in Europe, seeing the world, and inits society. If I return to the United States, I must be subject, oneor two years, to the rules of a college, pass three more in the tediousstudy of the law, before I can hope to bring myself into professionalnotice. The prospect is discouraging. If I accompany my father toLondon, my satisfaction would possibly be greater than by returning tothe United States; but I shall loiter away my precious time, and notgo home until I am forced to it. My father has been all his lifetimeoccupied by the interests of the public. His own fortune has suffered. His children must provide for themselves. I am determined to get my ownliving, and to be dependent upon no one. With a tolerable share ofcommon sense, I hope, in America, to be independent and free. Ratherthan live otherwise, I would wish to die before my time. "

In this spirit the tempting prospects in Europe were abandoned, and hereturned to the United States, to submit to the rules, and to join, with a submissive temper, the comparatively uninteresting associations, of college life. After reviewing his studies under an instructor, heentered, in March, 1786, the junior class of Harvard University. Diligence and punctual fulfilment of every prescribed duty, theadvantages he had previously enjoyed, and his exemplary compliance withthe rules of the seminary, secured to him a high standing in his class, which none were disposed to controvert. Here his active and thoughtfulmind was prepared for those scenes in future life in which he could notbut feel he was destined to take part. Entering into all the literaryand social circles of the college, he became popular among hisclassmates. By the government his conduct and attainments were dulyappreciated, which they manifested by bestowing upon him the secondhonor of his class at commencement; a high distinction, considering theshort period he had been a member of the university. The oration hedelivered when he graduated, in 1787, on the Importance of Public Faithto the Well-Being of a Community, was printed and published; a rareproof of general interest in a college exercise, which the adaptationof the subject to the times, and the talent it evinced, justified. 

After leaving the university, Mr. Adams passed three years in Newburyportas a student at law under the guidance of Theophilus Parsons, afterwardschief justice of Massachusetts. He was admitted to the bar in 1790, andimmediately opened an office in Boston. The ranks of his profession werecrowded, the emoluments were small, and his competitors able. Hisletters feelingly express his anxiety to relieve his parents fromcontributing to his support. In November, 1843, in an address to the barof Cincinnati, Mr. Adams thus described the progress and termination ofhis practice as a lawyer--

 "I have been a member of your profession upwards of half a century. In the early period of my life, having a father abroad, it was my fortune to travel in foreign countries; still, under the impression which I first received from my mother, that in this country every man should have some trade, that trade which, by the advice of my parents and my own inclination, I chose, was the profession of the Law. After having completed an education in which, perhaps, more than any other citizen of that time I had advantages, and which of course brought with it the incumbent duty of manifesting by my life that those extraordinary advantages of education, secured to me by my father, had not been worthlessly bestowed, --on coming into life after such great advantages, and having the duty of selecting a profession, I chose that of the Bar. I closed my education as a lawyer with one of the most eminent jurists of the age, --Theophilus Parsons, of Newburyport, at that time a practising lawyer, but subsequently chief justice of the commonwealth of Massachusetts. Under his instruction and advice I closed my education, and commenced what I can hardly call the practice of the law in the city of Boston. 

 "At that time, though I cannot say I was friendless, yet my circumstances were not independent. My father was then in a situation of great responsibility and notoriety in the government of the United States. But he had been long absent from his own country, and still continued absent from that part of it to which he belonged, and of which I was a native. I went, therefore, as a volunteer, an adventurer, to Boston, as possibly many of you whom I now see before me may consider yourselves as having come to Cincinnati. I was without support of any kind. I may say I was a stranger in that city, although almost a native of that spot. I say I can hardly call it practice, because for the space of one year from that time it would be difficult for me to name any practice which I had to do. For two years, indeed, I can recall nothing in which I was engaged that may be termed practice, though during the second year there were some symptoms that by persevering patience practice might come in time. The third year I continued this patience and perseverance, and, having little to do, occupied my time as well as I could in the study of those laws and institutions which I have since been called to administer. At the end of the third year I had obtained something which might be called practice. 

 "The fourth year I found it swelling to such an extent that I felt no longer any concern as to my future destiny as a member of that profession. But in the midst of the fourth year, by the will of the first President of the United States, with which the Senate was pleased to concur, I was selected for a station, not, perhaps, of more usefulness, but of greater consequence in the estimation of mankind, and sent from home on a mission to foreign parts. 

 "From that time, the fourth year after my admission to the bar of my native state, and the first year of my admission to the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, I was deprived of the exercise of any further industry or labor at the bar by this distinction; a distinction for which a previous education at the bar, if not an indispensable qualification, was at least a most useful appendage. "[3]

 [3] See _Niles' Weekly Register_, New Series, vol. Xv. , pp. 218, 219. 

While waiting for professional employment, he was instinctively drawninto political discussions. Thomas Paine had just then published his"Rights of Man, " for which Thomas Jefferson, then Secretary of State, took upon himself to be sponsor, by publishing a letter expressing hisextreme pleasure "that it is to be reprinted here, and that something isat length to be publicly said against the _political heresies_ whichhave sprung up among us. I have no doubt our citizens will rally asecond time round the standard of _Common Sense_. "

Notwithstanding the weight of Jefferson's character, and the strength ofhis recommendation, in June, 1791, young Adams entered the lists againstPaine and his pamphlet, which was in truth an encomium on the NationalAssembly of France, and a commentary on the rights of man, inferringquestionable deductions from unquestionable principles. In a series ofessays, signed Publicola, published in the _Columbian Centinel_, hestates and controverts successively the fundamental doctrines of Paine'swork; denies that "whatever a whole nation chooses to do it has a rightto do, " and maintains, in opposition, that "nations, no less thanindividuals, are subject to the eternal and immutable laws of justiceand morality;" declaring that Paine's doctrine annihilated the securityof every man for his inalienable rights, and would lead in practice to ahideous despotism, concealed under the parti-colored garments ofdemocracy. The truth of the views in these essays was soon made manifestby the destruction of the French constitution, so lauded by Paine andJefferson, the succeeding anarchy, the murder of the French monarch, andthe establishment of a military despotism. 

In April, 1793, Great Britain declared war against France, then in themost violent frenzy of her revolution. In this war, the feelings of thepeople of the United States were far from being neutral. The seeds offriendship for the one, and of enmity towards the other belligerent, which the Revolutionary War had plentifully scattered through the wholecountry, began everywhere to vegetate. Private cupidity openly advocatedprivateering upon the commerce of Great Britain, in aid of whichcommissions were issued under the authority of France. To counteract theapparent tendency of these popular passions, Mr. Adams published, alsoin the _Centinel_, a series of essays, signed Marcellus, exposing thelawlessness, injustice, and criminality, of such interference in favorof one of the belligerents. "For if, " he wrote, "as the poet, with morethan poetical truth, has said, 'war is murder, ' the plunder of privateproperty, the pillage of all the regular rewards of honest industry andlaudable enterprise, upon the mere pretence of a national contest, inthe eye of justice can appear in no other light than highway robbery. If, however, some apology for the practice is to be derived from theincontrollable law of necessity, or from the imperious law of war, certainly there can be no possible excuse for those who incur the guiltwithout being able to plead the palliation; for those who violate therights of nations in order to obtain a license for rapine manifestlyshow that patriotism is but the cloak for such enterprises; that thetrue objects are plunder and pillage; and that to those engaged in themit was only the lash of the executioner which kept them in theobservance of their civil and political duties. "

After developing the folly and madness of such conduct in a nation whosecommerce was expanded over the globe, and which was "destitute of eventhe defensive apparatus of war, " and showing that it would lead togeneral bankruptcy, and endanger even the existence of the nation, hemaintained that "impartial and unequivocal neutrality was the imperiousduty of the United States. " Their pretended obligation to take part inthe war resulting from "the guarantee of the possessions of France inAmerica, " he denied, on the ground that either circumstances had whollydissolved those obligations, or they were suspended and madeimpracticable by the acts of the French government. 

The ability displayed in these essays attracted the attention ofWashington and his cabinet, and the coïncidence of these views withtheir own was immediately manifested by the proclamation of neutrality. Their thoughts were again, soon after, attracted to the author, by athird series of essays, published in November, 1793, in the _ColumbianCentinel_, under the signature of Columbus, in which he entered thelists in defence of the constituted authorities of the United States, exposing and reprobating the language and conduct of Genet, the ministerfrom the French republic, whose repeated insults upon the firstmagistrate of the American Union, and upon the national government, hadbeen as public and as shameless as they had been unprecedented. For, after Washington, supported by the highest judicial authority of thecountry, had, as President of the United States, denied publicly Genet'sauthority to establish consular courts within them, and to issue lettersof marque and reprisal to their citizens, against the enemies of France, he had the insolence to appeal from the President, and to deny his powerto revoke the exequatur of a French consul, who, by a process issuedfrom his own court, rescued, with an armed force, a vessel out of thecustody of justice. 

In these essays Genet is denounced as a dangerous enemy; his appeal "asan insolent outrage to _the man_ who was deservedly the object of thegrateful affection of the whole people of America;" "as a rude attemptof a beardless foreign stripling, whose commission from a friendly powerwas his only title to respect, not supported by a shadow of right on hispart, and not less hostile to the constitution than to the government. "

The violence of the times, and the existence of a powerful party in theUnited States ready to support the French minister in his hostility tothe national government, are also illustrated by the following facts:"That an American jury had been compelled by the clamor of a collectedmultitude to acquit a prisoner without the unanimity required by law;""by the circulation of caricatures representing President Washington anda judge of the Supreme Court with a guillotine suspended over theirheads;" "by posting upon the mast of a French vessel of war, in theharbor of Boston, the names of twenty citizens, all of them inoffensive, and some of them personally respectable, as objects of detestation tothe crew;" "by the threatening, by an anonymous assassin, to visit withinevitable death a member of the Legislature of New York, forexpressing, with the freedom of an American citizen, his opinion of theproceedings of the French minister;" and "by the formation of alengthened chain of democratic societies, assuming to themselves, underthe semblance of a warmer zeal for the cause of liberty, to control theoperations of the government, and to dictate laws to the country. "

The talent and knowledge of diplomatic relations, thus displayed, powerfully impressed the administration, and the nomination of Mr. Adamsas minister from the United States resident at the Netherlands, byWashington and his cabinet, was confirmed unanimously by the Senate, inJune, 1794. At the request of the Secretary of State, he immediatelyrepaired to Philadelphia. His commission was delivered to him on the11th of July, the day he entered his twenty-eighth year. He embarked inSeptember from Boston, and in October arrived in London, where Messrs. Jay and Pinckney were then negotiating a treaty between Great Britainand the United States, who immediately admitted him to theirdeliberations. Concerning this treaty, which occasioned, soon after, such unexampled fury of opposition in the United States, Mr. Adams, atthe time, thus expressed his opinion: "The treaty is far from beingsatisfactory to either Mr. Jay or Mr. Pinckney. It is far below thestandard which would be advantageous to the country. It is probable, however, the negotiators will consent to it, as it is, in their opinion, preferable to a war. The satisfaction proposed to be made to the UnitedStates for the recent depredations on their commerce, the principalobject of Jay's mission, is provided for in as ample a manner as wecould expect. The delivery of the posts is protracted to a more distantday than is desirable. But, I think, the compensation made for thepresent and future detention of them will be a sufficient equivalent. The commerce with their West India islands, partially opened to us, willbe of great importance, and indemnifies for the deprivation of thefur-trade since the treaty of peace, as well as for the negroes carriedaway contrary to the engagements of the treaty, at least as far as itrespects the nation. As to the satisfaction we are to make, I think itis no more than is in justice due from us. The article which providesagainst the future confiscation of debts, and of property in the funds, is useful, because it is honest. If its operation should turn out moreadvantageous to them, it will be more honorable for us; and I never canobject to entering formally into an obligation to do that which, uponevery virtuous principle, ought to be done without it. As a treaty ofcommerce it will be indeed of little use to us, and we shall neverobtain anything more favorable so long as the principles of thenavigation act are obstinately adhered to by Great Britain. This systemis so much a favorite with the nation that no minister would dare todepart from it. Indeed, I have no idea we shall ever obtain, by compact, a better footing for our commerce with this country than that on whichit now stands; and therefore the shortness of time, limited for theoperation of this part of the compact, is, I think, beneficial to us. "

After remaining fifteen days in London, Mr. Adams sailed, on the 30th ofOctober, for Holland, landed at Hellevoetsluis, and proceeded withoutdelay to the Hague. 

His reception as the representative of the United States had scarcelybeen acknowledged by the President of the States General, before Hollandwas taken possession of by the French, under Pichegru. The Stadtholderfled, the tree of liberty was planted, and the French national flagdisplayed before the Stadthouse. The people were kept quiet by seventythousand French soldiers. The Stadtholder, the nobility, and theregencies of the cities, were all abolished, a provincial municipalityappointed, and the country received as an ally of France, under the nameof the Batavian Republic; the streets being filled with tri-coloredcockades, and resounding with the Carmagnole, or the Marseilles Hymn. Mr. Adams was visited by the representatives of the French people, andrecognized as the minister of a nation free like themselves, with whomthe most fraternal relations should be maintained. In response, heassured them of the attachment of his fellow-citizens for the Frenchpeople, who felt grateful for the obligations they were under to theFrench nation, and closed with demanding safety and protection for allAmerican persons and property in the country. 

Popular societies in Holland were among the most efficient means of thesuccess of the revolution, as they had been in France. Mr. Adams, beingsolicited to join one of them, declined, considering it improper in astranger to take part personally in the politics of the country. "Itwas, " he wrote, "unnecessary for me to look out for motives to justifymy refusal. I have an aversion to political popular societies ingeneral. To destroy an established power, they are undoubtedly anefficacious instrument, but in their nature they are fit for nothingelse. The reign of Robespierre has shown what use they make of powerwhen they obtain it. "

The station of Mr. Adams at the Hague gave him opportunities to acquainthimself with parties and persons, their motives and principles, of whichhe availed himself with characteristic industry. 

In October, 1795, he was directed by the Secretary of State to repair toEngland, and arriving there in November ensuing, he found he wasappointed to exchange ratifications of Mr. Jay's treaty with the Britishgovernment. This mission was far from pleasant to him. In effect it wasmerely ministerial, and so far as it might result in negotiation, he didnot anticipate any good. "I am convinced, " he wrote, "that Mr. Jay dideverything that was to be done; that he did so much affords me a proofof the wisdom with which he conducted the business, that grows strongerthe more I see. But circumstances will do more than any negotiation. Thepride of Britain itself must bend to the course of events. The rigor ofher system already begins to relax, and one year of war to her and peaceto us will be more favorable to our interests, and to the finalestablishment of our principles, than could possibly be effected bytwenty years of negotiation or war. "

While in England, the duties of his appointment brought him intofrequent intercourse with Lord Grenville and other leading Britishstatesmen of the period. After the objects of his mission had beenacceptably fulfilled, he received authority from his government toreturn to his station, at the Hague, in May, 1796. His time was theredevoted to official duties, to the claims of general society, to anextensive correspondence, the study of works on diplomacy, the Englishand Latin classics, and the Dutch and Italian languages. 

In August, 1796, he received from the Secretary of State an appointmentas minister plenipotentiary to the Court of Portugal, with directionsnot to quit the Hague until he received further instructions. These didnot reach him until the arrival of Mr. Murray, his successor, in July, 1797, when he took his departure for England. Truthfulness to himself, not less than to the public, characterized Mr. Adams. Every day had itsassigned object, which every hour successively, as far as possible, fulfilled. Daily he called himself to account for what he had done oromitted. At the close of every month and year he submitted himself toretrospection concerning fulfilled or neglected duties, judging himselfby a severe standard. 

On arriving in London, he found his appointment to the Court of Portugalsuperseded by another to the Court of Berlin, with directions not toproceed on the mission until he had received the necessary instructions. While waiting for these, an engagement he had formed during a formervisit to England was fulfilled, by his marriage, on the 26th of July, 1797, with Louisa Catharine Johnson, the daughter of Joshua Johnson, American consul at London; a lady highly qualified to support and toornament the various elevated stations he was destined to fill. Mr. Adams was reluctant to accept the appointment to Berlin, as it had beenmade by his father, who had succeeded Washington as President of theUnited States. "I have submitted to take it, " he immediately wrote tohis mother, "notwithstanding my former declaration to you and my father, made a short time ago. I have broken a resolution I had deliberatelyformed, and that I still think right; but I never acted morereluctantly. The tenure by which I am for the future to hold an officeof such a nature will take from me the satisfaction I have enjoyed, hitherto, in considering myself a public servant. " To his father hewrote: "I cannot, and ought not, to discuss with you _the propriety_ ofthe measure. I have undertaken the duty, and will discharge it to thebest of my ability, and will complain no further. But I most earnestlyentreat that whenever there shall be deemed no further occasion for aminister at Berlin I may be recalled, and that no nomination of me toany other public office whatever may ever again proceed from the presentchief magistrate. " His continuance in a diplomatic career had beenrepeatedly urged by President Washington. In August, 1795, he wrote toJohn Adams, then Vice-President: "Your son must not think of retiringfrom the walk he is now in (minister from the United States to Holland). His prospects, if he pursues it, are fair; and I shall be much mistakenif, in as short a time as can well be expected, he is not found at thehead of the diplomatic corps, let the government be administered bywhomsoever the people may choose. " In a letter dated 20th February, 1797, addressed to Mr. Adams, just before his entrance on thePresidency, Washington again wrote: "I have a strong hope that you willnot withhold merited promotion to Mr. John Quincy Adams because he isyour son. For, without intending to compliment the father or the mother, or to censure any others, I give it as my decided opinion that Mr. Adamsis the most valuable public character we have abroad, and that he willprove himself to be the ablest of all our diplomatic corps. If he wasnow to be brought into that line, or into any other public walk, I wouldnot, on the principles which have regulated my own conduct, disapprovethe caution hinted at in the letter. But he is already entered; thepublic, more and more, as he is known, are appreciating his talents andworth; and his country would sustain a loss if these are checked by overdelicacy on your part. "[4]

 [4] Sparks' Life and Writings of Washington, XI. , p. 56, and p. 188. 

This letter, communicated to Mr. Adams by his mother, induced himreluctantly to acquiesce in this appointment. In reply, he wrote: "Iknow with what delight your truly maternal heart has received everytestimonial of Washington's favorable voice. It is among the mostprecious gratifications of my life to reflect upon the pleasure which myconduct has given to my parents. The terms, indeed, in which such acharacter as Washington has repeatedly expressed himself concerning me, have left me nothing to wish, if they did not alarm me by their verystrength. How much, my dear mother, is required of me, to support andjustify such a judgment as that which you have copied into your letter!"

Mr. And Mrs. Adams embarked from Gravesend, and landed at Hamburg on the26th of October, and reached Berlin early in November. He was received, with gratifying expressions of regard for the United States, by CountFinkenstein, the prime minister; but, owing to the king's illness, anaudience could not be granted. After his death Mr. Adams was admitted topresentation and audience by his successor. New credentials, which wererequired, did not arrive until July, 1798, when Mr. Adams was fullyaccredited. 

The absence of the king from Berlin prevented the renewal of the treaty, which was not commenced until the ensuing autumn, nor completed, inconsequence of incidental delays, until the 11th of July, 1799, when itwas signed by all the king's ministers and Mr. Adams, and was afterwardsunanimously approved by the Senate of the United States. The object ofhis mission being fulfilled, Mr. Adams immediately wrote to his fatherthat he should, at any time, acquiesce in his recall. While waiting forthe decision of his government, he travelled, with his family, in Saxonyand Bohemia, and, in the ensuing summer, into Silesia. His observationsduring this tour were embodied in letters to his brother, Thomas B. Adams, and were published, without his authority, in Philadelphia, andsubsequently in England. The work contains interesting sketches ofSilesian life and manners, and important accounts of manufactures, mines, and localities; concluding with elaborate historical, geographical, and statistical statements of the province. 

The following passages are characteristic, and indicate the generalspirit of the work. "Count Finkenstein resides in this vicinity. He wasformerly president of the judicial tribunal at Custrin, but wasdismissed by Frederic II. , on the occasion of the miller Arnold's famouslawsuit; an instance in which the great king, from mere love of justice, committed the greatest injustice that ever cast a shade upon hischaracter. His anxiety, upon that occasion, to prove to the world thatin his courts of justice the beggar should be upon the same footing asthe prince, made him forget that in substantial justice the maxim oughtto bear alike on both sides, and that the prince should obtain his rightas much as the beggar. Count Finkenstein and several other judges of thecourt at Custrin, together with the High Chancellor Fürst, were alldismissed from their places, for doing their duty, and persisting in it, contrary to the will of the king, who, substituting his ideas of naturalequity in place of the prescriptions of positive law, treated them withthe utmost severity, for conduct which ought to have received hisfullest approbation. "

"Dr. Johnson, in his Life of Watts, has bestowed a just and exaltedencomium upon him for not disdaining to descend from the pride of geniusand the dignity of science to write for the wants and the capacities ofchildren. 'Every man acquainted, ' says he, 'with the common principlesof human action, will look with veneration on the writer who is at onetime combating Locke, and at another making _a catechism_ for childrenin their fourth year. ' But how much greater still is the tribute ofadmiration, irresistibly drawn from us, when we behold an absolutemonarch, the greatest general of his age, eminent as a writer in thehighest departments of literature, descending, in a manner, to teach thealphabet to the children of his kingdom; bestowing his care, hispersevering assiduity, his influence and his power, in diffusing plainand useful knowledge among his subjects, in opening to their minds thefirst and most important page of the book of science, in filling thewhole atmosphere they breathed with that intellectual fragrance whichhad before been imprisoned in the vials of learning, or enclosed withinthe gardens of wealth! Immortal Frederic! when seated on the throne ofPrussia, with kneeling millions at thy feet, thou wert only a king; onthe fields of Lutzen, of Torndoff, of Rosbach, of so many other scenesof human blood and anguish, thou wert only a hero; even in thy rare andglorious converse with the muses and with science thou wert only aphilosopher, a historian, a poet; but in this generous ardor, thisactive, enlightened zeal for the education of thy people, thou wert_truly great_--the father of thy country--the benefactor of mankind!"

In 1801, Mr. Adams received from his government permission to returnhome. After taking leave with the customary formalities, he left Berlin, sailed from Hamburg, and on the 4th of September, 1801, arrived in theUnited States. During his residence in Berlin his time was devoted toofficial labor and intellectual improvement; yet his letters show thathe was seldom, if ever, self-satisfied, being filled with aspirationsafter something higher and better than he could accomplish. Histranslations, at this period, embraced many satires of Juvenal, andWieland's Oberon from the original, into English verse; the last heintended for the press, had it not been superseded by the version ofSotheby. He also translated from the German a treatise, by Gentz, on theorigin and principles of the American Revolution, which he finished andtransmitted to the United States for publication, eulogizing it "as oneof the clearest accounts that exist of the rise and progress of theAmerican Revolution, in so small a compass; rescuing it from thedisgraceful imputation of its having proceeded from the same principles, and of its being conducted in the same spirit, as that of France. Thiserror has nowhere been more frequently repeated, nowhere been of morepernicious tendency, than in America itself. "

The last years of Mr. Adams' residence at the Court of Berlin werepainfully affected by the bitter party animadversions which assailed hisfather's administration, and which did not fail to bring within thesphere of their asperities the missions he had himself held in Europe. These feelings became intense on the publication of Alexander Hamilton'sletter "On the Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, President ofthe United States. " This letter, with the divisions in the cabinet atWashington, occasioned by the political friends of Hamilton, excited inthe breast of Mr. Adams a spirit, which, from affection for his father, and a sense of the injustice done to him, could not be otherwise thanindignant. Though concealed, it was not the less understood. He regardedMr. Hamilton's letter as the efficient cause of his father's loss ofpower, and attributed its influence to its being circulated at the eveof the presidential election, and to its adaptation to awaken prejudicesand excite party jealousies; although it contained nothing that couldjustly shake confidence in a statesman of long-tried experience andfidelity. He pronounced that letter as not only a full vindication, butthe best eulogium on his father's administration. 

 CHAPTER II. 

RESIDENCE IN BOSTON. --RETURNS TO THE BAR. --ELECTED TO THE SENATE OFMASSACHUSETTS. --TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. --HIS COURSE RELATIVETO THE ATTACK OF THE LEOPARD ON THE CHESAPEAKE. --RESIGNS HIS SEAT ASSENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES. --APPOINTED MINISTER TO RUSSIA. --FINALSEPARATION FROM THE FEDERAL PARTY. 

Under the circumstances stated in the preceding chapter, Mr. Adamsreturned to the United States in no disposition to coälesce with eitherdivision of the Federal party. He regarded it as fortunate for himselfthat events, in producing which he had no agency, had placed him in aposition free from any constructive pledges to a party which in itsoriginal form no longer existed, and at liberty to shape his futurecourse according to his own independent views of private interest andpublic duty. Resuming his residence in Boston, and his place at the barof Massachusetts, under circumstances far from being pleasant orencouraging, after eight years' employment in foreign official stations, he had old studies to revise, and new statutes and recent decisions toexplore. To the broad field of diplomacy had succeeded the intricate andnarrow windings of special pleading and local laws. His juniors were inthe field; by the failure of European bankers his property had beendiminished; he had a family to support; yet, neither dispirited norcomplaining, he reëntered his profession, and, devoting his leisurehours to literature and science, apparently abandoned the politicalarena, without manifesting a design or desire to return to it. But hewas not destined to remain long in private life. At this period theFederalists had lost the control of national affairs, but they retainedtheir superiority in Massachusetts. Their union as a party was notsustained by the same identity of feeling and view by which, in earlierperiods, it had been characterized. It was cemented rather by antipathyto the prevailing power than by any hope of regaining it. A division, more real than apparent, separated the friends of the elder Adams fromthose who, uniting with Hamilton, had condemned his policy in thepresidency. The former were probably larger in number; the latter hadthe advantage in talent, activity, and influence. Both soon united inplacing Mr. Adams in the Senate of the state, without any solicitationor intimation of political coïncidence from him. In this election theopponents of his father's policy were acquiescent rather than content. They knew the independence and self-relying spirit of Mr. Adams, hisrestiveness in the trammels of party, his disposition to lead ratherthan follow; and yielded silently to a result which they could notprevent. The spirit which they anticipated was soon made evident. 

At the annual organization of the state government it had been usual tochoose the members of the Governor's Council from his political friends. Mr. Adams at once proposed to place in it one or more of his politicalopponents. This measure, which he maintained was wise and prudent, wasregarded, according to the usual charity of party spirit, as designed togain favor with the Democracy, and was immediately rejected. In otherinstances his disposition to think and act independently of the Federalparty was manifested, and was of course not acceptable to its leaders. 

In November he was urged to accept a nomination as a member of the Houseof Representatives in Congress. This he refused, saying that "he wouldnot stand in the way of Mr. Quincy, "[1] who had been the candidate atthe preceding election. This objection was immediately removed, by anassurance of the previous determination of the latter to decline, and ofthe satisfaction with which he regarded the nomination of Mr. Adams. Theresult was unsuccessful. Out of _thirty-seven hundred votes_, WilliamEustis was elected by a majority of _fifty-nine_. The newspapersassigned as the cause that the day of the election was rainy. Mr. Adamssurmised that it was owing to the indifference to his success of theleaders of the old Federal party, and remarked on the occasion, "This isamong the thousand proofs how large a portion of Federalism is a merefair-weather principle, too weak to overcome a shower of rain. It showsthe degree of dependence that can be placed on such friends. As a partytheir adversaries are more sure and more earnest. "

 [1] The writer of this Memoir. 

In an oration, delivered in May of this year, before the MassachusettsCharitable Fire Society, Mr. Adams paid a just and feeling tribute tothe memory of George Richards Minot, then recently deceased, in whichthe character of that historian, the purity of his life, moral worth, and intellectual endowments, are celebrated with great fulness andtruth. In December he delivered, at Plymouth, an address commemorativeof the Pilgrim Fathers. 

During the remainder of the civil year Mr. Adams had more than onceindicated his independence of party, and his settled purpose of thinkingand acting on all subjects for himself. When, therefore, in February, 1803, a vacancy in the Senate of the United States occurred, thenomination of Mr. Adams was opposed by that of Timothy Pickering, whowas deemed by his friends better entitled to the office, from age andlong familiarity with public affairs. To their extreme disappointment, however, after three ballotings, without success, in the House ofRepresentatives, Mr. Adams was chosen, and his election was unanimouslyconfirmed by the Senate. In March following, another vacancy in theSenate of the United States having occurred, Mr. Pickering was elected. Thus, by a singular course of events, two statesmen were placed ascolleagues in the Senate of the United States, from Massachusetts, between whom, from antecedent circumstances and known want of sympathyin political opinion, cordial coöperation could scarcely be anticipated. Apparent harmony of principles and views was, however, manifested. Mr. Adams well understood the delicacy of his position, arising from theill-concealed jealousy of the Federalists, on the one hand, and the opendislike of the Democracy, on the other. He considered himself placedbetween two batteries, neither of which regarded him as one of theirsoldiers. He early adopted two principles, as rules of his politicalconduct, from which he never deviated, --to seek or solicit no publicoffice, and, to whatever station he might be called by his country, touse no instrument for success or advancement but efficient publicservice. 

In October, 1803, Mr. Adams removed his family to Washington, and tookhis seat in the Senate of the United States. On the 26th of that monthhe took ground in opposition to the administration upon the billenabling the President to take possession of Louisiana, and on which hevoted in coïncidence with his Federal colleagues. His objection was tothe second section, which provided "_that all the military, civil andjudicial powers_, exercised by the officers of the existing governmentof Louisiana, shall be vested in _such person and persons_, and shall be_exercised in such manner, as the President of the United States shalldirect_. " The transfer of such a power to the President of the UnitedStates, Mr. Adams deemed and maintained, was unconstitutional; and hecalled upon the supporters of the bill to point out the article, section, or paragraph, of the constitution, which authorized Congress toconfer it on the President. He regarded the constitution of the UnitedStates to be one of limited powers; and he declared that he could notreconcile it to his judgment that the authority exercised in thissection was within the legitimate powers conferred by the constitution. Many years afterwards, when his vote on this occasion was made a subjectof party censure and obloquy, in addition to the preceding reasons Mr. Adams gave to the public the following solemn convictions whichinfluenced his course:

 "The people of the United States had not--much less had the people of Louisiana--given to the Congress of the United States the power to form this union; and, until the consent of both people could be obtained, every act of legislation by the Congress of the United States over the people of Louisiana, distinct from that of taking possession of the territory, was, in my view, unconstitutional, and an act of usurped authority. My opinion, therefore, was that the sense of the people, both of the United States and Louisiana, should be immediately taken: of the first, by an amendment of the constitution, to be proposed and acted upon in the regular form; and of the last, by taking the votes of the people of Louisiana immediately after possession of the territory should be taken by the United States under the treaty. I had no doubt that the consent of both people would be obtained with as much ease and little more loss of time than it actually took Congress to prepare an act for the government of the territory; and I thought this course of proceeding, while it would terminate in the same result as the immediate exercise of ungranted transcendental powers by Congress, would serve as a landmark of correct principles for future times, --as a memorial of homage to the fundamental principles of civil society, to the primitive sovereignty of the people, and the unalienable rights of man. "

On the 3d of the ensuing November he manifested his independent spiritby voting in favor of the appropriation of eleven millions of dollarsfor carrying into effect the treaty for the purchase of Louisiana, inopposition to the other senators of the Federal party;--a vote which, many years afterwards, in consequence of comments of party, he took theopportunity publicly to explain. The critical nature of the course towhich he foresaw he was destined was thus expressed by himself: "I havehad already occasion to experience, what I had before reason to expect, the danger of adhering to my own principles. The country is so totallygiven up to the spirit of party, that not to follow the one or the otheris an unexpiable offence. The worst of these has the popular current inits favor, and uses its triumph with all the unprincipled fury offaction; while the other is waiting, with all the impatience of revenge, for the time when its turn may come to oppress and punish by the popularfavor. But my choice is made. If I cannot hope to give satisfaction tomy country, I am at least determined to have the approbation of my ownreflections. "

On the 10th of January, 1804, Mr. Adams introduced two resolutions forthe consideration of the Senate: the one declaring that "the people ofthe United States have never, in any manner, delegated to this Senatethe power of giving its legislative concurrence to any act imposingtaxes upon the inhabitants of Louisiana without their consent;" theother, "that, by concurring in any act of legislation for imposing taxesupon the inhabitants of Louisiana, without their consent, this Senatewould assume a power unwarranted by the constitution, and dangerous tothe liberties of the people of the United States. " After a debate ofthree hours, both resolutions were rejected, as he anticipated; onlythree senators--Tracy, of Connecticut, Olcott, of New Hampshire, andWhite, of Delaware--voting with him in favor of the first, andtwenty-two voting in the negative; Mr. Pickering, his colleague, askingto be excused from voting, and Mr. Hillhouse, the remaining Federalistin the Senate, absenting himself, obviously to avoid voting: after whichthe last was unanimously rejected. Concerning his course on thisoccasion Mr. Adams wrote: "I have no doubt of incurring much censure andobloquy for this measure. I hope I shall be prepared for and able tobear it, from the consciousness of my sincerity and of my duty. "

Mr. Adams alone spoke against the bill for the temporary government ofLouisiana, which passed on the ensuing 18th of February; and only foursenators--Messrs. Hillhouse, Olcott, Plummer, and Stone--voted with himin the negative; Mr. Pickering absenting himself from the question. 

In August, 1805, the corporation of Harvard College elected Mr. AdamsProfessor of Rhetoric and Oratory on the Boylston foundation. Aftermodifications of the statutes, which he suggested, were adopted, heaccepted, and immediately entered upon a course of preparatory studies, reviving his knowledge of the Greek, and making researches amongEnglish, Latin, and French writers, relative to the objects of hisprofessorship. In the ensuing December, as a member of the NinthCongress, he took an active part in the debates and measures of theSenate. 

In January, 1806, he was appointed on a committee, of which Mr. Smith, of Maryland, was chairman, on that part of the President's message"relative to the spoliations of our commerce on the high seas, and thenew principles assumed by the British courts of admiralty, as a pretextfor the condemnation of our vessels in their prize courts. " The debatesin that committee resulted in two resolutions, both offered by Mr. Adams, adopted, reported, and finally passed by the Senate, with somemodifications; Mr. Pickering, Mr. Hillhouse, and Mr. Tracy, the threeFederalists in the Senate, voting for them. 

British aggressions and British policy towards neutrals were, in thejudgment of Mr. Adams, to be resisted at every hazard. His opinions onthese subjects had been formed from opportunities which no otherAmerican statesman had equally enjoyed. In 1783 he had been present atthe signature of the treaty of peace, and had imbibed the opinions andfeelings then entertained by the American ministers. In 1795 he had beenengaged in negotiations with British statesmen, particularly with LordGrenville. Their views in respect of American commercial rights heconsidered selfish and insolent; resistance to them as an emanation fromthe spirit of patriotism, to which others gave the name of "prejudice, "or "antipathy. " Of these opinions and feelings he made no concealment;and to them may be traced the course of policy which, shortly after, separated him from the Federal party, and subjected him temporarily totheir reproaches and censures. 

In June, 1806, Mr. Adams was inaugurated Professor of Oratory in HarvardUniversity, and during the ensuing two years delivered a course oflectures on Rhetoric and Oratory, which have been published in twooctavo volumes, and constitute an enduring monument of fidelity, laborious research, and eloquent illustration of the objects and dutiesof his academic station. While engaged in these labors, an eventoccurred which intensely excited his feelings as a man and a statesman. 

On the 22d of June, 1807, during the recess of Congress, an attack bythe British ship Leopard upon the American frigate Chesapeake, by whichseveral of her crew were killed, and four of them taken away, createdsurprise and indignation throughout the Union. From the previous stateof his opinions, no one partook more strongly of these feelings than Mr. Adams. He immediately urged his political friends to call a town-meetingin Faneuil Hall on the subject; but the measure was utterly discouragedby the leaders of the Federal party. Soon, however, a meeting of theinhabitants of Boston and the neighboring towns was called at theStatehouse to consider that outrage. The meeting was not numerous, andconsisted almost entirely of the friends of the administration. Mr. Gerry was chosen chairman, and Mr. Adams, who had attended it, wasappointed on the committee to prepare appropriate resolutions. These, when reported and modified according to suggestions made by Mr. Adams, were unanimously adopted. When it was intimated to him that his coursewas regarded as symptomatic of party apostasy, he replied that his senseof duty should never yield to the pleasure of party. 

Soon after, in consequence of letters from a committee of correspondenceat Norfolk, a town-meeting was called at Faneuil Hall, at whichresolutions were passed, reported by a committee of which Mr. Adams waschairman. Mr. Otis offered a resolution calling on government for theprotection of a naval force; but, Mr. Adams objecting, it was withdrawn. 

On the 27th of October, 1807, Mr. Jefferson called a special meeting ofCongress, chiefly on account of the affair of the Chesapeake. On thissubject the discrepancy of the opinions and views of Mr. Adams withthose of the leaders of the Federal party were so openly manifested, that his separation from it was generally anticipated. He had now been amember of the Senate during four sessions, but had not been permitted toexercise any decided influence on the subjects of debate. Many of hispropositions had failed under circumstances which indicated adisposition to discourage him from such attempts. Some, which on hismotion had been negatived, had been subsequently easily carried, whenmoved by members of the administration party. In respect of the generalpolicy of the country, he had been uniformly in a small and decreasingminority. His opinion and votes, however, had been oftener in unisonwith the administration than with their opponents; and he had met withquite as much opposition from his party friends as from theiradversaries. At this crisis, however, he took the lead, and, immediatelyon the delivery of the President's message, offered to the Senate tworesolutions. 1st. "That so much of the President's message as related tothe recent outrages committed by British armed vessels within thejurisdiction and in the waters of the United States, and to thelegislative provisions which may be expedient as resulting from them, bereferred to a select committee, with leave to report by bill orotherwise. " 2d. "That so much of the said message as relates to theformation of the seamen of the United States into a special militia, forthe purpose of occasional defence of the harbors against sudden attacks, be referred to a special committee, with leave to report by bill orotherwise. "

Both these resolutions were adopted, and on the first Mr. Adams wasappointed chairman. Soon after, in the course of the same session, Mr. Adams took the incipient step on several important subjects, and wasappointed chairman of the committee to whom they were intrusted in eachof them; thus manifesting that he intended no longer to take asubordinate part in the proceedings of the Senate, and that adisposition to disappoint him was no longer a feeling entertained by amajority of that body. 

On the 24th of November, Mr. Adams reported a bill on the Britishoutrages, and, on a motion to strike out of it a section providing that"no British armed vessel shall be admitted to enter the harbors andwaters under the jurisdiction of the United States, except when forcedin by distress, by the dangers of the sea, or when charged with publicdispatches, or coming as a public packet. " Mr. Adams, with twenty-fiveothers, voted in the negative. Messrs. Goodrich, Pickering, andHillhouse, the only three Federal senators, alone voted in theaffirmative. On the final passage of the bill, Mr. Adams voted with themajority, in the affirmative, and the three Federal senators in thenegative. 

On the 18th of December, 1807, Mr. Jefferson sent a message to Congressrecommending an embargo. A bill in conformity having been immediatelyreported, a motion was made, in the Senate, that the rule which requiredthree different readings on three different days should be suspended forthree days. Violent debates ensued. On the vote to suspend, Mr. Adamsvoted in the affirmative. His colleague and every other Federalist votedin the negative. 

On the final passage of the bill laying the embargo, and on the subjectof British aggressions, Mr. Adams again repeatedly separated from hiscolleagues and the other members of the Federal party, and voted incoïncidence with the administration. 

Newspaper asperities and severities in debate ensued, which hesupported, as he averred, in the consciousness that the course of theadministration was the only safe one for his country, and in the beliefthat it would be justified by events, and receive the sanction of futuretimes. His course had been, however, opposite to that of the otherFederal members in both houses of Congress. On a subject so momentous tothe commercial states, his colleague, Mr. Pickering, thought proper tojustify to the people of Massachusetts the course and motives of theFederal party, and on the 16th of February, 1808, addressed a letter toJames Sullivan, Governor of that commonwealth, stating what papers "hadbeen submitted to Congress by the President in justification of theembargo, " and endeavored to show, by facts and reasonings, that themeasure had been passed "without sufficient motive or legitimate object;that the avowed dangers were imaginary and assumed; and that the realmotives for it were contained in those French dispatches which had beenconfidentially submitted to Congress, and withdrawn by Mr. Jefferson, inwhich the French emperor had declared that he will have no neutrals;"that the embargo was "a substitute--a mild compliance with this harshdemand;" that he (Mr. Pickering) had reason to believe that thePresident contemplated its continuance until the French emperor repealedhis decrees. He concluded by asserting that an embargo was not necessaryto the safety of our seamen, our vessels, or our merchandise, and wascalculated to mislead the public mind to the public ruin. 

This letter, though intended for the Legislature of Massachusetts, wasnot communicated to it, the political path of Governor Sullivan notbeing coïncident with that of Colonel Pickering. But it was soonpublished by a friend of the writer. In a letter to Harrison G. Otis, onthe 31st of March, 1808, Mr. Adams published a reply, stating that Mr. Pickering, in enumerating the _pretences_ (for he thinks there were nocauses) for the embargo, totally omitted the British orders in council, which, although not made the subject of special communication by thePresident, had been published in the _National Intelligencer_ antecedentto the embargo, the sweeping tendency of whose effects formed, to hisunderstanding, a powerful motive, and together with the papers adecisive one, for assenting to the embargo; a measure which he regardedas "the only shelter from the tempest, the last refuge of our violatedpeace. " He adds: "The most serious effect of Mr. Pickering's letter isits tendency to reconcile the commercial states to the servitude ofBritish protection, and war with all the rest of Europe. " Regarding itas a proposition to strike the standard of the nation, he proceeded toinvestigate the claims of Great Britain in respect of impressment, andto her denying neutrals the right of any commerce with her enemies andtheir colonies, which was not allowed in time of peace. This result ofthe rule of 1756, he asserted, was "in itself and its consequences oneof the deadliest poisons in which it was possible for Great Britain totinge the weapons of her hostility. " The decrees of France and Spain, bywhich every neutral vessel which submitted to English search wasdeclared "_denationalized_, " and became English property, though cruelin execution, and too foolish and absurd to be refuted, were but thereasoning of British jurists, and the simple application to thecircumstances and powers of France of the rule of the war of 1756. Mr. Adams then proceeded to state and reason upon other aggressions of GreatBritain on our commerce, and asserted that "between unqualifiedsubmission and offensive resistance against the war declared againstAmerican commerce by the concurring decrees of all the belligerentpowers, the embargo had been adopted; and having the double tendency ofpromoting peace and preparing for war, in its operation is the greatadvantage which more than outweighs all its evils. "

A course thus independent, and in harmony with the policy of theadministration, caused Mr. Adams to become obnoxious to suspicionsinevitably incident to every man who, in critical periods, amid partystruggles, changes his political relations. Of the dissatisfaction ofthe Legislature of Massachusetts Mr. Adams received an immediate proof. His senatorial term would expire on the 3d of March, 1809. To indicatetheir disapprobation of his course, they anticipated the time ofelecting a senator of the United States, which, according to usage, would have been in the legislative session of that year. James Lloydwas chosen senator from Massachusetts by a vote of two hundred andforty-eight over two hundred and thirteen for Mr. Adams, in the Houseof Representatives, and of twenty-one over seventeen, in the Senate. On the same day anti-embargo resolutions were passed in both branchesby like majorities. 

The next day Mr. Adams addressed a letter to that Legislature, in whichhe stated that it had been his endeavor, deeming it his duty, to supportthe administration of the general government in all necessary measuresto preserve the persons and property of our citizens from depredation, and to vindicate the rights essential to the independence of ourcountry; that certain resolutions having passed the Legislature, expressing disapprobation of measures to which, under these motives, he had given assent, and which he considered as enjoining upon therepresentatives of the state in Congress a _sort_ of opposition to thenational administration in which, consistently with his principles, hecould not concur, he, therefore, to give the Legislature an opportunityto place in the Senate of the United States a member whose views mightbe more coincident with those they entertained, resigned his seat inthat body. James Lloyd was immediately chosen by the Legislature totake the seat thus vacated. 

In the midst of these political agitations Mr. Adams was constantlyemployed in writing and delivering lectures, as Professor of Rhetoric, and in pursuing his studies of the Greek language and the science ofastronomy. During the ensuing summer, the neglect or withdrawal of someformer friends, and the open asperities of others, were often trying tohis feelings. Rumors were circulated of promises made or of expectationsheld out to him by the administration; and, although he unequivocallydenied their truth, belief in them was in accordance with the partypassions of the moment, and was diligently inculcated on the popularmind by pamphlets and newspapers. Also in the summer and winter of 1808he had to support an oppressive weight of obloquy, from which he had norelief, as he asserted, but an unshaken confidence that his course hadbeen coïncident with the true interests of his country, and wouldfinally be approved by it. 

In the winter of 1809 he attended the Supreme Court of the United Statesat Washington, and while there first received from Mr. Madison, two daysafter his inauguration as President of the United States, an intimationof his intention to offer him the appointment of minister plenipotentiaryto St. Petersburg. When this nomination and the concurrence of the Senatebecame public, it was seized and commented upon as unquestionableevidence of the motives which had occasioned the change in his politicalcourse, and was made the subject of severe animadversions in all theforms in which indignant partisans are accustomed to express censure andreproach. This appointment his political adversaries announced as at oncea proof and the reward of his apostasy. Such insinuations were felt byMr. Adams as an insupportable wrong. For seven years he had previouslyrepresented his country at foreign courts, in stations to which he hadbeen first appointed by Washington himself; who had declared that he mustnot think of retiring from the diplomatic line, and pronounced him theablest, and destined ultimately to become the head, of the diplomaticcorps. [2] Under these circumstances he felt that even party spirit itselfmight have spared towards him this reproach, and have recognized highermotives than seeking and receiving reward for party services. Actuated bythis sense of wrong, while preparing for his departure on the mission toRussia, he issued from the press a series of strictures, at once severeand vindictive, on the policy of the Federal leaders, in the form of areview of the writings of Fisher Ames; which were regarded by the public, and probably intended by himself, as an evidence of irreconcilableabandonment of the party to which he had formerly belonged, and apermanent adhesion to that of the national administration. 

 [2] See pages 18 and 19. 

 CHAPTER III. 

VOYAGE. --ARRIVAL AT ST. PETERSBURG. --PRESENTATION TO THE EMPEROR. --RESIDENCE AT THE IMPERIAL COURT. --DIPLOMATIC INTERVIEWS. --PRIVATESTUDIES. --APPOINTED ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO TREAT FOR PEACEWITH GREAT BRITAIN. --LEAVES RUSSIA. 

After resigning his professorship at Harvard University, Mr. Adamsembarked from Boston, with Mrs. Adams and his youngest son, on the 5thof August, 1809, in a merchant ship, bound to St. Petersburg. During aboisterous and tedious voyage his classical and diplomatic studieswere pursued with characteristic assiduity. The English were then atwar with Denmark; and, as they entered the Baltic, a British cruisersent an officer to examine their papers. The same day they wereboarded by a Danish officer, who ordered the ship to Christiansand. The captain thought it prudent to refuse, and to seek shelter from anequinoctial gale in the harbor of Flecknoe. The papers of the ship andMr. Adams' commission were examined, and he afterwards went up toChristiansand, where he found thirty-eight American vessels, which hadbeen brought in by privateers between the months of May and August, and were detained for adjudication. Sixteen had been condemned, andhad appealed to the higher tribunals of the country. The Americansthus detained presented a memorial to Mr. Adams, to be forwarded tothe President of the United States. The sight of so many of hiscountrymen in distress was extremely painful, and he determined tomake an effort for their relief, without waiting for express authorityfrom his government. 

On resuming their voyage, their course was again impeded by a Britishsquadron. An officer was sent on board by Captain Dundas, of theStately, a sixty-four gun ship, to examine their papers. He comparedthe personal appearance of each of the seamen with his protection, threatening to take a native of Charlestown because his person did notcorrespond with the description, and finally ordered the ship toreturn through the Cattegat. 

Mr. Adams immediately went on board the Stately, showed hiscommission, and remonstrated with Captain Dundas, who referred him toAdmiral Bertie, the commander of the squadron, who was in hisstateroom on the quarter-deck. After a protracted opposition, theadmiral acknowledged the usage of nations, and, as an ambassador, permitted him to pursue his voyage by the usual course through thesound. From these and similar difficulties, Mr. Adams did not land atSt. Petersburg until the 23d of October. 

The Chancellor of the empire, Count Romanzoff, received Mr. Adams incourtly state, and requested a copy of his credential letter, with anassurance of the pleasure his appointment had given him personally. His presentation was postponed, from the temporary indisposition ofthe emperor; but he was immediately invited, by Count Romanzoff, to adiplomatic dinner, in a style of the highest splendor. Among thecompany was the French ambassador, M. De Caulaincourt, Duke deVicence, the foreign ministers then at the Russian Court, and many ofthe nobility. In the mansion of the Chancellor Mr. Adams had dined in1781, as secretary of Mr. Dana, in the same splendid style, with theMarquis de Verac, at that time French minister at the Russian Court. His mind was more impressed with the recollection of the magnificencehe had then witnessed on the same spot, and with reflections on themutability of human fortune, than with the gorgeous scene around him. 

The Emperor Alexander received Mr. Adams alone, in his cabinet, andexpressed his pleasure at seeing him at St. Petersburg. Mr. Adams, onpresenting his credentials, said that the President of the UnitedStates had desired him to express the hope that his mission would beconsidered as a proof of respect for the person and character of hismajesty, as an acknowledgment of the many testimonies of good-will hehad already given to the United States, and of a desire to strengthencommercial relations between them and his provinces. The emperorreplied, that, in everything depending on him, he should be happy tocontribute to the increase of their friendly relations; that it washis wish to establish a just system of maritime rights, and that heshould adhere invariably to those he had declared. He then enteredinto a confidential exposition of the obstacles then existing to ageneral pacification, and of the policy of the different Europeanpowers, and said that he considered the system of the United Statestowards them as wise and just. Mr. Adams replied, that the UnitedStates, being a great commercial and pacific nation, were deeplyinterested in a system which would give security to commerce in timeof war. It was hoped this great blessing to humanity would beaccomplished by his imperial majesty himself; and that the UnitedStates, by all means consistent with their peace, and their separationfrom the political system of Europe, would contribute to the supportof the liberal principles to which his majesty had expressed so strongand just an attachment. The emperor replied, that between Russia andthe United States there could be no interference of interests, nocause for dissension; but that, by means of commerce, the two statesmight be greatly useful to each other; and his desire was to give thegreatest extension and facility to these means of mutual interest. Passing to other topics, he made many inquiries relative to the citiesof the United States. 

The empress and the empress mother each gave Mr. Adams a privateaudience; and, after Mrs. Adams had also been presented to theimperial family, they were invited to a succession of splendidentertainments. "The formalities of these court presentations, " Mr. Adams remarked, "are so trifling and insignificant in themselves, andso important in the eyes of princes and courtiers, that they are muchmore embarrassing to an American than business of greater importance. It is not safe or prudent to despise them, nor practicable for aperson of rational understanding to value them. "

As the balls and parties given by the emperor, the foreign ministers, and the nobility, did not usually terminate until four o'clock in themorning, they so essentially interfered with the studies and officialengagements of Mr. Adams, that he determined, as far as his stationpermitted, to relinquish attending them. 

In December he requested the Chancellor to solicit the emperor tointerpose his good offices with the Danish government for therestoration of American property sequestrated in the ports ofHolstein. Count Romanzoff, in reply, stated that the emperor tookgreat pleasure in complying with that request, and was gratified bythis opportunity to show his friendly disposition towards the UnitedStates, and immediately ordered the Chancellor to represent to theDanish government the wish of the emperor that the American propertymight be examined and restored as soon as possible. The Danishgovernment acceded at once to the emperor's desire; and the effect ofhis interposition was gratefully acknowledged by the Americans whoseproperty was liberated. 

The residence of Mr. Adams in Russia was during an eventful period. The Emperor Alexander was at first endeavoring to avoid a collisionwith Bonaparte, by yielding to his policy; and afterwards, on hisinvasion, was engaged in driving him out of Russia, bereft of his armyand continental influence. During these years the release or relief ofAmerican vessels and seamen from the effects of the French emperor'sBerlin and Milan decrees, and from other seizures and sequestrations, were the chief objects to which Mr. Adams directed his attention. 

His subsequent attempts to establish permanent commercial relationsbetween the United States and Russia were favorably received by thatgovernment. The chancellor of the empire, Count Romanzoff, acknowledged the importance of a treaty between Russia and the UnitedStates, and intimated that the only obstacle was the convulsed stateof opinion at that period throughout the commercial world, which wassuch that "it hardly seemed possible to agree to anything which hadcommon sense in it. " Count Romanzoff conducted towards Mr. Adams notonly with official respect, but with cordiality. On one occasion hetransmitted to him by his private secretary a work relative to anarmed neutrality, which was preparing under his auspices forpublication, requesting the American minister to make suchobservations upon it as he thought proper. 

The courteous manners of the Emperor Alexander, his apparent desire toconciliate the United States, and the personal intercourse to which headmitted its representative, were frequently acknowledged by Mr. Adams. In the midst of the splendor of the Russian Court, and themagnificent entertainments of its ministers and of residentplenipotentiaries, some of whom expended fifty thousand roubles ayear, and the ambassador from the French emperor over four hundredthousand, he maintained the simplicity of style suited at once to hissalary and to the character of the country he represented. Loans to anindefinite amount were proffered to him by mercantile houses. These heuniformly declined, though under circumstances of great temptation toaccept them. "The opportunities, " he wrote, "of thus anticipating myregular income, it is difficult to resist. But I am determined to doit. The whole of my life has been one continued experience of thedifficulty of a man's adhering to the principle of living within hisincome; the first and most important principle of private economy. Inthis country beyond all others, and in my situation more than anyother, the temptations to expense amount almost to compulsion. I havewithstood them hitherto, and hope for firmness of character towithstand them in future. "

In connection with this topic, the following anecdote was related byMr. Adams: "As I was walking, this morning (in May, 1811), I was metby the emperor, who was also walking. As he approached he said, 'Monsieur Adams, il y a cent ans que je ne vous ai vu, ' and took mecordially by the hand. After some common observations, he asked mewhether I intended to take a house in the country this summer. I said'No; that I had for some time that intention, but I had given itup, '--'And why?' said he. I was hesitating upon an answer, when herelieved me from my embarrassment by saying, 'Peut-être sont-ce desconsiderations de finance. ' As he said it in perfect good humor, andwith a smile, I replied, in the same manner, 'Mais, Sire, elles y sontpour une bonne partie. '--'Fort bien, ' said he, 'vous avez raison. Ilfaut toujours proportionner la depense à la recette;' a maxim, "remarks Mr. Adams, "worthy of an emperor, though few emperors practiseupon it. "

The customs, manners, and habits, of the nobility and the people;their public institutions, edifices, monuments, and collections in thefine arts; the overweening influence of the clergy, their power andpolitical subserviency; the character of the foreign ministers, andthe policy of the courts they represented, were carefully observed andnoted down for future thought and illustration. 

Nor were his researches restricted to subjects of diplomatic duty, orto objects immediately connected with his foreign relations. He studiedthe language and history of Russia, the course and usages of its trade, especially in relation to China, and made laborious inquiries into theproportions of Russian, English, and French weights, measures, andcoins. In obtaining a minute accuracy in these proportions, he employedmany hours; on which he observed, "I fear I shall never attain them, and the usefulness of which is at least problematical;[1] but '_Trahitsua quemque ipsa voluntas_;' my studies generally command me--I seldomcontrol them. "

 [1] The Report of Mr. Adams, when Secretary of State, on weights and measures, at the call of Congress, sufficiently evidences the ultimate usefulness of these researches. 

The progress of the seasons in Russia, the rising and the setting ofthe sun, were daily noted, as also the variation of the climate, bythe thermometer. His thirst for knowledge, and his desire ofinvestigating causes and effects, were never satiated. 

Astronomy was with him a subject of early and intense interest. Hestudied the works of Schubert, Lalande, Biot, and Lacroix, andconstantly observed the heavens, and noticed their phenomena, accordingto the calendar. By Langlet's and Dufresnoy's tables he attempted toascertain with precision the Arabian and Turkish computations of time, comparing them with those of Christian nations. From astronomy andchronology he was drawn into the study of mathematics, and thelogarithms in the tables of Collet. 

Neither were the works of the ancient philosophers and orators omittedin the sphere of his studies. The works of Plato, the orations ofDemosthenes, Isocrates, Æschines, and Cicero, were not only read, butmade the subject of critical analysis, comparison, and reflection. 

Religion was also in his mind a predominating element. A practice, which he prescribed to himself, and never omitted, of reading dailyfive chapters in the Bible, familiarized his mind with its pages. Inconnection with these studies he read habitually the works of Butler, Bossuet, Tillotson, Massillon, Atterbury, and Watts. With such an ardorfor knowledge, and universality in its pursuit, it is not surprisingthat he should say, as on one occasion he did, "I feel nothing like thetediousness of time. I suffer nothing like _ennui_. Time is too shortfor me, rather than too long. If the day was forty-eight hours, insteadof twenty-four, I could employ them all, if I had but eyes and hands toread and write. "

In 1810, citizens of the United States, who had formed a settlement onthe north-west coast of North America, were embarrassed in theirintercourse with China, by the Chinese mistaking American for Russianvessels. In a conversation with Mr. Adams on the means of avoidingthis difficulty, Count Romanzoff described the obstacles the Russianshad experienced in their commerce with China. He stated that in thereign of Catharine II. The Emperor of China complained of a governorof a province bordering on Russia, as "a bad man;" in consequence ofwhich, the empress caused him to be removed. This concession did notsatisfy the Chinese emperor, who declared the punishment insufficient, and demanded that "_the offender should be impaled alive by way ofatonement_. " This demand so shocked Catharine that she issued anedict prohibiting her subjects from all commercial relations withChina. This edict continued in force until the Chinese themselvessought for a renewal of their former intercourse, when the empressyielded her resentment to policy. 

The loss of time from the civilities and visits of his numerousdiplomatic associates was annoying to Mr. Adams. "I have beenengaged, " he wrote, "the whole forenoon; and though I rise at sixo'clock, I am sometimes unable to find time to write only part of aprivate letter in the course of the day. These visits take up so muchof my time, that I sometimes think of taking a resolution not toreceive them; but, on the other hand, so much information important tobe possessed, and particularly relative to current political events, is to be collected from them, that they are rather to be encouragedthan discountenanced. "

"The French ambassador, " writes Mr. Adams, "assured me that he hopedthe difference between his country and mine would soon be settled, andrequested me to inform my government that it was the desire of theEmperor of France, and of his ministers, to come to the best termswith the United States; that they knew our interests were the same, but he was perfectly persuaded that, if any other person but Gen. Armstrong was there, our business might be settled entirely to oursatisfaction. I told him that, as I was as desirous that we shouldcome to a good understanding, I regretted very much that anythingpersonal to General Armstrong should be considered by his governmentas offensive; that I was sure the government of the United Stateswould regret it also, and would wish, on learning it, to be informedwhat were the occasions of displeasure which he had given. 'C'estd'abord un très galant homme, ' said the ambassador; 'but he nevershows himself, and upon every little occasion, when by a verbalexplanation with the minister General Armstrong might obtain anything, he writes peevish notes. ' This appears to me, " observes Mr. Adams, "anintriguing manoeuvre, of which the minister thinks I might be madethe dupe. "

On one occasion, Count Romanzoff requested an interview with Mr. Adams, and, among other inquiries, asked what could be done to restorefreedom and security to commerce. He replied, that, "setting aside allofficial character and responsibility, and speaking as an individualupon public affairs, " as Count Romanzoff had requested, he thought thebest course towards peace was for his excellency to convince theFrench government that the continental system, as they called it, andas they managed it, was promoting to the utmost extent the views ofEngland, and, instead of impairing her commerce, was securing to herthat of the whole world, and was pouring into her lap the means ofcontinuing the war just as long as her ministers should consider itexpedient. He could hardly conceive that the Emperor Napoleon was soblind as not to have made that discovery already. Three years'experience, with the effects of it becoming every day more flagrant, had made the inference too clear and unquestionable. The EmperorNapoleon, with all his power, could neither control the elements northe passions of mankind. He had found his own brother could not orwould not carry his system into execution, and had finally cast at hisfeet the crown he had given him, rather than continue to be hisinstrument any longer. Count Romanzoff gravely questioned thestatement of Mr. Adams respecting the commercial prosperity ofEngland, but admitted his views in general to be correct, saying that, as long as a system was agreed upon, he thought exceptions from itought not to be allowed. Mr. Adams then asked him how that waspossible, when the Emperor Napoleon himself was the first to make suchexceptions, and to give licenses for a direct trade with England?Count Romanzoff replied, that he thought all such licenses wrong, andhe believed that there were not so many of them as was pretended. There was indeed one case of a vessel coming to St. Petersburg bothwith an English license and a license from the Emperor Napoleon. Hewas of opinion that she ought to be confiscated for having the Englishlicense. But the French commercial and diplomatic agents were verydesirous that she might go free, on account of her French license; andperhaps the Emperor, in consideration of his ally, might so determine. Romanzoff complained bitterly that all the ancient establishedprinciples, both of commercial and political rectitude, had, in amanner, vanished from the world; and observed that, with all herfaults, England had the advantage over her neighbors, of havinghitherto most successfully resisted all the innovations upon ancientprinciples and establishments. For his own part, since he had been atthe head of affairs, he could sincerely protest one wish had been atthe bottom of all his policy, and the aim of all his labors, --and thatwas universal peace. 

In 1811 Mr. Adams received from the Secretary of State a commission ofan Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; anappointment which he immediately declined. 

In 1812 the emperor directed Count Romanzoff to inquire whether, if heshould offer his mediation to effect a pacification between the UnitedStates and Great Britain, Mr. Adams was aware of any objection on thepart of his government. He replied, that, speaking only from a generalknowledge of its sentiments, the proposal of the emperor would beconsidered a new evidence of his regard and friendship for the UnitedStates, whatever determination might be formed. Under this assurance, the offer was made, transmitted, and immediately accepted. In July, 1813, Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Bayard, being associated with Mr. Adams onthis mission, arrived at St. Petersburg, bringing credentials, for thepurpose of commencing a negotiation, under the mediation of theemperor. 

On communicating these credentials to Count Romanzoff, Mr. Adamsinformed him that he had received instructions from the Americangovernment to remain at St. Petersburg under the commission he hadheretofore held; and that he had been mistaken in supposing that hiscolleagues had other destination, independent of this mission. Hisconjecture had been founded on the doubt whether the President wouldhave appointed this mission solely upon the supposition that themediation would be accepted by the British government; but he was nowinstructed that the President, considering the acceptance of theBritish government as probable, though aware that if they shouldreject it this measure might wear the appearance of precipitation, thought it more advisable to incur that risk than the danger ofprolonging unnecessarily the war for six or nine months, as mighthappen if the British should immediately have accepted the mediation, and he should have delayed this step until he was informed of it. Itwas with the President a great object to manifest, not only a cheerfulacceptance on the part of the United States, but in a signal mannerhis sentiments of consideration and respect for the emperor, and to dohonor to the motives on which he offered his mediation. After hearingthese statements of Mr. Adams, the emperor directed Count Romanzoff toexpress his particular gratification with the honorable notice theAmerican government had taken of his offer to effect a pacificationbetween Great Britain and the United States. 

In September Lord Cathcart delivered to the emperor a memoir from theBritish government, stating at length their reasons for declining anymediation in their contest with the United States. But, although theBritish government did not choose that a third power should interferein this controversy, it had offered to treat directly with theAmerican envoys at Gottenburg, or in London. 

This proposition having been accepted by the United States, Mr. Adamswas associated with Bayard, Clay, and Russell, in the negotiation. After taking leave of the empress and Count Romanzoff, --the emperorbeing then before Paris with the allied armies, --he quitted St. Petersburg on the 28th of April, 1814. His family remained in thatcity, and he travelled alone to Revel. There he received the news ofthe taking of Paris, and the abdication of Napoleon. From thence heembarked for Stockholm. 

 CHAPTER IV. 

RESIDENCE AT GHENT. --AT PARIS. --IN LONDON. --PRESENTATION TO THE PRINCEREGENT. --NEGOTIATION WITH LORD CASTLEREAGH. --APPOINTED SECRETARY OFSTATE. --LEAVES ENGLAND. 

Mr. Adams arrived in Stockholm on the 24th of May, and after visitingCount Engerström, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and meeting theSwedish and foreign ministers at a diplomatic dinner, given by BaronStrogonoff, he left that city on the 2d of June. A messenger from Mr. Clay informed him that, at the request of Lord Bathurst, the negotiationof the treaty of peace had been transferred to Ghent. Passing throughSweden, he embarked from Gottenburg in the United States corvette JohnAdams for the Texel, landed at the Helder, and proceeded through Hollandto Ghent, where his associates met for the first time in his apartmentson the 30th of June. The British commissioners did not arrive until the7th of August, and their negotiations were not concluded until the 24thof December, 1814. On presenting three copies of the treaty, signed andsealed by all the commissioners, to Mr. Adams, and on receiving threefrom him, Lord Gambier said, he trusted the result of their laborswould be permanent. Mr. Adams replied, he hoped it would be the _last_treaty of peace between Great Britain and the United States. 

The American commissioners were presented to the Prince of Orange, thesovereign of the Netherlands, and, on the 5th of January, 1815, thecitizens of Ghent celebrated the ratification of the treaty, by invitingthe representatives of both nations to a public entertainment at theHotel de Ville. Mr. Adams left that city with characteristic expressionsof gratitude for the result of a negotiation which he hoped would provepropitious to the union and best interests of his country. 

On the 3d of February he arrived in Paris, and met the Americancommissioners, and with them was presented by Mr. Crawford, residentminister of the United States, to Louis the Eighteenth, and to the Dukeand Duchess of Angoulême. He was also presented to the Duke of Orleans, at the Palais Royal, who spoke with grateful remembrance ofhospitalities he had received in America. Mr. Adams was often in thesociety of Lafayette, Madame de Staël, Humboldt, Constant, and othereminent persons, and was deeply interested in observing the effect ofall changes in the laws and government of France. 

The intelligence that Napoleon had left Elba soon caused greatexcitement and anxiety in Paris, which continued to increase until themorning of the 20th of March, when Louis the Eighteenth left theTuileries. In the evening Napoleon alighted there so silently, that Mr. Adams, who was at the Théatre Français, not a quarter of a mile distant, was unaware of the fact until the next day, when the gazettes of Paris, which had showered execrations upon him, announced "the arrival of hismajesty, the Emperor, at _his_ palace of the Tuileries. " In the Placedu Carousel Mr. Adams, in his morning walk, saw regiments of cavalry, belonging to the garrison of Paris, which had been sent out to opposeNapoleon, pass in review before him, their helmets and the clasps oftheir belts yet glowing with the arms of the Bourbons. The theatresassumed the title of Imperial, and at the opera, in the evening, thearms of the emperor were placed on the curtain and on the royal box. 

A few days afterwards, Mr. Adams requested an interview with theemperor's Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Duke de Vicence, with whom hehad been previously acquainted at St. Petersburg. He assured Mr. Adamsthat the late revolution had been effected without effort; that Fouché, the new Minister of Police, who received reports from every part of thecountry, informed him that there had not been one act of violence orresistance. He said, that if Napoleon had not returned, the misconductof the Bourbons would have caused an insurrection of the people in lessthan six months; that the emperor had renounced all ideas of extendedconquest, and only desired peace with all the world. Mr. Adams expresseda hope that the relations between France and the United States wouldbecome friendly and mutually advantageous, and said he was awaitingorders from his government, and should soon need a passport to England. The duke assured him of his readiness to comply with any request fromhim or from Mr. Crawford. All the other foreign ministers had alreadyquitted Paris. 

After Mrs. Adams had arrived from St. Petersburg, Mr. Adams, having beenappointed American minister at the British Court, left Paris, with hisfamily, on the 16th of May, 1815. About the time of his departure heobserved: "War appears to be certain. The first thought of theinhabitants of Paris will be to save themselves. They have no attachmenteither to the Bourbons or Napoleon. They will submit quietly to thevictorious party, and do nothing to support either. "

On the 25th of May Mr. Adams arrived in London, and on the 29th had aninterview with Lord Castlereagh relative to the treaty of peace, and thecommercial relations of Great Britain with the United States. The PrinceRegent, at a private audience, said the United States might rely withfull assurance on his determination to fulfil all engagements with themon the part of Great Britain. 

After the convention concerning commerce had been concluded, and Mr. Gallatin and Mr. Clay had departed, Mr. Adams removed his residence toBoston House, Ealing, nine miles from London, where he commanded timefor his favorite studies, and reciprocated the civilities paid to himand Mrs. Adams. He continued to receive in public and private thedistinguished attentions due to his official station and his personalcharacter and attainments. The queen gave him a private audience, and inMay, 1816, with Mrs. Adams, he was present at the marriage of thePrincess Charlotte of Wales. His society was sought and highlyappreciated by the most eminent men of all classes; and he availedhimself, with characteristic assiduity, of all opportunities to acquireinformation, especially that relative to the science of government, andthe political relations of Europe. 

Some conversations and opinions his papers preserve tend to throw lightupon his course and character. In reply to an inquiry made by LordHolland concerning the forms and results of representation in the UnitedStates, Mr. Adams said that one consequence was that a very greatproportion of their public men were lawyers. Lord Holland said it wasprecisely the same in England; that the theory of their representationin the House of Commons was bad, but perhaps no theory could produce amore perfect practice of representation of all classes and interests ofthe community. Even the close boroughs often served to bring in able anduseful men, who by a more correct theory would find themselves excluded. Men of property could always make their way into Parliament by theirwealth. Men of family might go into the House of Commons for a few yearsin youth, to get experience of public business, and to employ time foruseful purposes; and there was no man of real talent who, in one way oranother, could fail of obtaining, sooner or later, admission intoParliament. But a great proportion of the House of Commons were lawyers, and most of the business of the house was done by them. In the House ofLords all that was of any use was done by lawyers. The great practicaluse of the House of Lords was to be a check upon mischief that might bedone by the Commons. Many bills passed through that house withoutsufficient consideration. The Chancellor is under a sort of personalresponsibility to examine and stop them. His character depends upon it. He is at the head of the nobility of the country, and his considerationdepends upon his keeping this vigilant eye on the proceedings of theCommons. All the ordinary business of the house, therefore, rests upon alawyer. 

Lord Holland observed that from what he heard the most defective part ofour institutions was the judiciary; which Mr. Adams admitted. 

In August, 1816, at a diplomatic dinner, given on St. Louis' day, by theFrench ambassador, the Marquis D'Osmond, Mr. Adams first met Mr. Canning, then recently appointed President of the Board of Control. Athis request, he was introduced by Lord Liverpool to Mr. Adams. They bothspoke of the great and rapid increase of the United States, and Canninginquired when the next presidential election would take place, and whowould probably be chosen. Mr. Adams replied, Mr. Monroe. Lord Liverpoolobserved that he had heard his election might be opposed on account ofhis being a Virginian. Mr. Adams said that had been a ground ofobjection, but it would not avail. He afterwards remarks: "Mr. Canning, whose celebrity is great, and whose talents are probably greater thanthose of any other member of the cabinet, and who has been invariablynoted for his bitterness against the United States, seemed desirous tomake up by an excess of civility for the feelings he has so constantlymanifested against us. "

After reading the Gazette Extraordinary sent him by Lord Castlereagh, containing an account of the victory of Lord Exmouth, on the 27th ofAugust, over the Algerines, and that the terms of capitulation hadforced them to deliver up all their Christian slaves, to repayransom-money, and to stipulate for the formal abolition of Christianslavery in Algiers forever, Mr. Adams observed, "This is a deed of realglory. "

The Lord Mayor of London introduced Mr. Adams to Sir Philip Francis, then the supposed author of the letters of Junius. On this celebratedwork, on a subsequent occasion, Mr. Adams remarked: "Sir Philip Francisis almost demonstrated to be the culprit. The speeches of Lord Chathambear the stamp of a mind not unequal to the composition of Junius. Thoseof Burke are of a higher order. Were it ascertained that either of themwere the political assassin who stabbed with the dagger of Junius, Ishould not add a particle of admiration for his talents, and should loseall my respect for his morals. Junius was essentially a sophist. Hisreligion was infidelity, his abstract ethics depraved, his temperbitterly malignant, and his nervous system timid and cowardly. Theconcealment of his name at the time when he wrote was the effect ofdishonest fear. The perpetuation of it could only proceed from theconsciousness that the disclosure of his person would be discreditableto his fame. The object of Junius, when he began to write, was merely tooverthrow the administration then in power. He attacked them in a massand individually; their measures, their capacities, their characterspublic and private; charged them with every crime and every vice. Afterwards, he followed up his general assault by singling out, successively, the Dukes of Grafton and Bedford, Lord Mansfield, SirWilliam Blackstone, and the King himself. He magnified mole-hills intomountains, inflamed pin-scratches into deadly wounds, and at lastabandoned his course in despair at the very time when he might havepursued it with the most effect. But while he was battering the ministryupon paltry topics, which had neither root or stem, he had declaredhimself emphatically and repeatedly upon their side on the only subjecton which their fate and the destiny of the nation altogetherdepended--the controversy with America. The course he took in the earlystage of that conflict, and his disappearance from the theatre ofpolitics at the time when it was ripening into the magnitude of itsnature, have marked Junius in my mind as a man of small things--asplendid trifler, a pompous and shallow politician. "

In July, 1816, Mr. Adams showed Lord Castlereagh his authority andinstructions to negotiate a new commercial convention with the Britishgovernment, stating "that one object was to open the trade between theUnited States and the British colonies in North America and the WestIndies, as great changes had occurred since the existing conventionbetween the countries was signed. That convention equalized the dutiesupon British and American vessels, in the intercourse between Europe andthe United States, and thereby admitted British vessels into the portsof the United States upon terms of equal competition with Americanvessels. But, since that time, the exclusive system of colonialregulations had been resumed in the West Indies with extraordinaryrigor. American vessels had been excluded from all the ports, and someseizures had been made with such severity that there were cases uponwhich it would soon become his duty to address the British government inbehalf of individuals who had suffered, and deemed themselves entitledto the restitution of their property. The consequence of these newregulations, as combined with the operation of the commercialconvention, was, that British vessels being admitted into our ports uponequal terms with our own, and then being exclusively received in theBritish West India ports, not only thus monopolized the trade betweenthe United States and the West Indies, but acquired an advantage in thedirect trade from Europe to the United States, which defeated the mainobject of the convention itself, of placing the shipping of the twocountries upon equal terms of fair competition. In North America thesame system was pursued by the colonial government of Upper Canada. Anact of the Colonial Legislature was passed at their last session, vesting in the Lieutenant-Governor and Council of the province the powerof regulating its trade with the United States; and immediatelyafterwards a new tariff of duties was issued, by an order of theprevious Council, dated the 18th of April, laying excessively heavyduties upon all articles imported into the province from the UnitedStates, with the exception of certain articles of provision of the firstnecessity; and a tonnage duty of twelve and sixpence per ton uponAmerican vessels, which was equivalent to a total prohibition. "

Lord Castlereagh said "that he had not been in the way of following themeasures adopted in that quarter, and was not aware that there had beenany new regulations either in the West Indies or in North America. Intime of war he knew it had been usual to open the ports of the WestIndia Islands to foreigners, merely as a measure of necessity; and itwas not until the Americans attempted to starve them by their embargoacts that they were driven to the resort of finding resources elsewhere. But in time of peace it had been usual to exclude foreigners from theseislands. "

He then asked if the trade was considerable. Mr. Adams replied that itwas. "Even in time of peace it was highly necessary to the colonies, inrespect to some of the imports indispensable to their subsistence; and, by the exports, extremely advantageous to the interests of GreatBritain, by furnishing a market for articles which she does not takeherself, and which could not be disposed of elsewhere. At the very timeof the embargo, the governors of the Islands, so far from adhering tothe principle of excluding American vessels, issued proclamationsinviting them, with promises even that the regular papers should not berequired for their admission, and encouraging them to violate the lawsof their own country by carrying them supplies. In time of peace it wasundoubtedly not so necessary. Even then, however, it was so in a highdegree. The mother country may supply them in part, but does not producesome of the most important articles of their importation, --rice, forexample, and Indian corn, the best and cheapest articles for thesubsistence of negroes. Even wheat and flour, and provisions generally, were much more advantageously imported from the United States than fromEurope, being so much less liable to be damaged in those hot climates, from the comparative shortness of the voyage. Another of theirimportations was lumber, which is necessary for buildings upon theplantations, and which, after the hurricanes to which the islands arefrequently exposed, must be had in large quantities. "

Mr. Adams added, "that the American government did not on this groundnow propose that these ports should be opened to their vessels. They didnot seek for a participation in the British trade with them. GreatBritain might still prohibit the importation from the United States ofsuch articles as she chose to supply herself. But they asked thatAmerican vessels be admitted equally with British vessels to carry thearticles which could be supplied only from the United States, or whichwere supplied only to them. The effect of the new regulations had beenso injurious to the shipping interest in America, and was so immediatelyfelt, that the first impression on the minds of many was that theyshould be at once met by counteracting legislative measures ofprohibition. A proposal to that effect was made in Congress; but it wasthought best to endeavor, in the first instance, to come to an amicablearrangement of the subject with the British government. Immediateprohibitions would affect injuriously the British colonies; they wouldexcite irritation in the commercial part of the British communities. Theconsideration, therefore, of enacting legislative regulations, waspostponed. "

Lord Castlereagh, after expressing the earnest disposition of hisgovernment to promote harmony between the two countries, said "he wasnot then prepared to enter upon a discussion on the points of thequestion, but would take it into consideration as soon as possible. "

Mr. Adams then said "that the American government was anxious to settleby treaty all the subjects of collision between neutral and belligerentrights which, in the event of a new maritime war in Europe, might againarise:--blockade, contraband, searches at sea, and colonial trade, butmost of all the case of the seamen, --concerning whom the Americangovernment proposed that each party should stipulate not to employ, inits merchant ships or naval service, the seamen of the other. "

Lord Castlereagh inquired "whether the proposal in the stipulationrelated only to native citizens and subjects; and, if not, how thequestion was to be escaped, --whether any act of naturalization shallavail to discharge a seaman from the duties of his original allegiance. "

Mr. Adams replied, "that it was proposed to include in the arrangementonly natives and those who are on either side naturalized already; sothat it would not extend to any hereafter naturalized. The number ofpersons included would, of course, be very few. " Lord Castlereaghinquired "what regulations were proposed to carry the stipulation intoeffect. " Mr. Adams replied, "that if it was agreed to, he thought therewould be no difficulty in concerting regulations to carry it intoexecution; and that the American government would be ready to agree toany Great Britain might think necessary, consistent with individualrights, to secure the bona fide fulfilment of the engagement. " "But, "said Lord Castlereagh, "by agreeing to this stipulation, is it expectedwe should abandon the right of search we have heretofore used; or isthis stipulation to stand by itself, leaving the rights of the partiesas they were before?" Mr. Adams replied, "that undoubtedly the objectof the American government was that the result of the stipulationshould ultimately be the abandonment of the practice of taking men fromAmerican vessels. " "How, then, " said Lord Castlereagh, "shall we escapethe old difficulty? The people of this country consider the remedy wehave always used hitherto as the best and only effective one. Such isthe general opinion of the nation, and there is a good deal of feelingconnected with the sentiment. If we now give up that, how will it bepossible to devise any regulation, depending upon the performance ofanother state, which will be thought as efficacious as that we have inour own hands? He knew that the policy of the American government hadchanged; that it was formerly to invite and encourage British seamen toenter their service, but that at present it was to give encouragementto their own seamen; and he was in hopes that the effect of theseinternal legislative measures would be to diminish the necessity ofresorting to the right of search. " Mr. Adams, in reply, said, "that hislordship had once before made a similar observation, and that he feltit his duty to take notice of it. Being under a perfect conviction thatit was erroneous, he was compelled to state that the Americangovernment never did in any manner invite or encourage foreign seamengenerally, or British seamen in particular, to enter their service. "Lord Castlereagh said "that he meant only that their policy arosenaturally from circumstances, --from the extraordinary, sudden, andalmost unbounded increase of their commerce and navigation during thelate European wars; they had not native seamen enough to man theirships, and the encouragements to foreign seamen followed from thatstate of things. " Mr. Adams replied, "that he understood his lordshipperfectly; but what he asserted was his profound conviction that he wasmistaken in point of fact. He knew not how the policy of any governmentcan be manifested otherwise than by its acts. Now, there never was anyone act, either of the legislature or executive, which could have evena tendency to invite British seamen into the American service. " "But, "said Lord Castlereagh, "at least, then, there was nothing done toprevent them. " Mr. Adams replied, "That may be; but there is a verymaterial distinction between giving encouragement and doing nothing toprevent them. Our naturalization laws certainly hold out to themnothing like encouragement. You naturalize every foreign seaman by themere fact of two years' service on board of your public ships, _ipsofacto_, without cost, or form, or process. We require five years'residence in the United States, two years of notice in a court ofrecord, and a certificate of character, before the act ofnaturalization is granted. Thus far only may be admitted, --that thegreat and extraordinary increase of our commerce, to which you havealluded, had the effect of raising the wages of seamen excessivelyhigh. Our government certainly gave no encouragement to this; neitherdid our merchants, who would surely have engaged their seamen at lowerwages, if possible. These wages, no doubt, operated as a strongtemptation to your seamen to go into the American service. Yourmerchant service could not afford to pay them so high. The wages in theking's ships are much lower, and numbers of British seamen, accordingly, find employment on board American vessels; butencouragement from the American government they never had in anymanner. They were merely not excluded; and even now, in making theproposal to exclude them, it is not from any change of policy, butsolely for the purpose of giving satisfaction to Great Britain, and ofstopping the most abundant source of dissension with her. It provesonly the earnestness of our desire to be upon good terms with you. "

Mr. Adams said, with regard to his proposal of excluding each other'sseamen, "that he was not prepared to say that an article could not beframed by which the parties might stipulate the principle of mutualexclusion, without at all affecting or referring to the rights or claimsof either party. Perhaps it might be accomplished if the Britishgovernment should assume it as one of the objects to be arranged by theconvention. " On which Lord Castlereagh said: "In that case there willnot be so much difficulty. If it is a mere agreement of mutualexclusion, tending to diminish the occasion for exercising the right ofsearch, and undoubtedly if it should prove effectual, it would in theend operate as an inducement to forbear the exercise of the rightentirely. "

Discussions with the same nobleman on other topics bearing upon thecommercial relations between the two nations are preserved among thepapers of Mr. Adams. 

On the 16th of April, 1817, Mr. Adams received letters from PresidentMonroe, with the information that, with the sanction of the Senate, theDepartment of State had been committed to him; a trust which he acceptedwith a deep sense of its weight and responsibility. In compliance withMr. Monroe's request, he made immediate arrangements to return to theUnited States. On presenting his letters of recall to Lord Castlereagh, congratulations on his appointment were attended with regrets at hisremoval from his mission. Mr. Adams stated that the uncertainty of hisacceptance of the office of Secretary of State had prevented animmediate appointment of his successor, but that he was instructed inthe strongest manner to declare the earnest desire of President Monroeto cultivate the most friendly intercourse with Great Britain. He gavethe same explanation to the Prince Regent, at a private audience, whoreplied by an assurance of his disposition to continue to promote theharmony between the two nations which was required by the interests ofboth. There was no formality in the discourse on either side, and thegeneralities of mutual assurance were much alike, and estimated at theirreal value. In reply to the inquiries of the Prince, the names of themembers of Mr. Monroe's cabinet were mentioned. He was not acquaintedwith any of them, but spoke in handsome terms of Mr. Thomas Pinckney andMr. Rufus King, and asked many questions concerning the organization ofthe American government. Lord Castlereagh, in his final interview withMr. Adams, made numerous inquiries relative to the foreign relations ofthe United States, especially in regard to Spain, and again expressedthe desire of the British government not only to remain at peacethemselves, but also to promote tranquillity among other nations. PrinceEsterhazy, in a parting visit to Mr. Adams, also assured him that thecabinets of Europe were never so universally and sincerely pacific as atthat time; that they all had finances to redeem, ravages to repair, andwanted a period of long repose. 

After taking leave of his numerous friends in office and in privatelife, Mr. Adams bade farewell to London, and embarked with his familyfrom Cowes, in the packet-ship Washington, on the 17th of June, 1817, for the United States. 

 CHAPTER V. 

FIRST TERM OF MR. MONROE'S ADMINISTRATION. --STATE OF PARTIES. --SEMINOLEWAR. --TAKING OF PENSACOLA. --NEGOTIATION WITH SPAIN. --PURCHASE OF THEFLORIDAS. --COLONIZATION SOCIETY. --THE ADMISSION OF MISSOURI INTO THEUNION. 

A tedious voyage of seven weeks was beguiled by Mr. Adams with Bacon'sNovum Organum, the novels of Scott, and the game of chess, which last, in his estimate, surpassed all other resources when at sea. On the 7thof August he arrived at New York, with mingled emotions of gratitude forthe past, and anxious forecast of the cares and perils of the scene onwhich he was about to enter. After a detention in that city by officialbusiness, on the 18th of August he reached Quincy, Massachusetts, andenjoyed the inexpressible happiness of again meeting his venerablefather and mother in perfect health, after an absence of eight eventfulyears. In September, at Washington, he entered upon the duties ofSecretary of State. 

The foreign relations of the United States were, at this period, peaceful, except that questions concerning spoliations on Americancommerce and settlement of boundaries were depending with Spain, and thesympathy of the United States for her revolted colonies excited herjealousy and fear, which the seizure of Amelia Island, under the real orpretended authority of one of them, had tended greatly to increase. 

Internally, the political relations of the country were in a transitionstate. The chief power, which Virginia had held during threepresidencies, was now about to pass from her hands; there being nostatesman among her sons who could compete, as a candidate for thesuccessorship to Monroe, with the talents and popularity of risingaspirants in other states. Her policy therefore was directed to secure, for the next term of the presidency, a candidate friendly to thepolitical dogmas she cherished, and to the interests and projects of theSouthern States. The character and principles of Mr. Adams were notadapted to become subservient to her views, and she saw with littlecomplacency his elevation to the office of Secretary of State, which wasin popular opinion a proximate step to the President's chair. Yet itcould not be doubted that his appointment had the assent, if not theapprobation, of Jefferson and Madison, without whose concurrence Monroewould scarcely have ventured to raise a citizen of Massachusetts to thatstation. 

The prospective change, in the principles and influences of publicaffairs, which the close of Mr. Monroe's term of office would effect, elevated the hopes and awakened the activity of the partisans ofCrawford, of Georgia, Clay, of Kentucky, and De Witt Clinton, of NewYork. Crawford, who had been Secretary of the Treasury under Madison, and who was again placed in that office by Monroe, was understood to bethe favorite candidate of Virginia. Clay, one of the most talented andpopular politicians of the period, had been an active supporter ofMonroe for the presidency. His friends did not conceal theirdisappointment that he was not invited to take the office of Secretaryof State; nor did he disguise his dissatisfaction at the appointment ofMr. Adams. In New York, De Witt Clinton, in his struggles with Van Burenfor ascendency in that state, by one of those mysterious changes towhich political tempests are subject, had been at one moment cast out ofthe mayoralty of the city, and at the next into the governor's chair. His partisans, deeming his position and popularity now favorable to hiselevation to the presidency, which he had long desired and onceattempted to attain, placed him in nomination for that office. 

Each of these candidates possessed great personal and local popularity, spirit and power adapted to success, and adherents watchful andefficient. To cope with all these rival influences, Mr. Adams hadtalents, integrity, fidelity to his country, and devotion to thefulfilment of official duty, in which he had no superior. Having beenabsent eight years in foreign countries in public service, he had noSouthern or Western current in his favor; and that which set from theNorth, though generally favorable, being divided, was comparativelyfeeble, and rather acquiescent in his elevation than active in promotingit. 

On his appointment as Secretary of State, Mr. Adams remarked: "Whetherit is for my own good is known only to God. As yet I have far morereason to lament than rejoice at the event; yet I feel not less myobligation to Mr. Monroe for his confidence in me, and the duty ofpersonal devotion to the success of his administration which itimposes. " Before the lapse of a year that administration was assailedin Congress and in the newspapers, and the attacks were concentratedon Mr. Adams. The calumnies by which his father's administration hadbeen prostrated five-and-twenty years before were revived, and pouredout with renewed malignity. Duane, in his _Aurora_, published inPhiladelphia, and his coädjutors in other parts of the Union, represented him as "a royalist, " "an enemy to the rights of man;" asa "friend of oligarchy;" as a "misanthrope, educated in contempt ofhis fellow-men;" as "unfit to be the minister of a free and virtuouspeople. " Privately, and through the press, Mr. Monroe was warned thathe "was full of duplicity;" "an incubus on his prospects for the nextpresidency, and on his popularity. " When these calumnies were uttered, as some of them were, in the House of Representatives, they naturallyexcited the indignation of Mr. Adams, and the anxiety of his friends. Being asked by one of them whether it would not be advisable to exposethe conduct and motives of rival statesmen, in the newspapers, heanswered explicitly in the negative, saying: "The execution of myduties is the only answer I can give to censure. I will do absolutelynothing to promote any pretensions my friends may think I have to thepresidency. " On being told that his rivals would not be so scrupulous, and that he would not stand on an equal footing with them, he replied:"That is not my fault. My business is to serve the public to the bestof my abilities in the station assigned to me, and not to intrigue formy own advancement. I never, by the most distant hint to any one, expressed a wish for any public office, and I shall not now begin toask for that which, of all others, ought to be most freely andspontaneously bestowed. "

Among the difficulties incident to the office of Secretary of State, that of making appointments was the most annoying and thankless. Theywere sought with a bold and rabid pertinacity. Success was attributed tothe favor of the President; ill success, to the influence of theSecretary. When the applicant was a relative his patronage was naturallyexpected; but, with every expression of good-will, he avoided allrecommendation in such cases, saying that such claims must be presentedthrough other channels. 

The attention of the government was early drawn to the proceedings ofthe Seminole Indians, who had commenced hostilities with circumstancesof great barbarity. Orders were sent to General Jackson to repair to theseat of war with such troops as he could collect, and the Georgiamilitia, and to reduce the Indians by force, pursuing them into Florida, if they should retreat for refuge there. 

About this time the republic of Buenos Ayres sent an agent urging anacknowledgment of their independence. Their claim was in unison with thepopular feeling in the South; but elsewhere throughout the nation publicopinion was divided, as were also the members of the President'scabinet. Mr. Adams declared himself against such recognition, as itwould interfere with a negotiation with Spain for the purchase of theFloridas. He urged, also, that McGregor, the adventurer, who, under apretence of authority from Buenos Ayres, had taken possession of AmeliaIsland, should be compelled to withdraw his troops by a naval force sentfor that purpose. On this measure, also, both the nation and the cabinetwere divided. Mr. Clay, in the House of Representatives, took ground inopposition to the policy of the administration, avowing openly hisintention of bringing forward a motion in favor of recognizing theindependence of Buenos Ayres. To control or overthrow the executive bythe weight of the House of Representatives, was apparently his object. [1]

 [1] A committee appointed by the House of Representatives, on McGregor's possession of Amelia Island, waited on Mr. Adams, and inquired concerning the proposed proceedings of the executive, and his powers in that respect. Mr. Adams took occasion to state and explain to them the effects of "the _secret laws_, as they were called, and which, " he said, "were singular anomalies of our system, having grown out of that error in our constitution which confers upon the legislative assemblies the power of declaring war, which, in the theory of government, according to Montesquieu and Rousseau, is strictly an executive act. But, as we have made it legislative, whenever secrecy is necessary for an operation of the executive involving the question of peace and war, Congress must pass a _secret_ law to give the President power. Now, secrecy is contrary to one of the first principles of legislation, but the absurdity flows from having given to Congress, instead of the executive, the power of declaring war. Of these secret laws there are four, and one resolution; and one of the laws, that of the 28th of June, 1812, is so secret, that to this day it cannot be found among the rolls of the department. Another consequence has followed from this clumsy political machinery. The injunction of secrecy was removed on the 6th of July, 1812, from the laws previously passed by a vote of the House of Representatives, and yet the laws have never been published. "

In January, 1818, McGregor and his freebooters having been driven, bythe authority of the executive, from Amelia Island by the United Statestroops, a question arose whether they should be withdrawn, or possessionof the island retained, subject to future negotiations with Spain. Mr. Adams and Mr. Calhoun advocated the latter opinion. The President, Mr. Crowninshield, and Mr. Wirt, were in favor of withdrawing the troops. After discussion of a message proposed to be sent to Congress avowingthe intention to restore the island to Spain, the subject was leftundetermined, the President being embarrassed concerning the policy tobe pursued, by the division of his constitutional advisers. On which Mr. Adams remarked: "These cabinet councils open upon me a new scene, andnew views of the political world. Here is a play of passions, opinions, and characters, different from those in which I have been accustomedheretofore to move. "

About this time the President received information that the Spanishgovernment were discouraged, and that Onis, the Spanish minister, hadreceived authority to dispose of the Floridas to the United States onthe best terms possible. This intelligence Mr. Monroe communicated toMr. Adams, and requested him to see the Spanish minister, and inquirewhat Spain would take for all her possessions east of the Mississippi. When Mr. Adams obtained an interview with Onis, he waived any directanswer to the question, and asked what were the intentions of the UnitedStates relative to the occupation of Amelia Island. Mr. Adams replied, that this was a mere measure of self-defence, and asked what guaranteeOnis could give that the freebooters would not again take possession, tothe annoyance of lawful commerce, if the troops of the United Stateswere removed. Onis said he could give none, except a promise to write tothe Governor of Havana for troops; but he admitted that, if sufficientforce could there be obtained, six or seven months might elapse beforethey could be sent to Amelia Island. A continuance of the presentoccupation by the United States was thus rendered unavoidable. Theconsideration of the question of restoring it to Spain was postponed inthe cabinet, and the message of the President to Congress was somodified as to state his intention of keeping possession of it for thepresent. 

During the remainder of this session Mr. Clay took opposition ground onall the cardinal points maintained by the President, especially on theconstitutional question concerning internal improvements, and upon SouthAmerican affairs. His course was so obviously marked with the design ofrising on the ruins of Mr. Monroe's administration, that one of his ownpapers in Kentucky publicly stated that "he had broken ground withinbattering distance of the President's message. " In a speech made on the24th of March, 1817, on the general appropriation bill, he moved anappropriation of eighteen thousand dollars as one year's salary and anoutfit for a minister to the government of Buenos Ayres. This was only amode of proposing a formal acknowledgment of that government. The motionwas soon after rejected in the House of Representatives by a greatmajority, and his attempt to make manifest the unpopularity of theadministration proved a failure. 

In July, 1818, news came that General Jackson had taken Pensacola bystorm, --a measure which excited universal surprise. But one opinionappeared at first to prevail in the nation, --that Jackson had not onlyacted without, but against, his instructions; that he had commenced warupon Spain, which could not be justified, and in which, if not disavowedby the administration, they would be abandoned by the country. Everymember of the cabinet, the President included, concurred in thesesentiments, with the exception of Mr. Adams. He maintained that therewas no real, though an apparent violation of his instructions; that hisproceedings were justified by the necessity of the case, and themisconduct of the Spanish commandant in Florida. Mr. Adams admitted thatthe question was embarrassing and complicated, as involving not merelyan actual war with Spain, but also the power of the executive toauthorize hostilities without a declaration of war by Congress. Heaverred that there was no doubt that _defensive_ acts of hostilitymight be authorized by the executive, and on this ground Jackson hadbeen authorized to cross the Spanish frontier in pursuit of the Indianenemy. His argument was, that the question of the constitutionalauthority of the executive was in its nature defensive; that all therest, even to the taking the fort of Barancas by storm, was incidental, deriving its character from the object, which was not hostility toSpain, but the termination of the Indian war. This was the justificationoffered by Jackson himself, who alleged that an imaginary air-line ofthe thirty-first degree of latitude could not afford protection to ourfrontier, while the Indians had a safe refuge in Florida; and that allhis operations had been founded on that consideration. 

This state of things embarrassed the negotiation with the Spanishminister, who was afraid, under these circumstances, to proceed withoutreceiving instructions. Mr. Adams endeavored, however, to satisfy Onis, by assuring him that Pensacola had been taken without orders; but healso stated that no blame would be attached to Jackson, on account ofthe strong charges he brought against the Governor of Pensacola, who hadthreatened to drive him out of the province by force, if he did notwithdraw. In support of these views, Mr. Adams adduced the opinions ofwriters on national law. To the members of the cabinet he admitted thatit was requisite to carry the reasoning on his principles to the utmostextent they would bear, to come to this conclusion; yet he maintainedthat, if the question were dubious, it was better to err on the side ofvigor than of weakness, of our own officer than of our enemy. There wasa large portion of the public who coincided in opinion with Jackson, andif he were disavowed, his friends would assert that he had beensacrificed because he was an obnoxious man; that, after having had thebenefit of his services, he was abandoned for the sake of conciliatingthe enemies of his country, and his case would be compared to that ofSir Walter Raleigh. 

Mr. Monroe listened with candor to the debates of the cabinet, withoutvarying from his original opinion. They resulted in a disclaimer ofpower in the President to have authorized General Jackson to takepossession of Pensacola. On this determination, Mr. Adams finally gaveup his opposition, and acquiesced in the opinion of every other memberof the cabinet, remarking on this result: "The administration areplaced in a dilemma, from which it is impossible for them to escapecensure by some, and factious crimination by many. If they avow andapprove Jackson's conduct, they incur the double responsibility ofhaving made a war against Spain, in violation of the constitution, without the authority of Congress. If they disavow him, they must giveoffence to his friends, encounter the shock of his popularity, and havethe appearance of truckling to Spain. For all this I should beprepared; but the mischief of this determination lies deeper. 1. It isweakness, and confession of weakness. 2. The disclaimer of power in theexecutive is of dangerous example, and of evil consequences. 3. Thereis injustice to the officer in disavowing him, when in principle he isstrictly justifiable. These charges will be urged with great vehemenceon one side, while those who would have censured the other course willnot support or defend the administration for taking this. I believe theother would have been a safer and a bolder course. " A wish having beenexpressed that it should be stated publicly that the opinion of themembers of the cabinet had been _unanimous_, Mr. Adams said that he hadacquiesced in the ultimate determination, and would cheerfully bear hisshare of the responsibility; but that he could not in truth say it hadbeen conformable to his opinion, for that had been to approve andjustify the conduct of Jackson, whereas it was disavowed, and the placehe had taken was to be unconditionally restored. 

At this time Mr. Adams was laboriously collecting evidence in support ofthese views, and preparing letters of instruction to George Erving, dated the 19th of November, in which Jackson's conduct is fully stated, and the execution of Arbuthnot and Ambrister and the taking of Pensacoladefended. Mr. Jefferson wrote to President Monroe expressing in thehighest terms his approbation of these letters, and the hope that thoseof the 12th of March and the 28th of November to Erving, with, also, those of Mr. Adams to Onis, would be translated into French, andcommunicated to every court in Europe, as a thorough vindication of theconduct and policy of the American government. Writing about the affairsof Florida at this time, Mr. Adams observed: "With these concerns, political, personal, and electioneering intrigues are minglingthemselves, with increasing heat and violence. This government isassuming daily, more and more, a character of cabal and preparation, notfor the next presidential election, but for the one after, that isworking and counterworking, with many of the worst features of electivemonarchies. Jackson has made for himself a multitude of friends, andstill more enemies. "

In the latter part of December, 1818, when General Jackson visitedWashington, a strong party manifested itself disposed to bring himforward as a candidate for the next Presidency. "His services during thelast campaign, " said Mr. Adams, "would have given him great strength, had he not counteracted these dispositions by several of his actions inFlorida. The partisans of Crawford and De Witt Clinton took the alarm, and began their attacks upon Jackson for the purpose of running himdown. His conduct is beginning to be arraigned with extreme violence inevery quarter of the Union, and, as I am his official defender againstSpain and England, I shall come in for my share of the obloquy soliberally bestowed upon him. "

Mr. Adams had the satisfaction of receiving from Hyde de Neuville, theFrench minister, an assurance of his coincidence of opinion with him, and that he had written to his own government that the proceedings ofGeneral Jackson had been right, particularly in respect of the twoEnglishmen. Although there was a difference of opinion on the subjectamong the members of the diplomatic body, he declared that his own wasthat such incendiaries and instigators of savage barbarities should beput to death. 

On one occasion, the President expressed to Mr. Adams his astonishmentat the malignancy of the reports which some newspapers were circulatingconcerning him, and asked in what motives they could have originated. Mr. Adams replied, that the motives did not lie very deep; that therehad been a spirit at work, ever since he came to Washington, veryanxious to find or make occasions of censure upon him. That spirit hecould not lay. His only resource was to pursue his course according tohis own sense of right, and abide by the consequences. To which thePresident fully assented. 

While these events were agitating the political world, Mr. Adams wascalled to lament the death of his mother, dear to his heart by every tieof affection and gratitude. His feelings burst forth, on the occasion, in eloquent and touching tributes to her memory. "This is one of theseverest afflictions, " he exclaimed, "to which human existence isliable. The silver cord is broken, --the tenderest of natural ties isdissolved, --life is no longer to me what it was, --my home is no longerthe abode of my mother. While she lived, whenever I returned to thepaternal roof, I felt as if the joys and charms of childhood returned tomake me happy; all was kindness and affection. At once silent and activeas the movement of the orbs of heaven, one of the links which connectedme with former ages is no more. May a merciful Providence spare for manyfuture years my only remaining parent!"

The policy of the friends and enemies of Mr. Monroe's administration wasdeveloped by the debates in the House of Representatives on the Seminolewar, and the spirit of intrigue began to operate with great publicity. Some of the Western friends of Mr. Adams proposed to him measures ofcounteraction, on which he remarked: "These overtures affordopportunities and temptations to intrigue, of which there is much inthis government, and without which the prospects of a public man aredesperate. Caballing with members of Congress for future contingency hasbecome so interwoven with the practical course of our government, and soinevitably flows from the practice of canvassing by the members to fixon candidates for President and Vice-President, that to decline it is topass a sentence of total exclusion. Be it so! Whatever talents Ipossess, that of intrigue is not among them. And instead of toiling fora future election, as I am recommended to do, my only wisdom is toprepare myself for voluntary, or unwilling, retirement. " On the sametopic, in February, 1819, he thus expressed himself: "The practice whichhas grown up under the constitution, but contrary to its spirit, bywhich members of Congress meet in caucus and determine by a majority thecandidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency to be supported by thewhole meeting, places the President in a state of undue subserviency tothe members of the legislature; which, connected with the other practiceof reëlecting only once the same President, leads to a thousand corruptcabals between the members of Congress and heads of departments, who arethus made, almost necessarily, rival pretenders to the succession. Theonly possible chance for a head of a department to attain the Presidencyis by ingratiating himself with the members of Congress; and as many ofthem have objects of their own to obtain, the temptation is immense tocorrupt coalitions, and tends to make all the public offices objects ofbargain and sale. "

The treaty with Spain, by which the United States acquired the Floridas, was signed by Onis and Adams on the 22d of December, 1819. To effectthis treaty, so full of difficulty and responsibility, Mr. Adams hadlabored ever since he had become Secretary of State. His success was tohim a subject of intense gratification; especially the acknowledgment ofthe right of the United States to a definite line of boundary to theSouth Sea. This right was not among our claims by the treaty of peacewith Great Britain, nor among our pretensions under the purchase ofLouisiana, for that gave the United States only the range of theMississippi and its waters. Mr. Adams regarded the attainment of it ashis own; as he had first proposed it on his own responsibility, andintroduced it in his discussions with Onis and De Neuville. Its finalattainment, under such circumstances, was a just subject of exultation, which was increased by the change of relations which the treaty producedwith Spain, from the highest state of exasperation and imminent war, toa fair prospect of tranquillity and secure peace. The treaty wasratified by the President, with the unanimous advice of the Senate. 

In 1819 a committee of the Colonization Society applied to thePresident for the purchase of a territory on the coast of Africa, towhich the slaves rescued under the act of Congress, then recentlypassed, against piracy and the slave-trade, might be sent. The subjectbeing referred to Mr. Adams, he stated in reply that it was impossiblethat Congress could have intended to authorize the purchase ofterritory by that act, for they had only appropriated for its object_one hundred thousand dollars_, which was a sum utterly inadequate forthe purchase of a territory on the coast of Africa. He declared alsothat he had no opinion of the practicability or usefulness of theobjects proposed by the Colonization Society, of establishing in Africaa colony composed of the free blacks sent from the United States. "Theproject, " said he, "is professedly formed, 1st, without making use ofany compulsion on the free people of color to go to Africa. 2d. Toencourage the emancipation of slaves by their masters. 3d. To promotethe entire abolition of slavery; and yet, 4th, without in the slightestdegree affecting what they call 'a certain species of property inslaves. ' There are men of all sorts and descriptions concerned in thisColonization Society: some exceedingly humane, weak-minded men, whoreally have no other than the professed objects in view, and whohonestly believe them both useful and attainable; some speculators inofficial profits and honors, which a colonial establishment would ofcourse produce; some speculators in political popularity, who think toplease the abolitionists by their zeal for emancipation, and theslaveholders by the flattering hope of ridding them of the free coloredpeople at the public expense; lastly, some cunning slaveholders, whosee that the plan may be carried far enough to produce the effect ofraising the market price of their slaves. But, of all its otherdifficulties, the most objectionable is that it obviously includes theengrafting a colonial establishment upon the constitution of the UnitedStates, and thereby an accession of power to the national governmenttranscending all its other powers. "

The friends of the measure urged in its favor that it had beenrecommended by the Legislature of Virginia. They enlarged on the happycondition of slaves in that state, on the kindness with which they weretreated, and on the attachment subsisting between them and theirmasters. They stated that the feeling against slavery was so strong thatshortly after the close of the Revolution many persons had voluntarilyemancipated their slaves. This had introduced a class of very dangerouspeople, --the free blacks, --who lived by pilfering, corrupted the slaves, and produced such pernicious consequences that the Legislature wasobliged to prohibit their further emancipation by law. The importantobject now was to remove the free blacks, and provide a place to whichthe emancipated slaves might go; in which case, the legal obstacles toemancipation being withdrawn, Virginia, at least, might in time berelieved from her black population. 

A committee from the Colonial Society also waited on Mr. Adams, repeating the same topics, and maintaining that the slave-trade actcontained a clear authority to settle a colony in Africa; and that thepurchase of Louisiana, and the settlement at the mouth of ColumbiaRiver, placed beyond all question the right of acquiring territory asexisting in the government of the United States. Mr. Adams, in reply, successfully maintained that the slave-trade act had no reference to thesettlement of a colony on the coast of Africa; and that the acquisitionof Louisiana, and the settlement at the mouth of Columbia River, beingin territories contiguous to and in continuance of our own, could by noreason warrant the purchase of countries beyond seas, or theestablishment of a colonial system of government subordinate to anddependent upon that of the United States. 

In July, 1819, Mr. Adams, writing concerning the failure at thepreceding session of Missouri to obtain admission as a state into theUnion, from the restriction, introduced by the House of Representatives, excluding slavery from its constitution, thus expressed himself: "Theattempt to introduce that restriction produced a violent agitation amongthe members from the slaveholding states, and it has been communicatedto the states themselves, and to the territory of Missouri. Theslave-drivers, as usual, whenever this topic is brought up, bluster andbully, talk of the white slaves of the Eastern States, and thedissolution of the Union, and of oceans of blood; and the Northern men, as usual, pocket all this hectoring, sit down in quiet, and submit tothe slave-scourging republicanism of the planters. "

Being urged to use his influence that the language and policy of thegovernment should be as moderate and guarded as possible, from theconsideration that both England and France were profoundly impressedwith the idea that we were an ambitious, encroaching people, Mr. Adamsreplied: "I doubt if we should give ourselves any concern about it. Great Britain, who had been vilifying us for twenty years as alow-minded nation, with no generous ambition, no God but gold, had nowchanged her tune, and was endeavoring to alarm the world at the giganticgrasp of our ambition. Spain and all Europe were endeavoring to do thesame; being startled at first by our acquisition of Louisiana, and nowby our pretensions to extend to the South Sea. Nothing we can say willremove this impression until the world shall be familiarized with theidea of considering the continent of North America to be our properdominion. From the time we became an independent people, it was as mucha law of nature that this should become our pretension, as that theMississippi should flow to the sea. Spain had pretensions on oursouthern, Great Britain on our northern borders. It was impossible thatcenturies should elapse without finding them annexed to the UnitedStates; not from any spirit of encroachment or of ambition on our part, but because it was a physical, and moral, and political absurdity, thatsuch fragments of territory, with sovereigns fifteen hundred milesbeyond sea, worthless and burdensome to their owners, should exist, permanently, contiguous to a great, powerful, enterprising, andrapidly-growing nation. Most of the territories of Spain in ourneighborhood had become ours by fair purchase. This rendered it moreunavoidable that the remainder of the continent should ultimately beours. It was but very lately we had seen this ourselves, or that we hadavowed the pretension of extending to the South Sea; and, until Europefinds it to be a settled geographical element that the United States andNorth America are identical, any effort on our part to reason the worldout of the belief that we are an ambitious people will have no othereffect than to convince them that we add to our ambition hypocrisy. "

Concerning the discords which arose in the cabinet, on policy to bepursued, Mr. Adams remarked: "I see them with pain, but they are sown inthe practice which the Virginia Presidents have taken so much pains toengraft on the constitution of the Union, making it a principle that noPresident can be more than twice elected, and whoever is not thrown outafter one term of service must decline being a candidate after thesecond. This is not a principle of the constitution, and I am satisfiedit ought not to be. Its inevitable consequence is to make everyadministration a scene of continuous and furious electioneering for thesuccession to the Presidency. It was so through the whole of Mr. Madison's administration, and it is so now. "

The signature of the treaty for the acquisition of Florida, sanctionedby the unanimous vote of the Senate, had greatly contributed to theapparent popularity of Mr. Monroe's administration. But the postponementof its ratification by Spain soon clouded the prospect; and the questionwhether Missouri should be admitted into the Union as a slave or freestate, in which Mr. Adams took a deep interest, immediately rendered thepolitical atmosphere dark and stormy. "There is now, " Mr. Adamsobserved, "every appearance that the slave question will be carried bythe superior ability of the slavery party. For this much is certain, that if institutions are to be judged by their results in thecomposition of the councils of the Union, the slaveholders are much moreably represented than the simple freemen. With the exception of RufusKing, there is not, in either house of Congress, a member from the freestates able to cope in powers of the mind with William Pinkney and JamesBarbour. In the House of Representatives the freemen have none tocontend on equal terms either with John Randolph or Clay. Anothermisfortune to the free party is that some of their ablest men are eitheron this question with their adversaries, or lukewarm in the cause. Theslave men have indeed a deeper immediate stake in the issue than thepartisans of freedom. Their passions and interests are more profoundlyagitated, and they have stronger impulses to active energy than theirantagonists, whose only individual interest in this case arises from itsbearing on the balance of political power between the North and South. "

The debate on this subject commenced in the Senate. In the course ofJanuary and February, 1820, Rufus King, senator from New York, deliveredtwo of the most well-considered and powerful speeches that this Missouriquestion elicited. The remarks they drew forth from Mr. Adams render itproper that some idea of their general course should be stated, althoughit is impossible that any abstract can do justice to them. Disclaimingall intention to encourage or assent to any measure that would affectthe security of property in slaves, or tend to disturb the politicaladjustment which the constitution had established concerning them, heenters at large into the power of Congress to make and determinewhatever regulations are needful concerning the territories. Hemaintained that the power of admitting new states is by the constitutionreferred wholly to the discretion of Congress; that the citizens of theseveral states have rights and duties, differing from each other in therespective states; that those concerning slavery are the mostremarkable--it being permitted in some states, and prohibited in others;that the question concerning slavery in the old states is alreadysettled. Congress had no power to interfere with or change whatever hasbeen thus settled. The slave states are free to continue or abolishslavery. The constitution contains no provision concerning slavery in anew state; Congress, therefore, may make it a condition of the admissionof a new state that slavery shall forever be prohibited within it. 

Mr. King then enters upon the history of the United States relative tothis subject, and to the rights of the citizens of Missouri resultingfrom the terms of the cession of Louisiana, and of the act admitting itinto the Union. From this recapitulation and illustration hedemonstrates, beyond refutation, that Congress possesses the power toexclude slavery from Missouri. The only question now remaining was toshow that it ought to exclude it. In discussing this point, Mr. Kingpasses over in silence arguments which to some might appear decisive, but the use of which in the Senate of the United States would call upfeelings that he apprehended might disturb or defeat the impartialconsideration of the subject. 

Under this self-restraint he observed that slavery, unhappily, existsin the United States; that enlightened men in the states where it ispermitted, and everywhere out of them, regret its existence among us, and seek for the means of limiting and of eradicating it. He thenproceeds to state and reason concerning the difficulties in theapportionment of taxes among the respective states under the oldconfederation, and in the convention for the formation of theconstitution, which resulted in the provision that direct taxes shouldbe apportioned among the states according to the whole number of freepersons and three fifths of the slaves which they might respectivelycontain. The effect of this provision he then analyzes, and shows that, in consequence of it, _five_ free persons in Virginia have as muchpower in the choice of representatives, and in the appointment ofpresidential electors, as _seven_ free persons in any of the states inwhich slavery does not exist. At the time of the adoption of theconstitution no one anticipated the fact that the whole of the revenueof the United States would be derived from indirect taxes; but it wasbelieved that a part of the contribution to the common treasury wouldbe apportioned among the states, by the rule for the apportionment ofrepresentatives. The states in which slavery is prohibited ultimately, though with reluctance, acquiesced in the disproportionate number ofrepresentatives and electors that was secured to the slaveholdingstates. The concession was at the time believed to be a great one, andhas proved the greatest which was made to secure the adoption of theconstitution. Great as is this concession, it was definite, and itsfull extent was comprehended. It was a settlement between the thirteenstates, and not applicable to new states which Congress might bewilling to admit into the Union. 

The equality of rights, which includes an equality of burdens, is avital principle in our theory of government. The effect of theconstitution has been obvious in the preponderance it has given to theslave-holding states over the other states. But the extension of thisdisproportionate power to the new states would be unjust and odious. Thestates whose power would be abridged and whose burdens would beincreased by the measure would not be expected to consent to it. Theexistence of slavery impairs the industry and power of a nation. In acountry where manual labor is performed by slaves, that of freemen isdishonored. In case of foreign war, or domestic insurrection, slaves notonly do not add to, but diminish the faculty of self-defence. 

If Missouri, and the states formed to the west of the River Mississippi, are permitted to introduce and establish slavery, the repose, if not thesecurity, of the Union, may be endangered. All the states south of theRiver Ohio, and west of Pennsylvania and Delaware, will be peopled withslaves; and the establishment of new states west of the RiverMississippi will serve to extend slavery, instead of freedom, over thatboundless region. But, if slavery be excluded from Missouri and theother new states which may be formed in that quarter, not only will theslave-markets be broken up, and the principles of freedom be extendedand strengthened, but an exposed and important frontier will present abarrier which will check and keep back foreign assailants, who may be asbrave, and, as we hope, as free as ourselves. Surrounded in this mannerby connected bodies of freemen, the states where slavery is allowed willbe made more secure against domestic insurrection, and less liable to beaffected by what may take place in the neighboring colonies. 

At the delivery of these speeches Mr. Adams was present, and thusexpressed his opinion in writing: "I heard Mr. King on what is calledthe Missouri question. His manner was dignified, grave, earnest, but notrapid or vehement. There was nothing new in his argument, but heunravelled with ingenious and subtle analysis many of the sophisticaltissues of slaveholders. He laid down the position of the naturalliberty of man, and its incompatibility with slavery in any shape; healso questioned the constitutional right of the President and Senate tomake the Louisiana treaty; but he did not dwell upon those points, nordraw the consequences from them which I should think important. He spokeon that subject, however, with great power, and the great slaveholdersin the house gnawed their lips and clenched their fists as they heardhim. "

"At our evening parties, " he adds, "we hear of nothing but the Missouriquestion and Mr. King's speeches. The slaveholders cannot hear of themwithout being seized with the cramps. They call them seditious andinflammatory, which was far from being their character. Never, sincehuman sentiment and human conduct were influenced by human speech, wasthere a theme for eloquence like the free side of this question, nowbefore the Congress of the Union. By what fatality does it happen thatall the most eloquent orators are on its slavish side? There is a greatmass of cool judgment and of plain sense on the side of freedom andhumanity, but the ardent spirits and passions are on the side ofoppression. O! if but one man could arise with a genius capable ofcomprehending, a heart capable of supporting, and an utterance capableof communicating, those eternal truths which belong to the question, --tolay bare in all its nakedness that outrage upon the goodness of God, human slavery, --now is the time, and this is the occasion, upon whichsuch a man would perform the duties of an angel upon earth. "

About this time Mr. Calhoun remarked to Mr. Adams, that he did not thinkthe slave question, then pending in Congress, would produce adissolution of the Union, but, if it should, the South would, fromnecessity, be compelled to form an alliance, offensive and defensive, with Great Britain. Mr. Adams asked if that would not be returning tothe old colonial state. Calhoun said, Yes, pretty much, but it would beforced upon them. Mr. Adams inquired whether he thought, if by theeffect of this alliance, offensive and defensive, the population of theNorth should be cut off from its natural outlet upon the ocean, it wouldfall back upon its rocks, bound hand and foot, to starve; or whether itwould retain its power of locomotion to move southward by land. Mr. Calhoun replied, that in the latter event it would be necessary for theSouth to make their communities all military. Mr. Adams pressed theconversation no further, but remarked: "If the dissolution of the Unionshould result from the slave question, it is as obvious as anything thatcan be foreseen of futurity, that it must shortly afterwards be followedby an universal emancipation of the slaves. A more remote, but perhapsnot less certain consequence, would be the extirpation of the Africanrace in this continent, by the gradually bleaching process ofintermixture, where the white is already so predominant, and by thedestructive process of emancipation; which, like all great religious andpolitical reformations, is terrible in its means, though happy andglorious in its end. Slavery is the great and foul stain on the AmericanUnion, and it is a contemplation worthy of the most exalted soul, whether its total abolition is not practicable. This object is vast inits compass, awful in its prospects, sublime and beautiful in its issue. A life devoted to it would be nobly spent or sacrificed. "

On the 26th of February, Mr. John Randolph spoke on the Missouriquestion in the House of Representatives between three and four hours, on which speech Mr. Adams observed: "As usual, it had neither beginning, middle, nor end. Egotism, Virginian aristocracy, slave-purging liberty, religion, literature, science, wit, fancy, generous feelings, andmalignant passions, constitute a chaos in his mind, from which nothingorderly can ever flow. Clay, the Speaker, twice called him to order;which proved useless, for he can no more keep order than he can keepsilence. " On the 1st of March the Missouri question came to a crisis inCongress. The majorities in both branches were on opposite sides, and ineach a committee was raised to effect a compromise. This endeavorresulted in the abandonment by the House of Representatives of theprinciple it had inserted, that slavery should be prohibited in theMissouri constitution, and in annexing a section that slavery should beprohibited in the remaining parts of the Louisiana cession, north oflatitude thirty-six degrees thirty minutes. This compromise, as it wascalled, was finally carried in the House of Representatives, by a voteof ninety to thirty-seven, after several successive days, and almostnights, of stormy debate. 

On the 3d of March, a member of the house from Massachusetts told Mr. Adams that John Randolph had made a motion that morning to reconsiderone of the votes of yesterday upon the Missouri bill, and of thetrickery by which his motion was defeated. The Speaker (Mr. Clay)declared it when first made not in order, the journal of yesterday'sproceedings riot having been then read; and while they were reading thejournal, the clerk of the house carried the bill as passed by the houseto the Senate; so that, when Randolph, after the reading of the journal, renewed his motion, it was too late, the papers being no longer in thepossession of the house. "And so it is, " said Mr. Adams, "that a lawperpetuating slavery in Missouri, and perhaps in North America, has beensmuggled through both houses of Congress. I have been convinced, fromthe first starting of this question, that it could not end otherwise. The fault is in the constitution of the United States, which hassanctioned a dishonorable compromise with slavery. There is henceforthno remedy for it but a reörganization of the Union, to effect which aconcert of all the white states is indispensable. Whether that can everbe accomplished is doubtful. It is a contemplation not very creditableto human nature that the cement of common interest, produced by slavery, is stronger and more solid than that of unmingled freedom. In thisinstance the slave states have clung together in one unbroken phalanx, and have been victorious by the means of accomplices and deserters fromthe ranks of freedom. Time only can show whether the contest may ever, with equal advantage, be renewed; but, so polluted are all the streamsof legislation in regions of slavery, that this bill has been obtainedby two as unprincipled artifices as dishonesty ever devised. One, bycoupling it as an appendage to the bill for admitting Maine into theUnion; the other, by the perpetrating this outrage by the Speaker on therules of the house. "

Mr. Calhoun, after a debate in the cabinet on the Missouri question, said to Mr. Adams that the principles avowed by him were just and noble, but in the Southern country, whenever they were mentioned, they werealways understood as applying to white men. Domestic labor was confinedto the blacks; and such was the prejudice that, if he were to keep awhite servant in his house, although he was the most popular man in hisdistrict, his character and reputation would be irretrievably ruined. Mr. Adams replied that this confounding the ideas of servitude and laborwas one of the bad effects of slavery. Mr. Calhoun thought it wasattended with many excellent consequences. It did not apply to all sortsof labor; not, for example, to farming. He, himself, had often held theplough. So had his father. Manufacturing and mechanical labor was notdegrading. It was only menial labor, the proper work of slaves. No whiteperson could descend to that. And it was the best guarantee of equalityamong the whites. It produced an unvarying level among them. It not onlydid not excite, but did not admit of inequalities, by which one whiteman could domineer over another. 

Mr. Adams replied, that he could not see things in the same light. "Itis in truth all perverted sentiment; mistaking labor for slavery, anddominion for freedom. The discussion of this Missouri question hasbetrayed the secret of their souls. In the abstract they admit slaveryto be an evil. They disclaim all participation in the introduction ofit, and cast it all on the shoulders of 'old grandame Great Britain. 'But, when probed to the quick upon it, they show at the bottom of theirsouls pride and vain-glory in their very condition of masterdom. Theyfancy themselves more generous and noble-hearted than the plain freemen, who labor for subsistence. They look down on the simplicity of Yankeemanners, because they have no habits of overbearing like theirs, andcannot treat negroes like dogs. It is among the evils of slavery that ittaints the very source of moral principle. It establishes falseestimates of virtue and vice; for what can be more false and heartlessthan this doctrine, which makes the first and holiest rights of humanityto depend on the color of the skin? It perverts human reason, andreduces man endowed with logical powers to maintain that slavery issanctioned by the Christian religion; that slaves are happy andcontented in their condition; that between the master and slave thereare ties of mutual attachment and affection; that the virtues of themaster are refined and exalted by the degradation of the slave; while, at the same time, they vent execrations on the slave-trade, curse GreatBritain for having given them slaves, burn at the stake negroesconvicted of crimes for the terror of the example, and writhe in agoniesof fear at the very mention of human rights as applicable to men ofcolor. "

"The impression produced on my mind, " continued Mr. Adams, "by theprogress of this discussion, is, that the bargain between freedom andslavery contained in the constitution of the United States is morallyand politically vicious; inconsistent with the principles on which aloneour Revolution can be justified; cruel and oppressive, by riveting thechains of slavery, by pledging the faith of freedom to maintain andperpetuate the tyranny of the master; and grossly unequal and impolitic, by admitting that slaves are at once enemies to be kept in subjection, property to be secured and returned to their owners, and persons not tobe represented themselves, but for whom their masters are privilegedwith nearly a double share of representation. The consequence has beenthat this slave representation has governed the Union. Benjamin'sportion above his brethren has ravined as a wolf. In the morning he hasdevoured the prey, and in the evening has divided the spoil. It would beno difficult matter to prove, by reviewing the history of the Unionunder this constitution, that almost everything which has contributed tothe honor and welfare of this nation has been accomplished in despite ofthem, or forced upon them; and that everything unpropitious anddishonorable, including the blunders of their adversaries, may be tracedto them. I have favored this Missouri compromise, believing it to be allthat could be effected under the present constitution, and from extremeunwillingness to put the Union at hazard. But perhaps it would have beena wiser and bolder course to have persisted in the restriction onMissouri, until it should have terminated in a convention of the statesto revise and amend the constitution. This would have produced a newUnion of thirteen or fourteen states unpolluted with slavery, with agreat and glorious object, that of rallying to their standard the otherstates, by the universal emancipation of their slaves. If the Union mustbe dissolved, slavery is precisely the question upon which it ought tobreak. For the present, however, this contest is laid asleep. "

Again he says: "Mr. King is deeply mortified at the issue of theMissouri question, and very naturally feels resentful at the imputationsof the slaveholders, that his motives on this occasion have been merelypersonal aggrandizement, --'close ambition varnished o'er with zeal. ' Theimputation of bad motives is one of the most convenient weapons ofpolitical, and indeed of every sort of controversy. It came originallyfrom the devil. --'Doth Job serve God for naught?' The selfish and thesocial passions are intermingled in the conduct of every man acting in apublic capacity. It is right that they should be so. And it is no justcause of reproach to any man, that, in promoting to the utmost of hispower the public good, he is desirous; at the same time, of promotinghis own. There are, no doubt, hypocrites of humanity as well as ofreligion; men with cold hearts and warm professions, trading uponbenevolence, and using justice and virtue only as stakes upon the turnof a card or the cast of a die. But this sort of profligacy belongs to astate of society more deeply corrupted than ours. Such characters arerare among us. Many of our public men have principles too pliable topopular impulse, but few are deliberately dishonest; and there is not aman in the Union of purer integrity than Rufus King. 

"The most remarkable circumstance in the history of the final decisionof the Missouri question is that it was ultimately carried against theopinions, wishes, and interests, of the free states, by the votes oftheir own members. They had a decided majority in both houses ofCongress, but lost the vote by disunion among themselves. Theslaveholders clung together, without losing one vote. Many of them, andalmost all the Virginians, held out to the last, even againstcompromise. The cause of the closer union on the slave side is that thequestion affected the individual interest of every slaveholding member, and of almost every one of his constituents. On the other side, individual interests were not implicated in the decision at all. Theimpulses were purely republican principle and the rights of humannature. The struggle for political power, and geographical jealousy, mayfairly be supposed to have operated equally on both sides. The resultaffords an illustration of the remark, how much more keen and powerfulthe impulse is of personal interest than is that of any generalconsideration of benevolence and humanity. "

The compromise, by which Missouri was admitted into the Union, did notfinally settle the question in. Congress. At the next session itreappeared, in consequence of the insertion into the constitution ofMissouri of an article declaring it to be the duty of the Legislature topass laws prohibiting free negroes and persons of color from coming intoMissouri; which declaration was directly repugnant to that article inthe constitution of the United States which provides that the citizensof each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities ofcitizens of the other states. The only mode of getting out of thisdifficulty, said Mr. Adams, was "for Congress to pass a resolutiondeclaring the State of Missouri to be admitted from and after the timewhen the article repugnant to the constitution of the United Statesshould be expunged from its constitution. This question was much moreclear against Missouri than was that of their first admission into theUnion; but the people of the North, like many of their representativesin Congress, began to give indications of a disposition to flinch fromthe consequences of this question, and to be unwilling to bear theirleaders out. "

Mr. Adams, in conversation with one of the senators of the South, observed, that "the article in the Missouri constitution is directlyrepugnant to the rights reserved to every citizen in the Union in theconstitution of the United States. Its purport is to disfranchise allthe people of color who were citizens of the free states. TheLegislatures of those states are bound in duty to protect the rights oftheir own citizens; and if Congress, by the admission of Missouri withthat clause in her constitution, should sanction this outrage uponthose rights, the states a portion of whose citizens should be thuscast out of the pale of the Union would be bound to vindicate them byretaliation. If I were a member of the Legislature of one of thesestates, I would move for a declaratory act, that so long as the articlein the constitution of Missouri, depriving the colored citizens of thestate (say) of Massachusetts of their rights as citizens of the UnitedStates within the State of Missouri, should subsist, so long the whitecitizens of Missouri should be held as aliens within the Commonwealthof Massachusetts, and not entitled to claim or enjoy, within the same, any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States. " And Mr. Adams said he would go further, and declare that Congress, by theirsanction of the Missouri constitution, by admitting that state into theUnion without excepting against that article which disfranchised aportion of the citizens of Massachusetts, had violated the constitutionof the United States. Therefore, until that portion of the citizens ofMassachusetts whose rights were violated by the article in the Missouricompromise should be reintegrated in the full enjoyment and possessionof those rights, no clause or article of the constitution of the UnitedStates should, within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, be sounderstood as to authorize any person whatsoever to claim the propertyor possession of a human being as a slave; and he would prohibit by lawthe delivery of any fugitive upon the claim of his master. All which, he said, should be done, not to violate, but to redeem from violation, the constitution of the United States. It was indeed to be expectedthat such laws would again be met by retaliatory laws of Missouri andthe other slaveholding states, and the consequences would be adissolution _de facto_ of the Union; but that dissolution would becommenced by the article in the Missouri constitution. "That article, "declared Mr. Adams, "is itself a dissolution of the Union. Ifacquiesced in, it will change the terms of the federal compact--changeits terms by robbing thousands of citizens of their rights. And whatcitizens? The poor, the unfortunate, the helpless, already cursed bythe mere color of their skin; already doomed by their complexion todrudge in the lowest offices of society; excluded by their color fromall the refined enjoyments of life accessible to others; excluded fromthe benefits of a liberal education, --from the bed, the table, and allthe social comforts, of domestic life. This barbarous article deprivesthem of the little remnant of right yet left them--their rights ascitizens and as men. Weak and defenceless as they are, so much the moresacred the obligation of the Legislatures of the states to which theybelong to defend their lawful rights. I would defend them, should thedissolution of the Union be the consequence; for it would be, not tothe defence, but to the violation of their rights, to which all theconsequences would be imputable; and, if the dissolution of the Unionmust come, let it come from no other cause but this. If slavery be thedestined sword, in the hand of the destroying angel, which is to severthe ties of this Union, the same sword will cut asunder the bonds ofslavery itself. "

"In the House of Representatives, on the 4th of December, " writes Mr. Adams, "Mr. Eustis, of Massachusetts, made a speech against theresolution for admitting Missouri into the Union without condition, andit was rejected, _ninety-three_ to _seventy-nine_. On the 19th ofDecember he offered a resolution admitting Missouri into the Unionconditionally; namely, 'from and after the time when they shall haveexpunged from their constitution the article repugnant to theconstitution of the United States. ' On the 24th of January, 1821, thisresolution was rejected by a vote of one hundred and forty-six to six. It satisfies neither party. It is too strong for the slave party, andnot strong enough for the free party. " In December and January thesubject was ardently debated in the House of Representatives, and, after commitment and various attempts at amendment, on the 13th ofFebruary the report of a committee of the House of Representatives infavor of admitting Missouri into the Union, in conformity with theresolution which had passed the Senate, was rejected, eighty-five toeighty. 

The proceedings of the House of Representatives, in counting the votesfor President and Vice-President, are thus stated by Mr. Adams: "Onthe 14th of February, while the electoral votes for President andVice-President were counting, those of Missouri were objected tobecause Missouri was not a state of the Union--on which a tumultuousscene arose. A Southern member moved, in face of the rejection by amajority of the House, that Missouri _is_ one of the states of thisUnion, and that her votes ought to be counted. Mr. Clay avoided thequestion by moving that it should lie on the table, and then that amessage should be sent to the Senate informing them that the House were_now_ ready to proceed in continuing the enumeration of the electoralvotes, according to the joint resolution; which was ordered. The Senateaccordingly proceeded to open the votes of Missouri, and they werecounted. The result was declared by the President of the Senate, in thealternative that if the votes of Missouri were counted there were twohundred and thirty-one votes for James Monroe as President, and twohundred and eighteen votes for Daniel D. Tompkins as Vice-President;and if not counted, there would be two hundred and twenty-eight votesfor James Monroe as President, and two hundred and fifteen for DanielD. Tompkins as Vice-President; but, in either event, both were electedto their respective offices. He therefore declared them to be soelected. 

"After the two houses had separated, Mr. Randolph moved two resolutions:one, that the electoral votes of the State of Missouri had been counted, and formed part of the majorities by which the President andVice-President had been elected; and the other, that the result of theelection had not been declared by the presiding officer conformably tothe constitution and the law, and therefore the whole proceedings hadbeen irregular and illegal. This motion, after a very disorderly debate, was disposed of by adjournment. Mr. Randolph was for bringing Missouriinto the Union by storm, and by bullying a majority of the House into aminority. The only result was disorder and tumult. 

"On the 23d of February, the Missouri question being still undecided, ona motion of Mr. Clay, the House of Representatives chose by ballot acommittee of twenty-three members, who were joined by a committee ofseven from the Senate. Their object was a last attempt to devise a planfor admitting Missouri into the Union. On the 26th, the committeeproposed a _conditional_ admission, upon terms more humiliating tothe people of Missouri than it would have been to require that theyshould expunge the exceptionable article from their constitution; forthey declared it a fundamental condition of their admission that thearticle should never be construed to authorize the passage of any law bywhich any citizen of the states of this Union should be excluded fromhis privileges under the constitution of the United States; and theyrequired that the Legislature of the state, by a solemn public act, should declare the assent of the state to this condition, and transmit acopy of the act, by the first Monday of November ensuing, to thePresident of the United States. But, in substance, this condition boundthem to nothing. The resolution was, however, taken up this day in theHouse of Representatives, read three times, and passed by a vote ofeighty-seven to eighty-one. On the 28th of February, the Senate, by avote of twenty-eight to fourteen, adopted the resolution. 

"This second Missouri question was compromised like the first. Themajority against the unconditional admission into the Union was small, but very decided. The problem for the slave representation to solve wasthe precise extent of concession necessary for them to detach from theopposite party a number of antiservile votes just sufficient to turn themajority. Mr. Clay found, at last, this expedient, which the slavevoters would not have accepted from any one not of their own party, andto which his greatest difficulty was to obtain the assent of his ownfriends. The timid and the weak-minded dropped off, one by one, from thefree side of the question, until a majority was formed for thecompromise, of which the servile have the substance, and the liberalsthe shadow. 

"In the progress of this affair the distinctive character of theinhabitants of the several great divisions of this Union has been shownmore in relief than perhaps in any national transaction since theestablishment of the constitution. It is, perhaps, accidental that thecombination of talent and influence has been the greatest on the slaveside. The importance of the question has been much greater to them thanto the other side. Their union of exertion has been consequently closerand more unshakable. They have threatened and entreated, bullied andwheedled, until their more simple adversaries have been half coaxed, half frightened into a surrender of their principles for a bauble ofinsignificant promises. The champions of the North did not judiciouslyselect their position for this contest. There must be, some time, aconflict on this very question between slave and free representation. This, however, was not the proper occasion for contesting it. "

At this period Mr. Adams considered that the greatest danger of theUnion was in the overgrown extent of its territory, combining with theslavery question. The want of slaves was not in the lands, but in theirinhabitants. Slavery had become in the South and South-western states acondition of existence. On the falling off of the revenue, whichoccurred about this time, he observed that "it stirs up the spirit ofeconomy and retrenchment; and, as the expenditures of the war departmentare those on which the most considerable saving can be made, at them theeconomists level their first and principal batteries. Individual, personal jealousies, envyings, and resentments, partisan ambition, andprivate interests and hopes, mingle in the motives which prompt thispolicy. About one half of the members of Congress are seekers of officeat the nomination of the President. Of the remainder, at least one halfhave some appointment or favor to ask for their relatives. But there aretwo modes of obtaining their ends: the one, by subserviency; the other, by opposition. These may be called the cringing canvass and the floutingcanvass. As the public opinion is most watchful of the cringing canvass, the flouters are the most numerous party. "

 CHAPTER VI. 

SECOND TERM OF MONROE'S PRESIDENCY. --STATE OF PARTIES. --REPORT ONWEIGHTS AND MEASURES. --PROCEEDINGS AT GHENT VINDICATED. --VOTES WHEN HEWAS A MEMBER OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES DEFENDED. --INDEPENDENCEOF GREECE. --CONTESTS OF PARTIES. --ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITEDSTATES. 

During the second term of Mr. Monroe's Presidency, Mr. Adams continuedto take his full proportion of responsibility in the measures of theadministration. Questions concerning the Bank of the United States, thecurrency, the extinction or extension of slavery, the bankrupt law, thetariff, and internal improvements, brought into discussion the interestsof the great States of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York, combinedwith the never-ceasing struggles for power of parties and individuals. Candidates for the office of President and Vice-President were broughtinto the field by their respective adherents. Every topic which couldexalt or depress either was put in requisition, and office-holders andoffice-seekers became anxious and alert. 

In July, 1821, at the request of the citizens of Washington, Mr. Adamsdelivered an address on the anniversary of American Independence. It didnot receive the indulgence usually extended to such efforts, but wasmade the occasion of severe animadversions on his character and talents. In December his friends called his attention to calumnies and aspersionscopied into the _City Gazette_, from papers issued in Georgia andTennessee, and expressed their opinions that they ought to be answeredby him, as they knew they could be most triumphantly. Mr. Adams replied:"Should I comply with your request, it will be immediately said, I wascanvassing for the Presidency. I never, that I can recollect, but once, undertook to answer anything that was published against me, and that waswhen I was in private life. To answer newspaper accusations would be anendless task. The tongue of falsehood can never be silenced. I have nottime to spare from public business to the vindication of myself. "

To place Philip P. Barbour, of Virginia, in the Speaker's chair, and toprevent the reelection of John W. Taylor, of New York, the tried friendof the administration, became the next object of all those who hoped torise by opposing it. The partisans of Barbour were successful, and theconsequences of his elevation were immediately apparent. As theCommittee of Foreign Relations was, by a practical rule, the medium ofcommunication between Congress and the executive government, it wascustomary for the Speaker to constitute it chiefly of members whocoïncided in their views. But many of those now appointed by Barbour, especially the chairman, were hostile to their politics. To thiscommittee all the delicate and critical papers relative to the foreignrelations of the United States were to be confidentially communicated. No arrangement could have been more annoying to Mr. Monroe and hiscabinet, or more symptomatic of a settled opposition. 

By a vote passed in March, 1817, the Senate had required of Mr. Adams areport on weights and measures; and in December, 1819, the House ofRepresentatives had by a resolution made the same requisition. To thissubject he had directed his attention when in Russia; and had devotedthe leisure his duties as Secretary of State permitted, withoutapproximating to its completion, owing to the number and perplexity ofdetails its pursuit involved. 

In the summer of 1820 he relinquished a visit to his father and friendsin Massachusetts, and concentrated his attention, during six months, exclusively on this report, which he finished and made to Congress, inFebruary, 1821. At the conclusion of his work he thus expresses himself:"This subject has occupied, for the last sixty years, many of the ablestmen in Europe, and to it all the powers, and all the philosophical andmathematical learning and ingenuity, of France and Great Britain, havebeen incessantly directed. It was a fearful and oppressive task. It hasbeen executed, and it will be for the public judgment to pass upon it. "

From the abstruse character of this work, the labor, research, andtalent, it evidences have never been generally and justly appreciated. It commences with the wants of individuals antecedent to the existenceof communities, and deduces from man's physical organization, and fromthe exigences of domestic society, the origin of _measures of surface, distance, and capacity_; and that of _weight_, from the differencebetween the specific gravity of substances and its importance in theexchange of traffic consequent on the multiplication of human wants, with the increase of the social relations. He then proceeds to stateand analyze the powers and duties of legislators on the subject, withtheir respective limitations. The results of his researches relative tothe weights and measures of the Egyptians, Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans, are successively stated. From the institutions of the nations ofantiquity he derives those of modern Europe and of the United States. He praises the "stupendous and untiring perseverance of England andFrance" in this field, and explains the causes which have not renderedtheir success adequate to their endeavors. The system of modern Franceon this subject he investigates and applauds, as "one of those attemptsto improve the condition of human kind, which, although it mayultimately fail, deserves admiration, as approaching more nearly thanany other to the ideal perfection of uniformity in weights andmeasures. " After stating the difficulties which prevented other nationsfrom seconding the endeavors of France, Mr. Adams concludes thiselaborate treatise with the opinion that universal uniformity on thesubject can only be effected by a general convention, to which all thenations of the world should be parties. Until such a general course ofmeasures be adopted, he regards it as inexpedient for the United Statesto make any change in their present system. After an elaborateenumeration of the regulations of the several states of the Union, accompanied by voluminous documents, he concludes with proposing, "first, to fix the standard with the partial uniformity of which it issusceptible for the present, excluding all innovation. Second, toconsult with foreign nations for the future and ultimate establishmentof _permanent_ and _universal_ uniformity. "

The Senate ordered six hundred copies of this report to be printed. Butits final suggestions were not made the subject of action in eitherbranch. A writer of the day said, with equal truth and severity, "It wasnot noticed in Congress, where ability was wanting, or labor refused, to understand it. " As Mr. Adams was one of the candidates in theapproaching presidential election, party spirit was inclined to treatwith silence and neglect labors which it realized could not fail tocommand admiration and approval. In England the merits of this reportwere more justly appreciated. In 1834, Col. Pasley, royal engineer, in alearned work on measures and money, acknowledged the benefits he hadderived from "an official report upon weights and measures, publishedin 1821, by a distinguished American statesman, John Quincy Adams. Thisauthor, " he adds, "has thrown more light into the history of our oldEnglish weights and measures _than all former writers on the subject_;and his views of historical facts, even when occasionally in oppositionto the reports of our own parliamentary committees, appear to me mostcorrect. For my own part, I do not think I could have seen my way intothe history of English weights and measures in the feudal ages withouthis guidance. "

In the summer of 1821 Mr. Adams was apprized that rumors, veryunfavorable to his reputation, even for integrity, had beenindustriously circulated in the Western country. It had been statedthat he had made a proposition at Ghent to grant to the British theright to navigate the Mississippi, in return for the Newfoundlandfisheries, and that it was in that section represented as a highmisdemeanor. Mr. Adams said, that a proposition to confirm both thoserights as they had stood before the war, and as stipulated by thetreaty of 1783, had been offered to the British commissioners, not byhim, but by the whole American mission, every one of whom hadsubscribed to it. The proposition was not made by him, but by Mr. Gallatin, who knew it would be nothing to the British but a mere nakedright, of which they could not make any use. It was accordinglypromptly rejected by the British commissioners, and made the ground ofa counter proposition of renouncing the right they had, under thetreaty of 1783, of navigating that river, on condition of ourrenouncing the old article on the fisheries. Mr. Adams at once declaredthat, if it was acceded to, he would never sign the treaty; and it waspromptly rejected by the American commissioners. When he was again toldthat he would be accused in the Western States of the proposition toconfirm the British rights as they stood before the war, he replied, that he had no doubt it would be so; for Mr. Clay had already, in oneof his speeches in Congress, represented that this proposition had beenmade by a _majority_ of the Ghent commissioners, he being in theminority, without acknowledging _that he had himself signed the note bywhich the offer was made_, and without disclosing how lightly theconcession was estimated by the British commissioners, and how promptlythey rejected it. 

Accordingly, on the 18th of April, 1822, John Floyd, of Virginia, who, both in that state and in Congress, was active in seeking and scatteringmalign imputations concerning the political course of Mr. Adams, called, in the House of Representatives, for a letter, written by JonathanRussell, in 1814, to Mr. Monroe, then Secretary of State, and, as hestated, deposited in that office. 

This call of Floyd was the springing of the mine for a long-meditatedexplosion. On searching the records of state, no such letter could befound. Mr. Russell immediately volunteered a copy, and deposited it inthat office. This letter was addressed to James Monroe, then Secretaryof State, and was dated Paris, 11th of February, 1815. It was a letterof seven folio sheets of paper, and amounted, said Mr. Adams, to littleless than a denunciation of a majority of the Ghent commissioners forproposing the article recognizing the fishery, and the British right tonavigate the Mississippi, --a proposition in which Mr. Russell hadconcurred. He wrote this letter at Paris, where all the commissionersthen were, without ever communicating it to Mr. Adams, or letting himknow he had any intention of writing such a letter. It was a mostelaborate, disingenuous, and sophistical argument against principles inwhich Mr. Russell himself concurred, and against the joint letters ofthe 14th December, 1814, to which he signed his name. His motives, Mr. Adams considered, for writing then to a Virginian Secretary of State, under a Virginian President, were, apparently, at once to recommendhimself to their sectional prejudices about the Mississippi, and toinjure him in their esteem and favor, for future effect; and that hismotive for now abetting Floyd, in his call for these papers as a publicdocument, was to diminish the popularity of Mr. Adams in the WesternStates. 

With these views of the purposes of Floyd and Russell, Mr. Adamsimmediately endeavored to obtain the original letter, of which Mr. Russell had now deposited in the Secretary of State's office a paperpurporting to be a copy. The original he ascertained was still in thepossession of Mr. Monroe, who had received it soon after its date; but, as it was marked "private" by Mr. Russell, he considered itconfidential, and did not place it in the office of the Secretary ofState. On ascertaining these facts, Mr. Adams claimed the originalletter from Mr. Monroe, believing, from internal evidence, that theduplicate, instead of being a true copy of the original, had been insome respects adapted to present effect. Mr. Monroe declined to listento the repeated remonstrances of Mr. Adams, and continued to maintainthat he could not, with honor, make the original letter public. He didnot consent until he was called upon for it by a vote of the House ofRepresentatives, proposed by the friends of Mr. Adams, and resisted byFloyd and his party. The original letter being thus obtained, Mr. Adamsprepared and published a severe and scrutinizing examination of itsfacts and suggestions, of the motives which prompted those who hadbrought it before the public, and of the discrepancies between theoriginal and the alleged copy which Mr. Russell had volunteered to placein the office of the Secretary of State. Mr. Russell replied through thenewspapers; on which reply Mr. Adams bestowed a searching and causticanalysis, commenting with great severity on his language and conduct. 

The whole of this controversy was published immediately in an octavopamphlet, including important documents relative to the subject and tothe transactions of the commissioners at Ghent, by means of which Mr. Adams vindicates himself and his colleagues from the charges broughtagainst them. This elaborate and powerful defence, on which the strengthand character of his mind are deeply impressed, was regarded astriumphant. [1]

 [1] This publication is contained in _Niles' Weekly Register_, vol. XXII. , pp. 198, 209, 220, 296, 327, and continued in vol. XXIII. , pp. 6 and 9. 

Mr. Gallatin also published a pamphlet, generally corroborative of thestatements of Mr. Adams; an example which Mr. Clay, another of the Ghentcommissioners, being at that time a prominent competitor with Mr. Adamsfor the Presidency, did not see fit to follow. But, as total silence onhis part might be construed to his disadvantage, he published in thenewspapers a letter, dated the 15th of November, 1822, in which heintimated that there were some errors, both as to matter of fact andopinion, in the letter of Mr. Adams, as well as in that of Mr. Gallatin;and declared that he would at some future period, more propitious tocalm and dispassionate consideration, and when there could be nomisrepresentation of motives, lay before the public his own narrative ofthese transactions. 

Mr. Adams, on the 18th of the ensuing December, in a communication tothe _National Intelligencer_, expressed the pleasure it would havegiven him, had Mr. Clay thought it advisable to have specified theerrors he had intimated, to have rectified them by acknowledgment. Headded, that whenever Mr. Clay's accepted time to publish his promisednarrative should come, he would be ready, if living, to acknowledgeindicated errors, and vindicate contested truth. But, lest it might bepostponed until both should be summoned to account for all their errorsbefore a higher tribunal than that of their country, he felt calledupon to say that what he had written and published concerning thiscontroversy would, in every particular essential or important to theinterest of the nation, or to the character of Mr. Clay, be found toabide unshaken the test of human scrutiny, of talents, and of time. 

In July, 1822, a plan for an independent newspaper was proposed to Mr. Adams by some members of Congress, and the necessity of such a paper wasurged upon him with great earnestness. He replied: "An independentnewspaper is very necessary to make truth known to the people; but aneditor really independent must have a heart of oak, nerves of iron, anda soul of adamant, to carry it through. His first attempt will bring ahornet's nest about his head; and, if they do not sting him to death orto blindness, he will have to pursue his march with them continuallyswarming over him, and be beset on all sides with obloquy and slander. "

In August, 1822, paragraphs from newspapers, laudatory of othercandidates, and depreciatory of Mr. Adams, were shown to him, on whichhe remarked, "The thing is not new. From the nature of our institutions, competitors for public favor and their respective partisans seek successby slander of each other. I disdain the ignoble warfare, and neitherwage it myself or encourage it in my friends. But, from appearances, they will decide the election to the Presidency. "

In December, 1822, Alexander Smyth, also a representative of one of thedistricts of Virginia, followed the example of Mr. Floyd, and, in anaddress to his constituents, took occasion to introduce malignimputations upon the political course of Mr. Adams. To this end, havingransacked the journals of the Senate of the United States at the timewhen Mr. Adams was a member, he undertook to attribute to him basemotives for the votes he had given, particularly such as would be likelymost to affect his popularity in Virginia. Mr. Adams immediately causedto be printed and published an address to the freeholders of Smyth'sdistrict; the nature and spirit of which reply will be shown by thefollowing extracts:

 "Friends and Fellow-Citizens: By these titles I presume to address you, though personally known to few of you, because my character has been arraigned before you by your representative in Congress, in a printed handbill, soliciting your suffrages for reëlection, who seems to have considered his first claim to the continuance of your favor to consist in the bitterness with which he could censure me. I shall never solicit your suffrages, nor those of your representatives, for anything. But I value your good opinion, and wish to show you that I do not deserve to lose it. "--"I come to repel the charges of General Smyth, but neither for the purpose of moving you to withhold your suffrages from him, nor induce the General himself to reconsider his opinion concerning me. "--"As to his opinions, you will permit me to be indifferent to the opinions of a man capable of forming his judgment of character from such premises as he has alleged in support of his estimate of mine. "--"His mode of proof is this: He has ransacked the journals of the Senate during the five years I had the honor of a seat in that body, --a period the expiration of which is nearly fifteen years distant, --and wherever he has found in the list of yeas and nays my name recorded to a vote which he disapproves, he has imputed it, without knowing any of the grounds on which it was given, to the worst of motives, for the purpose of ascribing them to me. Is this fair? Is this candid? Is this just? Where is the man who ever served in a legislative capacity in your councils whose character could stand a test like this?"

Mr. Adams then proceeds to reply to all the charges brought against himby Alexander Smyth, analyzing and explaining every vote which he hadmade the subject of animadversion fully and successfully. The close ofhis defence is as follows:

 "Fellow-Citizens: I have explained to you the reasons and real motives of all the votes which your representative, General Alexander Smyth, has laid to my charge, in a printed address to you, and to which unusual publicity has been given in the newspapers. I am aware that, in presenting myself before you to give this explanation, my conduct may again be attributed to unworthy motives. The best actions may be, and have been, and will be, traced to impure sources, by those to whom troubled waters are a delight. If, in many cases, when the characters of public men are canvassed, however severely, it is their duty to suffer and be silent, there are others, in my belief many others, wherein their duty to their country, as well as to themselves and their children, is to stand forth the guardians and protectors of their own honest fame. Had your representative, in asking again for your votes, contented himself with declaring to you his intentions concerning me, you never would have heard from me in answer to him. But when he imputes to me a character and disposition unworthy of any public man, and adduces in proof mere naked votes upon questions of great public interest, all given under the solemn sense of duty, impressed by an oath to support the constitution, and by the sacred obligations of a public trust, to defend myself against charges so groundless and unprovoked is, in my judgment, a duty of respect to you, no less than a duty of self-vindication to me. I declare to you that not one of the votes which General Smyth has culled from an arduous service of five years in the Senate of the Union, to stigmatize them in the face of the country, was given from any of the passions or motives to which he ascribes them; that I never gave a vote either in hostility to the administration of Mr. Jefferson, or in disregard to republican principles, or in aversion to republican patriots, or in favor of the slave-trade, or in denial of due protection to commerce. I will add, that, having often differed in judgment upon particular measures with many of the best and wisest men of this Union of all parties, I have never lost sight either of the candor due to them in the estimate of their motives, or of the diffidence with which it was my duty to maintain the result of my own opinions in opposition to theirs. "

In 1823, as the Presidential election approached, the influences tocontrol and secure the interests predominating in the differentsections of the country became more active. Crawford, of Georgia, Calhoun, of South Carolina, Adams, of Massachusetts, and Clay, ofKentucky, were the most prominent candidates. In December, Barbour, ofVirginia, was superseded, as Speaker of the House of Representatives, by Clay, of Kentucky; an event ominous to the hopes of Crawford, and tothat resistance to the tariff, and to internal improvements, which wasregarded as dependent on his success. The question whether aCongressional caucus, by the instrumentality of which Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, had obtained the Presidency, should be again heldto nominate a candidate for that office, was the next cause ofpolitical excitement. The Southern party, whose hopes rested on thesuccess of Crawford, were clamorous for a caucus. The friends of theother candidates were either lukewarm or hostile to that expedient. Pennsylvania, whose general policy favored a protective tariff andpublic improvements, hesitated. In 1816 she had manifested anopposition to that plan of Congressional influence, and in 1823 amajority of her representatives declined attending any partial meetingof members of Congress that might attempt a nomination. But theDemocracy of that state, ever subservient to the views of the Southernaristocracy, held meetings at Philadelphia, and elsewhere, recommendinga Congressional caucus. This motion would have been probably adopted, had not the Legislature of Alabama, about this time, nominated AndrewJackson for the Presidency, and accompanied their resolutions in hisfavor with a recommendation to their representatives to use their bestexertions to prevent a Congressional nomination of a President. Thepopularity of Jackson, and the obvious importance to his success of thepolicy recommended by Alabama, fixed the wavering counsels ofPennsylvania, so that only three representatives from that stateattended the Congressional caucus, which was soon after called, andwhich consisted of _only sixty members_, out of _two hundred andsixty-one_, the whole number of the House of Representatives; of whichVirginia and New York, under the lead of Mr. Van Buren, constitutednearly one half. Notwithstanding this meagre assemblage, Mr. Crawfordwas nominated for the Presidency, under a confident expectation thatthe influence of the caucus would be conclusive with the people, andthe candidate and policy of Virginia would be confirmed in ascendency. But the days of Congressional caucuses were now numbered. The peopletook the nomination of President into their own hands, and the insolentassumption of members of Congress to dictate their choice in respect ofthis office was henceforth rebuked. 

While these intrigues were progressing, Mr. Adams was zealously andlaboriously fulfilling his duties as Secretary of State, neitherendeavoring himself, nor exciting his friends, to counteract thesepolitical movements, one of the chief objects of which was to defeat hischance for the Presidency. 

The course of Mr. Adams relative to the application of the Greeks, thenstruggling for independence, for the aid and countenance of the UnitedStates, next brought him into opposition to the prevailing tendency ofthe popular feeling of the time. A letter was addressed to him, asSecretary of State, by Andrew Luriottis, envoy of the provisionalgovernment of the Greeks, at London, entreating that political andcommercial relations might be established between the United States andGreece, and proposing to enter upon discussions which might lead toadvantageous treaties between the two countries. Mr. Rush, the Americanminister in London, enclosed this letter to Mr. Adams, and recommendedthe subject to the favorable attention of our government. Mr. Adams, after expressing the sympathy of the American administration in thecause of Greek freedom and independence, and their best wishes for itssuccess, proceeded to state that their duties precluded their takingpart in the war, peace with all the world being the settled policy ofthe United States; but that if, in the progress of events, the Greeksshould establish and organize an independent government, the UnitedStates would welcome them, and form with them such diplomatic andcommercial relations as were suitable to their respective relations. Mr. Adams also wrote a letter to Mr. Rush, requesting him to explain to Mr. Luriottis that the executive of the United States sympathized with theGreek cause, and would render the Greeks any service consistent withneutrality; but that assistance given by the application of the publicforce or revenue would involve them in a war with the Sublime Porte, orperhaps with the Barbary powers; that such aid could not be givenwithout an act of Congress, and that the policy of the United States wasessentially pacific. 

The popular feeling in favor of granting aid to the Greeks soon began tobe general and intense. Balls were held and benefits given to raisefunds for their relief, and sermons and orations delivered in theirbehalf, in many parts of the United States. "On this subject, " Mr. Adamsremarked, "there are two sources of eloquence: the one, with referenceto sentiment and enthusiasm; the other, to action. For the Greeks all isenthusiasm. As for action, there is seldom an agreement, and afterdiscussion the subject is apt to be left precisely where it was. Nothingdefinite, nothing practical, is proposed. " The United States were atpeace with the Sublime Porte, and he did not think slightly of a warwith Turkey. He had not much esteem for that enthusiasm for the Greekswhich evaporated in words. 

In the ensuing session, on the 9th of January, 1824, Mr. Webster, in theSenate of the United States, proposed a resolve "that provision ought tobe made by law for defraying the expense incident to the appointment ofan agent or commissioner to Greece, whenever the President shall deem itexpedient to make such appointment;" supporting it by a speech adaptedto catch the popular tide, then at the full, and, in fact, doing nothingwith the appearance of doing something. A member of Congress consultedMr. Adams on an amendment he proposed to make to the project of Mr. Webster, as specified in his resolve, it being then under considerationin the House of Representatives. Mr. Adams replied, it was immaterialwhat form the resolution might assume; the objection to it would be thesame in every form. It was, in his opinion, the intermeddling of thelegislature with the duties of the executive; it was the adoption ofClay's South American system; seizing upon the popular feeling of themoment to embarrass the administration. A few days afterwards, Mr. Adamstook occasion to state his reasons to Mr. Webster for being averse tohis resolution. 

Notwithstanding the Virginia doctrine, that the constitution does notauthorize the application of public moneys to internal improvement, wasone of the hinges on which the selection of candidates in the SouthernStates turned, Mr. Adams did not refrain from openly expressing his ownopinion. In a letter to a gentleman in Maryland, dated January, 1824, hestated that "Congress does possess the power of appropriating money forpublic improvements. Roads and canals are among the most essential meansof improving the condition of nations; and a people which shoulddeliberately, by the organization of its authorized power, depriveitself of the faculty of multiplying its own blessings, would be as wiseas a Creator who should undertake to constitute a human being without aheart. "[2]

 [2] _Niles' Register_, vol. XXVI. , pp. 251-328. 

While the election of President was pending, and the event uncertain, amember of Congress from Ohio told Mr. Adams there were sanguine hopes ofhis success; on which he remarked: "We know so little of that infuturity which is best for ourselves, that whether I ought to wish forsuccess is among the greatest uncertainties of the election. Were itpossible to look with philosophical indifference to the event, that isthe temper of mind to which I should aspire. But who can hold afirebrand in his hand by thinking of the frosty Caucasus? To sufferwithout feeling is not in human nature; and when I consider that to mealone, of all the candidates before the nation, failure of success wouldbe equivalent to a vote of censure by the nation upon my past services, I cannot dissemble to myself that I have more at stake in the resultthan any other individual. Yet a man qualified for the duties of chiefmagistrate of ten millions of people should be a man proof alike toprosperous and adverse fortune. If I am able to bear success, I must betempered to endure defeat. He who is equal to the task of serving anation as her chief ruler must possess resources of a power to serveher, even against her own will. This I would impress indelibly on my ownmind; and for a practical realization of which, in its proper result, Ilook for wisdom and strength from above. "

At the close of the year 1824, Mr. Adams responded to a like intimation:"You will be disappointed. To me both alternatives are distressing inprospect. The most formidable is that of success. All the danger is onthe pinnacle. The humiliation of failure will be so much more thancompensated by the safety in which it will leave me, that I ought toregard it as a consummation devoutly to be wished. "

At this period an apprehension being expressed to him that if he waselected Federalists would be excluded from office, he said, he shouldexclude no person for political opinion, or on account of personalopposition to him; but that his great object would be to break up theremnant of all party distinctions, and to bring the whole peopletogether, in point of sentiment, as much as possible; and that he shouldturn no one out of office on account of his conduct or opinions in theapproaching election. 

The result of this electioneering conflict was, that, by the returns ofthe electoral colleges of the several states, it appeared that none ofthe candidates had the requisite constitutional majority; the wholenumber of votes being two hundred and sixty-one--of which Andrew Jacksonhad ninety-nine, John Quincy Adams eighty-four, William H. Crawfordforty-one, and Henry Clay thirty-seven. For the office of Vice-President, John C. Calhoun had one hundred and eighty votes, and was elected. 

This result had not been generally anticipated by the friends of Mr. Adams. His political course had been, for sixteen years, identifiedwith the policy of the leading statesmen of the Southern States, andhad been acceptable to that section of the Union. It had therefore beenhoped that, with regard to him, the general and inherent antipathy to aNorthern President, which there existed, would have been weakened, ifnot subdued. His diplomatic talents had been successfully exercised incarrying into effect Mr. Madison's views during the whole of thatstatesman's administration. He had been the pillar on which Mr. Monroehad, during both terms of his Presidency, leaned for support, if notfor direction. It was, therefore, not without reason anticipated thatat least a partial support would have been given to him in the regionwhere the influences of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, werepredominant. But, of the _eighty-four_ votes cast for Mr. Adams, notone was given by either of the three great Southern slaveholdingstates. _Seventy-seven_ were given to him by New England and New York. The other _seven_ were cast by the Middle or recently admitted states. 

The selection of President from the candidates now devolved on theHouse of Representatives, under the provisions of the constitution. But, again, Mr. Adams had the support of none of those slaveholdingstates, with the exception of Kentucky, and her delegates were equallydivided between him and General Jackson. The decisive vote was, ineffect, in the hands of Mr. Clay, then Speaker of the House, who castit for Mr. Adams;[3] a responsibility he did not hesitate to assume, notwithstanding the equal division of the Kentucky delegation, and indefiance of a resolution passed by the Legislature of that state, declaring their preference for General Jackson. [4] On the final voteAndrew Jackson had _seven_ votes, William H. Crawford _four_, and JohnQuincy Adams _thirteen_; who was, therefore, forthwith declaredPresident of the United States for four years ensuing the 4th of March, 1825. 

 [3] _Niles' Register_, vol. XXVII. , p. 387. 

 [4] Ibid. , vol. XXVII. , p. 321. 

In the answer of Mr. Adams to the official notice of his election by theHouse of Representatives, after paying tribute to the talents and publicservices of his competitors, he declared that if, by refusal to acceptthe trust thus delegated to him, he could give immediate opportunity tothe people to express, with a nearer approach to unanimity, the objectof their preference, he would not hesitate to decline the momentouscharge. But the constitution having, in case of such refusal, otherwisedisposed of the resulting contingency, he declared his acceptance of thetrust assigned to him by his country through her constitutional organs, confiding in the wisdom of the legislative councils for his guide, andrelying above all on the direction of a superintending Providence. 

 CHAPTER VII. 

ADMINISTRATION AS PRESIDENT. --POLICY. --RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS. --PRINCIPLES RELATIVE TO OFFICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND REMOVALS. --COURSE INELECTION CONTESTS. --TERMINATION OF HIS PRESIDENCY. 

Those sectional, party, and personal influences, which at all times tendto throw a republic out of the path of duty and safety, were singularlyactive and powerful during the Presidency of Mr. Adams. They werepeculiar and unavoidable. His administration, beyond all others, wasassailed by an unprincipled and audacious rivalry. Its course andconsequences belong to the history of the United States, and will behere no further stated, or made the subject of comment, than as theyaffect or throw light on his policy and character. 

Immediately after his inauguration, Mr. Adams appointed Henry Clay, ofKentucky, Secretary of State; Richard Rush, of Pennsylvania, Secretaryof the Treasury; James Barbour, of Virginia, Secretary of War; Samuel L. Southard, of New Jersey, Secretary of the Navy; John McLean, of Ohio, Postmaster-General; and William Wirt, of Virginia, Attorney-General. Theelection of Mr. Adams to the Presidency depended on the vote of HenryClay, who recognized and voluntarily assumed the responsibility. Byvoting for General Jackson, he would have coïncided with the majority ofpopular voices; but, actuated, as he declared, by an irrepressible senseof public duty, in open disregard of instructions from the dominantparty in Kentucky, he dared to expose himself to the coming storm, theviolence of which he anticipated, and soon experienced. In a letter toMr. F. Brooke, dated 28th of January, 1825, which was soon published, [1]he thus expressed his views: "As a friend to liberty and the permanenceof our institutions, I cannot consent, in this early stage of theirexistence, by contributing to the election of a military chieftain, togive the strongest guaranty that this republic will march in the fatalroad which has conducted every other republic to ruin. " In a letterdated the 26th of March, 1825, addressed to the people of hisCongressional district, in Kentucky, Mr. Clay more fully illustrated themotives for his vote: "I did not believe General Jackson so competent todischarge the various intricate and complex duties of the office ofchief magistrate as his competitor. If he has exhibited, either in thecouncils of the Union, or in those of his own state or territory, thequalities of a statesman, the evidence of the fact has escaped myobservation. "--"It would be as painful as it is unnecessary torecapitulate some of the incidents, which must be fresh in yourrecollection, of his public life, but I was greatly deceived in myjudgment if they proved him to be endowed with that prudence, temper, and discretion, which are necessary for civil administration. "--"In hiselevation, too, I thought I perceived the establishment of a fearfulprecedent. "--"Undoubtedly there are other and many dangers to publicliberty, besides that which proceeds from military idolatry; but I haveyet to acquire the knowledge of it, if there be one more pernicious ormore frequent. Of Mr. Adams it is but truth and justice to say that heis highly gifted, profoundly learned, and long and greatly experiencedin public affairs, at home and abroad. Intimately conversant with therise and progress of every negotiation with foreign powers, pending orconcluded; personally acquainted with the capacity and attainments ofmost of the public men of this country whom it might be proper to employin the public service; extensively possessed of much of that valuablekind of information which is to be acquired neither from books nortradition, but which is the fruit of largely participating in publicaffairs; discreet and sagacious, he will enter upon the duties of theoffice with great advantages. "[2]

 [1] _Niles' Weekly Register_, vol. XXVII. , p. 386. 

 [2] _Niles' Weekly Register_, vol. XXVIII. , p. 71. 

General Jackson was deeply mortified and irritated by Mr. Clay'spreference of Mr. Adams, and still more by his avowal of the motives onwhich it was founded. In a letter to Samuel Swartwout, dated the 23d ofFebruary, 1825, [3] by whom it was immediately published, he complainedbitterly of the term "military chieftain, " which Mr. Clay, in his letterto Mr. Brooke, had applied to him; and, utterly disregarding the rightsand duties which the provisions of the constitution had conferred andimposed on Mr. Clay, he assumed that he was himself entitled, by theplurality of votes he had received, to be regarded as the objectindicated by "the supremacy of the people's will. " Treating theobjections as personal, and as ominously bearing on his future politicalprospects, after insinuating that there had been "art or management toentice a representative in Congress from a conscientious responsibilityto his own or the wishes of his constituents, " he declared his intention"to appeal from this opprobrium and censure to the judgment of anenlightened, patriotic, uncorrupted people. "

 [3] Ibid. , p. 20. 

Not content with uttering these general insinuations against Mr. Clayand Mr. Adams, he immediately put into circulation among his friends andpartisans an unqualified statement to the effect that Mr. Adams hadobtained the Presidency by means of a corrupt bargain with Henry Clay, on the condition that he should be elevated to the office of Secretaryof State. To this calumny Jackson gave his name and authority, assertingthat he possessed evidence of its truth; and, although Mr. Clay and hisfriends publicly denied the charge, and challenged proof of it, twoyears elapsed before they could compel him to produce his evidence. This, when adduced, proved utterly groundless, and the charge false; thewhole being but the creation of an irritated and disappointed mind. Though detected and exposed, the calumny had the effect for which it wascalculated. Jackson's numerous partisans and friends made it the sourceof an uninterrupted stream of abuse upon Mr. Adams, through his wholeadministration. 

The Legislature of Tennessee immediately responded to General Jackson'sappeal to the people, by nominating him as their candidate for theoffice of President, at the next election; a distinction which hejoyfully accepted, and on that account immediately resigned his seat inthe Senate of the United States. 

Thus, before Mr. Adams had made any development of his policy asPresident, an opposition to him and his administration was publiclyorganized by his chief competitor, under the authority of one of thestates of the Union, which manifested itself in party bitterness, andanimosity to every act and proposition having any bearing on hispolitical prospects. The appointment of Henry Clay to the office ofSecretary of State was seized upon as unequivocal proof of Jackson'sallegation; yet it was impossible to designate any leading politicianwho had such just, unequivocal, and high pretensions to that station, orone more popular, especially at the South and the West. Mr. Clay hadbeen a prominent candidate for the Presidency in opposition to Mr. Adams. His talents were unquestionable, and a long career in public liferendered him more conspicuous and suitable for the office than any otherstatesman of the period. These qualifications weighed nothing in thescale of popular opinion and prejudice. The strength of opposition, based on the calumny circulated by Jackson, became apparent on everyquestion which could be construed to affect the popularity of Mr. Adams;especially with regard to those measures which were obviously near hisheart, and which tended to give a permanent and effective character tohis administration. 

In his inaugural address, on the 4th of March, 1825, after enumeratingthe duties of the people and their rulers, he proceeded to intimate theviews which characterized his policy: "There remains one effort ofmagnanimity, one sacrifice of prejudice and passion, to be made byindividuals, throughout the nation, who have heretofore followed thestandard of political party. It is that of discarding every remnant ofrancor against each other, of embracing as countrymen and friends, andof yielding to talents and virtue alone that confidence which, in timesof contention for principle, was bestowed only on those who bore thebadge of party communion. "

His thoughts on this subject were again expressed in May, 1825: "Thecustom-house officers throughout the Union, in all probability, wereopposed to my election. They are all now in my power; and I have beenurged very earnestly, and from various quarters, to sweep away myopponents, and provide for my friends with their places. I can justifythe refusal to adopt this policy only by the steadiness and consistencyof my adhesion to my own. If I depart from this in any one instance, Ishall be called upon by my friends to do the same in many. An invidiousand inquisitorial scrutiny into the personal disposition of publicofficers will creep through the whole Union, and the most sordid andselfish passions will be kindled into activity, to distort the conductand misrepresent the feelings of men, whose places may become the prizeof slander upon them. "

He made but two removals, both from unquestionable causes; and, in hisnew appointments, he was scrupulous in selecting candidates whosetalents were adapted to the public service. It was averred, in thespirit of complaint or disappointment, that he often conferred officeson men who immediately coïncided with the opponents and becamecalumniators of his administration. He was soon made to realize theimpracticability of disregarding the old lines of party. On beinginformed, by some of his friends in the Southern States, that theobjections to the appointment of Federalists were insuperable, and wouldeverywhere affect the popularity of his administration, he observed: "Onsuch appointments all the wormwood and gall of the old party hatred oozeout. Not a vacancy to any office occurs but there is a distinguishedFederalist started and pushed home as a candidate to fill it, alwayswell qualified, sometimes in an eminent degree, and yet so obnoxious tothe Republican party, that they cannot be appointed without exciting avehement clamor against him and the administration. It becomes thusimpossible to fill any vacancy in appointment without offending one halfof the community--the Federalists, if their associate is overlooked; theRepublicans, if he be preferred. To this disposition justice mustsometimes make resistance, and policy must often yield. "

The intention of Mr. Adams, avowed and invariably pursued, to makeintegrity and qualification the only criterions of appointment tooffice, --to remove no incumbent on account of political hostility, andto appoint no one from the sole consideration of politicaladherence, --diminished the power of the administration. The most activemembers of party, who follow for reward, either of place or station, were discouraged, and preferred to continue their allegiance to thosefrom whom pay was certain, rather than to transfer it to anadministration whose continuance, from the well-known influences onwhich political power in this country depends, was dubious, and probablyshort-lived. These consequences were familiar to the mind of Mr. Adams;but his spirit was of a temper which chose rather to fall in upholdingthe constitution of his country on its true and pure principles, than tobecome the abettor of corruption, and participator in its wages, for thesake of power. The firmness of these principles was put to frequenttrial during his Presidency, but his resolution never wavered. 

The confiding spirit in which he conducted his intercourse with hiscabinet was thus stated by himself in November, 1825: "I have given thedraft of my annual message to the members of the administration, who areto meet and examine it by themselves, and then discuss the result withme. I have adopted this mode of scrutinizing the message because I wishto have the benefit of every objection that can be made by every memberof the administration. But it has never been practised before, and I amnot sure that it will be a safe precedent to follow. In England themessage or speech is delivered by a person under no responsibility forits contents; but here, where he who delivers it is alone responsible, and those who advise have no responsibility at all, there may be somedanger in placing the composition of it under the control of cabinetmembers, by giving it up to discussion entirely among themselves. "

His first message to Congress contained the following specialrecommendations: "The maturing into a permanent and regular system theapplication of all the superfluous revenues of the Union to internalimprovement. " "The establishment of a uniform standard of weights andmeasures, which had been a duty expressly enjoined on Congress by theconstitution of the United States. " "The establishment of a navalschool of instruction for the formation of scientific and accomplishedofficers; the want of which is felt with a daily and increasingaggravation. " "The establishment of a national university, which hadbeen more than once earnestly recommended to Congress by Washington, and for which he had made express provision in his will. " "Connectedwith a university, or separated from it, the erection of anastronomical observatory, with provision for the support of anastronomer. " Every one of these recommendations was obviouslyintimately associated with the progress and character of the nation, and independent of all personal or party influences. Yet they weretreated with utter neglect, or, after having been permitted to passthrough the forms of commitment and report, were suffered to lieunnoticed on the tables of both houses, or to be lost by indefinitepostponement. 

The firmness of Mr. Adams, and his independence of personalconsiderations, were constantly manifested. Thus, in November, 1825, when he was urged by some of his influential friends to put into hismessage _something soothing to South Carolina_, he replied: "SouthCarolina has put it out of my power. She persists in a law[4] which ajudge of the United States has declared to be in direct violation ofthe constitution of the United States, and which the Attorney-Generalof the United States has also declared to be an infringement of therights of foreign nations; against which the British government hasrepeatedly remonstrated, and upon which we have promised them that thecause of complaint should be removed;--a promise which the obstinateadherence of the government of South Carolina to their law hasdisenabled us from fulfilling. The Governor of South Carolina has noteven answered the letter from the Department of State, transmitting tothem the complaint of the British government against this law. In thisstate of things, for me to say anything gratifying to the feelings ofthe South Carolinians on this subject, would be to abandon the groundtaken by the administration of Mr. Monroe, and disable us from takinghereafter measures concerning the law, which we may be compelled totake. To be silent is not to interfere with any state rights, andrenounces no right of ourselves or others. "

 [4] In the year 1823 the State of South Carolina passed a law making it the duty of the sheriff of any district to apprehend any free negro or person of color, brought into that state by any vessel, and confine him in jail until such vessel depart, and then to liberate him only on condition of payment of the expenses of such detention. To this law William Johnson, a South Carolinian, and a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, in a letter to Mr. Adams, then Secretary of State, called the attention of the President of the United States, as a violation of the constitution; and declared his belief "that it had been passed as much for the pleasure of bringing the functionaries of the United States into contempt, by exposing their impotence, as from any other cause whatsoever;" they being precluded from resorting to the writ of habeas corpus and injunction because the cases assumed the form of state prosecutions. William Wirt, also, the Attorney-General of the United States, in a letter to Mr. Adams, then Secretary of State, pronounced that law "as being against the constitution, treaties, and laws, and incompatible with the rights of all nations in amity with the United States. "

The same trait of character is evidenced by his persisting inrecommending the application of the superfluous revenue to internalimprovements, notwithstanding he well knew its unpopularity in Virginia, where it was denounced as realizing the prophecy of Patrick Henry, that"the Federal government would be a magnificent government. " Afterdelivering his first message, he was told, by a leading and influentialmember of Congress from Virginia, that "excitement against the generalgovernment was great and universal in that state; that opinions therehad been before divided, but that now the whole state would move in onesolid column. " And the same member read to him letters from Jeffersonand Madison, denouncing the doctrines of the message in the mostemphatic terms. 

A letter from distinguished friends of De Witt Clinton, stating that hisadherents predominated in the Legislature of New York, and recommendinga course to conciliate their influence, was shown to Mr. Adams in 1826. On this suggestion he remarked: "A conciliatory course, so far as may becompatible with self-respect, is proper and necessary towards all; but, in the protracted agony of character and reputation which it is the willof a superior power I should pass through, it is my duty to link myselfto the fortunes of no man. In the balance of politics it is seldom wiseto make one scale preponderate by weights taken from another. Neutralitytowards parties is the proper policy of a President in office. "

When officially informed that a senator from Georgia threatened that, unless the lands of the Creek Indians, claimed by that state as withinits boundaries, were ceded, her weight would be thrown for GeneralJackson, Mr. Adams replied, "that we ought not to yield to Georgia, because we could not do so without gross injustice; and that, as to herbeing driven to support General Jackson, he felt little care about that. He had no more confidence in the one party than the other. "

A similar reply was made to an influential New York politician, who toldhim that the friends of De Witt Clinton would probably support theadministration, but that Van Buren and his bucktails would be inveteratein their opposition. "I consider it, " said he, "a lottery-ticket whethereither of those parties would support the administration. "

The opposition to the election, and subsequently to the administrationof Mr. Adams, in the South, had its origin and support, as we have seen, first, in the fact that he was (with the exception of his father) theonly President who had not been a slaveholder; and, next, in the fixeddetermination, in that section of the Union, to keep the Presidency, ifpossible, in the hands of an individual belonging to that class. If, from circumstances, this should be no longer practicable, then theirpolicy would be to select a candidate who had no sympathy for the slave, and whose subserviency to the supremacy of Southern interests wasunquestionable. The attempt to extinguish slavery in Missouri, althoughit had resulted in what was called the Missouri compromise, had createdtowards all who were not slaveholders a feverish jealousy in the South, which descended on Mr. Adams with double violence because his freespirit was known. This was not diminished by the fact that he had, neither in act nor language, ever transcended the provisions of theconstitution, but had, in every instance, fully recognized itsobligations. 

In February, 1826, two resolutions, which had been adopted in executivesession, were brought to Mr. Adams. The first declared "that theexpediency of the Panama mission ought to be debated in Senate with opendoors, unless the publication of the documents, to which it would benecessary to refer in debate, would prejudice existing negotiations. Thesecond was a respectful request to the President of the United States toinform the Senate whether such objection exists to the publication ofall or any part of those documents; and, if so, to specify to what partit applies. "

"These resolutions, " said Mr. Adams, "are the fruit of the ingenuity ofMartin Van Buren, and bear the impress of his character. The resolutionto debate an executive nomination with open doors is without example;and the thirty-sixth rule of the Senate is explicit and unqualified, that all documents communicated in confidence by the President to theSenate shall be kept secret by the members. The request to me to specifythe particular documents the publication of which would affectnegotiations was delicate and ensnaring. The limitation was not ofpapers the publication of which might be injurious, but merely of suchas would affect existing negotiations; and, this being necessarily amatter of opinion, if I should specify passages in the document as ofsuch a character, any senator might make it a question for discussion inthe Senate, and they might finally publish the whole, under color ofentertaining an opinion different from mine upon the probable effect ofthe publication. Besides, should the precedent once be established ofopening the doors of the Senate in the midst of a debate upon executivebusiness, there would be no prospect of ever keeping them shut again. Ianswered the resolution of the Senate by a message stating that all thecommunications I had made on this subject had been confidential; andthat, believing it important to the public interest that the confidencebetween the Executive and the Senate should continue unimpaired, Ishould leave to themselves the determination of a question, upon themotives of which, not being informed, I was not competent to decide. "

When the intrigues which embarrassed and disturbed the Presidency of Mr. Adams were in full vigor, his spirit and strength of character wereconspicuously manifested. In April, 1827, whilst the state electionswere pending, letters were shown to him complaining that theadministration did not support its friends, and intimating that time andmoney must be sacrificed to his success. Mr. Adams remarked: "I haveobserved the tendency of our elections to venality, and shall notencourage it. There is much money expended by the adversaries of theadministration, and it runs chiefly in the channels of the press. Theywork by slander to vitiate the public spirit, and pay for defamation, toreceive their reward in votes. "

At the beginning of the third year of his term of office the currents ofparty began to run strongly towards the approaching struggle for thePresidency. Mr. Adams, writing concerning the aspects of the time, remarked. "General politics and electioneering topics appear to be theonly material of interest and of discourse to men in the public service. There are in several states, at this time, and Maryland is one of them, meetings and counter meetings, committees of correspondence, delegations, and addresses, for and against the administration; and thousands ofpersons are occupied with little else than to work up the passions ofthe people preparatory to the presidential election, still more thaneighteen months distant. "

Complaints were constantly made that the administration neglected itsfriends, and gave offices to its enemies. Applications for appointments, especially for clerkships, in the departments, were continual, and wereoften made to Mr. Adams himself. He always refused to interferedirectly, or by influence, unless his opinion was sought by the headsof the departments themselves, saying that to them the selection andresponsibility properly belonged. "One of the heaviest burdens of mystation, " he observed, "is to hear applications for office, often urged, accompanied with the cry of distress, almost every day in the year, sometimes several times in the day, and having it scarcely ever in mypower to administer the desired relief. "

In May, 1827, Mr. Adams wrote to a friend: "Mr. Van Buren paid me avisit this morning. He is on his return from a tour through Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, with C. C. Cambreling, since theclose of the last session of Congress. They are generally understood tobe electioneering; and Van Buren is now the great manager for Jackson, as he was, before the last election, for Mr. Crawford. He is now actingover the part in the Union which Aaron Burr performed in 1799. VanBuren, however, has improved, in the art of electioneering, upon Burr, as the State of New York has grown in relative strength and importancein the Union. Van Buren has now every prospect of success in his presentmovements, and he will avoid the rock on which Burr afterwards split. "These general conclusions, formed on observation and knowledge ofcharacter, projects, and movements, time has proved to be just. At thisday there can be no doubt that, during a tour through the Southernsection of the Union, in April and May, 1827, by Van Buren andCambreling, one a senator, the other a representative in Congress fromNew York, an alliance was formed between the former and Jackson, havingfor its object to supersede Mr. Adams and to elevate themselves insuccession to the Presidency. The result is illustrative of the meansand the arts by which ambition shapes the destinies of republics, bypampering the passions and prejudices of the multitude, by castingmalign suggestions on laborious merit, effective talent, and faithfulservices. 

In June, 1827, some of the friends of Mr. Adams urged him to attend thecelebration at the opening of the Pennsylvania Canal, to meet the Germanfarmers, and speak to them in their own language. He replied: "I amhighly obliged to my friends for their good opinion; but this mode ofelectioneering is suited neither to my taste nor my principles. I thinkit equally unsuitable to my personal character, and to the station inwhich I am placed. "

As the year drew towards the close, Van Buren, who had increased hisinfluence by union with De Witt Clinton, triumphed throughout the Stateof New York. "The consequences, " said Mr. Adams, "are decisive on thenext presidential election; but the principles on which my administrationhas been conducted cannot be overthrown. A session of Congress ofunexampled violence and fury is anticipated by its friends. My own mindis made up for it. I have only to ask that as my day is so may mystrength be. "

A letter from Thomas Mann Randolph, on the opinions of Mr. Jeffersonrelative to the last presidential election, which had been recentlypublished in Ohio, was at this time shown to Mr. Adams, and it wasproposed to him to publish a letter to his father from Mr. Jefferson, onthat subject; which he declined, saying: "The letter is not here, but ifit were I would not publish it. I possess it only as executor to myfather; and, it having been confidential, the executors of Mr. Jeffersonhave undoubtedly a copy of it, and, as depositaries of his confidence, are the only persons who can, with propriety, authorize its publication. "He added: "The divulging private and confidential letters is one of theworst features of electioneering practised among us. Though oftentempted and provoked to it, I have constantly refrained from it. "

At this period Mr. Rush read to Mr. Adams his report on the finances, inwhich he largely discussed the policy of encouraging and protectingdomestic manufactures. "It will, of course, " said Mr. Adams, "be roughlyhandled in Congress and out of it; but the policy it recommends willoutlive the blast of faction, and abide the test of time. "

At the opening of the Twentieth Congress, in December, 1827, theelection of Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, a man decidedly hostile tothe administration, as Speaker of the House of Representatives, manifested that the opposition had now gained a majority in both housesof Congress; a state of affairs which had never before occurred underthe government of the United States. 

Mr. Adams, being informed that it was Mr. Clay's intention to issueanother pamphlet in refutation of the charge of bargaining andcorruption, which General Jackson and his partisans under his authorityhad brought against them both, remarked: "They have been already amplyrefuted; but, in the excitement of contested elections, and of partyspirit, judgment becomes the slave of the will. Men of intelligence, talent, and even of integrity upon other occasions, surrender themselvesto their passions, believe anything, with and without, and even againstevidence, according as it suits their own wishes. "

Mr. Clay and his friends were not disposed to permit a calumny soopprobrious to pass without disproof; yet during two years they couldonly oppose to it a general denial; but, in March, 1827, a letter fromMr. Carter Beverly, a friend of General Jackson, came into theirpossession, by which it appeared that Jackson, before a large company, in Beverly's presence, had declared that, "concerning the election ofMr. Adams to the Presidency, Mr. Clay's friends made a proposition tohis friends, that if they would promise for _him_ not to put Mr. Adamsinto the seat of Secretary of State, Mr. Clay and his friends would _inone hour_ make him the President;"[5]--a proposition which, Jacksonsaid, he indignantly rejected. No sooner was this statement made knownto Mr. Clay, than he pronounced it "a gross fabrication, of acalumnious character, put forth for the double purpose of injuring hispublic character and propping up the cause of General Jackson; andthat, for himself and his friends, he defied the substantiation of thecharge before any fair tribunal whatever. " This compelled GeneralJackson, in self-defence, to come before the public; and in a letter toCarter Beverly, dated the 5th of June, 1827, he made specific chargesagainst Mr. Clay and Mr. Adams. He stated that early in January, 1825, a member of Congress, of high respectability, informed him that therewas a great intrigue going on, which it was right he should know; thatthe friends of Mr. Adams had made overtures to the friends of Mr. Clay, that if they would unite in the election of Mr. Adams, Mr. Clay shouldbe Secretary of State; that the friends of Mr. Adams were urging, as areason to induce the friends of Mr. Clay to accede to theirproposition, that if he (Gen. Jackson) was elected President, Mr. Adamswould be continued Secretary of State [_Innuendo_, there would be noroom for Kentucky]; that the friends of Mr. Clay stated, that the Westdid not wish to separate from the West, and if he would say, or permitany of his confidential friends to say, that, in case he was electedPresident, Mr. Adams should not be continued Secretary of State, by acomplete union of Mr. Clay and his friends they would put an end to thepresidential contest in one hour; and that this respectable member ofCongress declared that _he was of opinion it was right to fight suchintriguers with their own weapons_. To which General Jackson replied, that he would never step into the presidential chair by such means ofbargain and corruption; and added, that the second day after thiscommunication and reply, it was announced in the newspapers that Mr. Clay had come out openly and avowedly in favor of Mr. Adams. [6]

 [5] _Niles' Weekly Register_, vol. XXXII. , p. 162. 

 [6] _Niles' Weekly Register_, vol. XXXII. , p. 316. 

To this accusation Mr. Clay, in a letter to the public, dated the 4thof July, 1827, made "a direct, unqualified, and indignant denial, " andcalled on General Jackson "to substantiate his charges by satisfactoryevidence. " General Jackson immediately gave to the public the name ofJames Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, as "the respectable member ofCongress" who made to him this communication and proposition. Thisdeclaration compelled Mr. Buchanan to come before the public; whoaccordingly, in a letter dated the 8th of August, 1827, [7] published tothe world what he declared to be "_the only conversation which he everheld with General Jackson_, " in which he stated to him that, havingheard a rumor that he intended, in case of his election, to appoint Mr. Adams Secretary of State, and thinking such an appointment would "coolthe ardor of his friends, " he called on him, and informed him of therumor, and asked him whether he had ever intimated such intention; thatJackson replied he had not, and that, if elected President, he wouldenter upon the office untrammelled; and that this was substantially thewhole conversation. Mr. Buchanan added, that he did not call uponGeneral Jackson as the agent of Mr. Clay, or his friends, which he wasnot; and that he was incapable of entertaining the opinion Jackson hadcharged him with, that "_it was right to fight such intriguers withtheir own weapons_;" and that he thought that Jackson "could not havereceived this impression until after Mr. Clay and his friends hadactually elected Mr. Adams President, and Mr. Adams had appointed Mr. Clay Secretary of State. "

 [7] Ibid. , p. 415. 

A more full, direct, and conclusive contradiction of every fact assertedby General Jackson is impossible. Yet it had no effect upon hisprospects or policy. His partisans continued to propagate the calumny, and profess their belief in it; and he gave encouragement to this courseby maintaining a scrupulous silence on Mr. Buchanan's contradiction. Mr. Clay, speaking on this point, observed: "After Mr. Buchanan's statementappeared, there were many persons who believed that General Jackson'smagnanimity would immediately prompt him to retract his charge. I didnot participate in that just expectation, and therefore felt nodisappointment that it was not realized. "[8]

 [8] _Niles' Register_, vol. XXXIII. , p. 297. 

The calumny had done its work. It had been, for more than two years, cankering the public mind. General Jackson realized that it was anefficient means of victory, and was not disposed to diminish its power. His partisans, as Mr. Adams anticipated, had "surrendered themselves totheir passions, and believed, without evidence and against evidence, assuited their own wishes. "

The inveteracy of opposition to the administration of Mr. Adams wassystematic, violent, and unprincipled. Party spirit determined that itshould be prostrated. It was stated publicly that "a highly-respectedmember of Congress, of General Jackson's party, had declared that it wasto be put down though it be as pure as the angels which stand at theright hand of the throne of God. " No respect was paid, no regard had, for either faithful services or acknowledged integrity. Anadministration conducted on the most elevated and consistent principles, as far above party and selfish motives as it is possible for humanbeings to attain, was destined to be sacrificed. General Jackson enteredupon his civil career in the spirit of a military chieftain. He knewwell how to collect round his standard those intriguers in the freestates who were content to adopt his badge, and ride into power in histrain. Of the slave states he was sure, from both affinity and policy. 

Mr. Clay, in his address to the public in December, 1827, thusrepresents the spirit of General Jackson's party at that period:[9] "Therancor of party spirit spares nothing. It penetrates and pervadeseverywhere. It does not scruple to violate the sanctity of social andprivate intercourse. It substitutes for facts dark surmises andmalevolent insinuations. It misrepresents, and holds up in false andinsidious lights, incidents perfectly harmless in themselves, ofordinary occurrence, or of mere common civility. "

 [9] _Niles' Register_, vol. XXXIII. , p. 303. 

During these agitations Mr. Adams was diligently watching over the greatinterests of the country, and assiduously fulfilling the duties of hisstation, and no further interesting himself in the struggles of partythan when compelled to notice them by their virulence, or by theearnestness of political friends. A member of the Senate having askedhim how the interdiction of commerce by our vessels with the Britishcolonies could be counteracted, "My opinion is, " he replied, "that thereshould be an act of Congress totally interdicting the trade with all hercolonies, both in the West Indies and North America; but the same actshould provide for reopening the trade, upon terms of reciprocity, whenever Great Britain should be disposed to assent to them. "

Early in 1828 Mr. Adams was informed that the question of Free-masonrywas the conclusive criterion on which the elections in the western partsof the State of New York would turn; and that it was industriouslycirculated that he was a Free-mason. If the assertion was denied, offershad been made to produce extracts from the books of the lodge to whichhe belonged. He was, therefore, requested publicly to deny being aMason. He replied, that he was not, and never had been, a Free-mason;but that, if he should publicly deny it, he would not be surprised if aforged extract from some imaginary lodge should be produced tocounteract his statement. Such are the morals of electioneering!

On the subject of the Indians in the State of Georgia Mr. Adams said:"Our engagements with them and among ourselves, in relation to thelands lying within that state, are inconsistent. We have contractedwith the State of Georgia to extinguish the title to the Indian landslying within that state, and at the same time have stipulated with theCreeks and Cherokees that they should hold their lands forever. Wehave talked about benevolence and humanity, and preached them intocivilization; but none of this benevolence is felt when the rights ofthe Indians come into collision with the interests of the white man. The Cherokees have now been making a written constitution; but this_imperium in imperio_ is impracticable; and, in the instance of the NewYork Indians removed to Green Bay, and of the Cherokees removed to theTerritory of Arkansas, we have scarce given them time to build theirwigwams before we are called upon by our own people to drive them outagain. My own opinion is that the most benevolent course towards themwould be to give them the rights and subject them to the duties ofcitizens, as a part of our own people. But even this the people of thestates within which they are situated would not permit. "

In January, 1828, Mr. Adams received a letter from his friends inPennsylvania, proposing a subscription for the purchase and setting up aGerman newspaper in support of the administration, and inquiring if hewould permit his son, John Adams, to contribute to that object. Hereplied that, on full consideration of the transaction, he deemed it hisduty to decline; that how far the employment of money to promote thesuccess of the election might be proper in others, it was not for him todetermine; he could only lament the necessity, if it existed; but toapply money himself for the promotion of his own election he thoughtincorrect in principle, and had invariably avoided it. He knew thatothers were less scrupulous, and that it had been done by one individualto the pecuniary embarrassment of his whole life. He had been solicitedto adopt a like course, but had uniformly declined, not from pecuniaryconsiderations, but because he could not approve of the thing. 

In January, 1828, Mr. Floyd, of Virginia, who had taken upon himself theinglorious office of hunting up and disseminating malign aspersionsagainst President Adams, brought before the House of Representativesstatements concerning his accounts, which had been long before settledat the treasury of the United States; and, after recapitulating thenumber of the public offices he had held, and swelling to the utmost theamount he had received out of the public treasury, terminated hiscensorious attack with the mean sneer that he did not complain, sinceevery man should make his own living, if he can. To this, Mr. Everett, of Massachusetts, replied, with truth and dignity, that whatever Mr. Adams had received, be it great or small, was sanctioned by otheradministrations, with which Mr. Adams had nothing to do, either inestablishing the office fixing the compensations, or seeking theemployment. For a third of a century passed in the service of hiscountry, neither he, nor his friends for him, with his knowledge norwithout his knowledge, ever solicited any public office or employment;and that, taking into consideration the number of years passed by him inthe public service, and the variety and importance of the missions withwhich he had been intrusted in whole or in part, no foreign minister hadever received less than Mr. Adams, while many have received more. Thesestatements he supported by many minute, accurate, and unanswerabledetails. In a like spirit Mr. Sargent, of Philadelphia, reprobated andrefuted the calumnies uttered against the administration relative tothese accounts. 

In January, 1828, Mr. Chilton, of Kentucky, introduced a resolution intothe House of Representatives, declaring the necessity of retrenchments, to save money and pay off the national debt; and proposing reductionsnot only in executive contingencies, but also in those of the twohouses. This movement disconcerted the party to which Mr. Chiltonbelonged. They were disposed to point the battery against theadministration, but charges of abusive applications of the public moneysby the past as well as the present administration, and both houses ofCongress, did not suit party purposes. Randolph, of Virginia, Ingham, ofPennsylvania, and McDuffie, of South Carolina, accordingly strove, byamendments, to narrow down the discussion so as to make it bear upon Mr. Adams or Mr. Clay, and to give countenance to every slander with whichthe newspapers were teeming against them, but deprecating all generalinvestigations. 

Being repeatedly asked concerning his rule of conduct relative toappointments to office, Mr. Adams answered: "My system has been, andcontinues to be, to nominate for reäppointment all officers, for a termof years, whose commissions expire, unless official or moral misconductis charged and substantiated against them. This does not suit theFalstaff friends 'who follow for the reward;' and I am importuned toserve my friends, and reproached for neglecting them, because I will notdismiss, or drop from executive favor, officers faithful and able, because they are my political opponents, to provide for my ownpartisans. This I will not do. "

In February, 1828, Mr. Wright, of Ohio, defended Mr. Adams and hisadministration, on the subject of his votes in the Senate on theacquisition of Louisiana, on the Mississippi and fishery question atGhent, on an expression in his message to Congress in December, 1825, and other charges and falsehoods which the friends of General Jacksonwere publishing against him in newspapers, handbills, and stumpspeeches, throughout the Union. 

Mr. Adams was earnestly entreated by his friends to reply to a pamphletby Samuel D. Ingham, of which many thousands had been franked by membersof Congress to their constituents. He refused to do it, saying, "Theslanders and falsehoods of that pamphlet have already been abundantlyrefuted in the speeches of Jonathan Roberts, Edward Everett, and John C. Wright. "

In the committee on retrenchments, Mr. Wickliffe and Mr. Ingham wereextremely busy in search of charges against the administration, andasserted that there was a large item of secret services, vouched only bythe certificate of Mr. Adams. A member of Congress informed him of theirproceedings, and asked, if there should be any clamorers on thatsubject, whether he would have any objection to make a communicationwith regard to it. Mr. Adams replied: "Certainly. The secret wasenjoined on me by the constitution and the law, and I shall not divulgeit. It might be alleged as probable--and such was the fact--that, although the accounts had been but lately settled, the expenditures hadbeen incurred and the payment authorized by the direction of the latePresident Monroe. "

As the electioneering struggle was progressing, Mr. Adams, being askedto advance money in aid of his own election, replied: "The Presidency ofthe United States is not an office to be either sought or declined. Topay money for securing it is, in my opinion, incorrect in principle. Thepractices of all parties are tending to render elections altogethervenal, and I am not disposed to countenance them. "

On the subject of personal interviews with the President, he thusexpressed himself: "I have never denied access to me as President to anyone, of any color; and, in my opinion of the duties of that office, itnever ought to be denied. Place-hunters are not pleasant visitors, orcorrespondents, and they consume an enormous disproportion of time. Tothis personal importunity the President ought not to be subjected; butit is, perhaps, not possible to relieve him from it, without excludinghim from interviews with the people more, perhaps, than comports withthe nature of our institutions. "

In Kentucky the Senate of the state constituted itself into aninquisition on a charge against Mr. Adams of corruption, sent forpersons and papers, and invited _ex parte_ depositions and garbledstatements, where the parties inculpated had no opportunity of beingheard, and where the testimony given and the testimony suppressed werealike adapted to promote groundless slanders. 

In South Carolina movements were made towards civil war and thedissolution of the Union, for the purpose of carrying the election byintimidation, or, if they should fail in that, of laying the foundationof a future forcible resistance, to break down or overawe theadministration after the event. 

Evidences of the vehement party war stimulated and personally waged byGeneral Jackson against Mr. Adams might be easily multiplied; but enoughhas been stated to vindicate the character of his administration and thejudgment of Henry Clay. By daring to exercise his constitutional rights, by taking the responsibility of preferring Mr. Adams to General Jackson, Mr. Clay postponed for four years an administration characteristic ofits leader, violent, intriguing, headstrong, and corrupt. After thepassions and interests of the present day have passed away, his vote onthat occasion will be regarded by posterity as his choicest and puresttitle to their remembrance. 

To aid the adversaries of Mr. Adams, and to awaken against him in theNorthern States, where his strength lay, the dormant passions of formertimes, the name and influence of Mr. Jefferson were brought into thefield. In December, 1825, a letter had been drawn from him, by WilliamB. Giles, a devoted partisan of Jackson, and given to the public withappropriate commentaries and asperities. In this letter Mr. Jefferson, after acknowledging that "his memory was so broken, or gone, as to bealmost a blank, " undertook to relate a conversation he had with Mr. Adams in 1808, and connected it with facts with which it had norelation, and which occurred several years afterwards, while Mr. Adamswas in Europe. These mistakes, in the opinion of Mr. Adams, requiredexplanations. He, therefore, gave a full statement of the facts, so faras he was concerned, and of the communications he had made in 1808 toMr. Jefferson. These explanations had the tendency which Mr. Giles andthe authors of the scheme intended; but the controversies which ensuedare not within the scope of this memoir. Feelings and passions, whichhad slept for almost twenty years, were awakened. Correspondencesensued, in which the policy and events of a former period were discussedwith earnestness and warmth. But the ultimate object, for which thebroken and incoherent recollections of Mr. Jefferson's old age werebrought before the public, was not attained. Those who differed from theopinions of Mr. Adams, and had condemned his political course in formertimes, although their sentiments remained unchanged, were satisfied withthe principles and ability he evinced in his present high station, andindicated no inclination to aid the projects of his opponents. Theembers of former animosity were indeed uncovered, but in the EasternStates, where the friends of Mr. Adams were most numerous, nodisposition was evinced to favor the elevation of General Jackson to thePresidency. 

In other sections of the Union a combination of influences tended todefeat the reëlection of Mr. Adams. In Virginia William B. Giles engagedin giving publicity to violent and inflammatory papers against hisadministration; Thomas H. Benton, of Missouri, strenuously endeavored todestroy his popularity in the West; while Martin Van Buren, the leaderof the party which then controlled New York, also devoted his efforts tosecure Jackson's ascendency. 

When Mr. Adams was informed that Mr. Clay's final and full vindicationof himself against the aspersions of General Jackson had appeared fromthe press, he said: "It is unnecessary. Enough has already been said toput down that infamous slander, which has been more than once publiclybranded as falsehood. The conspiracy will, however, probably succeed. When suspicions have been kindled into popular delusion, truth, reason, and justice, speak to the ears of adders. The sacrifice must beconsummated. There will then be a reäction in public opinion. It may notbe rapid, but it will be certain. "

By one of those party arrangements which ever have shaped, and to humanview forever will decide, the destinies of this republic, --a coalitionbeing effected between the leading influences of the slave states andthose of New York and Pennsylvania, --Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun, both slaveholders, were respectively elected President andVice-President of the United States. 

 CHAPTER VIII. 

PURSUITS OF MR. ADAMS IN RETIREMENT. --ELECTED TO CONGRESS. --PARTIESAND THEIR PROCEEDINGS. --HIS COURSE IN RESPECT OF THEM. --HIS OWNADMINISTRATION AND THAT OF HIS SUCCESSOR COMPARED. --REPORT ONMANUFACTURES AND THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. --REFUSAL TO VOTE, ANDCONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS. --SPEECH AND REPORT ON THE MODIFICATION OF THETARIFF AND SOUTH CAROLINA NULLIFICATION. 

On the 4th of March, 1829, Andrew Jackson was inaugurated President ofthe United States, and Mr. Adams retired, as he then thought forever, from public life. His active, energetic spirit required neitherindulgence nor rest, and he immediately directed his attention to thosephilosophical, literary, and religious researches, in which he tookunceasing delight. The works of Cicero became the object of study, analysis, and criticism. Commentaries on that master-mind of antiquitywere among his daily labors. The translation of the Psalms of David intoEnglish verse was a frequent exercise; and his study of the Scriptureswas accompanied by critical remarks, pursued in the spirit of freeinquiry, chastened by a solemn reference to their origin, and influenceon the conduct and hopes of human life. His favorite science, astronomy, led to the frequent observation of the planets and stars; and hisattention was also turned to agriculture and horticulture. He collectedand planted the seeds of forest trees, and kept a record of theirdevelopment, and, in the summer season, labored two or three hours dailyin his garden. With these pursuits were combined sketches preparatory toa full biography of his father, which he then contemplated as one of hischief future employments. 

From the subjects to which the labors of his life had been principallydevoted his thoughts could not be wholly withdrawn. As early as the 27thof April, 1829, a citizen of Washington spoke to him with great severityon the condition of public affairs, and of the scandals in circulationconcerning them; stating that removals from office were continuing withgreat perseverance; that the custom-houses in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Portsmouth in New Hampshire, and New Orleans, had beenswept clear; that violent partisans of Jackson were exclusivelyappointed, and that every editor of a scurrilous newspaper had beenprovided for. 

Again, in June of the same year Mr. Adams wrote: "Mr. Van Buren is nowSecretary of State. He is the manager by whom the present administrationhas been brought into power. He has played over again the game of AaronBurr in 1800, with the addition of political inconsistency, intransferring his allegiance from Crawford to Jackson. He sold the Stateof New York to them both. The first bargain failed by the result of thechoice of electors in the Legislature. The second was barelyaccomplished by the system of party management established in thatstate; and Van Buren is now enjoying his reward. "

On the abolition of slavery, Mr. Adams observed: "It is the only part ofEuropean democracy which will find no favor in the United States. It mayaggravate the condition of slaves in the South, but the result of theMissouri question, and the attitude of parties, have silenced most ofthe declaimers on that subject. This state of things is not to continueforever. It is possible that the danger of the abolition doctrines, whenbrought home to Southern statesmen, may teach them the value of theUnion, as the only thing which can maintain their system of slavery. "

On the course and feelings of Mr. Jefferson on this subject, Mr. Adamsthus expressed himself: "His love of liberty was sincere and ardent, butconfined to himself, like that of most of his fellow-slaveholders. Hewas above that execrable sophistry of the South Carolina nullifiers, which would make of slavery the corner-stone of the temple of liberty. He saw the gross inconsistency between the principles of the Declarationof Independence and the fact of negro slavery; and he could not, orwould not, prostitute the faculties of his mind to the vindication ofthat slavery, which, from his soul, he abhorred. But Jefferson had notthe spirit of martyrdom. He would have introduced a flaming denunciationof slavery into the Declaration of Independence, but the discretion ofhis colleagues struck it out. He did insert a most eloquent andimpassioned argument against it in his Notes on Virginia; but, on thatvery account, the book was published almost against his will. Heprojected a plan of a general emancipation, in his revision of theVirginia laws, but finally presented a plan leaving slavery preciselywhere it was; and, in his Memoir, he leaves a posthumous warning to theplanters that they must, at no distant day, emancipate their slaves, orthat worse will follow; but he withheld the publication of his prophecytill he should himself be in the grave. "

Mr. Adams was not long permitted to remain in retirement. In October, 1830, he was nominated, in the newspapers, to represent in Congress thedistrict of Massachusetts in which he resided. When asked if he wouldconsent to be a candidate, he replied, in the spirit which had governedhis whole life, never to seek and never to decline public service: "Itmust first be seen whether the people of the district will invite me torepresent them. I shall not ask their votes. I wish them to act theirpleasure. " In the ensuing November he was elected Representative of thetwelfth Congressional district of Massachusetts. 

On the 3d of January, 1831, Mr. Adams thus remarked on the resolutionsof the Legislature of Georgia setting at defiance the Supreme Court ofthe United States: "They are published and approved in the _Telegraph_, the administration newspaper at Washington. By extending the laws ofGeorgia over the country and people of the Cherokees, the constitution, laws, and treaties, of the United States, were _quoad hoc_ set aside. They were chaff before the wind. In pursuance of these laws of Georgia, a Cherokee Indian is prosecuted for the murder of another Indian, before a state court of Georgia, tried by a jury of white men, andsentenced to death. He applies to a chief justice of the Court of theUnited States, who issues an injunction to the Governor and executiveofficers of Georgia, upon the appeal to the laws and treaties of theUnited States. The Governor of Georgia refuses obedience to theinjunction, and the Legislature pass resolutions that they will notappear to answer before the Supreme Court of the United States. Theconstitution, the laws, and treaties, of the United States, areprostrate in the State of Georgia. Is there any remedy for this stateof things? None; because the State of Georgia is in league with theExecutive of the United States, who will not take care that the lawsbe faithfully executed. A majority of both houses of Congress sustainthis neglect and violation of duty. There is no harmony in thegovernment of the Union. The arm refuses its office. 'The whole head issick, and the whole heart faint. ' This example of the State of Georgiawill be imitated by other states, and with regard to other nationalinterests, --perhaps the tariff, more probably the public lands. As theExecutive and Legislature now fail to sustain the Judiciary, it is notimprobable cases may arise in which the Judiciary may fail to sustainthem. The Union is in the most imminent danger of dissolution from theold, inherent vice of confederacies, anarchy in the members. To thisend one third of the people is perverted, one third slumbers, and therest wring their hands, with unavailing lamentations, in the foresightof evils they cannot avert. "

On the 4th of July, 1831, Mr. Adams delivered an oration before theinhabitants of the town of Quincy, in which he controverted thedoctrine of Blackstone, the great commentator upon the laws of England, who maintained "that there is, and must be, in all forms of government, however they began, and by what right soever they subsist, a supreme, irresistible, absolute, uncontrolled authority, in which the _jurasummi imperii_, or _the rights of sovereignty_, reside. " "It is nottrue, " Mr. Adams remarks, "that there _must_ reside in all governmentsan absolute, uncontrolled, irresistible, and despotic power; nor issuch a power absolutely essential to sovereignty. The direct converseof the proposition is true. Uncontrollable power exists in nogovernment upon earth. The sternest despotisms, in every region andevery age of the world, _are and have been_ under perpetual control;compelled, as Burke expresses it, to truckle and huckster. Unlimitedpower belongs not to the nature of man, and rotten will be thefoundation of every government leaning upon such a maxim for itssupport. Least of all can it be predicated of any government professingto be founded upon an original compact. The pretence of an absolute, irresistible, despotic power, existing in every government _somewhere_, is incompatible with the first principle of natural right. "

This proposition Mr. Adams proceeds fully to illustrate, and thus toapply: "This political sophism of identity between _sovereign_ and_despotic_ power has led, and continues to lead, into many vagaries, some of the statists of this our happy but disputatious Union. Itseizes upon the brain of a heated politician, sometimes in one state, sometimes in another, and its natural offspring is the doctrine ofnullification; that is, the _sovereign_ power of any one state of theconfederacy to nullify any act of the whole twenty-four states whichthe _sovereign_ state shall please to consider as unconstitutional. Stripped of the sophistical argumentation in which this doctrine hasbeen habited, its naked nature is an effort to organize insurrectionagainst the laws of the United States; to interpose the arm of statesovereignty between rebellion and the halter, and to rescue the traitorfrom the gibbet. Although conducted under the auspices of statesovereignty, it would not the less be levying war against the Union;but, as a state cannot be punished for treason, nullification casesherself in the complete steel of sovereign power. " "The citizen of thenullifying state becomes a traitor to his country by obedience to thelaw of his state, --a traitor to his state by obedience to the law ofhis country. The scaffold and the battle-field stream alternately withthe blood of their victims. The event of a conflict in arms between theUnion and one of its members, whether terminating in victory or defeat, would be but an alternative of calamity to all. "

Mr. Adams took his seat in the House of Representatives in December, 1831, and immediately announced to his constituents that he should holdhimself bound in allegiance to no party, whether sectional or political. Ten years afterwards he had occasion to explain to his fellow-citizenshis policy and feelings at this period. "I thought this independence ofparty was a duty imposed upon me by my peculiar position. I had spentthe greatest part of my life in the service of the whole nation, and hadbeen honored by their highest trust; my duty of fidelity, of affection, and of gratitude, to the whole, was not merely inseparable from, butidentical with, that which was due from me to my own commonwealth. Theinternal conflict between slavery and freedom had been, and still was, scarcely perceptible in the national councils. The Missouri compromisehad laid it asleep, it was hoped, forever. The development of the moralprinciple which pronounced slavery _a crime_ of man against hisbrother-man had not yet reached the conscience of Christendom. England, earnestly and zealously occupied in rallying the physical, moral, andintellectual energies of the civilized world against the Africanslave-trade, had scarcely yet discovered that it was but an instrument, and in truth a mitigation, of the great, irremissible wrong of slavery. Her final policy, the extinction of slavery throughout the earth, wasnot yet disclosed. The Jackson project of dismembering Mexico for theacquisition of Texas, already organized and in full operation, was yetprofoundly a secret. I entered Congress without one sentiment ofdiscrimination between the interests of the North and the South; and myfirst act, as a member of the House, was, on presenting fifteenpetitions from Pennsylvania for the abolition of slavery within theDistrict of Columbia, to declare, while moving their reference to thecommittee of the District, that I was not prepared to support themeasure myself, and that I should not. I was not then a sectionalpartisan, and I never have been. "[1]

 [1] Address of John Quincy Adams to his Constituents, at Braintree, September 17, 1842, p. 27. 

When Mr. Adams was entering this new field of labor, Mr. Clay asked himhow he felt at turning boy again, and going into the House ofRepresentatives; and observed that he would find his situation extremelylaborious. Mr. Adams replied: "I well know this; but labor I shall notrefuse so long as my hands, my eyes, and my brain, do not desert me. "

To understand the position in which Mr. Adams was placed, on his takinghis seat in the House of Representatives, it is important that some ofthe events which had occurred during his absence from public life shouldbe briefly recapitulated. General Jackson had been two years Presidentof the United States. The alliance which he had entered into with Mr. Van Buren for their mutual advancement, to which allusion has been madein a former chapter, had not resulted immediately as the highcontracting parties probably intended. An obstacle to the advancement ofMr. Van Buren to the Vice-Presidency presented itself which wasinsurmountable. John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, possessed aninfluence in the slave states which it was important to conciliate, andimprudent to set at defiance. The allies were, consequently, compelledto accede to his nomination as Vice-President, and Van Buren was forcedto be content with the prospect of being appointed Secretary of State. 

The elevation of Calhoun to the Vice-Presidency, there is reason tobelieve, could not have been acceptable to Jackson. It appears, by thedocuments published by Calhoun in connection with his account of hiscontroversy with Jackson, that William H. Crawford had, as early asDecember, 1827, taken direct measures to render the friendship ofCalhoun suspected by Jackson. On the 14th of that month he wrote aletter to Alfred Balch, at Nashville, with the express purpose of itsbeing shown to Jackson, containing the following statement: "Myopinions upon the next presidential election" (against Adams and infavor of Jackson) "are generally known. When Mr. Van Buren and Mr. Cambreling made me a visit, last April, I authorized them, upon everyproper occasion, to make these opinions known. The vote of the State ofGeorgia will, as certainly as that of Tennessee, be given to GeneralJackson, in opposition to Mr. Adams. The only difficulty that thisstate has upon that subject is, that, if Jackson should be elected, Calhoun will come into power. I confess I am not apprehensive of such aresult. For ---- ---- writes to me, Jackson ought to know, and if hedoes not he shall know, that, at the Calhoun caucus in Columbia, theterm _military chieftain_ was bandied about even more flippantly thanit had been by Henry Clay, and that the family friends of Mr. Calhounwere most active in giving it currency; and I know, personally, thatCalhoun favored Mr. Adams' pretensions until Mr. Clay declared for him. He well knew that Clay would not have declared for Adams without it waswell understood that he, Calhoun, was to be put down if Adams couldeffect it. If he was not friendly to his election, why did he sufferhis paper to be purchased up by Adams' printers, without making somestipulation in favor of Jackson? If you can ascertain that Calhoun willnot be benefited by Jackson's election, you will do him a service bycommunicating the information to me. Make what use you please of thisletter, and show it to whom you please. "[2]

 [2] See, for Crawford's letter and Calhoun's address, _Niles' Weekly Register_, vol. XL. , p. 12. 

That these opinions of Crawford concerning Calhoun were communicated toVan Buren and Cambreling when they visited him, as he states, on theirelectioneering tour, in April, 1827, cannot be reasonably questioned:and that Crawford's letter to Balch was also communicated to Jackson canas little be doubted. That at this period Calhoun's want of politicalsympathy with Jackson was publicly known and talked about at Nashville, is apparent from Calhoun's address to the people of the United States inhis controversy with Jackson, in which he bitterly complains: "Iremained ignorant and unsuspicious of these secret movements against metill the spring of 1828, when vague rumors reached me that some attemptswere making at Nashville to injure me. "

Why statements made by such a high authority as Crawford, so welladapted to kindle the inflammatory temperament of Jackson, and at onceso auspicious to the hopes of Van Buren and so ominous to those ofCalhoun, were not immediately made the subject of action, can only beaccounted for by the fact that Calhoun was at that time too strong inthe affections of the South for them then to commence hostilities; for, in that case he would, as Crawford intimated, have "favored thepretensions of Adams, " and possibly have defeated the plans of thealliance. Jackson, therefore, yielded, and allowed Calhoun to be run asa candidate for the Vice-Presidency on the same ticket with himself, andpostponed any attempt to deprive him of his chance of succession until amore convenient opportunity. To this arrangement Van Buren also wascompelled to submit, and, after Adams was superseded, and Jacksoninaugurated President, he was appointed Secretary of State. [3]

 [3] Jackson's cabinet were, Martin Van Buren, Secretary of State; Samuel D. Ingham, Secretary of the Treasury; John H. Eaton, Secretary of War; John Branch, Secretary of the Navy; John M'P. Berrien, Attorney-General; William T. Barry, Postmaster-General. 

In April, 1830, when the Legislatures of New York and Pennsylvania tookincipient measures to nominate Jackson for a second term of office, thefavorable moment arrived to bring his artillery to bear upon Calhoun. At this time two letters of Crawford were brought to the mind ofGeneral Jackson, --the one to Alfred Balch, already referred to; theother to John Forsyth, dated the 30th of April, 1830, [4]--in whichCrawford expressly stated that "Mr. Calhoun had made a proposition tothe cabinet of Monroe for _punishing_ him for his conduct in theSeminole war. " Jackson, greatly excited, immediately, on the 12th ofMay, 1830, addressed a letter to Mr. Calhoun, declaring his greatsurprise at the information those letters contained, and inquiringwhether he had moved or sustained any attempt seriously to affect himin Monroe's cabinet council. Calhoun replied, that he "could notrecognize the right of General Jackson to call in question his conductin the discharge of a high official duty, and under responsibility tohis conscience and his country only. " The anger of Jackson was not inthe least assuaged by this reply, nor by the explanations whichaccompanied it. A correspondence ensued, which, with collateral anddocumentary evidence, occupied fifty-two pages of an octavo pamphlet;resulting in Jackson's declaration of his poignant mortification to seein Calhoun's letter, instead of a negative, an admission of the truthof Crawford's allegations. An irreconcilable alienation between Jacksonand Calhoun was evinced in this correspondence; a state of feelingwhich for the time was concealed from the public, but was well known totheir respective partisans, who understood that at the approachingelection the influence of the former would be thrown into the scale ofVan Buren. Jackson's intention of standing for the Presidency a secondtime was kept a profound secret until January, 1831. Under thesupposition that he might decline, the partisans of Calhoun, Clay, andVan Buren, engaged in active measures to put them respectively into thefield. 

 [4] For which see _Niles' Weekly Register_, vol. XL. , pp. 12, 13. 

From the party movements during this uncertainty it was clearlyperceived that, if Jackson was not again a candidate, a contest betweenVan Buren and Calhoun for the Presidency was unavoidable. Calhoun'schance of success was preëminent, for he would unite in his favor allthe votes and influence of the South, --Van Buren not having then had anopportunity to evince his entire subserviency to the slaveholding power. Jackson, into whose heart Van Buren had wound himself, looked withlittle complacency on the probable success of Calhoun. Under thesecircumstances, he resolved to enter the lists himself as a candidate forthe Presidency, and, by taking Van Buren with him for theVice-Presidency, put him at once in the best position to become hissuccessor. Van Buren coïncided in these views, and acquiesced in, if hedid not originate, this measure. He foresaw that the popularity ofJackson would throw Calhoun out of the field, whether he was a candidateat the next ensuing election for the Presidency or Vice-Presidency. Thetime had now come to put an end to the hopes of Calhoun for theattainment of either of those high stations, by making public theanimosity of Jackson; but this could not be done without a struggle. Branch, Ingham, and Berrien, all members of Jackson's cabinet, wereknown friends to Calhoun, and far from being well disposed to Van Buren. Under these circumstances, Jackson resolved to dissolve his cabinet, inwhich Van Buren himself held a place, and form another, better adaptedto their united views. As a violent contest with the friends of Calhounwas anticipated, Van Buren, if he should continue Secretary of State, would be considered responsible for all Jackson's proceedings tofrustrate Calhoun's aspirations for the Presidency, which mightinjuriously affect his popularity in the Southern States. Van Burentherefore retired upon a mission to England. 

Such were the general views and policy of these allied aspirants to thetwo highest offices of state, which public documents now make apparent, when, in April, 1831, say the newspapers of the period, "an explosiontook place in the cabinet at Washington, the announcement of which cameupon the public like a clap of thunder in a cloudless day. "[5] On the7th of April, the Secretary of War, General Eaton, resigned, withoutgiving any other reason than his own inclination, and that he deemed themoment favorable, as General Jackson's "course of policy had beenadvantageously commenced. " On the 11th of April, Van Buren resigned theoffice of Secretary of State. So far as his motive could be discernedthrough the haze of ambiguous and diplomatic language, it was that hisname had been connected with that distracting topic, the question ofsuccessorship, which rendered his continuance in the cabinetembarrassing, and might be injurious to the public service. The twoother secretaries, Ingham and Branch, were kept in ignorance of theseresignations until the 19th of April, when Jackson informed them that, to command public confidence and satisfy public opinion, he deemed itproper to select a cabinet of entirely new materials, [6] and thereforerequested them to resign their respective offices. They accordinglytendered their resignations, which were accepted by the President, in aletter to each, couched in language perfectly identical, in which headmits that the dismissed officers had faithfully performed theirrespective official duties, but intimates that the want of harmony inthe cabinet "made its entire renovation requisite. "[7] Branch and Inghamboth denied any want of harmony in the cabinet, and the latter declaredthat "it had never been interrupted for a moment, nor been divided in asingle instance by difference of opinion as to the measures of thegovernment. "[8] These contradictions, thus openly made, created intensecuriosity, and public clamor for a full development of facts. Branch, ina letter dated May 31st, 1831, addressed to certain citizens of BertieCounty, North Carolina, declared that "discord had been introduced intothe ranks of the administration by the intrigues of selfishpoliticians. "[9]

 [5] See _Niles' Weekly Register_, vol. XL. , pp. 129-145. 

 [6] Ibid. , pp. 152-3. 

 [7] _Niles' Register_, vol. XL. , p. 201. 

 [8] Ibid. , p. 220. 

 [9] Ibid. , p. 253. 

The Attorney-General, Mr. Berrien, did not resign until the 15th of Juneensuing, nor until he also had been invited to do so by Jackson. He thendeclared that he resigned "simply on account of the President's will, "and that he knew of no want of harmony in the cabinet which either hador ought to have impeded the operations of the administration. [10] InJuly, Mr. Ingham, on returning home, was received by a great cavalcadeof his fellow-citizens, and was called upon for an explanation of "theextraordinary measure, the dissolution of the cabinet, which had shockedthe public mind. " He replied, that it was exclusively the act of thePresident, who alone could perfectly explain his own motives, and hedeemed it improper for him to anticipate the explanation which thePresident must deem it his duty to make. [11] As Jackson made noexplanation, Mr. Branch, after being repeatedly called upon in thepublic papers, authorized the publication of a letter he had addressedto Edmund B. Freeman, dated the 22d of August, 1831, [12] in which he gavea full statement of the overbearing language and conduct of Jackson, andunequivocally declared that the contemporaneous resignation of Eaton andVan Buren was a measure adopted for the purpose of getting rid of thethree offensive members of the cabinet; that "their dismission had beenstipulated for, and the reason was that Van Buren, having discoveredthat the three members of the cabinet (afterwards ejected) disdained tobecome tools to subserve his ambitious aspirings, had determined toleave them as little power to defeat his machinations as possible; andthat he had become latterly almost the sole confidant and adviser of thePresident. "

 [10] Ibid. , p. 304. 

 [11] _Niles' Weekly Register_, vol. XL. , p. 331. 

 [12] Ibid. , vol. XLI. , pp. 5, 6. 

The details of this controversy belong to general history, and will befound in the documents of the period. Enough has been given to indicatethe great influence Van Buren had acquired, for his own politicaladvancement, by an unscrupulous subserviency to the overbearing violenceof the President. 

On this subject Mr. Adams observed: "Van Buren outwits Calhoun in thefavor of Jackson. He brought the administration into power, and nowenjoys the reward of his intrigues. Jackson rides rough-shod over theSenate, in relation to appointments; but they dare not oppose him. " Itwas impossible, in view of these scenes of discord and mutualcrimination, for Mr. Adams not to feel self-congratulation when herecollected the uninterrupted harmony which, during four years, hadprevailed in his own cabinet. From without it had been assailed withcalumny and malignant passions; but within was peace, quiet, mutualassistance and support. No jealousies disturbed the tranquillity oftheir meetings. No ambitious spirit had shaped measures to purposes ofhis own aggrandizement. Though silent, he could not fail, whilecontemplating the comparison, to realize the triumph history waspreparing for himself and his administration. The contrast presented byits principles, when compared with those of his successor, must havebeen also a natural source of intense self-congratulation. Notwithstanding the warning voice of Henry Clay, a military chieftainhad been placed in the chair of state. He entered it with the spirit ofa conqueror, and conducted in it in the spirit of the camp. Thegratification of his feelings, and the reward of his partisans, wereapparently his chief objects. He dismissed from office, without trial, without charge, and without fault, faithful and able men. During thewhole period of Mr. Adams' administration not an officer of thegovernment, from Maine to Louisiana, was dismissed on account of hispolitical opinions. Many well known to him as opposed to hisreëlection, and actively employed in behalf of his competitor, werepermitted to hold their places, though subject to his power ofdismission. Not one was discharged from that cause. In the early partof his administration appointments were promiscuously made from all theparties in the previous canvass. This course was pursued until anopposition was organized which denounced all appointments from itsranks as being made for party purposes. Of _eighty_ newspapers employedin publishing the laws during the four years of his Presidency, only_twelve_ or _fifteen_ were changed, some for geographical, others forlocal considerations. Some papers among the most influential in theopposition, but otherwise conducted with decorum, were retained. Of theentire number of changes, not more than four or five were made onaccount of their scurrilous character. During the same period _not morethan five_ members of Congress received official appointments to anyoffice. Even these shocked General Jackson's patriotism, from theirmischievous bearing on the purity of the national legislature, and thepermanency of our republican institutions. Being then a candidate forthe Presidency, in opposition to Mr. Adams, he deliberately declared tothe Legislature of Tennessee his firm conviction that no member ofCongress ought to be appointed to any office except a seat on thebench; and he added that he himself would conform to that rule. Notwithstanding this pledge, he appointed _eight_ or _ten_ members ofCongress to office in the first four weeks of his Presidency. Mr. Claypublicly asserted his belief that within two months after Jackson hadattained that high station more members of Congress had officesconferred on them "than were appointed by any one of his predecessorsduring their whole period of four or eight years. " His proceedingsevidenced that among this favorite class no office is too high or toolow for desire and acceptance, from the head of a department to themost subordinate office under a collector. On editors of newspapers hebestowed unexampled patronage. Fifteen or twenty of those who had beenmost active in his favor during the preceding canvass, --the mostabusive of his opponents, and the most fulsome in his own praise, --wereimmediately rewarded with place. Of all attempts, his were the boldestand the most successful ever made to render the press venal, and tocorrupt this palladium of liberty. [13] Happily the times were notpropitious to give immediate development to these principles ofpermanent power. But the degree of success of this first attempt of oneman to constitute "_himself the state_" contains a solemn foreboding asto the possible future fate of our republic. For, although at this timethe ambition of the individual was not fully gratified, enough waseffected to encourage the reckless and aspiring. The seeds ofcorruption were thickly scattered. In that Presidency the doctrine wasfirst promulgated, "_To the victors belong the spoils_. " From that day, subserviency to the chief of the prevailing party became the conditionon which station and place were given or holden. In his hands waslodged the power of reward and punishment, to be exercised ruthlesslyfor party support and perpetuation; resulting, in the higherdepartments, in tame submission to the will of the chief, and, in thelower, in the adoption of the detestable maxim that _all is fair inpolitics_. The consequences are daily seen in the servility ofoffice-holders and office-seekers; in forced contributions, duringpending elections, for the continuance of the prevailing power, andafterwards in a heartless proscription of all not acceptable to thesuccessful dynasty; in the excluding every one from office who has notthe spirit to be a slave, and filling the heart of every true lover ofhis country with ominous conjectures concerning the fate of ourinstitutions. 

 [13] The facts above stated are chiefly derived from a speech of Henry Clay, delivered at Lexington, Kentucky, on the 16th of May, 1829, in which all the topics here touched are forcibly and eloquently illustrated. It may be found at length in _Niles' Weekly Register_, vol. XXXVI. , pp. 399 to 405. 

During the early periods of Jackson's administration, Mr. Adams, thoughin retirement, was neither unobserving nor silent concerning itsproceedings. In January, 1830, in the course of a conversation with asenator from Louisiana on the politics and the intrigues then going onat Washington in relation to the next presidential election, he said:"There are three divisions of the administration party: one for GeneralJackson, whose friends wish his reëlection; one for Mr. Van Buren, andone for Calhoun. Van Buren sees he cannot eight years longer dischargethe duties of the Department of State; and that he must succeed at theend of four years, or not at all. His friends insist that Jackson hasgiven a pledge that he will not serve another term. Calhoun and hisfriends are equally impatient, and he is much disposed to declarehimself against the leading measures of the present administration. Butif Mr. Clay was brought forward by his friends as a candidate, it wouldclose all the cracks of the administration party, and rivet themtogether. "

In the beginning of February, Mr. Adams remarked: "All the membersof Congress are full of rumors concerning the volcanic state of theadministration. The President has determined to remove Branch, butwas told that if he did the North Carolina senators would join theopposition, and all his nominations would be rejected. Theadministration is split up into a blue and green faction upon a pointof morals; an explosion has been deferred, but is expected. "

On the 26th of March, 1830, he again remarked: "There is a controversybetween the _Telegraph_, Calhoun's paper here, and the _New YorkCourier_, Van Buren's paper, upon the question whether Jackson is or isnot a candidate for reëlection as President, --the _Courier_ insistingthat he is, and the _Telegraph_ declaring that it is premature to askthe question. Mr. Van Buren has got the start of Calhoun, in the meritof convincing General Jackson that the salvation of the country dependson his reëlection. This establishes his ascendency in the cabinet, andreduces Calhoun to the alternative of joining in the shout 'Hurra forJackson!' or of being counted in opposition. "

On the 28th of March, 1830, the question being still in agitation beforethe public whether Jackson, if a candidate, would be successful, Mr. Adams said: "Jackson will be a candidate, and have a fair chance ofsuccess. His personal popularity, founded solely on the battle of NewOrleans, will carry him through the next election, as it did through thelast. The vices of his administration are not such as affect the popularfeeling. He will lose none of his popularity unless he should dosomething to raise a blister upon public sentiment, and of that there isno prospect. If he lives, therefore, and nothing external should happento rouse new parties, he may be reëlected not only twice, but thrice. "

In June, 1830, he again expressed his views on the policy and prospectsof the administration. He said it was impossible to foresee what wouldbe the fluctuations of popular opinion. Hitherto there were symptoms ofchanges of opinion among members of Congress, but none among the people. These could be indicated only by the elections. He had great doubtswhether the majorities in the Legislatures of the free states would bechanged by the approaching elections, and was far from certain that thenext Legislature of Kentucky would nominate Mr. Clay in opposition tothe reëlection of General Jackson. The whole strength of the presentadministration rested on Jackson's personal popularity, founded on hismilitary services. He had surrendered the Indians to the states withinthe bounds of which they are located. This would confirm and strengthenhis popularity in those states, especially as he had burdened the Unionwith the expense of removing and indemnifying the Indians. He had takenpractical ground against internal improvements and domestic industry, which would strengthen him in all the Southern States. He had, as mighthave been expected, thrown all his weight into the slaveholding scale;and that interest is so compact, so consolidated, and so fervent inaction, that there is every prospect it will overpower the discordantand loosely constructed interest of the free states. The cause ofinternal improvement will sink, and that of domestic industry will fallwith or after it. There is at present a great probability that Jackson'spolicy will be supported by a majority of the people. 

After a conversation with Oliver Wolcott, the successor of AlexanderHamilton as Secretary of the Treasury under Washington, who had beensubsequently Governor of Connecticut, Mr. Adams remarked: "Mr. Wolcottviews the prospects of the Union with great sagacity, and with hopesmore sanguine than mine. He thinks the continuance of the Union willdepend upon the heavy population of Pennsylvania, and that itsgravitation will preserve the Union. He holds the South Carolinaturbulence too much in contempt. The domineering spirit naturallysprings from the institution of slavery; and when, as in South Carolina, the slaves are more numerous than their masters, the domineering spiritis wrought up to its highest pitch of intenseness. The South Caroliniansare attempting to govern the Union as they govern their slaves, andthere are too many indications that, abetted as they are by all theslave-driving interest of the Union, the free portion will cower beforethem, and truckle to their insolence. This is my apprehension. "

While Jackson's nominations were pending before the Senate, a senatorfrom New Hampshire said to Mr. Adams that he hoped the whole tribe ofeditors of newspapers would be rejected; for he thought it the mostdangerous precedent that could be established, and, if now sanctioned bythe Senate, he despaired of its being controlled hereafter; and addedthat he was almost discouraged concerning the permanency of ourinstitutions. Mr. Adams replied, that his hopes were better, but thatundoubtedly the giving offices to editors of newspapers was of allspecies of bribery the most dangerous. 

From the time Mr. Adams took his seat in the House of Representatives, in December, 1831, till the period of his death, few of hiscontemporaries equalled and none exceeded him in punctuality ofattendance. He was usually among the first members in his place in themorning, and the last to leave it. On every question of general interesthe bestowed scrupulous attention, yielding to it the full strength ofhis mind, and his extensive knowledge of public affairs. A full historyof the proceedings of Congress during this period alone can do justiceto his devotion to the public service. In this memoir his views andcourse will no further be recorded than as they regard topics obviouslynearest his heart, and in which his principles and character aredeveloped with peculiar ability and power. 

In December, 1831, on the distribution of the several parts of thePresident's message to committees, Mr. Adams was appointed chairman ofthat on manufactures. Against this position he immediately remonstrated, and solicited the Speaker to relieve him from it. He stated that thesubject of manufactures was connected with details not familiar to him;that, during the long period of a life devoted to public service, histhoughts had been directed in a very different line. It was replied, that he could not be excused without a vote of the House; that thecontinuance of the Union might depend on the questions relative to thetariff; and that it was thought his influence would have great weight inreconciling the Eastern States to such modifications as he mightsanction. He therefore yielded all personal considerations to theinterests of his country, and accepted the appointment. 

In the ensuing March, on being appointed on a committee to investigatethe affairs of the United States Bank, Mr. Adams requested of the Houseto be excused from service on the Committee on Manufactures, giving thesame reasons he had previously urged, and others resulting from theincompatibility of the two offices. An opposition was made byCambreling, of New York, Barbour, of Virginia, and Drayton, of SouthCarolina, in speeches which were characterized by the newspapers of thetimes as "most extraordinary. "[14] Cambreling said: "The presentcondition of the country and of the public mind demanded theintelligence, industry, and patriotism, for which Mr. Adams wasdistinguished. The authority of his name was of infinite importance. "Mr. Barbour followed in a like strain. "The member from Massachusetts, "said he, "with whom I have been associated in the Committee onManufactures, has not only fulfilled all his duties with eminentability, in the committee, but in a spirit and temper that demandedgrateful acknowledgments, and excited the highest admiration. " Heconcluded with an appeal to Mr. Adams, "as a patriot, a statesman, andphilanthropist, as well as an American, feeling the full force of hisduties, and touched by all their incentives to lofty action, to forbearhis request. " Mr. Drayton also, in a voice of eulogy, declared that, "Amidst all the rancor of political parties with which our country hasbeen distracted, and from which, unhappily, we are not now exempt, ithas always been admitted that no individual was more eminently endowedwith those intellectual and moral qualities which entitle theirpossessor to the respect of the community, and to entire confidence inthe purity of his motives, than Mr. Adams. "

 [14] _Niles' Weekly Register_, vol. XLII. , pp. 86-88. 

These politicians were the active and influential members of a partywhich had raised General Jackson to the President's chair. When laboringto displace Mr. Adams from that high station, that party had representedhim as "neither a statesman nor a patriot; without talents; as a mereprofessor of rhetoric, capable of making a corrupt bargain for the sakeof power, and of condescending to intrigue for the attainment of placeand office. " To hear the leaders of such a party now extolling him forintegrity, diligence, and intelligence, upon whose continuance in officethe hopes of the country and the continuance of the Union might depend, was a change in opinions and language which might well be attributed tothe awakening of conscience to a sense of justice, and a desire forreparation of wrong, were it not that leaders of factions have never anyother criterion of truth, or rule in the use of language, thanadaptation to selfish and party purposes. 

Equally uninfluenced by adulation and undeterred by abuse, on the 23d ofMay, 1832, as chairman of the Committee on Manufactures, by order of amajority, Mr. Adams reported a bill, which, in presenting it, hedeclared was not coïncident with the views of that majority, and thatfor parts he alone was responsible. After lauding the anticipatedextinction of the public debt, he proceeded to show, by a laboriousresearch into its history, that such extinction had always beencontemplated, and that the policy of the government, from the earliestperiod of its existence, had concurred in the wisdom of this applicationof the revenue. He proceeded to expose and deprecate that Southernpolicy, which seized on this occasion "to reduce the revenues of theUnion to the lowest point absolutely necessary to defray the ordinarycharges and indispensable expenditures of the government;" a systemwhich, by inevitable consequence and by avowed design, "left our shoresto take care of themselves, our navy to perish by dry rot upon thestocks, our manufactures to wither under the blast of foreigncompetition;" and he urged, in opposition to these destructivedoctrines, the duty of levying revenue enough for "common defence, " andalso to "protect manufactures, " and supported his argument by a greatarray of facts; severely animadverting upon those politicians whoglorified themselves on the prosperous state of the country, and yetlabored to break down that "system of protection for domesticmanufactures by which this prosperity had been chiefly produced. " Theduty of "defensive preparation and internal improvements" he maintainedto be unquestionable, obligations resulting from the language and spiritof the constitution. The doctrine that the interests of the planter andthe manufacturer were irreconcilable, and that duties for the protectionof domestic industry operate to the injury of the Southern States, heanalyzed, illustrated, and showed to be fallacious, "striking directlyat the heart of the Union, and leading inevitably to its dissolution;" aresult to which more than one distinguished and influential statesman ofthe South had affirmed that "his mind was made up. " The doctrine thatthe interest of the South is identified with the foreign competitor ofthe Northern manufacturer, he denounced as in conflict with the wholehistory of our Revolutionary War, and a satire on our institutions. Ifit should prove true that these interests were so irreconcilable as tocause a separation, as some Southern statesmen contended, after suchseparation the same state of irreconcilable interests would continue, and "with redoubled aggravation, " resulting in an inextinguishable orexterminating war between the brothers of this severed continent, whichnothing but a foreign umpire could settle or adjust, and this notaccording to the interests of either of the parties, but his own. Theconsequences of such a state of things he displayed with great power andeloquence, and concluded with alluding "to that great, comprehensive, but peculiar Southern interest, which is now protected by the laws ofthe United States, but which, in case of severance of the Union, mustproduce consequences from which a statesman of either portion of itcannot but avert his eyes. "

Contemporaneously with this report on manufactures, Mr. Adams, as one ofthe committee to examine and report on the books and proceedings of theBank of the United States, submitted to the House of Representatives areport, signed only by himself and Mr. Watmough, of Pennsylvania, inwhich he declared his dissent from the report of the committee on thatsubject. After examining their proceedings with minuteness and searchingseverity, he asserted that they were without authority, and in flagrantviolation of the rights of the bank, and of the principles on which thefreedom of this people had been founded. 

In February, 1832, Mr. Adams delivered a speech on the ratio ofrepresentation--on the duty of making the constituent body small, andthe representatives numerous; contending that a large representation anda small constituency was a truly republican principle, and illustratingit from history, and from its tendency to give the distinguished men ofthe different states opportunities to become acquainted with each other. 

In July ensuing, a vote censuring a member for words spoken in debatebeing on its passage in the House, Mr. Adams, when the roll was called, and his name announced, rose with characteristic spirit, and delivereda paper to the clerk, which contained the following words: "I ask to beexcused from voting on the resolution, believing it to be unconstitutional, inasmuch as it assumes inferences of fact from words spoken by themember, without giving the words themselves, and the fact not beingwarranted, in my judgment, by the words he did use. " A majority of thehouse, being disposed to put down, and, if possible, disgrace Mr. Adams, refused to excuse him. On his name being called, he againdeclined voting, and stated that he did not refuse to vote from anycontumacy or disrespect to the house, but because he had a right todecline from conscientious motives, and that he desired to place hisreasons for declining upon the journals of the house. A member observedthat, if they put those reasons on the journal, they would spread on ittheir own condemnation; adding that, by going out of the house, Mr. Adams might easily have avoided voting. The latter replied, "I do notchoose to shrink from my duty by such an expedient. It is not my rightalone, but the rights of all the members, and of the people of theUnited States, which are concerned in this question, and I cannot evadeit. I regret the state of things, but I must abide by the consequences, whatever they may be. " A motion made to reconsider the vote refusing toexcuse him was lost--yeas _fifty-nine_, nays _seventy-four_. TheSpeaker then read the rule by which every member is required to vote, and stated that it was the duty of every member to vote on one side orthe other. The question then being repeated, when the clerk called thename of Mr. Adams, he gave no response, and remained in his seat. Amember then rose, said it was an unprecedented case, and moved tworesolutions. By the one, the facts being first stated, the coursepursued by Mr. Adams was declared "a breach of one of the rules of thehouse. " By the other, a committee was to be appointed for inquiring andreporting "what course ought to be adopted in a case so novel andimportant. " The house then proceeded to pass the original vote ofcensure on the member, without repeating the name of Mr. Adams. 

The next day the vote for a committee of inquiry on the subject caused adesultory and warm debate, during which Mr. Adams took occasion to saythat the whole affair was a subject of great mortification to him. Theproposed resolution, after naming him personally, and affirming that hehad been guilty of a breach of the rules of the house, proposed that acommittee of inquiry should be raised, to consider what was to be donein a case so novel and important. On this resolution, which the moverseemed to suppose would pass of course, Mr. Adams said, that he trustedopportunity would be given him to show the reasons which had preventedhim from voting. Mr. Everett, of Massachusetts, then remonstrated withthe majority of the house for attempting thus to censure a man, such asthey knew Mr. Adams to be, than whom he was confident the whole housewould bear him witness that there was not an individual on that floormore regular, more assiduous, or more laborious, in the discharge of hispublic duty. A motion was then made to lay the resolution on the table, which prevailed--yeas _eighty-nine_, nays _sixty-three_. 

Thus ended a debate which severely tested the firmness of the spirit ofMr. Adams. Neither seduced by the number nor quailing under the threatsand violence of his assailants, he maintained the rights of his publicstation, and with silent dignity set at defiance their overbearingattempts to terrify, until they abandoned their purpose in despair, awedby the majestic power of principle. 

In December, 1832, when the South Carolina state convention was opposingthe revenue laws with great violence, accompanied with threats ofdisunion, President Jackson, in his message to Congress, recommended areduction of the revenue, and a qualified abandonment of the system ofprotection; and also that the public lands be no longer regarded as asource of revenue, and that they be sold to actual settlers at a pricemerely sufficient to reïmburse actual expenses and the costs arisingunder Indian compacts. "In this message, " said Mr. Adams, "Jackson hascast away all the neutrality he heretofore maintained upon theconflicting opinions and interests of the different sections of thecountry, and surrenders the whole Union to the nullifiers of the Southand the land speculators of the West. This I predicted nearly two yearssince, in a letter to Peter B. Porter. "

In January, 1833, with regard to a member friendly to modifying thetariff according to the Southern policy, and who professed himself aradical, Mr. Adams remarked: "He has all the contracted prejudices ofthat political sect; his whole system of government is comprised in themaxim of leaving money in the pockets of the people. This is always thehigh road to popularity, and it is always travelled by those who havenot resolution, intelligence, and energy, to attempt the exploration ofany other. "

On January 16th, 1833, President Jackson communicated, in a message, theordinance of the convention of South Carolina nullifying the acts ofCongress laying duties on the importation of foreign commodities, withthe counteracting measures he proposed to pursue. On the 4th ofFebruary, on a bill for a modification of the tariff, Mr. Adams moved tostrike out the enacting clause, thereby destroying the bill. In a speechcharacterized by the fearless spirit by which he was actuated, hedeclared his opinion that neither the bill then in discussion nor anyother on the subject of the tariff ought to pass, until it was "knownwhether there was any measure by which a state could defeat the laws ofthe Union. " The ordinance of South Carolina had been called a "pacificmeasure. " It was just as much so as placing a pistol at the breast of atraveller and demanding his money was pacific. Until that weapon wasremoved there ought to be no modification of the tariff. Mr. Adams thenentered at large into the duty of government to protect all the greatinterests of the citizens. But protection might be extended in differentforms to different interests. The complaint was, that government tookmoney out of the pockets of one portion of the community, to give it toanother. In extending protection this must always be more or less thecase. But, then, while the rights of one party were protected in thisway, the rights of the other party were protected equally in anotherway. This he proceeded to illustrate. In the southern and southwesternparts of this Union there existed a certain interest, which he need notmore particularly designate, which enjoyed, under the constitution andlaws of the United States, an especial protection peculiar to itself. Itwas first protected by representation. There were on that floor upwardsof twenty members who represented what in other states had norepresentation at all. It was not three days since a gentleman fromGeorgia said that the species of property now alluded to was "themachinery of the South. " Now, that machinery had twenty oddrepresentatives in that hall; representatives elected, not by thatmachinery, but by those who owned it. Was there such representation inany other portion of the Union? That machinery had ever been to theSouth, in fact, the ruling power of this government. Was this notprotection? This very protection had taken millions and millions ofmoney from the free laboring population of this country, and put it intothe pockets of the owners of Southern machinery. He did not complain ofthis. He did not say that it was not all right. What he said was, thatthe South possessed a great interest protected by the constitution ofthe United States. He was for adhering to the bargain; but he did notwish to be understood as saying that he would agree to it if the bargainwas now to be made over again. 

This interest was protected by another provision in the constitution ofthe United States, by which "no person held to service or labor in onestate, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, inconsequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from suchservice or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party towhom such service or labor may be due. " What was this but protection tothis machinery of the South? And let it be observed that a provisionlike this ran counter to all the tenor of legislation in the freestates. It was contrary to all the notions and feelings of the people ofthe North to deliver a man up to any foreign authority, unless he hadbeen guilty of some crime; and, but for such a clause in the compact, aSouthern gentleman, who had lost an article of his machinery, wouldnever recover him back from the free states. 

The constitution contained another clause guaranteeing protection to thesame interest. It guaranteed to every state in the Union a republicanform of government, protection against invasion, and, on the applicationof the Legislature or Executive of any state, furnished them withprotection against domestic violence. Now, everybody knew that wherethis machinery existed the state was more liable to domestic violencethan elsewhere, because that machinery sometimes exerted a self-movingpower. The call for this protection had very recently been made, and ithad been answered, and the power of the Union had been exerted to insurethe owners of this machinery from domestic violence. 

On the 28th of the ensuing February, Mr. Adams, on the part of theminority of the Committee on Manufactures, made a report, signed byhimself and Lewis Condit, of New Jersey, which was read and ordered tobe printed by the House. In this report he took occasion to express hisdissent from the doctrine of the message, which he asserted to be thatin all countries generally, and especially in our own, the strongestand best part of our population--the basis of society, and the friendspreëminently of freedom--are the "_wealthy landholders_. " This hecontroverted with a spirit at once suggestive and sarcastic, as new, incorrect, and incompatible with the foundation of our politicalinstitutions. He maintained that this assertion was not true even inthat part of the Union where the cultivators of the soil are slaves;for, although there the landholders possess a large portion of thewealth of the community, they were far from constituting an equalproportion of its strength. Nor was it true in that portion of theUnion where the cultivators of the soil earn their bread by the sweatof their brow, that they were _the best_ part of society. They were asgood as, but no better than, the other classes of the community. Thedoctrine is in opposition to the Declaration of Independence and thegovernment of the Union, which are founded on a very differentprinciple--the principle that all men are born equal, and with equalrights. It cannot be assumed as a foundation of national policy, and isof a most alarming and dangerous tendency, threatening the peace anddirectly tending to "the dissolution of the Union, by a complicatedcivil and servile war. " He traced its consequences, present and future, in the proposition to give away the public lands, thereby withdrawingall aid from this source to objects of internal improvement; and in thedestiny to which it consigns our manufacturing interests, and those ofthe handicraftsmen and the mechanics of our populous cities andflourishing towns, for the benefit of these wealthy landholders. 

The insincerity of the message and the danger of its doctrines heelucidates with scrutinizing severity, exposing its fallacies, andshowing that, by its recommendations, "a nation, consisting of tenmillions of freemen, must be crippled in the exercise of theirassociated power, unmanned of all the energies applicable to theimprovement of their own condition, by the doubts, scruples, or fancifuldiscontents, of a portion among themselves less in number than doublethe number in the single city of New York. "

Its doctrine, which divides the people into the best and worst part ofthe population, is here denounced as "the never-failing source oftyranny and oppression, of civil strife, the shedding of brothers'blood, and the total extinction of freedom. "

This report earnestly entreats the general government not to abdicate, by _non user_, the power vested in them of appropriating public moneyto great national objects of internal improvements, and declares thefinal result of the doctrine of abdicating powers arbitrarilydesignated as doubtful is but the degradation of the nation, thereducing itself to impotence, by chaining its own hands, fettering itsown feet, and thus disabling itself from bettering its own condition. The impotence resulting from the inability to employ its own facultiesfor its own improvement, is the principle upon which the roving Tartardenies himself a permanent habitation, because to him the wanderingshepherd is the best part of the population; upon which the Americansavage refuses to till the ground, because to him the hunter of thewoods is the best part of the population. "Imperfect civilization, inall stages of human society, shackles itself with fanatical prejudicesof exclusive favor to its own occupations; as the owner of a plantationwith a hundred slaves believes the summit of human virtue to beattained only by independent farmers, cultivators of the soil. "

Mr. Adams avers that the spirit of these recommendations indicates "aproposed revolution in the government of the Union, the avowed purposeof which is to reduce the general government to a simple machine. Simplicity, " he adds, "is the essential characteristic in the conditionof slavery. It is by the complication of the government alone that thefreedom of mankind can be assured. If the people of these United Statesenjoy a greater share of liberty than any other nation upon earth, it isbecause, of all the governments upon earth, theirs is the mostcomplicated. " The simplicity which the message recommends is "anabdication of the power to do good; a divestment of all power in thisconfederate people to improve their own condition. "

The recommendation of the message, that the public lands shall ceaseas soon as practicable to be a source of public revenue, --that theyshall be sold at a reduced price to actual settlers, and the futuredisposition of them be surrendered to the states in which they lie, --Mr. Adams condemns as the giving away of the national domain, the propertyof the whole people, to individual adventurers; and as taking away theproperty of one portion of the citizens, and giving it to another, theplundered portion of the community being insultingly told that those onwhom their lands are lavished are _the best part of the population_. Neither this, nor the surrender of them to the states in which they lie, can be done without prejudicing the claims of the United States, andof every particular state within which there are no public lands, andtrampling under foot solemn engagements entered into before the adoptionof the constitution. He reprobates thus giving away lands which werepurchased by the blood and treasure of our revolutionary fathers andourselves, which, if duly managed, might prove an inexhaustible fundfor centuries to come. He maintains that the policy indicated by thismessage regards the manufacturing interests of the country "as a victimto be sacrificed. " This view leads him into an illustrative and powerfulargument on the duty of protection to domestic industry, in which areset forth its nature, limitations, and impressive obligations. 

In this report the absurd doctrines of nullification and secession arecanvassed, and it is shown that they never can be carried out inpractice but by a dissolution of the Union. The encouragement given bythe policy of the administration to the unjust claims and groundlesspretensions of South Carolina is exposed. The assumed irreconcilablenessof the interests of the great masses of population which geographicallydivide the Union, of which one part is entirely free, and the otherconsists of masters and slaves, which is the foundation of thosedoctrines, is denied, and the question declared to be only capable ofbeing determined by experiment under the compact formed by theconstitution of the United States. The nature of that compact isanalyzed, as well as the effect of that representation of property whichit grants to the slaveholding states, and which has secured to them "theentire control of the national policy, and, almost without exception, the possession of the highest executive office of the Union. " The causesand modes of operation by which this has been attained Mr. Adamsillustrates to this effect: The Northern and wholly free states concededthat, while in the popular branch of the Legislature they themselvesshould have a representation proportioned only to their numbers, theslaveholders of the South should, in addition to their proportionalnumbers, have a representation for three fifths of their livingproperty--their machinery; while the citizens of the free states have noaddition to their number of representatives on account of theirproperty; nor have their looms and manufactories, or their owners intheir behalf, a single representative. The consequent disproportion ofnumbers of the slaveholding representation in the House ofRepresentatives has secured the absolute control of the general policyof the government, and especially of the fiscal system, the revenues andexpenditures of the nation. Thus, while the free states are representedonly according to their numbers, the slaveholders are represented alsofor their property. The equivalent for this privilege provided by theconstitution is that the slaveholders shall bear a heavier burden of alldirect taxation. But, by the ascendency which their excess ofrepresentation gives them in the enactment of laws, they have invariablyin time of peace excluded all direct taxation, and thereby enjoyed theirexcess of representation without any equivalent whatever. This is, insubstance, an evasion of the bilateral provision in the constitution. Itgives an operation entirely one-sided. It is a privilege of the Southernand slaveholding section of the Union, without any equivalent whateverto the Northern and North-western freemen. Always united in the purposeof regulating the affairs of the whole Union by the standard of theslaveholding interest, the disproportionate numbers of this section inthe electoral colleges have enabled them, in ten out of twelvequadriennial elections, to confer the chief magistracy on one of theirown citizens. Their suffrages at every election have been almostexclusively confined to a candidate of their own caste. Availingthemselves of the divisions which, from the nature of man, alwaysprevail in communities entirely free, they have sought and found outauxiliaries in other quarters of the Union, by associating the passionsof parties and the ambition of individuals with their own purposes toestablish and maintain throughout the confederated nation theslaveholders' policy. The office of Vice-President--a station of highdignity, but of little other than contingent power--has been usually, bytheir indulgence, conceded to a citizen of the other section; but eventhis political courtesy was superseded at the election before the last(1829), and both the offices of President and Vice-President of theUnited States were, by the preponderancy of slaveholding votes, bestowedupon citizens of two adjoining slaveholding states. "At this moment(1833) the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice ofthe United States, are all citizens of this favored portion of thisunited republic. "

Mr. Adams, regarding "the ground assumed by the South Carolinaconvention for usurping the sovereign and limitless power of the peopleof that state to dictate the laws of the Union, and prostrate thelegislative, executive, and judicial authority of the United States, asdestitute of foundation as the forms and substance of their proceedingsare arrogant, overbearing, tyrannical, and oppressive, " declared hisbelief "that one particle of compromise with that usurped power, or ofconcession to its pretensions, would be a heavy calamity to the peopleof the whole Union, and to none more than to the people of SouthCarolina themselves; that such concession would be a dereliction byCongress of their highest duties to their country, and directly lead tothe final and irretrievable dissolution of the Union. "

 CHAPTER IX. 

INFLUENCE OF MILITARY SUCCESS. --POLICY OF THE ADMINISTRATION. --MR. ADAMS' SPEECH ON THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS FROM THE BANK OF THE UNITEDSTATES. --HIS OPINIONS ON FREEMASONRY AND TEMPERANCE SOCIETIES. --EULOGYON WILLIAM WIRT. --ORATION ON THE LIFE AND CHARACTER OF LAFAYETTE. --HISCOURSE ON ABOLITION PETITIONS. --ON INTERFERENCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OFSLAVERY. --ON THE POLICY RELATIVE TO THE PUBLIC LANDS. --SPEECH ONDISTRIBUTING RATIONS TO FUGITIVES FROM INDIAN HOSTILITIES. --ON WAR WITHMEXICO. --EULOGY ON JAMES MADISON. --HIS COURSE ON A PETITION PURPORTINGTO BE FROM SLAVES. --FIRST REPORT ON JAMES SMITHSON'S BEQUEST. 

On the 4th of March, 1833, Andrew Jackson was inaugurated President ofthe United States a second time. Of two hundred and eighty-eight votes, the whole number cast by the electors, he had received two hundred andnineteen, Henry Clay being the chief opposing candidate. Martin VanBuren, having been elected Vice-President by one hundred and eighty-ninevotes, was inaugurated on the same day. The coalition formed in 1827 byJackson with Van Buren had thus fulfilled its purpose. Jackson's triumphwas complete; he had superseded Adams, defeated Clay, crushed Calhoun, and placed Van Buren in the most auspicious position to be his successorin the President's chair. 

The infatuating influence of military success over the human mind, andthe readiness with which intelligent and well-disposed men, living undera constitution of limited powers, while dazzled by its splendor, endureand encourage acts of despotic power, is at once instructive andsuggestive. Violations of constitutional duty, known and voluntarilyacquiesced in by a whole people, subservient to the will of a popularchieftain, may, and probably will, in time, change their constitution, and destroy their liberties. 

When Mr. Adams said that "Jackson rode roughshod over the Senate of theUnited States, " he only characterized the spirit by which he controlledevery branch and department of the government. In every movement Jacksonhad displayed an arbitrary will, determined on success, regardless ofthe means, and had applied without reserve the corrupting temptation ofoffice to members of Congress. He had rewarded subserviency byappointments, and punished the want of it by removal; had insolentlycalled Calhoun to account for his official language in the cabinet ofMonroe, and dismissed three members of his own, acknowledged to havebeen unexceptionable in the discharge of their official duties, becausethey would not submit to regulate the social intercourse of theirfamilies by his dictation. These and many other instances of hisoverbearing character in civil affairs had become subjects of severepublic animadversion, without apparently shaking the submissiveconfidence of the citizens of the United States. Their votes on hissecond election indicated an unequivocal increase of popular favor; theadmirer of arbitrary power exulted; the lover of constitutional libertymourned. The friends of despotism in the Old World, ignorant of the realstamina of his popularity, regarded it as unquestionable evidence of theall-powerful influence of military achievement in the New. But theinfatuation which had been the exciting cause of General Jackson's firstelection to the Presidency would soon have evaporated under themultiplied evidences of an ill-regulated will, had it not beenencouraged and supported by a local interest which predominated in thecouncils of the nation. With no desire to establish arbitrary power inthe person of the chief magistrate of the Union, the slave-holders ofthe South instinctively perceived the identity of Jackson's interestswith their own, and gave zeal and intensity to his support. Theacquisition of the province of Texas, and its introduction into theUnion as a slave state, with the prospective design of forming out ofits territories four or five slave states, was a project in which theyknew Jackson's heart was deeply engaged, and for the advancement ofwhich he had peculiar qualifications. 

Such was the true basis of that extraordinary show of popularity whichJackson's second election as President indicated. Accordingly, his firstmeasures were directed to the acquisition of Texas. These, as Mr. Adamssaid at the time, "were kept profoundly secret, " but at this day theyare clear and evident. The Florida treaty was accepted with approbationand joy by the government and people of the United States, under theadministration of Mr. Monroe. But the extension of its boundaries to theColorado, which had been hoped for during the negotiation of that treatybetween Mr. Adams and Onis, was not attained. Afterwards, during thePresidency of Mr. Adams, when every engine in the South and West was setat work to depreciate his character, and destroy his popularity, JohnFloyd, of Virginia, in an address to his constituents, attributed therelinquishment of our claim to Texas to him, and said he had thusdeprived the South of acquiring two or more slave states. The samecharge was brought against him by Thomas H. Benton, of Missouri, whoafterwards, when apprized of the facts, openly acknowledged, in theSenate of the United States, that it was unjust, and an error. Thecalumny had the effect for which it was fabricated; for Mr. Adams, outof respect for those through whose constitutional influence he hadabandoned that claim, disdained to defend himself by publishing thetruth. 

The facts were, that slavery not being then permitted in Mexico, and theproject of introducing it, by the annexation of Texas, not being yetdeveloped, Mr. Adams deemed the extension of the territory of the UnitedStates to the Colorado so important, that when Onis absolutely refusedto accede, he declined further negotiation, declaring that he would notrenew it on any other ground. He did not yield until those deeplyinterested in obtaining Florida had, by their urgency, persuaded him totreat on the condition of not including Texas. Although desirous, fromgeneral considerations of national interest and policy, to obtain thatprovince, it was well known that he would not engage in any conspiracyto wrest it from Mexico. His character and firmness in that respectlessened his popularity in the Southern States, and excited aninordinate zeal for Jackson. 

Accordingly, Mr. Poinsett, of South Carolina, minister of the UnitedStates in Mexico, immediately after the inauguration of PresidentJackson, in 1829, being apprized of his views and policy, took measuresto carry them into effect. Under pretence of negotiating for thepurchase of Texas, he remained in Mexico, and so mingled with theparties which at the time distracted that republic as to becomeobnoxious to its government. The Legislature passed a vote to expelhim from their territories, and issued a remonstrance intimatingapprehensions of his assassination if he continued there; charging himexpressly with being concerned in establishing "some of those secretsocieties which will figure in the history of the misfortunes ofMexico. " It might have been expected that a foreign minister wouldhave repelled such an accusation with indignation. Poinsett, on thecontrary, in a letter[1] addressed to the public, admitted that hehad been instrumental in establishing _five_ such secret societies, but asserted that they were only lodges of Freemasons, --merelyphilanthropic institutions, which had nothing to do with politics. For the truth of these assertions he appealed to his own personalcharacter, and to the character of the members of the secret societies, who, he declared, had been his intimate friends for more than threeyears, vouching himself for their patriotism and private virtues. Eventhis authentication did not create implicit belief in the minds ofthose to whom it was addressed. 

 [1] See this letter in _Niles' Weekly Register_, vol. XXXVII. , pp. 91-93. 

During these proceedings of Poinsett in Mexico the newspapers in theUnited States announced that the American government were taking propersteps for the acquisition of Texas. Intimations were also circulated ofthe sum Poinsett had been authorized to offer for it; and, to make sureof its ultimate attainment, in the summer and autumn of 1829 emigrantsfrom the United States were encouraged by the American government tosettle in Texas. To the Southern States the acquisition of that provincewas desirable, to open a new area for slavery. In open defiance, therefore, of a formal decree about this time issued by the rulers ofMexico prohibiting slavery in Texas, the emigrants to that province tooktheir slaves with them; for they knew that the object of the Americangovernment was not so much territory as a slave state, and that upontheir effecting this result their admission into the Union would depend. Such was the policy commenced and pursued during the first term ofJackson's administration. It was the conviction of this which led Mr. Adams publicly to declare that, though "profoundly a secret as itrespected the public, it was then in successful progress;" and to makeit a topic of severe animadversion and warning, combined with languageof prophecy, which events soon expanded into history. Every movement ofJackson was in unison with the policy and imbued with the spirit of theslaveholders. He manifested animosity to the protection of manufactures, and to internal improvement by his veto of the bill for the MaysvilleTurnpike, and to the Bank of the United States by his veto of the billfor extending its charter; and, after violently denouncing the spirit ofnullification, he publicly succumbed to it by proposing a modificationof the tariff, in obedience to its demands. But the most flagrant, act, and beyond all others characteristic of his indomitable tenacity ofwill, overleaping all the limitations of precedent and the constitution, was his removal, on his own responsibility, of the deposits from theBank of the United States. After ascertaining that Duane, the Secretaryof the Treasury, would not be his tool in that service, he, in thelanguage of that officer, "concentrating in himself the power to judgeand execute, to absorb the discretion given to the Secretary of theTreasury, and to nullify the law itself, " proceeded at once to removehim, and to raise Roger B. Taney from the office of Attorney-General tothat of Secretary of the Treasury, for the sole object of availinghimself of an instrument subservient to his purposes. 

In his annual message, at the opening of the session, Jackson announcedto Congress that the Secretary of the Treasury had, by his orders, removed the public moneys from the Bank of the United States, anddeposited them in certain state banks. 

The spirit of Mr. Adams kindled at this usurpation, and he gaveeloquent utterance to his indignation. Among the remonstrances toCongress against this act of President Jackson, one from theLegislature of Massachusetts was sent to him for presentation. In hisattempt to fulfil this duty he was defeated three several times by theaddress of the Speaker of the House, and finally deprived of theopportunity by the previous question. He immediately published thespeech he had intended to deliver, minutely scrutinizing thePresident's usurpation of power. The removal of the deposits, and thecontract with the state banks to receive those deposits, he assertswere both unlawful; and the measure itself neither lawful nor just--anarbitrary act, without law and against law. He then proceeds to analyzethe whole series of documents adduced by the Secretary of the Treasury, and by the Committee of Ways and Means in his aid, as _precedents_ tojustify the removal of the deposits, and concludes a lucid andlaborious argument with, "I have thus proved, to the very rigor ofmathematical demonstration, that the Committee of Ways and Means, tobolster up the lawless act of the Secretary of the Treasury, intransferring public moneys from their lawful places of deposit toothers, in one of which, at least, the Secretary had an interest ofprivate profit to himself, have ransacked all the records of theTreasury, from its first institution in July, 1775, to this day, invain. From the whole mass of vouchers, to authenticate the lawfuldisposal of the public moneys, which that department can furnish, thecommittee have gathered fifty pages of documents, which they would passoff as _precedents_ for this flagrant violation of the laws, and notone of them will answer their purpose. One of them alone bears apartial resemblance to the act of the present secretary; and that onethe very document adduced by the committee themselves pronounces andproves to be unlawful. "

After some remarks upon the office of Secretary of the Treasury, andthe legal restraints upon it, he proceeds: "I believe both the spiritand the letter of this law to have been violated by the presentSecretary of the Treasury when he transferred the public funds from theBank of the United States to the Union Bank of Baltimore, he himselfbeing a stockholder therein. And so thorough is my conviction of thisprinciple, and so corrupting and pernicious do I deem the example whichhe has thereby set to future Committees of Ways and Means, to cite as_precedents_ for yet ranker rottenness, that, if there were a prospectof his remaining in office longer than till the close of the presentsession of the Senate, I should deem it an indispensable, albeit apainful, duty of my station, to take the sense of this house on thequestion. And, sir, if, after this explicit declaration by me, thechairman of the Committee of Ways and Means has not yet slaked histhirst for _precedents_, he may gratify it by offering a fifthresolution, in addition to the four reported by the committee, as thus:Resolved, that the thanks of this house be given to Roger B. Taney, Secretary of the Treasury, for his pure and DISINTERESTED patriotism intransferring the use of the public funds from the Bank of the UnitedStates, where they were profitable to the people, to the Union Bank ofBaltimore, where they were profitable to himself. "

He then proceeds to show, in a severe and searching examination ofthe proceedings of this secretary, that the transfers were utterlyunwarrantable; that he _tampered_ with the public moneys to sustain thestaggering credit of selected depositaries, and "scatter it abroadamong swarms of rapacious political partisans. " After stating andanswering all the charges brought by the Secretary of the Treasuryagainst the Bank of the United States, and showing their falsehood orfutility, he declares all the proceedings of the directors of thebank to have been within the pale of action warranted by the laws ofthe land; and, so long as they do this, "a charge of dishonesty orcorruption against them, uttered by the President of the United States, or by the Secretary of the Treasury, is neither more nor less thanslander, emitted under the protection of official station, againstprivate citizens. This is both ungenerous and unjust. It is the abuseof the shelter of official station to circulate calumny with impunity. "

Mr. Adams next examines and severely reprobates the declaration ofthe President of the United States, that, "if the last Congress hadcontinued in session one week longer, the bank would, by corrupt means, have procured a re-charter by majorities of two thirds in both housesof Congress;" and declares the imputation as unjust as it wasdishonorable to all the parties implicated in it. He did not believethere was _one_ member in the last Congress, who voted againstre-chartering of the bank, who could have been induced to change hisvote by corrupt means, had the president and directors of the bank beenbase enough to attempt the use of them. "That the imputation is cruellyungenerous towards the friends of the administration in this house, is, " said Mr. Adams, "my deliberate opinion; and now, when we reflectthat this defamatory and disgraceful suspicion, harbored or professedagainst his own friends, supporters, and adherents, was the real andefficient _cause_ (to call it reason would be to _shame_ the term), that it was the real _motive_ for the removal of the deposits duringthe recess of Congress, and only two months before its meeting, whatcan we do but hide our heads with _shame_? Sir, one of the duties ofthe President of the United States--a duty as sacred as that to whichhe is bound by his official oath--is that of maintaining unsulliedthe honor of his country. But how could the President of the UnitedStates assert, in the presence of any foreigner, a claim to honorableprinciple or moral virtue, as attributes belonging to his countrymen, when he is the first to cast the indelible stigma upon them? '_Vale, venalis civitas, mox peritura, si emptorem invenias_, ' was theprophetic curse of Jugurtha upon Rome, in the days of her deepcorruption. If the imputations of the President of the United Statesupon his own partisans and supporters were true, our country wouldalready have found a purchaser. "

"That this was the true and efficient _cause_, " Mr. Adams proceeds, "of that removal, is evident, not only by the positive testimony of Mr. Duane, but from the utter futility of the reasons assigned by Mr. Taney. Mr. Duane states that, on the second day after he entered upon hisduties as Secretary of the Treasury, the President himself declared tohim his determination to cause the public deposits to be removed beforethe meeting of Congress. He said that the matter under consideration wasof vast consequence to the country; that, unless the bank was brokendown, it would break us down; that, if the last Congress had remained aweek longer in session, two thirds would have been secured for the bankby corrupt means; and that the like result might be apprehended the nextCongress; that such a state bank agency must be put in operation, beforethe meeting of Congress, as would show that the United States Bank wasnot necessary, and thus some members would have no excuse for voting forit. 'My suggestions, ' added Mr. Duane, 'as to an inquiry by Congress, asin 1832, or a recourse to the judiciary, the President repelled, sayingthat it would be idle to depend upon either; referring, as to thejudiciary, to the decisions already made as indications of what would bethe effect of an appeal to them in future. '

"These, then, " continued Mr. Adams, "were the effective _reasons_ ofthe President for requiring the removal of the deposits _before_ themeeting of Congress. The corruptibility of Congress itself, and theforegone decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, werealike despised and degraded. The executive will was substituted in theplace of both. These reasons had been urged, without success, on oneSecretary of the Treasury, Louis McLane. He had been promoted out ofoffice, and they were now pressed upon the judgment and pliability ofanother. He, too, was found refractory, and displaced. A third, moreaccommodating, was found in the person of Mr. Taney. To _him_ thereasons of the President were all-sufficient, and he adopted themwithout reserve. They were all summed up in one, --_'Sic volo, sicjubeo, stet pro_ RATIONE _voluntas_. '

"It is to be regretted that the Secretary of the Treasury did not feelhimself at liberty to assign this reason. In my humble opinion it oughtto have stood in front of all the rest. There is an air of consciousshamefacedness in the suppression of that which was so glaringlynotorious; and something of an appearance of trifling, if not ofmockery, in presenting a long array of reasons, omitting that which liesat the foundation of them all. 

"The will of the President of the United States was the reason paramountto all others for the removal, by the Secretary of the Treasury, of thedeposits from the Bank of the United States. It was part of his systemof simplifying the machine of government, to which it was admirablyadapted. It placed the whole revenue of the Union at any time at hisdisposal, for any purpose to which he might see fit to apply it. In vainhad the laws cautiously stationed the Register, the Comptroller, theTreasurer, as checks upon the Secretary of the Treasury, so that themost trifling sum in the treasury should never be accessible to any oneor any two men. With a removal of the deposits and a transfer draft, millions on millions may be transferred, by the stroke of the pen of asupple and submissive Secretary of the Treasury, from place to place, athome and abroad, wherever any purpose, personal or political, maythereby be promoted. 

"To this final object of simplifying the machine two other maxims havebeen proclaimed as auxiliary fundamental principles of thisadministration. First, that the contest for place and power, in thiscountry, is a state of war, and all the emoluments of office are thespoils of victory. The other, that it is the invariable rule of thePresident to reward his friends and punish his enemies. "

In the course of the years 1832 and 1833, Freemasonry having becomemingled with the politics of the period, Mr. Adams openly avowed hishostility to the institution, and addressed a series of letters toWilliam L. Stone, an editor of one of the New York papers, and anotherto Edward Livingston, one of its high officers, and a third to theAnti-masonic Convention of the State of New York, in which his views, opinions, and objections to that craft, are stated and developed withhis usual laborious, acute, and searching pathos and power. 

In October, 1833, Mr. Adams was applied to by one of his friends forminutes of the principal measures of Mr. Monroe's administration, whilehe was Secretary of State, and also of his own, as President of theUnited States, to be used in his defence in a pending election. "Icannot reconcile myself, " said Mr. Adams, "to write anything for my ownelection, not even for the refutation of the basest calumnies. In all myelection contests, therefore, my character is at the mercy of the basestslanderer; and slander is so effective a power in all our elections, that the friends of the candidates for the highest offices use itwithout scruple. I know by experience the power of party spirit upon thepeople. Party triumphs over party, and the people are all enrolled inone party or another. The people can only act by the machinery ofparty. "

About this time there was an attempt in Norfolk County to get up aTemperance Society, and a wish was expressed to him that he would take alead in forming it. He declined from an unwillingness to shackle himselfwith obligations to control his individual, family, and domesticarrangements; from an apprehension that the temperance societies, intheir well-intended zeal, were already manifesting a tendency toencroach on personal freedom; and also from an opinion that the causewas so well sustained by public approbation and applause that it needednot the aid of his special exertions, beyond that of his own example. 

On the 12th of December, 1833, Mr. Clay sent a message to the Presidentof the United States, asking a copy of his written communication to hiscabinet, made on the 18th of September, about the removal of thedeposits from the United States Bank; to which the President replied bya flat refusal. Mr. Adams remarked: "There is a tone of insolence andinsult in his intercourse with both houses of Congress, especially sincehis reëlection, which never was witnessed between the Executive andLegislature before. The domineering tone has heretofore been usually onthe side of the legislative bodies to the Executive, and Clay has notbeen sparing in the use of it. He is now paid in his own coin. "

An intelligent foreigner, in relating a visit to Mr. Adams, in 1834, thus describes his powers of conversation: "He spoke with infinite ease, drawing upon his vast resources with the certainty of one who has hislecture before him ready written. He maintained the conversation nearlyfour hours, steadily, in one continuous stream of light. His subjectswere the architecture of the middle ages, the stained glass of thatperiod, sculpture, embracing monuments particularly. Milton, Shakspeare, Shenstone, Pope, Byron, and Southey, were in turn remarked upon. He gavePope a wonderfully high character, and remarked that one of his chiefbeauties was the skill exhibited in varying the cæsural pause, quotingfrom various parts of his author to illustrate his remarks. He saidlittle on the politics of the country, but spoke at considerable lengthof Sheridan and Burke, both of whom he had heard, and described withgraphic effect. Junius, he said, was a bad man, but maintained that as awriter he had never been equalled. "[2]

 [2] _Niles' Weekly Register_, vol. XLVII. , p. 91. 

In March, 1834, Mr. Polk, of Tennessee, having indulged in an idolizingglorification of General Jackson, with some coarse invectives againstMr. Adams, the latter rose and said: "I shall not reply to the gentlemanfrom Tennessee; and I give notice, once for all, that, whenever anyadmirer of the President of the United States shall think fit to pay hiscourt to him in this house, either by a flaming panegyric upon him, orby a rancorous invective on me, he shall never elicit one word of replyfrom me. 

 'No; let the candied tongue lick absurd pomp, And crook the pregnant hinges of the knee, Where THRIFT may follow fawning. '"

On the 20th of February, 1834, Mr. Adams attended the funeral of Mr. Wirt, on which event he thus uttered his feelings: "For the rest of theday I was unable to attend to anything. I could think of nothing butWilliam Wirt, --of his fine talents, of his amiable and admirablecharacter; the twelve years during which we had been in close officialrelation together;[3] the scene when he went with me to the capitol; hiswarm and honest sympathy with me in my trials when President of theUnited States; my interview with him in January, 1831, and his faithfuldevotion to the memory of Monroe. These recollections were oppressive tomy feelings. I thought some public testimonial from me to his memory wasdue at this time. But Mr. Wirt was no partisan of the presentadministration. He had been a formal and dreaded opponent to thereëlection of Andrew Jackson; and so sure is anything I say or do tomeet insuperable obstruction, that I could not imagine anything I couldoffer with the remotest prospect of success. I finally concluded to askof the house, tomorrow morning, to have it entered upon the journal ofthis day that the adjournment was that the Speaker and members might beable to attend the funeral of William Wirt. I wrote a short address, tobe delivered at the meeting of the house. "

 [3] Mr. Wirt was Attorney-General of the United States during the four last years of Mr. Monroe's and the whole of Mr. Adams' administration. 

It appears, by the journal of the house, that, on the 21st of February, 1834, Mr. Adams, of Massachusetts, addressed the chair as follows:[4]

 [4] See _Congressional Debates_, vol. X. , part 2d, p. 2758. 

 "MR. SPEAKER: A rule of this house directs that the Speaker shall examine and correct the journal before it is read. I therefore now rise, not to make a motion, nor to offer a resolution, but to ask the unanimous consent of the house to address to you a few words with a view to an addition which I wish to be made to the journal, of the adjournment of the house yesterday. 

 "The Speaker, I presume, would not feel himself authorized to make the addition in the journal which I propose, without the unanimous consent of the house; and I therefore now propose it before the reading of the journal. 

 "I ask that, after the statement of the adjournment of the house, there be added to the journal words importing that it was to give the Speaker and members of the house an opportunity of attending the funeral obsequies of William Wirt. 

 "At the adjournment of the house on Wednesday I did not know what the arrangements were, or would be, for that mournful ceremony. Had I known them, I should have moved a postponed adjournment, which would have enabled us to join in the duty of paying the last tribute of respect to the remains of a man who was an ornament of his country and of human nature. 

 "The customs of this and of the other house of Congress warrant the suspension of their daily labors in the public service, for the attendance upon funeral rites, only in the case of the decease of their own members. To extend the usage further might be attended with inconvenience as a precedent; nor should I have felt myself warranted in asking it upon any common occasion. 

 "Mr. Wirt had never been a member of either house of Congress. But if his form in marble, or his portrait upon canvas, were placed within these walls, a suitable inscription for it would be that of the statue of Molière in the hall of the French Academy: 'Nothing was wanting to his glory; he was wanting to ours. '

 "Mr. Wirt had never been a member of Congress; but, for a period of twelve years, during two successive administrations of the national government, he had been the official and confidential adviser, upon all questions of law, of the Presidents of the United States; and he had discharged the duties of that station entirely to the satisfaction of those officers and of the country. No member of this house needs to be reminded how important are the duties of the Attorney-General of the United States; nor risk I contradiction in affirming that they were never more ably or more faithfully discharged than by Mr. Wirt. 

 "If a mind stored with all the learning appropriate to the profession of the law, and decorated with all the elegance of classical literature; if a spirit imbued with the sensibilities of a lofty patriotism, and chastened by the meditations of a profound philosophy; if a brilliant imagination, a discerning intellect, a sound judgment, an indefatigable capacity, and vigorous energy of application, vivified with an ease and rapidity of elocution, copious without redundance, and select without affectation; if all these, united with a sportive vein of humor, an inoffensive temper, and an angelic purity of heart;--if all these, in their combination, are the qualities suitable for an Attorney-General of the United States, in him they were all eminently combined. 

 "But it is not my purpose to pronounce his eulogy. That pleasing task has been assigned to abler hands, and to a more suitable occasion. He will there be presented in other, though not less interesting lights. As the penetrating delineator of manners and character in the British Spy; as the biographer of Patrick Henry, dedicated to the young men of your native commonwealth; as the friend and delight of the social circle; as the husband and father in the bosom of a happy, but now most afflicted family;--in all these characters I have known, admired, and loved him; and now witnessing, from the very windows of this hall, the last act of piety and affection over his remains, I have felt as if this house could scarcely fulfil its high and honorable duties to the country which he had served, without some slight, be it but a transient, notice of his decease. The addition which I propose to the journal of yesterday's adjournment would be such a notice. It would give his name an honorable place on the recorded annals of his country, in a manner equally simple and expressive. I will only add that, while I feel it incumbent upon me to make this proposal, I am sensible that it is not a fit subject for debate; and, if objected to, I desire you to consider it as withdrawn. "

Mr. Adams proceeds: "When the question of agreeing to the proposedaddition was put by the Speaker, Joel K. Mann, of Pennsylvania, precisely the rankest Jackson man in the house, said 'No. ' There was ageneral call upon him, from all quarters of the house, to withdraw hisobjection; but he refused. Blair, of South Carolina, rose, and asked ifthe manifest sense of the house could be defeated by one objection. TheSpeaker said I had requested that my proposal should be considered aswithdrawn if an objection should be made, but the house was competent togive the instruction, upon motion made. I was then called upon byperhaps two thirds of the house, --'Move, move, move, '--and said, I hadhoped the proposal would have obtained the unanimous assent of thehouse, and as only one objection had been made, which did not appear tobe sustained by the general sense of the house, I would make the motionthat the addition I had proposed should be made on the journal. TheSpeaker took the question, and nine tenths, at least, of the memberspresent answered 'Ay. ' There were three or four who answered 'No. ' Butno division of the house was asked. "

In a debate in the House of Representatives, on the 30th of April, 1834, on striking out the appropriation for the salaries of certain foreignministers, in the course of his remarks, Warren R. Davis, of SouthCarolina, turning with great feeling towards Mr. Adams, said: "Welldo I remember the enthusiastic zeal with which we reproached theadministration of that gentleman, and the ardor and vehemence withwhich we labored to bring in another. For the share I had in thosetransactions, --and it was not a small one, --_I hope God will forgiveme, for I never shall forgive myself_. "

In December, 1834, Mr. Adams, at the unanimous request of both houses ofCongress, delivered an oration on the life, character, and services, ofGilbert Motier de Lafayette. The House of Representatives ordered fiftythousand copies to be published at the national expense, and the Senateten thousand. Mr. Clay said that, in proposing the latter number, he wasgoverned by the extraordinary vote of the house; but that, "if he wereto be guided by his opinion of the great talents of the orator, and theextraordinary merit of the oration, he felt he should be unable tospecify any number. "

In January, 1835, Mr. Adams, on presenting a petition of one hundredand seven women of his Congressional district, praying for theabolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, moved its referenceto a select committee, with instructions; but stated that, if the housechose to refer it to the Committee on the District of Columbia, heshould be satisfied. All he wished was that it should be referred tosome committee. He begged those members who could command a majority ofthe house, and who, like himself, were unwilling to make the abolitionquestion a stumbling-block, to take a course which should treatpetitions with respect. He wished a report. It would be easy to showthat such petitions relative to the District of Columbia ought notto be granted. He believed the true course to be to let error betolerated; to grant freedom of speech and freedom of the press, andapply reason to put it down. On the contrary, it was contended bySouthern men that Congress had a right not to receive petitions, especially if produced to create excitement, and wound the feelingsof Southern members. Mr. Adams advocated the right of petition. Ifthe language was disrespectful, that objection might be stated on thejournal. He knew that it was difficult to use language on this subjectwhich slaveholders would not deem disrespectful. Congress had declaredthe slave-trade, when carried on out of the United States, _piracy_. Hewas opposed to that act, because he did not think it proper that thistraffic without our boundaries should be called piracy, while there wasno constitutional right to interdict it within our borders. It wascarried on in sight of the windows of the capitol. He deemed it afundamental principle that Congress had no right to take away orabridge the constitutional right of petition. 

The petition was received, its commitment refused by the house, and itwas laid on the table. 

About this time Mr. Adams remarked: "There is something extraordinary inthe present condition of parties throughout the Union. Slavery anddemocracy--especially a democracy founded, as ours is, on the rights ofman--would seem to be incompatible with each other; and yet, at thistime, the democracy of the country is supported chiefly, if notentirely, by slavery. There is a small, enthusiastic party preaching theabolition of slavery upon the principles of extreme democracy. But thedemocratic spirit and the popular feeling are everywhere against them. "

In August, 1835, Mr. Adams was invited to deliver an address before theAmerican Institute of New York. After expressing his good wishes for theprosperity of the institution, and of their cause, he stated, in reply, that the general considerations which dictated the policy of sustainingand cherishing the manufacturing interests were obvious, and had beenpresented by Judge Baldwin, Mr. J. P. Kennedy, and Mr. Everett, witheloquence and ability, in addresses on three preceding years. If heshould deliver the address requested, it would be expected that he wouldpresent the subject under new and different views. His own opinion wasthat one great difficulty under which the manufacturing interest of thecountry labors is a political combination of the South and the Westagainst it. The slaveholders of the South have bought the coöperation ofthe Western country by the bribe of the Western lands, abandoning to thenew Western States their own proportion of this public property, andaiding them in the design of grasping all the lands in their own hands. Thomas H. Benton was the author of this system, which he brought forwardas a substitute for the American system of Mr. Clay, and to supplant thelatter as the leading statesman of the West. Mr. Clay, by his tariffcompromise with Mr. Calhoun, abandoned his own American system. At thesame time he brought forward a plan for distributing among all thestates of the Union the proceeds of the sales of the public lands. Hisbill for that purpose passed both houses of Congress, but was vetoed byPresident Jackson, who, in his annual message of December, 1832, formally recommended that all the public lands should be gratuitouslygiven away to individual adventurers, and to the states in which thelands are situated. "Now, " said Mr. Adams, "if, at this time, on the eveof a presidential election, I should, in a public address to theAmerican Institute, disclose the state of things, and comment upon it asI should feel it my duty to do, it would probably produce a greatexcitement and irritation; would be charged with having a politicalbearing, and subject me to the imputation of tampering with theelection. "

On the 25th of May, 1836, Mr. Adams delivered, in the House ofRepresentatives, a speech on certain resolutions for distributingrations from the public stores to the distressed fugitives from Indianhostilities in the States of Alabama and Georgia. "It is, " said he, "Ibelieve, the first example of a system of gratuitous donations to ourown countrymen, infinitely more formidable in its consequences as aprecedent, than from anything appearing on its face. I shall, nevertheless, vote for it. " "It is one of a class of legislativeenactments with which we are already becoming familiar, and which, Igreatly fear, will ere long grow voluminous. I shall take the libertyto denominate them _the scalping-knife and tomahawk laws_. They are allurged through by the terror of those instruments of death, under themost affecting and pathetic appeals, from the constituents of thesufferers, to all the tender and benevolent sympathies of our nature. It is impossible for me to withhold from those appeals a responsive andyielding voice. " He had voted, he said, for millions after millions, and would again and again vote for drafts from the public chest for thesame purpose, should they be necessary, until the treasury itselfshould be drained. 

In seeking for a principle to justify his vote, he could find itnowhere but in the war power and its limitation, as expressed in theconstitution of the United States by the words "_the common defence andgeneral welfare_. " The war power was in this respect different from thepeace power. The former was derived from, and regulated by, the lawsand usages of nations. The latter was limited by regulations, andrestricted by provisions, prescribed within the constitution itself. All the powers incident to war were, by necessary implication, conferred on the government of the United States. This was the powerwhich authorized the house to pass this resolution. There was no other. "It is upon this principle, " said Mr. Adams, "that I shall vote forthis resolution, and _did vote against_ the vote reported by theslavery committee, 'that Congress possess no constitutional authorityto interfere with the institution of slavery. ' I do not admit thatthere is, even among the peace powers of Congress, no such authority;but in many ways Congress not only have the authority, but are bound tointerfere with the institution of slavery in the states. " Of this hecites many instances, and asks if, in case of a servile insurrection, Congress would not have power to interfere, and to supply money fromthe funds of the whole Union to suppress it. 

In this speech Mr. Adams exposes the effects of the slave influence inthe United States, by the measures taken to bring about a war withMexico. 1. By the proposal that she should cede to us a territory largeenough to constitute nine states equal in extent to Kentucky. 2. Bymaking this proposition at a time when swarms of land-jobbers from theUnited States were covering these Mexican territories with slaves, indefiance of the laws of Mexico by which slavery had been abolishedthroughout that republic. 3. By the authority given to General Gainesto invade the Mexican republic, and which had brought on the war thenraging, which was for the reëstablishment of slavery in territorieswhere it had been abolished. It was a war, on the part of the UnitedStates, of conquest, and for the extension of slavery. Mr. Adams thenforetold, what subsequent events proved, that the war then commencingwould be, on the part of the United States, "a war of aggression, conquest, and for the reëstablishment of slavery where it has beenabolished. In that war the banners of _freedom_ will be the bannersof Mexico, and your banners--I blush to speak the word--will be thebanners of slavery. "

The nature of that war, its dangers, and its consequences, Mr. Adamsproceeded to analyze, and to show the probability of an interference onthe part of Great Britain, who "will probably ask you a perplexingquestion--by what authority you, with freedom, independence, anddemocracy, on your lips, are waging a war of extermination, to forge newmanacles and fetters instead of those which are falling from the handsand feet of men? She will carry emancipation and abolition with her inevery fold of her flag; while your stars, as they increase in numbers, will be overcast by the murky vapors of oppression, and the only portionof your banners visible to the eye will be the blood-stained stripes ofthe taskmaster. "

"Mr. Chairman, " continued Mr. Adams, "are you ready for all these wars?A Mexican war; a war with Great Britain, if not with France; a generalIndian war; a servile war; and, as an inevitable consequence of themall, a civil war;--for it must ultimately terminate in a war of colors, as well as of races. And do you imagine that while, with your eyesopen, you are wilfully kindling these wars, and then closing your eyesand blindly rushing into them, --do you imagine that, while in the verynature of things your own Southern and South-western States must bethe Flanders of these complicated wars, the battle-field upon which thelast great conflict must be fought between slavery and emancipation, --doyou imagine that your Congress will have no constitutional authority tointerfere with the institution of slavery, _in any way_, in the statesof this confederacy? Sir, they must and will interfere with it, perhapsto sustain it by war, perhaps to abolish it by treaties of peace; andthey will not only possess the constitutional power so to interfere, but they will be bound in duty to do it by the express provisions ofthe constitution itself. 

"From the instant that your slaveholding states become the theatre ofwar, civil, servile, or foreign, from that instant the war powers ofCongress extend to interference with the institution of slavery in everyway by which it can be interfered with, from a claim of indemnity forslaves taken or destroyed, to the cession of the state burdened withslavery to a foreign power. 

"Little reason have the inhabitants of Georgia and of Alabama tocomplain that the government of the United States has been remiss orneglectful in protecting them from Indian hostilities. The fact isdirectly the reverse. The people of Alabama and Georgia are nowsuffering the recoil of their own unlawful weapons. Georgia, sir, Georgia, by trampling upon the faith of our national treaties with theIndian tribes, and by subjecting them to her state laws, first set theexample of that policy which is now in the process of consummation bythis Indian war. In setting this example she bade defiance to theauthority of the government of this nation. She nullified your laws; sheset at naught your executive and judicial guardians of the commonconstitution of the land. To what extent she carried this policy, thedungeons of her prisons, and the records of the Supreme Judicial Courtof the United States, can tell. 

"To those prisons she committed inoffensive, innocent, pious ministersof the Gospel of truth, for carrying the light, the comforts, theconsolations of that Gospel, to the hearts and minds of those unhappyIndians. A solemn decision of the Supreme Court of the United Statespronounced that act a violation of your treaties and your laws. Georgiadefied that decision. Your executive government never carried it intoexecution. The imprisoned missionaries of the Gospel were compelled topurchase their ransom from perpetual captivity by sacrificing theirrights as freemen to the meekness of their principles as Christians: andyou have sanctioned all these outrages upon justice, law, and humanity, by succumbing to the power and the policy of Georgia; by accommodatingyour legislation to her arbitrary will; by tearing to tatters your oldtreaties with the Indians, and by constraining them, under _peineforte et dure_, to the mockery of signing other treaties with you, which, at the first moment when it shall suit your purpose, you willagain tear to tatters, and scatter to the four winds of heaven; till theIndian race shall be extinct upon this continent, and it shall become aproblem, beyond the solution of antiquaries and historical societies, _what_ the red man of the forest was. 

"This, sir, is the remote and primitive cause of the present Indianwar--your own injustice sanctioning and sustaining that of Georgia andAlabama. This system of policy was first introduced by the presentadministration of your national government. It is directly the reverseof that system which had been pursued by all the precedingadministrations of this government under the present constitution. Thatsystem consisted in the most anxious and persevering efforts tocivilize the Indians, to attach them to the soil upon which they lived, to enlighten their minds, to soften and humanize their hearts, to fixin permanency their habitations, and to turn them from the wanderingand precarious pursuits of the hunter to the tillage of the ground, tothe cultivation of corn and cotton, to the comforts of the fireside, tothe delights of _home_. This was the system of Washington and ofJefferson, steadily pursued by all their successors, and to which allyour treaties and all your laws of intercourse with the Indian tribeswere accommodated. The whole system is now broken up, and instead of ityou have adopted that of expelling, by force or by compact, all theIndian tribes from their own territories and dwellings to a regionbeyond the Mississippi, beyond the Missouri, beyond the Arkansas, bordering upon Mexico; and there you have deluded them with the hopethat they will find a permanent abode, a final resting-place from yournever-ending rapacity and persecution. There you have undertaken tolead the willing, and drive the reluctant, by fraud or by force, bytreaty or by the sword and the rifle--all the remnants of theSeminoles, the Creeks, of the Cherokees and the Choctaws, and of howmany other tribes I cannot now stop to enumerate. In the process ofthis violent and heartless operation you have met with all theresistance which men in so helpless a condition as that of the Indiantribes can make. 

"Of the _immediate_ causes of the war we are not yet fully informed;but I fear you will find them, like the remoter causes, all attributableto yourselves. 

"It is in the last agonies of a people forcibly torn and driven from thesoil which they had inherited from their fathers, and which your ownexample, and exhortations, and instructions, and treaties, had rivetedmore closely to their hearts--it is in the last convulsive struggles oftheir despair, that this war has originated; and, if it bring someportion of the retributive justice of Heaven upon our own people, it isour melancholy duty to mitigate, as far as the public resources of thenational treasury will permit, the distresses of our own kindred andblood, suffering under the necessary consequences of our own wrong. Ishall vote for the resolution. "

This speech, perhaps one of the most suggestive and prophetic ever made, appears in none of the newspapers of the time, and was published by Mr. Adams from his own minutes and recollections. 

In September, 1836, Mr. Adams, at the request of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of the city of Boston, delivered a eulogy on the lifeand character of James Madison. 

On the 7th of January, 1837, Mr. Adams offered to present the petitionof one hundred and fifty women for the abolition of slavery in theDistrict of Columbia. Mr. Glascock, of Georgia, objected to itsreception. Mr. Adams said that the proposition not to receive a petitionwas directly in the face of the constitution. He hoped the people ofthis country would be spared the mortification, the injustice, and thewrong, of a decision that such petitions should not be received. It wasindeed true that all discussion, all freedom of speech, all freedom ofthe press, on this subject, had been, within the last twelve months, violently assailed in every form in which the liberties of the peoplecould be attacked. He considered these attacks as outrages on theconstitution of the country, and the freedom of the people, as far asthey went. But the proposition that such petitions should not bereceived went one step further. He hoped it would not obtain thesanction of the house, which could always reject such petitions afterthey had been considered. Among the outrages inflicted on that portionof the people of this country whose aspirations were raised to thegreatest improvement that could possibly be effected in the condition ofthe human race, --the total abolition of slavery on earth, --that ofcalumny was the most glaring. Their petitions were treated withcontempt, and the petitioners themselves loaded with foul and infamousimputations, poured forth on a class of citizens as pure and virtuous asthe inhabitants of any section of the United States. 

Violent debates and great confusion in the house ensued; but when thequestion, "Shall the petition be received?" was put, it was decided inthe affirmative--_one hundred and twenty-seven_ ayes, _seventy-five_nays. Mr. Adams then moved that the petition should be referred to theCommittee on the District of Columbia. This was superseded by a motionto lay it on the table, which passed in the affirmative--ayes _onehundred and fifty_, nays _fifty_. 

On the 18th of January, 1837, the House of Representatives passed aresolution, --one hundred and thirty-nine ayes, sixty-nine nays, --"thatall petitions relating to slavery, without being printed or referred, shall be laid on the table, and no action shall be had thereon. "

On the 6th of February, 1837, Mr. Adams stated that he held in his handa paper, on which, before presenting it, he desired to have the decisionof the Speaker. It purported to come from slaves; and he wished to knowif such a paper came within the order of the house respecting petitions. Great surprise and astonishment were expressed by the slaveholders inthe house at such a proposition. One member pronounced it an infractionof decorum, that ought to be punished severely. Another said it was aviolation of the dignity of the house, and ought to be taken and burnt. Waddy Thompson, of South Carolina, moved the following resolution:"Resolved, that the Honorable John Quincy Adams, by the attempt justmade by him to introduce a petition purporting on its face to be fromslaves, has been guilty of a gross disrespect to the house; and that hebe instantly brought to the bar to receive the severe censure of theSpeaker. " Charles E. Haynes, of Georgia, moved "to strike out all afterResolved, and insert 'that John Quincy Adams, a representative from theState of Massachusetts, has rendered himself justly liable to theseverest censure of this house, and is censured accordingly, for havingattempted to present to the house the petition of slaves. '" Dixon H. Lewis, of Alabama, offered a modification of Waddy Thompson'sresolution, which he accepted, "that John Quincy Adams, by his attemptto introduce into the house a petition from slaves, for the abolition ofslavery in the District of Columbia, committed an outrage on the rightsand feelings of a large portion of the people of this Union, and aflagrant contempt on the dignity of this house; and, by extending toslaves a privilege only belonging to freemen, directly invites the slavepopulation to insurrection; and that the said member be forthwith calledto the bar of this house, and be censured by the Speaker. "

After violent debates and extreme excitement, Mr. Adams rose and said:"In regard to the resolutions now before the house, as they all concurin naming me, and charging me with high crimes and misdemeanors, and incalling me to the bar of the house to answer for my crimes, I havethought it my duty to remain silent until it should be the pleasure ofthe house to act on one or other of those resolutions. I suppose that, if I shall be brought to the bar of the house, I shall not be struckmute by the previous question, before I have an opportunity to say aword or two in my own defence. But, sir, to prevent further consumptionof the time of the house, I deem it my duty to ask them to modify theirresolution. It may be as severe as they propose, but I ask them tochange the matter of fact a little, so that when I come to the bar ofthe house, I may not, by a single word, put an end to it. I did notpresent the petition, and I appeal to the Speaker to say that I did not. I said I had a paper purporting to be a petition from slaves. I did notsay what the prayer of the petition was. I asked the Speaker whether heconsidered such a paper as included within the general order of thehouse that all petitions, memorials, resolutions, and papers, relatingin any way to the subject of slavery, should be laid upon the table. Iintended to take the decision of the Speaker before I went one steptowards presenting, or offering to present, that petition. I stateddistinctly to the Speaker that I should not send the paper to the tableuntil the question was decided whether a paper from persons declaringthemselves slaves was included within the order of the house. This isthe _fact_. "

It having been stated in one of the resolutions that the petition wasfor the abolition of slavery, Mr. Adams said the gentleman moving it"must amend his resolution; for, if the house should choose to read thispetition, I can state to them they would find it something very much thereverse of that which the resolution states it to be; and that if thegentleman from Alabama still shall choose to bring me to the bar of thehouse, he must amend his resolution in a very important particular, forhe probably will have to put into it that my crime has been forattempting to introduce the petition of slaves that slavery should notbe abolished; and that the object of these slaves, who have sent thispaper to me, is precisely that which he desires to accomplish, and thatthey are his auxiliaries, instead of being his opponents. "

In respect of the allegation that he had introduced a petition for theabolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, Mr. Adams said: "Itis well known to all the members of this house--it is certainly knownto all petitioners for the abolition of slavery in the District ofColumbia--that, from the day I entered this house to the presentmoment, I have invariably here, and invariably elsewhere, declared myopinions to be adverse to the prayer of petitions that call for theabolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. But, sir, it isequally well known that, from the time I entered this house, down tothe present day, I have felt it a sacred duty to present any petition, couched in respectful language, from any citizen of the United States, be its object what it may--be the prayer of it that in which I couldconcur, or that to which I was utterly opposed. I adhere to the rightof petition; and let me say here that, let the petition be, as thegentleman from Virginia has stated, from free negroes, prostitutes, ashe supposes, --for he says there is one put on this paper, and he infersthat the rest are of the same description, --_that_ has not altered myopinion at all. Where is your law which says that the mean, the low, and the degraded, shall be deprived of the right of petition, if theirmoral character is not good? Where, in the land of freemen, was theright of petition ever placed on the exclusive basis of morality andvirtue? Petition is supplication--it is entreaty--it is prayer! Andwhere is the degree of vice or immorality which shall deprive thecitizen of the right to supplicate for a boon, or to pray for mercy?Where is such a law to be found? It does not belong to the most abjectdespotism. There is no absolute monarch on earth who is not compelled, by the constitution of his country, to receive the petitions of hispeople, whosoever they may be. The Sultan of Constantinople cannot walkthe streets and refuse to receive petitions from the meanest and vilestin the land. This is the law even of despotism; and what does your lawsay? Does it say that, before presenting a petition, you shall lookinto it, and see whether it comes from the virtuous, and the great, andthe mighty? No, sir; it says no such thing. The right of petitionbelongs to all; and so far from refusing to present a petition becauseit might come from those low in the estimation of the world, it wouldbe an additional incentive, if such an incentive were wanting. "

In the course of this debate Mr. Thompson, of South Carolina, said thatthe conduct of Mr. Adams was a proper subject of inquiry by the GrandJury of the District of Columbia, and stated that such, in a like case, would be the proceedings under the law in South Carolina. Mr. Adams, inreply, exclaimed: "If this is true, --if a member is there made amenableto the Grand Jury for words spoken in debate, --I thank God I am not acitizen of South Carolina! Such a threat, when brought before the world, would excite nothing but contempt and amazement. What! are we from theNorthern States to be indicted as felons and incendiaries, forpresenting petitions not exactly agreeable to some members from theSouth, by a jury of twelve men, appointed by a marshal, his office atthe pleasure of the President! If the gentleman from South Carolina, bybringing forward this resolution of censure, thinks to frighten me frommy purpose, he has mistaken his man. I am not to be intimidated by him, nor by all the Grand Juries of the universe. "

After a debate of excessive exacerbation, lasting for four days, onlytwenty votes could be found indirectly and remotely to censure. In thecourse of this discussion circumstances made it probable that the namesappended to the petition were not the signatures of slaves, and thatthe whole was a forgery, and designed as a hoax upon him. On whichsuggestion Mr. Adams stated to the house that he now believed the paperto be a _forgery_, by a slaveholding master, for the purpose of daringhim to present a petition purporting to be from slaves; that, havingnow reason to believe it a forgery, he should not present the petition, whatever might be the decision of the house. If he should present it atall, it would be to invoke the authority of the house to cause theauthor of it to be prosecuted for the forgery, if there were competentjudicial tribunals, and he could obtain evidence to prove the fact. Hedid not consider a forgery committed to deter a member of Congress fromthe discharge of his duty as a _hoax_. [5]

 [5] _Niles' Weekly Register_, N. S. , vol. I. , pp. 385--390, et seq. 

In March, 1837, Mr. Adams addressed a series of letters to hisconstituents, transmitting his speech vindicating his course on theright of petition, and his proceedings on the subject of thepresentation of a petition purporting to be from slaves. These letterswere published in a pamphlet, and were at the time justly characterizedas "a triumphant vindication of the right of petition, and a graphicdelineation of the slavery spirit in Congress;" and it was further saidof them, that, "apart from the interest excited by the subjects underdiscussion, and viewed only as literary productions, they may be rankedamong the highest literary efforts of the author. Their sarcasm isJunius-like--cold, keen, unsparing. " A few extracts may give an idea ofthe spirit and character of this publication. 

Commenting on Mr. Thompson's resolution, as modified by Mr. Lewis (p. 249), Mr. Adams exclaims:

"My constituents! Reflect upon the purport of this resolution, which wasimmediately accepted by Mr. Thompson as a modification of his own, andas unhesitatingly received by the Speaker. He well knew I had made noattempt to introduce to the house a petition from slaves; and, if I had, he knew I should have done no more than exercise my right as a member ofthe house, and that the utmost extent of the power of the house wouldhave been to refuse to receive the petition. The Speaker's duty was toreject instantly this resolution, and tell Mr. Lewis and Mr. Thompsonthat the first of his obligations was to protect the rights of speechof members of that house, which I had not in the slightest degreeinfringed. But the Speaker was a _master_. 

"Observe, too, that in this resolution the notable discovery was firstmade that I had directly invited the slaves to insurrection; of whichbright thought Mr. Thompson afterwards availed himself to threaten mewith the Grand Jury of the District of Columbia, as an incendiary andfelon. I pray you to remember this, not on my account, or from thesuspicion that I could or shall ever be moved from my purpose by suchmenaces, but to give you _the measure_ of slaveholding freedom ofspeech, of the press, of action, of thought! If such a question asI asked of the Speaker is a direct invitation of the slaves toinsurrection, forfeiting all my rights as representative of the people, subjecting me to indictment by a grand jury, conviction by a petit jury, and to an infamous penitentiary cell, I ask you, not what freedom ofspeech is left to your representative in Congress, but what freedom ofspeech, of the press, and of thought, is left to yourselves. 

"There is an express provision of the constitution that Congress shallpass no law _abridging_ the right of petition; and here is a resolutiondeclaring that a member ought to be considered as regardless of thefeelings of the house, the rights of the South, and an enemy to theUnion, _for presenting a petition_. 

"Regardless of the feelings of the house! What have the feelings of thehouse to do with the free agency of a member in the discharge of hisduty? One of the most sacred duties of a member is to present thepetitions committed to his charge; a duty which he cannot refuse orneglect to perform without violating his oath to support theconstitution of the United States. He is not, indeed, bound to presentall petitions. If the language of the petition be disrespectful to thehouse, or to any of its members, --if the prayer of the petition beunjust, immoral, or unlawful, --if it be accompanied by any manifestationof intended violence or disorder on the part of the petitioners, --theduty of the member to present ceases, not from respect for the feelingsof the house, but because those things themselves strike at the freedomof speech and action as well of the house as of its members. Neither ofthese can be in the least degree affected by the mere circumstance ofthe condition of the petitioner. Nor is there a shadow of reason whyfeelings of the house should be outraged by the presentation of apetition from slaves, any more than by petitions from soldiers in thearmy, seamen in the navy, or from the working-women in a manufactory. 

"Regardless of the rights of the South! What are the rights of theSouth? What is the _South_? As a component portion of this Union, thepopulation of the South consists of masters, of slaves, and of freepersons, white and colored, without slaves. Of which of these classeswould the rights be disregarded by the presentation of a petition fromslaves? Surely not those of the slaves themselves, the suffering, thelaborious, the _producing_ classes. O, no! there would be no disregardof their rights in the presentation of a petition from them. The veryessence of the crime consists in an alleged _undue_ regard for theirrights; in not denying them the rights of human nature; in not classingthem with horses, and dogs, and cats. Neither could the rights of thefree people without slaves, whether white, black, or colored, bedisregarded by the presentation of a petition from slaves. Their rightscould not be affected by it at all. The rights of the South, then, heremean the rights of the masters of slaves, which, to describe them by aninoffensive word, I will call the rights of _mastery_. These, by theconstitution of the United States, are recognized, not directly, but byimplication, and protection is stipulated for them, by that instrument, to a certain extent. But they are rights incompatible with theinalienable rights of all mankind, as set forth in the Declaration ofIndependence--incompatible with the fundamental principles of theconstitutions of all the free states of the Union; and therefore, whenprovided for in the constitution of the United States, are indicated byexpressions which must receive the narrowest and most restrictedconstruction, and never be enlarged by implication. There is, I repeat, not one word, not one syllable, in the constitution of the UnitedStates, which interdicts to Congress the reception of petitions fromslaves; and as there is express interdiction to Congress to abridge bylaw the right of petition, that right, upon every principle of fairconstruction, is as much the right of the South as of the North--asmuch the right of the slave as of the master; and the presentation of apetition from slaves, for a legitimate object, respectful in language, and in its tone and character submissive to the decision which thehouse may pass upon it, far from degrading the rights of the South, isa mark of signal homage to those rights. 

"An enemy to the Union for presenting a petition!--an enemy to theUnion! I have shown that the presentation of petitions is one of themost imperious duties of a member of Congress. I trust I have shownthat the right of petition, guaranteed to the people of the UnitedStates, without exception of slaves, express or implied, cannot be_abridged_ by any act of both houses, with the approbation of thePresident of the United States; but this resolution, by the act of onebranch of the Legislature, would effect an enormous abridgment of theright of petition, not only by denying it to full one sixth part of thewhole people, but by declaring an enemy to the Union any member of thehouse who should present such a petition. 

"When the resolution declaring that I had trifled with the house wasunder consideration, one of the most prominent allegations laid to mycharge was that, by asking that question, I had intended indirectly tocast ridicule upon that resolution, and upon the house for adopting it. Nor was this entirely without foundation. I did not intend to castridicule upon the house, but to expose the absurdity of that resolution, against which I had protested as unconstitutional and unjust. But thecharacteristic peculiarity of this charge against me was, that, whilesome of the gentlemen of the South were urging the house to pass a voteof censure upon me, for a distant and conjectural inference of myintention to deride that resolution, others of them, in the same debate, and on the same day, were showering upon the same resolution directexpressions of unqualified contempt, without even being called to order. Like the saints in Hudibras, --

 'The saints may do the same thing by The Spirit in sincerity, Which other men are prompted to, And at the devil's instance do; And yet the actions be contrary, Just as the saints and wicked vary, '--

so it was with the gentlemen of the South. While Mr. Pickens couldopenly call the resolution of the 18th of January a miserable andcontemptible resolution, --while Mr. Thompson could say it was only fitto be burnt by the hands of the hangman, without rebuke or reproof, --Iwas to be censured by the house for casting ridicule upon them by askingthe question whether the resolution included petitions from slaves. "

About this time Mr. Adams received an invitation to attend a publicmeeting at New York during the session of Congress. He replied: "I donot hold myself at liberty to absent myself from the house a single day. Such is my estimate of representative duty, confirmed by a positive ruleof the house itself, not the less obligatory for being little observed. "

In December, 1835, President Jackson transmitted to Congress a messagerelative to the bequest of four hundred thousand dollars, from JamesSmithson, of London, to the United States, for the purpose ofestablishing at Washington an institution "for the increase anddiffusion of knowledge among men;" and submitted the subject to Congressfor its consideration. A question was immediately raised whetherCongress had power, in its legislative capacity, to accept such abequest; and also whether, having the power, its acceptance wasexpedient. The message of the President was referred to a committee, ofwhich Mr. Adams was appointed chairman. No subject could be betteradapted to excite into action his public spirit than the hopes awakenedfor his country by the amount of this bequest, and the wisdom of theobjects for which it was appropriated. The general tenor of thetestator's will excited numerous private interests and passions withregard to the application of the fund. Mr. Adams immediately brought thewhole strength and energy of his mind to give it a proper direction. Although some of his recommendations were slighted, and an object nearhis heart, an astronomical observatory, was resisted by party spirit, his zeal and perseverance effectually prevented the bequest from beingdiverted to local and temporary objects, and his general views relativeto Mr. Smithson's design ultimately prevailed. 

In January, 1836, Mr. Adams, as chairman of the committee, made areport, declaring that Congress was competent to accept the bequest, andthat its acceptance was enjoined by considerations of the most imperiousobligations, and suggesting some interesting reflections on the subject. The testator, he said, was a descendant in blood from the Percys and theSeymours, --two of the most illustrious names of the Britishislands;--the brother of the Duke of Northumberland, who, by the name ofPercy, was known at the sanguinary opening scenes of our RevolutionaryWar, and fought as a British officer at Lexington and Bunker Hill, andwas the bearer of the despatches, from the commander of the Britishforces to his government, announcing the event of that memorable day. "The suggestions which present themselves to the mind, " Mr. Adams adds, "by the association of these historical recollections with the conditionof the testator, derive additional interest from the nature of thebequest, the devotion of a large estate to an institution 'for theincrease and diffusion of knowledge among men. '" The noble design of Mr. Smithson Mr. Adams thus proceeds to illustrate:

 "Of all the foundations of establishments for pious or charitable uses, which ever signalized the spirit of the age, or the comprehensive beneficence of the founder, none can be named more deserving of the approbation of mankind than this. Should it be faithfully carried into effect, with an earnestness and sagacity of application, and a steady perseverance of pursuit, proportioned to the means furnished by the will of the founder, and to the greatness and simplicity of his design, as by himself declared, 'the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men, ' it is no extravagance of anticipation to declare that his name will be hereafter enrolled among the eminent benefactors of mankind. 

 "The attainment of knowledge is the high and exclusive attribute of man, among the numberless myriads of animated beings, inhabitants of the terrestrial globe. On him alone is bestowed, by the bounty of the Creator of the universe, the power and the capacity of acquiring knowledge. Knowledge is the attribute of his nature which at once enables him to improve his condition upon earth, and to prepare him for the enjoyment of a happier existence hereafter. It is by this attribute that man discovers his own nature as the link between earth and heaven; as the partaker of an immortal spirit; as created for higher and more durable ends than the countless tribes of beings which people the earth, the ocean, and the air, alternately instinct with life, and melting into vapor, or mouldering into dust. 

 "To furnish the means of acquiring knowledge is, therefore, the greatest benefit that can be conferred upon mankind. It prolongs life itself, and enlarges the sphere of existence. The earth was given to man for cultivation--to the improvement of his own condition. Whoever increases his knowledge multiplies the uses to which he is enabled to turn the gift of his Creator to his own benefit, and partakes in some degree of that goodness which is the highest attribute of Omnipotence itself. "

 "If, then, the Smithsonian Institution, under the smile of an approving Providence, and by the faithful and permanent application of the means furnished by its founder to the purpose for which he has bestowed them, should prove effective to their promotion, --if they should contribute essentially _to the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men_, --to what higher or nobler object could this generous and splendid donation have been devoted?"

After further illustrating the renown of the name of Percy from thehistorical annals of England, Mr. Adams proceeds to urge otherconsiderations, from among which we make the following extracts:

 "It is, then, a high and solemn trust which the testator has committed to the United States of America; and its execution devolves upon their representatives in Congress duties of no ordinary importance. In adverting to the character of the trustee selected by the testator for the fulfilment of his intentions, it is deemed no indulgence of unreasonable pride to mark it as a signal manifestation of the moral effect of our political institutions upon the opinions and the consequent action of the wise and good of other regions and of distant climes, even upon that nation from whom we generally boast our descent. "

The report continues:

 "In the commission of every trust there is an implied tribute to the integrity and intelligence of the trustee, and there is also an implied call for the faithful exercise of those properties to the fulfilment of the purposes of the trust. The tribute and the call acquire additional force and energy when the trust is committed for performance after the decease of him by whom it is granted; when he no longer lives to constrain the effective fulfilment of his design. The magnitude of the trust, and the extent of confidence bestowed in the committal of it, do but enlarge and aggravate the pressure of the obligation which it carries with it. The weight of duty imposed is proportioned to the honor conferred by confidence without reserve. Your committee are fully persuaded, therefore, that, with a grateful sense of the honor conferred by the testator upon the political institutions of this Union, the Congress of the United States, in accepting the bequest, will feel, in all its power and plenitude, the obligation of responding to the confidence reposed by him, with all the fidelity, disinterestedness, and perseverance of exertion, which may carry into effective execution the noble purpose of an endowment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men. "

The report concludes with recommending a bill, which passed in bothbranches, vesting authority in the President to take measures toprosecute, in the court of chancery in England, the right of the UnitedStates to this bequest. 

 CHAPTER X. 

MARTIN VAN BUREN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. --MR. ADAMS' SPEECH ONTHE CLAIMS OF THE DEPOSIT BANKS. --HIS LETTER ON BOOKS FOR UNIVERSALREADING. --ORATION AT NEWBURYPORT. --SPEECH ON THE RIGHT OF PETITION. --LETTER TO THE MASSACHUSETTS ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. --ADDRESS TO THEINHABITANTS OF HIS DISTRICT. --HIS VIEWS AS TO THE APPLICATION OF THESMITHSONIAN FUND. --HIS INTEREST IN THE SCIENCE OF ASTRONOMY. --LETTERTO THE SECRETARY OF STATE ON AN ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATORY. --LETTER ONTHE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. --RESOLUTIONS FORTHE LIMITING OF HEREDITARY SLAVERY. --DISCOURSE BEFORE THE NEW YORKHISTORICAL SOCIETY. --ADDRESS ON THE SUBJECT OF EDUCATION. --REMARKS ONPHRENOLOGY. --ON THE LICENSE LAW OF MASSACHUSETTS. --HE ORGANIZES THEHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

On the 4th of March, 1837, Martin Van Buren succeeded to the Presidencyof the United States. The undeviating zeal with which he had supportedall the plans of Andrew Jackson, especially those for dismemberingMexico and annexing Texas to the Union as a slave state, had proved, tothe satisfaction of the slaveholders, that reliance might be placed on aNorthern man to carry into effect Southern policy. 

On the 14th of October ensuing Mr. Adams delivered a speech, in theHouse of Representatives, on a bill for "adjusting the remaining claimsupon the late deposit banks. " When this bill was in discussion in acommittee of the whole house, Mr. Adams asked the author of it (Mr. Cambreling, of New York) to what banks certain words, which he stated, were intended to apply. Cambreling replied that Mr. Adams could answerhis own interrogatory by reading the bill himself. Mr. Adams thenproceeded to state several other objections to the terms of the bill, and confessed that his faculties of comprehension did not permit him tounderstand its phraseology. Mr. Cambreling rose quickly, and remarkedthat, at so late a period of the session, the last working night, hecould not waste his time in discussing nouns, pronouns, verbs, andadverbs, with the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. Adams replied:"Well, sir, as language is composed of nouns and pronouns, verbs andadverbs, when they are put together to constitute the law of the landthe _meaning_ of them may surely be demanded of the legislator, andthose parts of speech may well be used for such a purpose. But, if suchexplanation be impossible, it certainly ought not to be expected thatthis house will consent to pass a law, composed of nouns and pronouns, verbs and adverbs, which the author of it himself does notunderstand. "[1]

 [1] _Niles' Weekly Register_, New Series, vol. III. , pp. 167, 168. 

"On which, " said Mr. Adams, "I took the floor, and, in a speech ofupwards of two hours, exposed the true character of the bill, and ofthat to which it is a supplement, in all their iniquity and fraud. Imade free use of the computations I had drawn from the reports of theSecretary of the Treasury, and minutely scrutinized the bill in all itsparts, and denounced the bargain made in the face of the house byCambreling and the members of the debtor states, procuring their votesfor the postponement of the bill by promising them increased indulgencefor their banks. Cambreling, who could not answer me, kept up acontinual succession of interruptions and calls to order, in despite ofwhich I went through, with constant attention from the house, and not amark of impatience, except from Cambreling. When I finished, he moved tolay the bill aside, and take up the appropriation bill, which was done. "

On this subject the editor of the _National Register_ remarks: "Mr. Adams' speech upon nouns, pronouns, verbs, and adverbs, displays adegree of patient labor and research, which must convince bothpolitical friends and foes that neither time nor circumstances haveimpaired the strength or acuteness of his mind, or his zeal in behalfof what he deems to be the interests of the people. Familiar as we havebeen, for a series of years, with minute calculations and statisticaldetails, the most powerful but least prized modes of exhibitingresults, we have been surprised and delighted at the clearness andforce with which every point is illustrated, and most warmly commendthe speech to all who wish to understand the questions on which ittreats. "[2]

 [2] _Niles' Weekly Register_, New Series, vol. III. , p. 161. 

The name thus given, of "A Speech on Nouns and Pronouns, Verbs andAdverbs, " was assumed by Mr. Adams, and adopted as its title. 

On the 22d of June, 1838, Mr. Adams addressed a letter to certain youngmen of Baltimore, who had written to him a very respectful letter, asking his advice concerning the books or authors he would recommend. After a general expression of his sense of their confidence, and regretof his inability fully to recommend any list of books or authors worthyof the attention of all, he proceeds to speak of the _Bible_ as almostthe only book deserving such universal recommendation, and as the book, of all others, to be read at all ages and in all conditions of humanlife--to be read in small portions, one or two chapters every day, never to be intermitted unless by some overruling necessity. He thenenters at large into the advantages of such a practice, and into themode of conducting it, and proceeds to suggest other subsidiary studiesin history, biography, and poetry, concluding with the advice of theserving-man to a young student, in Shakspeare--"Study what you mostaffect. "[3]

 [3] _Niles' Weekly Register_, New Series, vol. V. , p. 219. 

On the 4th of July, 1837, Mr. Adams delivered at Newburyport, at therequest of its inhabitants, an oration on the Declaration ofIndependence, the spirit of which may be discerned in the followingextract:

 "Our government is a complicated machine. We have twenty-six states, with governments administered by separate legislatures and executive chiefs, and represented by equal numbers in the general Senate of the nation. This organization is an anomaly in the history of the world. It is that which distinguishes us from all other nations, ancient and modern: from the simple monarchies and republics of Europe, and from the confederacies which have figured in any age upon the face of the globe. The seeds of this complicated machine were all sown in the Declaration of Independence; and their fruits can never be eradicated but by the dissolution of the Union. The calculators of the value of the Union, who would palm upon you, in the place of this sublime invention, a mere cluster of sovereign, confederated states, do but sow the wind to reap the whirlwind. 

 "One lamentable evidence of deep degeneracy from the spirit of the Declaration of Independence is the countenance which has been occasionally given, in various parts of the Union, to this doctrine; but it is consolatory to know that, whenever it has been distinctly disclosed to the people, it has been rejected by them with pointed reprobation. It has, indeed, presented itself in its most malignant form in that portion of the Union the civil institutions of which are most infected by the gangrene of slavery. The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the Southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself. No insincerity or hypocrisy can fairly be laid to their charge. Never, from _their_ lips, was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country; and they saw that, before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the memoir of his life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they _must_ hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. 'Nothing is more certainly written, ' said he, 'in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free. ' My countrymen! it is written in a better volume than the book of fate; it is written in the laws of Nature and of Nature's God. 

 "We are told, indeed, by the learned doctors of the nullification school, that color operates as a forfeiture of the rights of human nature: that a dark skin turns a man into a chattel; that crispy hair transforms a human being into a four-footed beast. The master-priest informs you that slavery is consecrated and sanctified by the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament: that Ham was the father of Canaan, and all his posterity were doomed, by his own father, to be hewers of wood and drawers of water to the descendants of Shem and Japhet: that the native Americans of African descent are the children of Ham, with the curse of Noah still fastened upon them; and the native Americans of European descent are children of Japhet, pure Anglo-Saxon blood, born to command, and to live by the sweat of another's brow. The master-philosopher teaches you that slavery is no curse, but a blessing! that Providence--Providence!--has so ordered it that this country should be inhabited by two races of men, --one born to wield the scourge, and the other to bear the record of its stripes upon his back; one to earn, through a toilsome life, the other's bread, and to feed him on a bed of roses; that slavery is the guardian and promoter of wisdom and virtue; that the slave, by laboring for another's enjoyment, learns disinterestedness and humility; that the master, nurtured, clothed, and sheltered, by another's toils, learns to be generous and grateful to the slave, and sometimes to feel for him as a father for his child; that, released from the necessity of supplying his own wants, he acquires opportunity of leisure to improve his mind, to purify his heart, to cultivate his taste; that he has time on his hands to plunge into the depths of philosophy, and to soar to the clear empyrean of seraphic morality. The master-statesman--ay, the statesman in the land of the Declaration of Independence, in the halls of national legislation, with the muse of history recording his words as they drop from his lips, with the colossal figure of American Liberty leaning on a column entwined with the emblem of eternity over his head, with the forms of Washington and Lafayette speaking to him from the canvas--turns to the image of the father of his country, and, forgetting that the last act of his life was to emancipate his slaves, to bolster up the cause of slavery says, '_That_ man was a slaveholder. '

 "My countrymen! these are the tenets of the modern nullification school. Can you wonder that they shrink from the light of free discussion--that they skulk from the grasp of freedom and of truth? Is there among you one who hears me, solicitous above all things for the preservation of the Union so truly dear to us--of that Union proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence--of that Union never to be divided by any act whatever--and who dreads that the discussion of the merits of slavery will endanger the continuance of the Union? Let him discard his terrors, and be assured that they are no other than the phantom fears of nullification; that, while doctrines like these are taught in her schools of philosophy, preached in her pulpits, and avowed in her legislative councils, the free, unrestrained discussion of the rights and wrongs of slavery, far from endangering the Union of these states, is the only condition upon which that Union can be preserved and perpetuated. What! are you to be told, with one breath, that the transcendent glory of this day consists in the proclamation that all lawful government is founded on the inalienable rights of man, and, with the next breath, that you must not whisper this truth to the winds, lest they should taint the atmosphere with freedom, and kindle the flame of insurrection? Are you to bless the earth beneath your feet because she spurns the footsteps of a slave, and then to choke the utterance of your voice lest the sound of liberty should be reëchoed from the palmetto-groves, mingled with the discordant notes of disunion? No! no! Freedom of speech is the only safety-valve which, under the high pressure of slavery, can preserve your political boiler from a fearful and fatal explosion. Let it be admitted that slavery is an institution of internal police, exclusively subject to the separate jurisdiction of the states where it is cherished as a blessing, or tolerated as an evil as yet irremediable. But let that slavery which intrenches herself within the walls of her own impregnable fortress not sally forth to conquest over the domain of freedom. Intrude not beyond the hallowed bounds of oppression; but, if you have by solemn compact doomed your ears to hear the distant clanking of the chain, let not the fetters of the slave be forged afresh upon your own soil; far less permit them to be riveted upon your own feet. Quench not the spirit of freedom. Let it go forth, not in panoply of fleshly wisdom, but with the promise of peace, and the voice of persuasion, clad in the whole armor of truth, conquering and to conquer. "

In July, 1838, Mr. Adams published a speech "on the right of thepeople, men and women, to petition; on the freedom of speech and debatein the House of Representatives of the United States; on theresolutions of seven State Legislatures, and on the petitions of morethan one hundred thousand petitioners, relative to the annexation ofTexas to this Union;" the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs onthese subjects being under the consideration of the House. In thispublication he states and analyzes the course of that "conspiracy forthe dismemberment of Mexico, the reïnstitution of slavery in thedismembered portion of that republic, and the acquisition, by purchaseor by conquest, of the territory, to sustain, spread, and perpetuate, the _moral and religious blessing_ of slavery in this Union;" and whichhe declares to be in the full tide of successful experiment. But a fewonly of the topics illustrated in this publication, which expanded intoa pamphlet of one hundred and thirty octavo pages, can here be touched. It is, in fact, a history of the disgraceful proceedings by which thatconspiracy effected its purpose. 

Mr. Adams inquired of the committee whether they had given as much asfive minutes' consideration to the resolutions of the Legislatures, andthe very numerous petitions of individuals, which had been referred tothem. One of the committee, Hugh S. Legaré, of South Carolina, answered, he had not read the papers, nor looked into one of them. Mr. Adamsexclaimed, "I denounce, in the face of the country, the proceeding ofthe committee, in reporting upon papers referred to them, withoutlooking into any one of them, as utterly incorrect. I assert, as a greatgeneral principle, that when resolutions from Legislatures of states, and petitions from a vast multitude of our fellow-citizens, on a subjectof deep, vital importance to the country, are referred to a committee ofthis house, if that committee make up an opinion without looking intosuch resolutions and memorials, the committee betray their trust totheir constituents and this house. I give this out to the nation. "

A long and exciting debate, lasting from the 16th of June to the 7th ofJuly, on the report of the committee relative to the annexation ofTexas, ensued; the heat and violence of which were chiefly directed uponMr. Adams. 

One of the topics agitated during this debate arose upon a speech ofMr. Howard, of Maryland. Among the petitions against the annexation ofTexas were many signed by women. On these Mr. Howard said, he alwaysfelt a regret when petitions thus signed were presented to the house, relating to political subjects. He thought these females could have asufficient field for the exercise of their influence in the dischargeof their duties to their fathers, their husbands, or their children, cheering the domestic circle, and shedding over it the mild radiance ofthe social virtues, instead of rushing into the fierce struggles ofpolitical life. He considered it _discreditable_, not only to theirparticular section of country, but also to the national character. 

Mr. Adams immediately entered into a long and animated defence of theright of petition by women; in the course of which he asked "whetherwomen, by petitioning this house in favor of suffering and distress, perform an office 'discreditable' to themselves, to the section of thecountry where they reside, and to this nation. The gentleman says thatwomen have no right to petition Congress on political subjects. Why?Sir, what does the gentleman understand by 'political subjects'?Everything in which the house has an agency--everything which relatesto peace and relates to war, or to any other of the great interests ofsociety. Are women to have no opinions or actions on subjects relatingto the general welfare? Where did the gentleman get this principle? Didhe find it in sacred history--in the language of Miriam the prophetess, in one of the noblest and most sublime songs of triumph that ever metthe human eye or ear? Did the gentleman never hear of Deborah, to whomthe children of Israel came up for judgment? Has he forgotten the deedof Jael, who slew the dreaded enemy of her country? Has he forgottenEsther, who, by HER PETITION, saved her people and her country? Sir, Imight go through the whole of the sacred history of the Jews to theadvent of our Saviour, and find innumerable examples of women, who notonly took an active part in the politics of their times, but who areheld up with honor to posterity for doing so Our Saviour himself, whileon earth, performed that most stupendous miracle, the raising ofLazarus from the dead, at _the petition of a woman_! To go from sacredhistory to profane, does the gentleman there find it 'discreditable'for women to take any interest or any part in political affairs? In thehistory of Greece, let him read and examine the character of Aspasia, in a country in which the character and conduct of women were morerestricted than in any modern nation, save among the Turks. Has heforgotten that Spartan mother, who said to her son, when going out tobattle, 'My son, come back to me _with_ thy shield, or _upon_ thyshield'? Does he not remember Cloelia and her hundred companions, whoswam across the river, under a shower of darts, escaping from Porsenna?Has he forgotten Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi, who declared thather children were her jewels? And why? Because they were the championsof freedom. Does he not remember Portia, the wife of Brutus anddaughter of Cato, and in what terms she is represented in the historyof Rome? Has he not read of Arria, who, under imperial despotism, whenher husband was condemned to die by a tyrant, plunged the sword intoher own bosom, and, handing it to her husband, said, 'Take it, Pætus, it does not hurt, ' and expired?

"To come to a later period, --what says the history of our Anglo-Saxonancestors? To say nothing of Boadicea, the British heroine in the timeof the Cæsars, what name is more illustrious than that of Elizabeth?Or, if he will go to the Continent, will he not find the names of MariaTheresa of Hungary, the two Catharines of Russia, and of Isabella ofCastile, the patroness of Columbus, the discoverer in substance of thishemisphere, for without her that discovery would not have been made?Did she bring 'discredit' on her sex by mingling in politics? To comenearer home, --what were the women of the United States in the struggleof the Revolution? Or what would the men have been but for theinfluence of the women of that day? Were they devoted _exclusively_ tothe duties and enjoyments of the fireside? Take, for example, theladies of Philadelphia. "

Mr. Adams here read a long extract from Judge Johnson's life of GeneralGreene, relating that during the Revolutionary War a call came fromGeneral Washington stating that the troops were destitute of shirts, andof many indispensable articles of clothing. "And from whence, " writesJudge Johnson, "did relief arrive, at last? From the heart wherepatriotism erects her favorite shrine, and from the hand which is seldomwithdrawn when the soldier solicits. The ladies of Philadelphiaimmortalized themselves by commencing the generous work, and it was awork too grateful to the American fair not to be followed up with zealand alacrity. "

Mr. Adams then read a long quotation from Dr. Ramsay's history of SouthCarolina, "which speaks, " said he, "trumpet-tongued, of the daring andintrepid spirit of patriotism burning in the bosoms of the ladies ofthat state. " After reading an extract from this history, Mr. Adamsthus comments upon it: "Politics, sir! 'rushing into the vortex ofpolitics!'--glorying in being called rebel ladies; refusing to attendballs and entertainments, but crowding to the prison-ships! Mark this, and remember it was done with no small danger to their own persons, andto the safety of their families. But it manifested the spirit by whichthey were animated; and, sir, is that spirit to be charged here, inthis hall where we are sitting, as being 'discreditable' to ourcountry's name? Shall it be said that such conduct was a nationalreproach, because it was the conduct of women who left 'their domesticconcerns, and rushed into the vortex of politics'? Sir, these women didmore; they _petitioned_--yes, they petitioned--and that in a matter ofpolitics. It was for the _life of Hayne_. "

In connection with this eloquent defence of the right of women tointerfere in politics, of which the above extracts are but an outline, Mr. Adams thus applies the result to the particular subject ofcontroversy:

 "The broad principle is _morally wrong, vicious_, and the very reverse of that which ought to prevail. Why does it follow that women are fitted for nothing but the cares of domestic life: for bearing children, and cooking the food of a family; devoting all their time to the domestic circle, --to promoting the immediate personal comfort of their husbands, brothers, and sons? Observe, sir, the point of departure between the chairman of the committee and myself. I admit that it is their duty to attend to these things. I subscribe fully to the elegant compliment passed by him upon those members of the female sex who devote their time to these duties. But I say that the correct principle is that women are not only justified, but exhibit the most exalted virtue, when they do depart from the domestic circle, and enter on the concerns of their country, of humanity, and of their God. The mere departure of woman from the duties of the domestic circle, far from being a reproach to her, is a virtue of the highest order, when it is done from purity of motive, by appropriate means, and towards a virtuous purpose. There is the true distinction. The motive must be pure, the means appropriate, and the purpose good; and I say that woman, by the discharge of such duties, has manifested a virtue which is even above the virtues of mankind, and approaches to a superior nature. That is the principle I maintain, and which the chairman of the committee has to refute, if he applies the position he has taken to the mothers, the sisters, and the daughters, of the men of my district who voted to send me here. Now, I aver further, that, in the instance to which his observation refers, namely, in the act of petitioning against the annexation of Texas to this Union, the motive was pure, the means appropriate, and the purpose virtuous, in the highest degree. As an evident proof of this, I recur to the particular petition from which this debate took its rise, namely, to the first petition I presented here against the annexation--a petition consisting of three lines, and signed by two hundred and thirty-eight women of Plymouth, a principal town in my own district. Their words are:

 "'The undersigned, women of Plymouth (Mass. ), thoroughly aware of the sinfulness of slavery, and the consequent impolicy and disastrous tendency of its extension in our country, do most respectfully remonstrate, with all our souls, against the annexation of Texas to the United States as a slaveholding territory. '

 "These are the words of their memorial; and I say that, in presenting it here, their motive was pure, and of the highest order of purity. They petitioned under a conviction that the consequence of the annexation would be the advancement of that which is sin in the sight of God, namely, slavery. I say, further, that the means were appropriate, because it is Congress who must decide on the question; and therefore it is proper that they should petition Congress, if they wish to prevent the annexation. And I say, in the third place, that the end was virtuous, pure, and of the most exalted character, namely, to prevent the perpetuation and spread of slavery throughout America. I say, moreover, that I subscribe, in my own person, to every word the petition contains. I do believe slavery to be a sin before God; and that is the reason, and the only insurmountable reason, why we should refuse to annex Texas to this Union. "

On the 28th July, 1838, to an invitation from the MassachusettsAnti-Slavery Society to attend their celebration of the anniversary ofthe day upon which slavery was abolished in the colonial possessions ofGreat Britain, Mr. Adams responded:

 "It would give me pleasure to comply with this invitation; but my health is not very firm. My voice has been affected by the intense heat of the season; and a multiplicity of applications, from societies political and literary, to attend and address their meetings, have imposed upon me the necessity of pleading the privilege of my years, and declining them all. 

 "I rejoice that the defence of the cause of human freedom is falling into younger and more vigorous hands. That, in three-score years from the day of the Declaration of Independence, its self-evident truths should be yet struggling for existence against the degeneracy of an age pampered with prosperity, and languishing into servitude, is a melancholy truth, from which I should in vain attempt to shut my eyes. But the summons has gone forth. The youthful champions of the rights of human nature have buckled and are buckling on their armor; and the scourging overseer, and the lynching lawyer, and the servile sophist, and the faithless scribe, and the priestly parasite, will vanish before them like Satan touched by the spear of Ithuriel. I live in the faith and hope of the progressive advancement of Christian liberty, and expect to abide by the same in death. You have a glorious though arduous career before you; and it is among the consolations of my last days that I am able to cheer you in the pursuit, and exhort you to be steadfast and immovable in it. So shall you not fail, whatever may betide, to reap a rich reward in the blessing of him that is ready to perish, upon your soul. "

In August, 1838, Mr. Adams addressed a letter to the inhabitants ofhis district, in which, after stating what had been done on the samesubject by the Legislature of Massachusetts and other states, heproceeded to recapitulate the wrongs which had been done to thecolored races of Africa on this continent, "which have indeed been oflong standing, but which in these latter days have been aggravatedbeyond all measure. To repair the injustice of our fathers to theseraces had been, from the day of the Declaration of Independence, theconscience of the good and the counsel of the wise rulers of the land. Washington, by his own example in the testamentary disposal of hisproperty, --Jefferson, by the unhesitating convictions of his own mind, by unanswerable argument and eloquent persuasion, addressed almostincessantly, throughout a long life, to the reason and feelings of hiscountrymen, --had done homage to the self-evident principles which thenation, at her birth, had been the first to proclaim. Emancipation, universal emancipation, was the lesson they had urged on theircontemporaries, and held forth as transcendent and irremissible dutiesto their children of the present age. Instead of which, what have weseen? Communities of slaveholding braggarts, setting at defiance thelaws of nature and nature's God, restoring slavery where it had beenextinguished, and vainly dreaming to make it eternal; forming, in thesacred name of liberty, constitutions of government interdicting to thelegislative authority itself that most blessed of human powers, thepower of giving liberty to the slave! Governors of states urging upontheir Legislatures to make the exercise of the freedom of speech topropagate the right of the slave to freedom felony, without benefit ofclergy! Ministers of the gospel, like the priest in the parable of theGood Samaritan, coming and looking at the bleeding victim of thehighway robber, and passing on the other side; or, baser still, perverting the pages of the sacred volume to turn into a code ofslavery the very word of God! Philosophers, like the Sophists ofancient Greece, pulverized by the sober sense of Socrates, elaboratingtheories of _moral slavery_ from the alembic of a sugar plantation, andvaporing about lofty sentiments and generous benevolence to be learntfrom the hereditary bondage of man to man! Infuriated mobs, murderingthe peaceful ministers of Christ for the purpose of extinguishing thelight of a printing-press, and burning with unhallowed fire the hall offreedom, the orphan's school, and the church devoted to the worship ofGod! And, last of all, both houses of Congress turning a deaf ear tohundreds of thousands of petitioners, and quibbling away their duty toread, to listen, and consider, in doubtful disputations whether theyshall receive, or, receiving, refuse to read or hear, the complaintsand prayers of their fellow-citizens and fellow-men!"

Mr. Adams proceeds, in a like spirit of eloquent plainness, to denouncethe violation of that beneficent change which both Washington andJefferson had devised for the red man of the forest, and had assured tohim by solemn treaties pledging the faith of the nation, and by lawsinterdicting by severe penalties the intrusion of the white man on hisdomain. "In contempt of those treaties, " said he, "and in defiance ofthose laws, the sovereign State of Georgia had extended her jurisdictionover these Indian lands, and lavished, in lottery-tickets to her people, the growing harvests, the cultivated fields, and furnished dwellings, ofthe Cherokee, setting at naught the solemn adjudication of the SupremeCourt of the United States, pronouncing this licensed robbery alikelawless and unconstitutional. " He then proceeds, in a strain of severeanimadversion, to reprobate the conduct of the Executive administration, in "truckling to these usurpations of Georgia;" and reviews that ofCongress, in refusing "the petitions of fifteen thousand of thesecheated and plundered people, " when thousands of our own citizens joinedin their supplications. 

In this letter Mr. Adams states and explains the origin of the treaty ofpeace and alliance between Southern nullification and Northernpro-slavery, and the nature and consequences of that alliance. In thecourse of his illustrations on this subject he repels, with anirresistible power of argument, the attempt of the slaveholder to sowthe seeds of discord among the freemen of the North. "The condition ofmaster and slave is, " he considered, "by the laws of nature and of God, a state of perpetual, inextinguishable war. The slaveholder, deeplyconscious of this, soothes his soul by sophistical reasonings into abelief that this same war still exists in free communities between thecapitalist and free labor. " The fallacy and falsehood of this theory heanalyzes and exposes, and proceeds to state and reason upon variousmeasures of Congress connected with these topics, at great length, andwith laborious elucidation. [4]

 [4] For this letter see _Niles' Weekly Register_, New Series, vol. V. , p. 55. 

On the 27th of October, 1838, Mr. Adams addressed a letter to thedistrict he represented in Congress, in which he touched on those pointsof national policy which most deeply affected his mind. Among manyremarks worthy of anxious thought, which subsequent events haveconfirmed and are confirming, he traces the "smothering for nearly threeyears, in legislative halls, the right of petition and freedom ofdebate, " to the influence of slavery, "which shrinks, and will shrink, from the eye of day. Northern subserviency to Southern dictation is theprice paid by a Northern administration for Southern support. The peopleof the North still support by their suffrages the men who have truckledto Southern domination. I believe it impossible that this totalsubversion of every principle of liberty should be much longer submittedto by the people of the free states of this Union. But their fate is intheir own hands. If they choose to be represented by slaves, they willfind servility enough to represent and betray them. The suspension ofthe right of petition, the suppression of the freedom of debate, thethirst for the annexation of Texas, the war-whoop of two successivePresidents against Mexico, are all but varied symptoms of a deadlydisease seated in the marrow of our bones, and that deadly disease isslavery. "

When, in the latter part of June, 1838, news of the success of Mr. Rushin obtaining the Smithsonian bequest, and information that he hadalready received on account of it more than half a million of dollars, were announced to the public, Mr. Adams lost no time in endeavoring togive a right direction to the government on the subject. He immediatelywaited upon the President of the United States, and, in a conversationof two hours, explained the views he entertained in regard to theapplication of that fund, and entreated him to have a plan prepared, torecommend to Congress, for the foundation of the institution, at thecommencement of the next session. "I suggested to him, " said Mr. Adams, "the establishment of an Astronomical Observatory, with a salary for anastronomer and assistant, for nightly observations and periodicalpublications; annual courses of lectures upon the natural, moral, andpolitical sciences. Above all, no jobbing, no sinecure, no monkishstalls for lazy idlers. I urged the deep responsibility of the nation tothe world and to all posterity worthily to fulfil the great object ofthe testator. I only lamented my inability to communicate half thesolicitude with which my heart is on this subject full, and thesluggishness with which I failed properly to pursue it. " "Mr. VanBuren, " Mr. Adams added, "received all this with complacency andapparent concurrence of opinion, seemed favorably disposed to my viewsand willing to do right, and asked me to name any person whom I thoughtmight be usefully consulted. "

The phenomena of the heavens were constantly observed and often recordedby Mr. Adams. Thus, on the 3d of October, 1838, he writes: "As the clockstruck five this morning, I saw the planets Venus and Mercury inconjunction, Mercury being about two thirds of a sun's disk below andnorthward of Venus. Three quarters of an hour later Mercury was barelyperceptible, and five minutes after could not be traced by my naked eye, Venus being for ten minutes longer visible. I ascertained, therefore, that, in the clear sky of this latitude, Mercury, at his greatestelongation from the sun, may be seen by a very imperfect naked eye, inthe morning twilight, for the space of one hour. I observed, also, therapidity of his movements, by the diminished distance between theseplanets since the day before yesterday. "

In the following November he again writes: "To make observations on themovements of the heavenly bodies has been, for a great portion of mylife, a pleasure of gratified curiosity, of ever-returning wonder, andof reverence for the great Creator and Mover of these innumerableworlds. There is something of awful enjoyment in observing the risingand the setting of the sun. That flashing beam of his first appearingupon the horizon; that sinking of the last ray beneath it; thatperpetual revolution of the Great and Little Bear around the pole; thatrising of the whole constellation of Orion from the horizon to theperpendicular position, and his ride through the heavens with his belt, his nebulous sword, and his four corner stars of the first magnitude, are sources of delight which never tire. Even the optical delusion, bywhich the motion of the earth from west to east appears to the eye asthe movement of the whole firmament from east to west, swells theconception of magnificence to the incomprehensible infinite. "

When one of his friends expressed a hope that we should hereafter knowmore of the brilliant stars around us, Mr. Adams replied: "I trust so. Icannot conceive of a world where the stars are not visible, and, ifthere is one, I trust I shall never be sent to it. Nothing conveys to mymind the idea of eternity so forcibly as the grand spectacle of theheavens in a clear night. "

To a letter addressed to him by the Secretary of State, by direction ofthe President, requesting him to communicate the result of hisreflections on the Smithsonian Institution, Mr. Adams made the followingreply:

 "QUINCY, _October 11, 1838_. 

 "SIR: I have reserved for a separate letter what I proposed to say in recommending the erection and establishment of an Astronomical Observatory at Washington, as one and the first application of the annual income from the Smithsonian bequest, because that, of all that I have to say, I deem it by far the most important; and because, having for many years believed that the national character of our country demanded of us the establishment of such an institution as a debt of honor to the cause of science and to the world of civilized man, I have hailed with cheering hope this opportunity of removing the greatest obstacle which has hitherto disappointed the earnest wishes that I have entertained of witnessing, before my own departure for another world, now near at hand, the disappearance of a stain upon our good name, in the neglect to provide the means of increasing and diffusing knowledge among men, by a systematic and scientific continued series of observations on the phenomena of the numberless worlds suspended over our heads--the sublimest of physical sciences, and that in which the field of future discovery is as unbounded as the universe itself. I allude to the continued and necessary _expense_ of such an establishment. 

 "In my former letter I proposed that, to preserve entire and unimpaired the Smithsonian fund, as the principal of a perpetual annuity, the annual appropriations from its proceeds should be strictly confined to its annual income; that, assuming the amount of the fund to be five hundred thousand dollars, it should be so invested as to secure a permanent yearly income of thirty thousand; and that it should be committed to an incorporated board of trustees, with a secretary and treasurer, the only person of the board to receive a pecuniary compensation from the fund. "

Mr. Adams then refers to a report made by C. F. Mercer, chairman of acommittee of the House of Representatives, on the 18th of March, 1826(during his own administration), relative to the expenses of anObservatory, for much valuable information, and thus proceeds:

 "But, as it is desirable that the principal building, the Observatory itself, should be, for the purposes of observation, unsurpassed by any other edifice constructed for the same purposes, I would devote one year's interest from the fund to the construction of the buildings; a second and a third to constitute a fund, from the income of which the salaries of the astronomer, his assistants and attendants, should be paid; a fourth and fifth for the necessary instruments and books; a sixth and seventh for a fund, from the income of which the expense should be defrayed of publishing the ephemeris of observation, and a yearly nautical almanac. These appropriations may be so distributed as to apply a part of the appropriation of each year to each of those necessary expenditures; but for an establishment so complete as may do honor in all time alike to the testator and his trustees, the United States of America, I cannot reduce my estimate of the necessary expense below two hundred thousand dollars. 

 "My principles for this disposal of funds are these:

 "1st. That the most complete establishment of an Astronomical Observatory in the world should be founded by the United States of America; the whole expense of which, both its first cost and its perpetual maintenance, should be amply provided for, without costing one dollar either to the people or to the _principal_ sum of the Smithsonian bequest. 

 "2d. That, by providing from the income alone of the fund a supplementary fund, from the interest of which all the salaries shall be paid, and all the annual expenses of publication shall be defrayed, the fund itself would, instead of being impaired, accumulate with the lapse of years. I do most fervently wish that this principle might be made the fundamental law, now and hereafter, so far as may be practicable, of all the appropriations of the Smithsonian bequest. 

 "3d. That, by the establishment of an Observatory upon the largest and most liberal scale, and providing for the publication of a yearly nautical almanac, knowledge will be dispersed among men, the reputation of our country will rise to honor and reverence among the civilized nations of the earth, and our navigators and mariners on every ocean be no longer dependent on English or French observers or calculators for tables indispensable to conduct their path upon the deep. "

Mr. Adams, about this period, expressed himself with deepdissatisfaction at the course pursued by the President relative to theSmithsonian bequest, combining the general expression of a dispositionto aid his views with apparently a total indifference as to theexpenditure of the money. "The subject, " said he, "weighs deeply upon mymind. The private interests and sordid passions into which that fund hasalready fallen fill me with anxiety and apprehensions that it will besquandered upon cormorants, or wasted in electioneering bribery. Almostall the heads of department are indifferent to its application accordingto the testator's bequest; distinguished senators open or disguisedenemies to the establishment of the institution in any form. The utterprostration of public spirit in the Senate, proved by the selfishproject to apply it to the establishment of a university; the investmentof the whole fund, more than half a million of dollars, in Arkansas andMichigan state stocks; the mean trick of filching ten thousand dollars, last winter, to pay for the charges of procuring it, are all so utterlydiscouraging that I despair of effecting anything for the honor of thecountry, or even to accomplish the purpose of the bequest, the increaseand diffusion of knowledge among men. It is hard to toil through lifefor a great purpose, with a conviction that it will be in vain; butpossibly seed now sown may bring forth some good fruits. In my report, in January, 1836, I laid down all the general principles on which thefund should have been accepted and administered. I was then whollysuccessful. My bill passed without opposition, and under its provisionsthe money was procured and deposited in the treasury in gold. If Icannot prevent the disgrace of the country by the failure of thetestator's intention, I can leave a record to future time of what I havedone, and what I would have done, to accomplish the great design, ifexecuted well. And let not the supplication to the Author of Good bewanting. "

In November, 1838, the anti-slavery party made the immediate abolitionof slavery in the District of Columbia a test question, on which Mr. Adams remarked: "This is absurd, because notoriously impracticable. Thehouse would refuse to consider the question two to one. " Writing on thesame subject, in December of the same year, "I doubt, " said he, "ifthere are five members in the house who would vote to abolish slavery inthe District of Columbia at this time. The conflict between theprinciple of liberty and the fact of slavery is coming gradually to anissue. Slavery has now the power, and falls into convulsions at theapproach of freedom. That the fall of slavery is predetermined in thecouncils of Omnipotence I cannot doubt. It is a part of the great moralimprovement in the condition of man attested by all the records ofhistory. But the conflict will be terrible, and the progress ofimprovement retrograde, before its final progress to consummation. "

In January, 1839, Mr. Adams, in presenting a large number of petitionsfor the abolition of slavery, asked leave to explain to the house hisreasons for the course he had adopted in relation to petitions of thischaracter. He asked it as a courtesy. He had received a mass of lettersthreatening him with assassination for this course. His real positionwas not understood by his country. The house having granted the leave, he proceeded to state that, although he had zealously advocated theright to petition for the abolition of slavery in the District ofColumbia, he was not himself then, prepared to grant their prayer; that, if the question should be presented at once, he should vote against it. He knew not what change might be produced on his mind by a full and fairdiscussion, but he had not yet seen any reason to change his opinion, although he had read all that abolitionists themselves had written andpublished on the subject. He then presented the petitions, and movedappropriate resolutions. 

On the 21st of February, 1839, Mr. Adams presented to the house severalresolutions, proposing, in the form prescribed by the constitution ofthe United States, 1st. That after the 4th day of July, 1842, thereshall be no hereditary slavery in the United States, and that everychild born on and after that day, within the United States and theirterritories, shall be born free. 2d. That, with exception of Florida, there shall henceforth never be admitted into this Union any state theconstitution of which shall tolerate within the same the existence ofslavery. 3d That from and after the 4th of July, 1848, there shall beneither slavery nor slave-trade at the seat of government of the UnitedStates. 

Mr. Adams proceeded to state that he had in his possession a paper, which he desired to present, and on which these resolutions werefounded. It was a petition from John Jay, and forty-three mostrespectable citizens of the city of New York. Being here interrupted byviolent cries of "Order!" he at that time refrained from furtherpressing the subject. 

On the 30th of April, 1839, Mr. Adams delivered before the HistoricalSociety of New York a discourse entitled "The Jubilee of theConstitution;" it being the fiftieth year after the inauguration ofGeorge Washington as President of the United States. Of all hisoccasional productions, this was, probably, the most labored. In it hetraces the history of the constitution of the United States from theperiod antecedent to the American Revolution, through the events of thatwar, to the circumstances which led to its adoption, concluding with asolemn admonition to adhere to the principles of the Declaration ofIndependence, practically interwoven into the constitution of the UnitedStates. 

In October, 1839, in an address to the inhabitants of Braintree, ofwhich "Education" was the topic, he traces that of New England to theChristian religion, of which the Bible was the text-book and foundation, and the revelation of eternal life. He then illustrated the history ofthat religion by recapitulating the difficulties it had to encounterthrough ages of persecution; commented upon the ecclesiastical hierarchyestablished under Constantine, and the abuses arising from the policy ofthe Church of Rome, until their final exposure by Martin Luther, out ofwhich emanated the Protestant faith. The display of learning, the powerof reasoning, and the suggestive thoughts, in this occasional essay, exhibit the extent and depth of his studies of the sacred volume, towhich, more than to any other, the strength of his mind had beendevoted. 

About this time was published in the newspapers a letter from Mr. Adamsto Dr. Thomas Sewall, concerning his two letters on Phrenology, andgiving his own opinion on that subject in the following characteristiclanguage: "I have never been able to persuade myself to think of the_science of Phrenology_ as a _serious_ speculation. I have classed itwith judicial astrology, with alchemy, and with _augury_; and, asCicero says he wonders how two Roman augurs could have looked eachother in the face without laughing, I have felt something of the samesurprise that two learned phrenologists can meet without liketemptation. But, as it has been said of Bishop Berkeley's anti-materialsystem, that he has demonstrated, beyond the possibility of refutation, what no man in his senses can believe, so, without your assistance, Ishould never have been able to encounter the system of thirty-three orthirty-five faculties of the immortal soul all clustered on the blindside of the head. I thank you for furnishing me with argument to meetthe doctors who pack up the five senses in thirty-five parcels of thebrain. I hope your lectures will be successful in recalling the sobersense of the _material_ philosophers to the dignity of an_imperishable_ mind. "

With an urgent request, contained in a letter dated the 28th of June, 1839, for his opinion on the constitutionality and expediency of thelaw, then recently sanctioned by two Legislatures of Massachusetts, called the license law, Mr. Adams declined complying, for reasons statedat length. He regarded the purpose of the law as "in the highest degreepure, patriotic, and benevolent. " It had, however, given rise to twoevils, which were already manifested. "The first, a spirit of concertedand determined resistance to its execution. The second, a concertedeffort to turn the dissatisfaction of the people with the law into apolitical engine against the administration of the state. There is noduty more impressive upon the Legislature than that of accommodating theexercise of its power to the spirit of those over whom it is to operate. Abstract right, deserving as it is of the profound reverence of everyruler over men, is yet not the principle which must guide and govern hisconduct; and whoever undertakes to make it exclusively his guide willsoon find in the community a resistance that will overrule him and hisprinciples. The Supreme Ruler of the universe declares himself, in theholy Scriptures, that, in dealing with the prevarications of his chosenpeople, he sometimes gave them statutes which were _not good_. "

On the 2d December, 1839, at the opening of the Twenty-Sixth Congress, the clerk began to call the roll of the members, according to custom. When he came to New Jersey, he stated that five seats of the membersfrom that state were contested, and that, not feeling himself authorizedto decide the question, he should pass over those names, and proceedwith the call. This gave rise to a general and violent debate on thesteps to be pursued under such circumstances. It was declared by Mr. Adams that the proceeding of the clerk was evidently preconcerted toexclude the five members from New Jersey from voting at the organizationof the house. Innumerable questions were raised, but the house could notagree upon the mode of proceeding, and from the 2d to the 5th itremained in a perfectly disorganized state, and in apparentlyinextricable confusion. The remainder of the scene is thus described, inthe newspapers, by one apparently an eye-witness:

 "Mr. Adams, from the opening of this scene of confusion and anarchy, had maintained a profound silence. He appeared to be engaged most of the time in writing. To a common observer he seemed to be reckless of everything around him. But nothing, not the slightest incident, escaped him. 

 "The fourth day of the struggle had now commenced. Mr. Hugh A. Garland, the clerk, was directed to call the roll again. He commenced with Maine, as usual in those days, and was proceeding towards Massachusetts. I turned and saw that Mr. Adams was ready to get the floor at the earliest moment possible. His eye was riveted on the clerk, his hands clasped the front edge of his desk, where he always placed them to assist him in rising. He looked, in the language of Otway, like a 'fowler eager for his prey, '

 "'New Jersey!' ejaculated Mr. Hugh Garland, 'and--'

 "Mr. Adams immediately sprang to the floor. 

 "'I rise to interrupt the clerk, ' was his first exclamation. 

 "'Silence! Silence!' resounded through the hall. 'Hear him! Hear him! Hear what he has to say! Hear John Quincy Adams!' was vociferated on all sides. 

 "In an instant the most profound stillness reigned throughout the hall, --you might have heard a leaf of paper fall in any part of it, --and every eye was riveted on the venerable Nestor of Massachusetts--the purest of statesmen, and the noblest of men! He paused for a moment, and, having given Mr. Garland a withering look, he proceeded to address the multitude. 

 "'It was not my intention, ' said he, 'to take any part in these extraordinary proceedings. I had hoped this house would succeed in organizing itself; that a speaker and clerk would be elected, and that the ordinary business of legislation would be progressed in. This is not the time or place to discuss the merits of conflicting claimants from New Jersey. That subject belongs to the House of Representatives, which, by the constitution, is made the ultimate arbiter of the qualifications of its members. But what a spectacle we here present! We degrade and disgrace our constituents and the country. We do not and cannot organize; and why? Because the clerk of this house--the mere clerk, whom we create, whom we employ, and whose existence depends upon our will--usurps the _throne_, and sets us, the representatives, the vicegerents of the whole American people, at defiance, and holds us in contempt! And what is this clerk of yours? Is he to suspend, by his mere negative, the functions of government, and put an end to this Congress? He refuses to call the roll! It is in your power to compel him to call it, if he will not do it voluntarily. ' [Here he was interrupted by a member, who said that he was authorized to say that compulsion could not reach the clerk, who had avowed that he would resign rather than call the State of New Jersey. ] 'Well, sir, let him resign, ' continued Mr. Adams, 'and we may possibly discover some way by which we can get along without the aid of his all-powerful talent, learning, and genius!

 "'If we cannot organize in any other way, --if this clerk of yours will not consent to our discharging the trust confided to us by our constituents, --then let us imitate the example of the Virginia House of Burgesses, which, when the colonial Governor Dinwiddie ordered it to disperse, refused to obey the imperious and insulting mandate, and, like men--'

 "The multitude could not contain or repress their enthusiasm any longer, but saluted the eloquent and indignant speaker, and interrupted him with loud and deafening cheers, which seemed to shake the capitol to its centre. The very genii of applause and enthusiasm seemed to float in the atmosphere of the hall, and every heart expanded with an indescribable feeling of pride and exultation. The turmoil, the darkness, the very 'chaos of anarchy, ' which had for three successive days pervaded the American Congress, was dispelled by the magic, the talismanic eloquence, of a single man; and once more the wheels of government and legislation were put in motion. 

 "Having, by this powerful appeal, brought the yet unorganized assembly to a perception of its hazardous position, he submitted a motion requiring the acting clerk to call the roll. Accordingly Mr. Adams was interrupted by a burst of voices demanding, 'How shall the question be put?' 'Who will put the question?' The voice of Mr. Adams was heard above the tumult: 'I intend to put the question myself!' That word brought order out of chaos. There was the master mind. 

 "As soon as the multitude had recovered itself, and the excitement of irrepressible enthusiasm had abated, Mr. Richard Barnwell Rhett, of South Carolina, leaped upon one of the desks, waved his hand, and exclaimed: 'I move that the Honorable John Quincy Adams take the chair of the Speaker of the house, and officiate as presiding officer till the house be organized by the election of its constitutional officers. As many as are agreed to this will say Ay; those--'

 "He had not an opportunity to complete the sentence, 'those who are not agreed will say No;' for one universal, deafening, thundering AY responded to the nomination. 

 "Hereupon it was moved and ordered that Lewis Williams, of North Carolina, and Richard Barnwell Rhett, conduct John Quincy Adams to the chair. 

 "Well did Mr. Wise, of Virginia, say: 'Sir, I regard it as the proudest hour of your life; and if, when you shall be gathered to your fathers, I were asked to select the words which, in my judgment, are best calculated to give at once the character of the man, I would inscribe upon your tomb this sentence: _I will put the question myself_. '"

 CHAPTER XI. 

SECOND REPORT ON THE SMITHSONIAN FUND. --HIS SPEECH ON A BILL FORINSURING A MORE FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE LAWS RELATING TO THECOLLECTION OF DUTIES ON IMPORTS. --REMARKS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANEXTENSIVE SERIES OF MAGNETICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS. --ONITINERANT ELECTIONEERING. --ON ABUSES IN RESPECT OF THE NAVY FUND. --ONTHE POLITICAL INFLUENCES OF THE TIME. --ON THE ORIGIN AND RESULTS OF THEFLORIDA WAR. --HIS DENUNCIATION OF DUELLING. --HIS ARGUMENT IN THE SUPREMECOURT ON BEHALF OF AFRICANS CAPTURED IN THE AMISTAD. 

On the 5th of March, 1840, Mr. Adams, as chairman of the selectcommittee on the Smithsonian bequest, made a report, in which herecapitulated all the material facts which had previously occurredrelative to the acceptance of this fund, and entered into the motiveswhich prevailed with the former committee as to its disposal. Itappeared from this report, which was accompanied by a publication of allthe documents connected with the subject up to that period, that thefund had been received, and paid into the Treasury, and invested instate stocks, and that the President now invited the attention ofCongress to the obligation devolving upon the United States to fulfilthe object of the bequest. While this message was under considerationvarious projects for disposing of the funds had been presented byindividuals, in memorials, concerning which the report states that theygenerally contemplated the establishment of a school, college, oruniversity, proposing expenditures absorbing the whole in the erectionof buildings, and leaving little or nothing for the improvement offuture ages. "In most of these projects, " says Mr. Adams, "there mightbe perceived purposes of personal accommodation and emolument to theprojectors, more adapted to the promotion of their own interest than tothe increase and diffusion of knowledge among men. "

While these memorials and the subject of the disposal of the wholeSmithson fund were before the select committee, a resolution came fromthe Senate appointing "a joint committee, consisting of seven members ofthe Senate, and such a number as the House of Representatives shouldappoint, to consider the expediency of providing an institution oflearning, to be established at the city of Washington, for theapplication of the legacy bequeathed by James Smithson, of London, tothe United States, in trust for that purpose. " The House, out ofcourtesy to the Senate, concurred in their resolution, and added ontheir part the members of that of which Mr. Adams was chairman. 

The propositions of the committee on the part of the House and that onthe part of the Senate were so widely at variance, that it was foundthat no result could be obtained in which both committees would concur. It was finally agreed that the committee on the part of the House shouldreport their project to the House for consideration. Mr. Adams, thereupon, as chairman, reported a series of resolutions, substantiallyof the following import: That the whole Smithson fund should be vestedin a corporate body of trustees, to remain, under the pledge of thefaith of the United States, undiminished and unimpaired, at an interestyielding annually six per cent. , appropriated to the declared purpose ofthe founder, exclusively from the interest, and not in any part from theprincipal, --the first appropriation of interest to be applied for theerection of an astronomical observatory, and for the various objectsincident to such an establishment;--that the education of youth had notfor its object the _increase_ and diffusion of knowledge among men, but the endowment of individuals with knowledge already acquired; andthe Smithson fund should not be applied to the purpose of education, orto any school, college, university, or institution of education. 

The chairman of the committee of the Senate, in their behalf, presentedcounter resolutions, disapproving the application of any part of thefunds to the establishment of an astronomical observatory, and urgingthe appropriation of them to the establishment of a university. Thebill prepared by the House is presented at large in this report, accompanied with the argument in its support, prepared by Mr. Adamswith a strength and fulness to which no abstract can do justice. Inthis argument he illustrates the reasons for preserving the principalof the fund unimpaired, and confining all expenditures from it to theannual interest; also those which preclude any portion of it to beapplied to any institution for education; showing, from the peculiarexpressions of the testator, that it could not have been his intentionthat the fund should be applied in this manner. He then proceeds toset forth the reasons why the income of the fund should in the firstinstance be applied to an astronomical observatory, without intendingto exclude any branch of human knowledge from its equitable share ofthis benefaction. The importance of this object he thus eloquentlyillustrates: "The express object of Mr. Smithson's bequest is the_diffusion of knowledge_ among men. IT IS KNOWLEDGE, the source ofall human wisdom, and of all beneficent power; knowledge, as fartranscending the postulated lever of Archimedes as the universetranscends this speck of earth upon its face; knowledge, the attributeof Omnipotence, of which man alone, in the physical and material world, is permitted to anticipate. "

Why astronomical science should be the object to which the income ofthis fund should be first applied he thus proceeds to set forth:

 "The express object of an observatory is the increase of knowledge by new discovery. The physical relations between the firmament of heaven and the globe allotted by the Creator of all to be the abode of man are discoverable only by the organ of the eye. Many of these relations are indispensable to the existence of human life, and perhaps of the earth itself. Who, that can conceive the idea of a world without a sun, but must connect with it the extinction of light and heat, of all animal life, of all vegetation and production, leaving the lifeless clod of matter to return to the primitive state of chaos, or to be consumed by elemental fire? The influence of the moon--of the planets, our next-door neighbors of the solar system--of the fixed stars, scattered over the blue expanse in multitudes exceeding the power of human computation, and at distances of which imagination herself can form no distinct conception;--the influence of all these upon the globe which we inhabit, and upon the condition of man, its dying and deathless inhabitant, is great and mysterious, and, in the search for final causes, to a great degree inscrutable to his finite and limited faculties. The extent to which they are discoverable is and must remain unknown; but, to the vigilance of a sleepless eye, to the toil of a tireless hand, and to the meditations of a thinking, combining, and analyzing mind, secrets are successively revealed, not only of the deepest import to the welfare of man in his earthly career, but which seem to lift him from the earth to the threshold of his eternal abode; to lead him blindfold up to the council-chamber of Omnipotence, and there, stripping the bandage from his eyes, bid him look undazzled at the throne of God. 

 "In the history of the human species, so far as it is known to us, astronomical observation was one of the first objects of pursuit for the acquisition of knowledge. In the first chapter of the sacred volume we are told that, in the process of creation, 'God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years. ' By the special appointment, then, of the Creator, they were made the standards for the measurement of time upon earth. They were made for more: not only for seasons, for days, and for years, but for SIGNS. Signs of what? It may be that the word, in this passage, has reference to the signs of the Egyptian zodiac, to mark the succession of solar months; or it may indicate a more latent connection between the heavens and the earth, of the nature of judicial astrology. These relations are not only apparent to the most superficial observation of man, but many of them remain inexhaustible funds of successive discovery, perhaps as long as the continued existence of man upon earth. What an unknown world of mind, for example, is yet teeming in the womb of time, to be revealed in tracing the causes of the sympathy between the magnet and the pole--that unseen, immaterial spirit, which walks with us through the most entangled forests, over the most interminable wilderness, and across every region of the pathless deep, by day, by night, in the calm serene of a cloudless sky, and in the howling of the hurricane or the typhoon? Who can witness the movements of that tremulous needle, poised upon its centre, still tending to the polar star, but obedient to his distant hand, armed with a metallic guide, round every point of the compass, at the fiat of his will, without feeling a thrill of amazement approaching to superstition? The discovery of the attractive power of the magnet was made before the invention of the alphabet, or the age of hieroglyphics. No record of the event is found upon the annals of human history. But seven hundred years have scarcely passed away since its polarity was first known to the civilized European man. It was by observation of the periodical revolution of the earth in her orbit round the sun, compared with her daily revolution round her axis, that was disclosed the fact that her annual period was composed of three hundred and sixty-five of her daily revolutions; or, in other words, that the year was composed of three hundred and sixty-five days. But the shepherds of Egypt, watching their flocks by night, could not but observe the movements of the dog-star, next to the sun the most brilliant of the luminaries of heaven. They worshipped that star as a god; and, losing sight of him for about forty days every year, during his conjunction with the sun, they watched with intense anxiety for his reäppearance in the sky, and with that day commenced their year. By this practice it failed not soon to be found that, although the reäppearance of the star for three successive years was at the end of three hundred and sixty-five days, it would, on the fourth year, be delayed one day longer; and, after repeated observation of this phenomenon, they added six hours to the computed duration of the year, and established the canicular period of four years, consisting of one thousand four hundred and sixty-one days. It was not until the days of Julius Cæsar that this computation of time was adopted in the Roman calendar; and fifteen centuries from that time had elapsed before the yearly celebration of the Christian paschal festivals, founded upon the Passover of the Levitical law, revealed the fact that the annual revolution of the earth in her orbit round the sun is not precisely of three hundred and sixty-five days and one quarter, but of between eleven and twelve minutes less; and thus the duration of the year was ascertained, as a measure of time, to an accuracy of three or four seconds, more or less--a mistake which would scarcely amount to one day in twenty thousand years. 

 "It is, then, to the successive discoveries of persevering astronomical observation, through a period of fifty centuries, that we are indebted for a fixed and permanent standard for the measurement of time. And by the same science has man acquired, so far as he possesses it, a standard for the measurement of space. A standard for the measurement of the dimensions and distances of the fixed stars from ourselves is yet to be found; and, if ever found, will be through the means of astronomical observation. 

 "The influence of all these discoveries upon the condition of man is no doubt infinitely diversified in relative importance; but all, even the minutest, contribute to the increase and diffusion of knowledge. There is no richer field of science opened to the exploration of man in search of knowledge than astronomical observation; nor is there, in the opinion of this committee, any duty more impressively incumbent upon all human governments than that of furnishing means, and facilities, and rewards, to those who devote the labors of their lives to the indefatigable industry, the unceasing vigilance, and the bright intelligence, indispensable to success in these pursuits. "

These remarks are succeeded by others on the Royal Observatory ofGreenwich, on the connection of astronomy with the art of navigation, onthe increase of observatories in the British Islands, in France, and inRussia; and, after repeating the objections to applying the fund of Mr. Smithson to a school devoted to any particular branch of science, or forgeneral education, Mr. Adams, in behalf of the committee, submitted abill for the consideration of the house, embracing the principlesmaintained in his report. 

On May 8th, 1840, a bill to insure a more faithful execution of the lawsrelating to the collection of duties on imports being underconsideration of the house, Mr. Adams, after commenting on the natureand injurious consequences of the fraud which it was the object of thebill to prevent, said that this practice was "a sort of national thing, "to such an extent were the citizens of Great Britain accustomed to comeover to this country to cheat us out of our revenue, and to defraud ourmanufacturing interest, and added:

 "I have said that there is something national in this matter, and I will now proceed to state what, in my judgment, lies at the bottom of this proceeding. It is a maxim of British commercial law that it is lawful for the citizens of one nation to defraud the revenues of other nations. The author of the maxim was a man famous throughout the civilized world, --a man of transcendent talents, who fixed, more, perhaps, than any other man of the same century, his impress on the age in which he lived, and upon the laws of England, --I mean Lord Mansfield. In some respects it has been greatly to the advantage of those laws, but in others as much to their disadvantage and discredit, of which the maxim of which I now speak is a signal instance. He was the first British judge who established the principle that it is a lawful thing for Englishmen to cheat the revenue laws of other nations, especially those of Spain and Portugal. 

 "This principle was first settled in an act of Parliament, the object of which was to suppress what are denominated wager policies of insurance--a species of instrument well known to lawyers as gambling policies, being entered into when the party insuring has no interest in the property insured. It had been a question whether such policies were lawful by the common law. The practice had greatly increased, insomuch that wager policies had become a common thing. It was with a view to suppress these that the statute of the nineteenth of George the Second, chapter thirty-seventh, was passed. The object of that statute was good; it was remedial in its character; it went to suppress a public evil; but, while it prohibited wager policies in all other cases, it contained _an express exception in favor of those made on vessels trading to Spain and Portugal_. "

 After commenting on this act of the British Parliament, he quotes the words of Blackstone, who, after stating the nature of these smuggling policies, and dwelling upon their immorality and pernicious tendency, refers to the law above mentioned, which enacts "that they shall be totally null and void, except as to policies on privateers in the Spanish and Portuguese trade, _for reasons sufficiently obvious_. " (2 Blackstone, ch. XXX. , p. 4, § 1. ) On this statement of Blackstone Mr. Adams remarks:

 "It is an old maxim of the schools that frauds are always concealed under generalities. What were these _obvious reasons_? Why were they concealed? It is known to the committee that, in the celebrated controversy of the man in the mask, --I mean Junius with Blackstone, --he said, that for the defence of law, of justice, and of truth, let any man consult the work of that great judge, his Commentaries upon the laws of England; but, if a man wanted to cheat his neighbor out of his estate, he should consult the doctor himself. I go a little further than Junius, although I do it with great reluctance, for I hold the book to be one of the best books in the world. I say that the observation of Junius applies to the book as much as to the judge, when, from reasons like those with which scoundrels cover their consciences, that book evades telling why the exception was made in regard to Spain and Portugal, and what those reasons were which the judge declares to be '_sufficiently obvious_. '

 "This exception of the British law was _infectious_; it spread into France, whose government adopted the same provision by way of _reprisal_. "

Mr. Adams then read from Emerigon, the principal authority of Frenchlawyers on insurance, who denies the principles of the English statute;and M. Pothier, not a mere lawyer, but a philosopher and moralist, whoprotests against this doctrine, and appeals to the eternal laws ofmorality. He then cites the second volume _Term Reports_, p. 164, inwhich Judge Buller states, "I have heard Lord Mansfield say that thereason of that allowance was to favor the smuggling of bullion fromthose countries. " On which Mr. Adams remarks:

 "This is the sum of the whole matter. Judge Buller heard Lord Mansfield say that the object of the exception in regard to Spain and Portugal was to encourage--yes, to _encourage_--the smuggling trade. The object was that smugglers should not only escape the effect of their villany, but should be actually encouraged by government in its perpetration. 

 "I think I have now established the position which I assumed, that the lawfulness of violating the revenue laws of other nations is a principle of English law, --a principle sanctioned by the Legislature and the judicial courts of Great Britain, --but one which the best elementary writers, proceeding on the great and eternal principles of morality, have condemned as a false principle; and I have thought it necessary to do this with a view to trace these frauds upon our revenue, committed by British subjects, to what I believe to be their original source in the false morality in the English Parliament and English judges. What is the natural effect of the promulgation of such principles by such authority? What can it be but to encourage frauds on the revenue of other nations? When a principle like this goes out, sanctioned with the legislative authority, it will have its effect on the nation. 

 "'_Quid leges sine moribus. _' The whole moral principle of a nation is contaminated by the legislative authorization and judicial sanction of a practice dishonest in itself, which necessarily includes not merely a permission, but a stimulant, to perjury. If an English merchant, subscribing to this principle, goes to establish himself in a foreign country, he goes as an enemy, warranted, by the sanction of his own courts and Parliament, to do anything that can defraud its revenue. Perhaps this may be one of the causes of the vulgar saying, --which all must have heard, but which, thank God, I still hope is not warranted by the practice of the native merchants of our country, --that custom-house oaths have no validity. There is a feeling, but too prevalent, which distinguishes between custom-house oaths and other oaths. It is obvious that smuggling can not be carried on to any extent without the commission of perjury. There must be false swearing; and it is that false swearing which the British laws have sanctioned. None of this bullion, of which Justice Buller speaks, could be smuggled out of Spain and Portugal without false oaths; and you will find, from the details of a case which I shall presently call to your attention, that false swearing is at the bottom of the frauds which this bill seeks to correct--frauds in consequence of which seven eighths of all the woollens imported into New York escaped the payment of the duty charged by law. These people do not hold themselves bound to respect our revenue laws, and thus proceed without scruples to the perpetration of perjury in order to carry on with success the evasion of them. "

In the conclusion of his speech Mr. Adams paid the following tribute tothe English nation, saying:

 "That of the English nation he entertained sentiments of the most exalted admiration; that he was proud of being himself descended from that stock, although two hundred years had passed away, during which all his ancestors had been natives of this country. He claimed the great men of England of former ages as his countrymen, and could say with the poet Cowper, in hearty concurrence with the sentiment, that it is

 'Praise enough To fill the ambition of a common man, That Chatham's language was his mother tongue, And Wolfe's great name compatriot with his own. '

 "He believed that no nation, of ancient or modern times, was more entitled to veneration for its exertion in the cause of human improvement than the British. He thought their code of laws admirable; but, in the discussion of the bill before the committee, he had been compelled, in the discharge of his duty, to expose one great erroneous principle of morals incorporated into their laws; a principle, the natural and necessary consequence of which had been the occasion of the bill now before the committee; a principle enacted by the British Parliament, and sanctioned by the decision of their highest judicial tribunals, with the express and avowed purpose of encouraging the subjects of Great Britain to the practice of defrauding, even by the commission of perjury, the revenues of a foreign country. "

In July, 1840, a memorial was presented to Congress, from the AmericanPhilosophical Society of Philadelphia, asking the aid of government tocarry on a series of magnetic and meteorological observations. Thisapplication was made in coöperation with the Royal Society of GreatBritain, and at their solicitation, and had for its object an extendedsystem of magnetic observations at fixed magnetic observatories indifferent quarters of the globe. Mr. Adams, having been appointedchairman of a committee on the memorial, made a report setting forth atlarge the motives for concurrence, and the importance of the objectasked for. The following extracts illustrate his comprehensive views andappreciation of the subject:

 "Among the most powerful, most wonderful, and most mysterious agents in the economy of the physical universe, is the magnet. Its attractive properties, its perpetual tendency to the poles of the earth and of the heavens, and its exclusive sympathies with one of the mineral productions of the earth, have been brought within the scope of human observation at different periods of the history of mankind, separated by the distance of many centuries from each other. The attractive power of the magnet was known in ages of antiquity so remote that it transcends even the remembrance of the name of its first discoverer, and the time of its accession to the mass of human knowledge. Its polarity, or, at least, the application of that property to the purposes of navigation beyond the sight of land, was unknown in Europe, and probably throughout the world, until the twelfth or thirteenth century of the Christian era; and its horizontal variation from the tendency directly to the pole was first perceived by Christopher Columbus, in that transcendent voyage of discovery which gave a new hemisphere to the industry and intelligence of civilized man;--an incident then so alarming to him and his company, that, but for the inflexible and persevering spirit of this intrepid and daring mariner, it would have sunk them into despair, and buried the New World for ages upon ages longer from the knowledge of the Old. Centuries have again passed away, disclosing gradually new properties of the magnet to the ardent and eager pursuit of human curiosity, still stimulated by constant observation of the phenomena connected with this metallic substance, dug from the bowels of the earth, yet seeming more and more to elude or defy all the ordinary laws of matter. Thus, in the process of observation to ascertain the horizontal variation of the needle from its polar direction, it was found that it differed in intensity in the different regions of the earth and the seas; that its variations were affected by different causes, some tending in the same direction, alternately east and west, through a succession of years, of ages, even of centuries, and others accomplishing their circle of existence from day to day, perhaps from hour to hour, or at stated hours of the day. It was found that there was a perpendicular as well as a horizontal deviation from the polar direction; and it became a matter of anxious inquiry to ascertain the intensity both of the dip and variation of the needle at every spot on the surface of the globe. It was inferred, from the different intensities of variation in different latitudes, that there were magnetic poles not coïncident with those of the earth; and the northern of these poles has been recently traced to its actual location by the British circumnavigators, Parry and Ross. 

 "The attractive power, the polarity, the deviations from the polar direction, horizontal and perpendicular, the varieties even of these deviations, and the detection of the northern magnetic pole, have still left materials for further observation, and suggested problems for solution to the perseverance and ingenuity of the human mind. 

 "In the spring of 1836 that illustrious philosopher and statesman, Baron Alexander Von Humboldt, addressed to the Duke of Sussex, then President of the Royal Society, a letter upon the means of perfecting the knowledge of terrestrial magnetism, by the establishment of magnetic stations and corresponding observations; and solicited the powerful concurrence of the Royal Society in favor of the labors then already undertaken by a learned association in Germany, and which, radiating at once from several great scientific central points in Europe, might lead progressively to the more precise knowledge of the laws of nature. "

Mr. Adams then proceeds to state the subsequent proceedings of the RoyalSociety, and the measures the British government had taken to carry intoeffect the views of that society, earnestly recommending the compliancewith the request of the American Philosophical Society, and adds:

 "The committee would hail, with feelings of hope and encouragement, the virtual alliance of great and mighty nations for this union of efforts in the promotion of the cause of science. Long enough have the leagues and federations between the potentates of the earth been confined to alliances, offensive and defensive, to promote purposes of mutual hatred and hostility. It is refreshing to the friends of humanity to witness the rise and progress of a spirit of common and concerted inquiry into the secrets of material nature, the results of which not only go to accumulate the mass of human knowledge, but to harmonize in a community of enjoyments the varied tribes of man throughout the habitable globe. The invitation to participate in these labors, and to acquire the credit and reputation of having contributed to the beneficial results which may confidently be expected from them, is itself creditable to the character of our own country. "

In conclusion, the committee recommend the adoption of a resolution, which they report, appropriating twenty thousand dollars for theestablishment of five several stations for making observations onterrestrial magnetism and meteorology, conformably to the invitation ofthe Royal Society of Great Britain to the American Philosophical Societyof Philadelphia. 

In July, 1840, at the closing of the congressional session, Mr. Adamsthus expressed his opinion of the state of public affairs: "The latesession of Congress has been painful to me beyond all former experience, by the demonstration it has given of degenerating institutions. Partiesare falling into profligate factions. I have seen this before; but theworst symptom now is the change in the manners of the people. Thecontinuance of the present administration will, if accomplished, openwide all the floodgates of corruption. Will a change produce a reform?Pause and ponder! Slavery, the Indians, the public lands, the collectionand disbursement of public moneys, the tariff, and foreign affairs--whatis to become of them?"

In September, 1840, Mr. Adams remarked, on the electioneering addressesthen made, preparatory to the next election of President: "This practiceof itinerant speech-making has suddenly broken out in this country to afearful extent. Electioneering for the Presidency has spread itscontagion to the President himself, to his now only competitor, to hisimmediate predecessor, to the candidates Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, and to many distinguished members of both branches of Congress. Thetendency of all this is to the corruption of popular elections both byviolence and fraud. "

Again, in October ensuing: "One of the peculiarities of the present timeis that the principal leaders of the political parties are travellingabout the country from state to state, and holding forth, like Methodistpreachers, to assembled multitudes, under the broad canopy of heaven. Webster, Clay, W. C. Rives, Silas Wright, and James Buchanan, are amongthe first and foremost in this canvassing oratory; while Andrew Jackson, and Martin Van Buren, with his heads of departments, are harping onanother string of the political accordion, by writing controversialelectioneering letters. Besides the principal leaders of the parties, numerous subaltern officers of the administration are summoned to thesame service, and, instead of attending to the duties of their offices, roam, recite, and madden, round the land. "

In a speech made on the 28th of December, 1840, Mr. Adams severelydenounced the policy pursued by the government in respect of the navypension fund; stating that it amounted to one million two hundredthousand dollars; that, without any authority, it had been loaned todifferent states, and vested in their stocks, which, for the most part, were either depreciated in value, wholly lost, or unsalable. That fund, he maintained, was a sacred trust, and proceeded to state fully and atlarge the manner in which it had been violated without authority. 

Mr. Adams then went on to state the proceedings of the Executiverelative to the Smithsonian fund. He said that about the 1st ofSeptember, 1838, the sum of five hundred and nine thousand dollars hadbeen deposited in the Mint of Philadelphia in gold, --in mint-drops;--asacred trust, which the United States had accepted, on the pledge oftheir faith to keep it whole, entire, for the purpose for which it hadbeen given by a foreigner. Within three days the five hundred thousanddollars were on their way to Arkansas to make a bank. The members of theSenate and of the House from Arkansas had a quick scent of these moneyscoming into the Treasury; and care had been taken to insert into a billfor a very different object a provision authorizing the President andSecretary of the Treasury to loan to the states that sum of money whenit should come into the Treasury. This was three months beforehand; andthree days after the money was received the plan was carried intoexecution. 

"Now, we had heard, " said Mr. Adams, "of British gold carrying theelections, which had resulted, not in favor of the present incumbent ofthe presidential chair, but against him. There he could put his fingerupon five hundred and nine thousand dollars of British gold, whichcontributed, so far as it could go, to the election of the presentexecutive magistrate; and he thought he had shown the means by which itwas done. Go to the State of Arkansas. The dollars are not there, butthey _were_ there, and they were sent there from the Mint of the UnitedStates. Here was policy--profound policy--economy--democracy; and allthis accompanied with so great a horror at the idea of assuming statedebts, that the hair of the gentlemen stood on end at the mere mentionof the possibility of such a thing. Was not here a debt of the State ofArkansas of half a million of dollars? Had not the general governmentassumed that debt? Had they not employed trust-money? If Arkansasshould declare herself insolvent to-morrow, Congress must pay thatdebt; they had assumed it. "

About this time, Mr. Adams, in some of his writings, thus graphicallyillustrates the political influences which have mainly shaped thedestinies of the United States: "A very curious philosophical historyof parties might be made by giving a _catalogue raisonné_ of thecandidates for the Presidency voted for in the electoral colleges sincethe establishment of the constitution of the United States. It wouldcontain a history of the influences of the presidential office. Wouldnot the retrospect furnish practical principles concerning theoperation of the constitution?--1st. That the direct and infalliblepath to the Presidency is military service, coupled with demagoguepolicy. 2d. That, in the absence of military service, demagogue policyis the first and most indispensable element of success, and the art ofparty drilling the second. 3d. That the drill consists in combiningthe Southern interest in domestic slavery with the Northern riotousdemocracy. 4th. That this policy and drill, first organized by ThomasJefferson, accomplished his election, and established the Virginiadynasty of twenty-four years;--a perpetual practical contradiction ofits own principles. 5th. That the same policy and drill, invigorated bysuccess and fortified by experience, has now placed Martin Van Buren inthe President's chair, and disclosed to the unprincipled ambition ofthe North the art of rising upon the principles of the South. And 6th. That it has exposed in broad day the overruling influence of theinstitution of domestic slavery upon the history and policy of theUnion. "

In the case of a contested election Mr. Adams remarked: "The conduct ofa majority of the House has, from beginning to end, been governed bywill, and not by judgment; and so I fear it will be always in every caseof contested elections. "

"The speech of Horace Everett, of Vermont, " (made on the 8th June, 1836, on the Indian annuity bill, ) said Mr. Adams, "gives a perfectly clearand distinct exposition of the origin and causes of the Florida war, anddemonstrates, beyond all possibility of being gainsaid, that the wrongof the war is on our side. It depresses the spirits, and humiliates thesoul, that this war is now running into its fifth year, has cost thirtymillions of dollars, has successively baffled and disgraced all ourchief military generals, --Gaines, Scott, Jesup, and Macomb, --and thatour last resources now are bloodhounds and no quarter. Sixteen millionsof Anglo-Saxons unable to subdue, in five years, by force and by fraud, by secret treachery and by open war, sixteen hundred savage warriors!There is a disregard of all appearance of right, in our transactionswith the Indians, which I feel as a cruel disparagement of the honor ofmy country. "

On the 1st of January, 1841, Mr. Adams, referring to the accounts he hadreceived that the attendance at the Presidential levees was much smallerthan usual, and that the visitors were chiefly from among thePresident's old adversaries, the Whigs, remarked:

 "'_Donec eris felix multos numerabis amicos Tempora si fuerint nubila solus eris. _'

There is, perhaps, no occasion in human affairs, " he added, "which moreuniformly exemplifies this propensity of human nature than the exit of aPresident of the United States from office. "

On the 4th of February, 1841, there arose, incidentally, in the Houseof Representatives, a debate upon the act to suppress duelling. Mr. Wise, of Virginia, had said, in the course of a former debate: "Theanti-duelling law is producing its bitter fruits. It is making thishouse a bear-garden. We have an example in the present instance. Here, with permission of the chair and committee, and without a call to orderfrom anybody, we see and hear one member (Mr. Johnson) say to another(Mr. Duncan) that he had been branded as a coward on this floor. Theother says back that 'he is a liar!' And, sir, there the matter willstop. There will be no fight. " Before proceeding to comment, Mr. Adamscalled for the reading of this statement, as reported in the _NationalIntelligencer_. On which Mr. Wise said publicly, in the house, "That isa correct report. "[1]

 [1] See, for all the proceedings on this subject, the _Congressional Globe_, vol. IX. , pp. 320-322. 

After this acknowledgment, Mr. Adams proceeded to remark with severityon this statement and language, occasioning an excitement in the house, particularly among the duellists, which belongs to the history of theperiod. After stating that he understood that statement and language "asmaintaining that duelling, between members of this house, for matterspassing within this house, is a practice that ought not to besuppressed, " he continued: "I maintain the contrary; and I maintain itfor the independence of this house, for my own independence, for theindependence of those with whom I act, for the independence of themembers from the Northern section of this country, who not only abhorduelling in theory, but in practice; in consequence of which membersfrom other sections are perpetually insulting them on this floor, underthe impression that the insult will not be resented. "

Here Mr. Campbell, of South Carolina, as the reporter states, called Mr. Adams to order. The chairman said something, of which not a word couldbe heard, the house being in such a state of tempestuous uproar. Whenthe voice of Mr. Adams again caught the ear of the reporter, he wasproceeding as follows:

 "Would you smother discussion on the duelling law? There is not a point in the affairs of this nation more important than this very practice of duelling, --considered as a point of honor in one part of the Union, and a point of infamy in another, --with its consequences. I say there is no more important subject that can go forth, North and South, East and West; and I therefore take my issue upon it. I have come here determined to do so between the different portions of this house, in order to see whether this practice is to be continued; whether the members from that section of the Union whose principles are against duelling are to be insulted, upon every topic of discussion, because it is supposed that the insult will not be resented, and that 'there will be no fight. '"

Mr. Adams here called for the reading of "the act to suppress duelling;"which the clerk having read, he proceeded:

 "I was going on to say that the reason why I had brought this subject into the discussion is because it is most intimately connected with all the transactions in this house and this nation; and because I think it time to settle this question between the duellists and non-duellists, whoever they may be. I say that, in consequence of my principles, and what I believe to be the principles of a very large portion of the people in that part of the country from which I came, I will not, as regards the approaching administration, put myself under the lead of any man who considers the duelling law in this district as having borne any bitter fruits whatever. It may not, indeed, be sufficiently potent in its operation to prevent the thirst for blood which follows offensive words; but I believe it has prevented, and will prevent, any such occurrences as we have witnessed here. But, as it bears upon the affairs of the nation, I am not willing to sit any longer here, and see other members from my own section of the country, or those who may be my successors here, made subject to any such law as the law of the duellist. I am unwilling that they should not have full freedom of speech in this house on all occasions--as much so as the primest duellist in the land. I do not want to hear perpetual intimations, when a man from one part of the country means to insult another coming from other parts of the country, as, 'I am ready to answer here or elsewhere;' and 'The gentleman knows where I am to be found;' saying, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. W. C. Johnson) did just now, that he would call to account any person who dared make allusion to what had taken place between him and another member of this house. I do not intend to hear that any more, for myself or others, if I can help it. Therefore I move to bring the matter up for full discussion here, whether we are to be twitted and taunted with remarks that a man is ready to meet us here or elsewhere. It goes to the independence of this house; it goes to the independence of every individual member of this house; it goes to the right of speech and freedom of debate in this house; and I felt myself bound to bear my testimony in the most decided manner against the practice of duelling, or anything in the shape of even a virtual challenge taking place in this house, now and forever. If the committee think proper to put me down, after a debate of three weeks, involving almost every topic under the sun, and in which not one man has been called to order, I must submit. It shall go out to the country, and I am willing that the sober sentiment of the whole nation shall be my final judge on this subject. "

Mr. Adams, after having recapitulated his course of proceedings onvarious topics, and explained his motives and their relations on formeroccasions, and his present general views on those subjects, closes hisremarks on duelling by declaring that what he had said had been frommotives of pure public spirit, with no disposition to offend anygentleman, and least of all the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wise); butthat he had felt it his duty to say what he had said, because hebelieved that the application of the principle of duelling, as regardsdifferent portions of this house, is such that it must be discarded;that duelling must be considered as a crime, and that it must not becountenanced by professions of any necessity for its existence. 

In January and March, 1841, Mr. Adams delivered his celebrated argumentbefore the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of the UnitedStates, appellants, against Cinque and others, appellees. This wasafterwards published at length. In it he publicly arraigned before thatcourt and the civilized world the conduct of the then existingadministration, for having, in all their proceedings relating to theseunfortunate Africans, exhibited sympathy for one of the parties, andantipathy for the other; sympathy for the white, antipathy to the black;sympathy for the slaveholders, in place of protection for theunfortunate and oppressed. It is impossible by any abstract or outlineto do justice to the laborious ability with which this argument issustained. The just severity with which he scrutinizes the proceedingsof the Executive and the demands of the Spanish Minister, thecompleteness with which he vindicates for these Africans their right tofreedom, --the extensive research into the law of nations, and the broadprinciples of eternal justice, on which he supports their claim to beliberated, were probably not excelled by any public effort at thatperiod, whether of the bar or the senate. He concluded with thefollowing touching reminiscences of distinguished members of the benchand the bar, with whom in former times he had been associated:

 "May it please your honors: On the 7th of February, 1804, now more than thirty-seven years past, my name was entered, and yet stands recorded, on both the rolls, as one of the attorneys and counsellors of this court. Five years later, in February and March, 1809, I appeared for the last time before this court, in defence of the cause of justice and of important rights, in which many of my fellow-citizens had property to a large amount at stake. Very shortly afterwards I was called to the discharge of other duties, first in distant lands, and in later years within our own country, but in different departments of her government. Little did I imagine that I should ever again be required to claim the right of appearing in the capacity of an officer of this court; yet such has been the dictate of my destiny, and I appear again to plead the cause of justice, and now of liberty and life, in behalf of many of my fellow-men, before that same court which, in a former age, I had addressed in support of rights of property. I stand again, I trust for the last time, before the same court. '_Hic cæstus, artemque repono. _' I stand before the same court, but not before the same judges, nor aided by the same associates, nor resisted by the same opponents. As I cast my eyes along those seats of honor and of public trust now occupied by you, they seek in vain for one of those honored and honorable persons whose indulgence listened then to my voice. Marshall, Cushing, Chase, Washington, Johnson, Livingston, Todd, --where are they? Where is that eloquent statesman and learned lawyer who was my associate counsel in the management of that cause, Robert Goodloe Harper? Where is that brilliant luminary, so long the pride of Maryland and of the American bar, then my opposing counsel, Luther Martin? Where is the excellent clerk of that day, whose name has been inscribed on the shores of Africa as a monument of his abhorrence of the African slave-trade, Elias B. Caldwell? Where is the marshal--where are the criers of the court? Alas! where is one of the very judges of the court, arbiter of life and death, before whom I commenced this anxious argument, even now prematurely closed? Where are they all? Gone--gone--all gone! Gone from the services which in their day and generation they faithfully tendered to their country. From the excellent characters which they sustained in life, so far as I have had the means of knowing, I humbly hope, and fondly trust, they have gone to receive the rewards of blessedness on high. 

 "In taking, then, my final leave of this bar, and of this honorable court, I can only ejaculate a fervent petition to Heaven that every member of it may go to his final account with as little of earthly frailty to answer for as those illustrious dead; and that every one, after the close of a long and virtuous career in this world, may be received at the portals of the next with the approving sentence, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord. '"

 CHAPTER XII. 

WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. --HIS DEATH. --VICE-PRESIDENT JOHN TYLER SUCCEEDS. --REMARKS OF MR. ADAMS ON THEOCCASION. --HIS SPEECH ON THE CASE OF ALEXANDER M'LEOD. --HIS VIEWSCONCERNING COMMONPLACE BOOKS. --HIS LECTURE ON CHINA AND CHINESECOMMERCE. --REMARKS ON THE STATE OF THE COUNTRY, AND HIS DUTY IN RELATIONTO IT. --HIS PRESENTATION OF A PETITION FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION, AND THE VOTE TO CENSURE HIM FOR DOING IT. --HIS THIRD REPORT ON MR. SMITHSON'S BEQUEST. --HIS SPEECH ON THE MISSION TO MEXICO. 

On the 4th of March, 1841, William Henry Harrison, of Ohio, wasinaugurated President of the United States, and John Tyler, of Virginia, Vice-President; each of whom had two hundred and thirty-four out of twohundred and ninety-four votes, --the whole number, --and Martin Van Buren, the only other candidate for the Presidency, had sixty. Mr. Adamsremarked that this inauguration was celebrated with demonstrations ofpopular feeling unexampled since that of Washington, in 1789, and at thesame time with so much order and tranquillity that not the slightestsymptom of conflicting passions occurred to disturb the enjoyments ofthe day. Many thousands of people from the adjoining, and considerablenumbers from distant states, were assembled to witness the ceremony. 

On the 4th of April, 1841, --precisely one calendar month after hisinauguration, --President Harrison died. On this occasion Mr. Adams thusexpressed himself:

 "The first impression of this event here, where it occurred, is of the frailty of all human enjoyments, and the awful vicissitudes woven into the lot of mortal man. He had reached, but one short month since, the pinnacle of honor and power in his own country. He lies a lifeless corpse in the palace provided by his country for his abode. He was amiable and benevolent. Sympathy for his suffering and his fate is the prevailing sentiment of his fellow-citizens. The bereavement and distress of his family are felt intensely, albeit they are strangers here, and known scarcely to any one. 

 "The influence of this event upon the condition and history of the country can scarcely be foreseen. It makes the Vice-President of the United States, John Tyler, of Virginia, acting President of the Union for four years, less one month. 

 "Tyler is a political sectarian, of the slave-driving, Virginian, Jeffersonian school; principled against all improvement; with all the interests and passions and vices of slavery rooted in his moral and political constitution; with talents not above mediocrity, and a spirit incapable of expansion to the dimensions of the station on which he has been cast by the hand of Providence, unseen, through the apparent agency of chance. To that benign and healing hand of Providence I trust, in humble hope of the good which it always brings forth out of evil. In upwards of half a century this is the first instance of a Vice-President being called to act as President of the United States, and brings to the test that provision of the constitution which places in the executive chair a man never thought of for it by anybody. 

 "Tyler deems himself qualified to perform the duties and exercise the powers and office of President, on the death of President Harrison, without any other oath than that which he has taken as Vice-President; yet, as doubts might arise, and for greater caution, he will take and subscribe the oath as President. May the blessing of Heaven upon this nation attend and follow this providential revolution in its government! For the present it is not joyous, but grievous. 

 "The moral condition of this country is degenerating, and especially through the effect of that part of its constitution which is organized by the process of unceasing elections. The spirit of the age and country is to accumulate power in the hands of the multitude: to shorten terms of service in high public places; to multiply elections, and diminish executive power; to weaken all agencies protective of property, or repressive of crime; to abolish capital punishments and imprisonment for debt. Slavery, intemperance, land-jobbing, bankruptcy, and sundry controversies with Great Britain, constitute the materials for the history of John Tyler's administration. But the improvement of the condition of man will form no part of his policy, and the improvement of his country will be an object of his most inveterate and inflexible opposition. "

In September, 1841, one Alexander McLeod was imprisoned at Lockport, inthe State of New York, under an indictment for murder. The followingcircumstances were the occasion of these proceedings. A steamer, calledthe Caroline, owned and fitted out at Buffalo, had been engaged inaiding certain insurgents against the Canadian government with militaryapparatus and provisions; and an expedition, sent by the Britishauthorities, had cut the Caroline out of the port of Buffalo, set her onfire, and sent her floating over the Niagara Falls. In the fight whichoccurred one of the men on board the Caroline was killed. 

The excitement was general and excessive throughout the State of NewYork. McLeod was the leader in this expedition, and having, after thelapse of some time, visited that state, he was arrested, imprisoned, indicted, and the popular voice was clamorous that he should be_hanged_. Notwithstanding the British government had declared that hehad acted under their authority as a military man, simply obeying theorder of his superiors, a like state of feeling and purpose hadextended to Congress, and a resolution had been introduced requestingthe President to inform the House "whether any officer of the army, orthe Attorney-General, had been directed to visit the State of New Yorkfor any purpose connected with the imprisonment or trial of AlexanderMcLeod; or whether, by any executive measures, the British governmenthad been given to understand that McLeod would be released. "

Fearing that the result of these proceedings might lead to a great andmost formidable issue of peace and war between the United States andGreat Britain, Mr. Adams took this occasion to express his views on thesubject. 

 "The first question which occurs to me is, " he said, "what is the object of this resolution, and for what purpose has the house been agitated with it from the commencement of the session to this day? The gentleman who offered it has disclaimed all party purposes; he breathes in a lofty atmosphere, elevated high above that of party. But what sort of comprehension had both the friends and the opponents of the resolution put upon it? No party complexion! O, no! No; it was patriotism--pure patriotism--patriotism pure and undefiled! Well; I am disposed to give gentlemen on all sides of the house credit for whatever patriotism they profess; but sure it is that patriotism is a coat of many colors, and suited to very different complexions; and, if it had not been for that unqualified profession of patriotism and no party, which had rung through this house, from every gentleman who had supported this resolution, I should have felt bound to believe it the rankest party measure that ever was introduced into this house. 

 "What is the object of this resolution? It is to make an issue with Great Britain--an issue of right or wrong--upon the affair of burning the Caroline. No, sir; never shall my voice be for going to war upon that issue. I will not go to war upon an issue upon which, when we go to a third power to arbitrate upon it, they will say we are wrong. The issue will be decided against us. We shall be told it is not the thing for us to quarrel about. 

 "I have not the time, were I possessed of the information, to give a history of the affair of the Caroline; and it is known as much to every member of the house as it is to me. We have heard a great deal of talk about territorial rights, and independence, and of state rights. But, in a question of that kind, other nations do not look much to your state rights nor to your independence questions. They will not talk of your independence; but they will say who is right, and who is wrong. Who struck the first blow? I take it, will be the main question with them. I take it that in the late affair the Caroline was in hostile array against the British government, and that the parties concerned in it were employed in acts of war against it; and I do not subscribe to the very learned opinion of the Chief Justice of the State of New York (not, I hear, the Chief Justice, but a Judge of the Supreme Court of that state), that there was no act of war committed. Nor do I subscribe to it that every nation goes to war only on issuing a declaration or proclamation of war. This is not the fact. Nations often wage war for years without issuing any declaration of war. The question is here not upon a declaration of war, but acts of war. And I say that, in the judgment of all impartial men of other nations, _we_ shall be held as a nation responsible; that the Caroline there was in a state of war against Great Britain; for purposes of war, and the worst kind of war, --to sustain an insurrection--I will not say rebellion, because rebellion is a crime, and because I heard them talked of as 'patriots. ' Yes; and I have heard, in the course of the discussion here, these patriots represented as carrying on a righteous cause, and that we ought to have assisted them; that we ought to have given them that assistance that a nation fighting for its liberty is entitled to from the generosity of other nations. Well, admit that merely for a moment. If we were bound to do it, we were bound to do it avowedly and above-board. But we disclaimed all intention of taking any part in it; and yet there was very little disguise about this expedition, and that this vessel was there for the purposes of hostility against the Canadian government. I say, therefore, that we struck the first blow; and if, instead of pressing this matter to a war, we were to refer it to a third power, even if it should be to a European republic, --if any such thing is remaining, --and should say there had been an invasion of our territory, they would ask us a question something like that which was put to a character in a play of Molière: _Que diable allait il faire dans cette galère?_--What the devil had we to do in that galley?

 "Now, I think the arbitrator would say, "What the devil had you to do with that steamboat?" He would say that we struck the first blow. Now, admit that, --and none of your state rights men can deny it, --admit that, and all the rest follows of course. They will say it was wrong--abstractly, if you please. Talking of abstractions, it was wrong for an expedition to come over and burn the steamboat, and send her over the falls. But what was your steamboat about? What had she been doing? What was she to do the next morning? And what ought you to do? You have reparation to make for all the men, and for all the arms and implements of war, which we were transporting, and going to transport, to the other side, to foment and instigate rebellion in Canada. That is what the third party would say to us. And it would come, in the end, after all the blood and treasure had been wasted by a war between the two countries, to this, that we must shake hands and drink champagne together, after having made a mutual apology for mutual transgression. That is the way things are settled between individuals, --'If you said so, why, I said so, '--and thus the dispute is amicably settled. So we should have to do with this national matter; for there is not any great difference in the essentials of quarrelling and making up between nations and individuals. "

Mr. Adams then proceeded to another point of view in which he objectedto this resolution. He said:

 "A prodigious affair has been made of this matter, as if the government of the United States had outraged the State of New York, because the great empire State of New York had undertaken to say that she would _hang_ McLeod, whatever Great Britain or the general government might do. Yes; whatever they might do, the great empire State of New York would _hang_ McLeod! That was the language. 

 "What, sir, I ask, is the object of this resolution? To inquire of the President of the United States whether any officer of the army, or the Attorney-General of the United States, since the 4th of March last, has visited the State of New York for any purpose connected with the trial of Alexander McLeod. What then? Has not the President a right to send the Attorney-General to New York on that or any other subject? Where is the constitutional provision prohibiting him from sending the Attorney-General to New York on that or any other of the subjects which are before the judicial courts of that state? Yes, the Attorney-General has been sent there, and we have his instructions. And I have heard here, on the part of some of my forty friends from New York, a great deal about the conscious dignity and honor of this _Empire State_ of New York. I am not very fond of that term 'empire state, ' in the language of this Union; and I say that if there is an 'empire state' in the Union, it is Delaware. To be magniloquent, and talk about the empire state, may well become the forty gentlemen who represent the state on this floor, having reference to their own numbers, and the numbers of their constituents, or to the extent, fertility, and beauty, of her soil; yet this is a distinction not recognized in the constitution of the United States. They are all, as members of this Union, equal, and the State of Delaware has as good a right to be called the 'empire state' as New York. Now, if my forty friends from New York choose to call it the 'empire state, ' I will not quarrel with them. It is only as to consequences that I enter my caveat against the too frequent use of those terms on this floor; for there is meaning in those words, 'empire state, ' when used among co-estates, more than meets the ear. 

 "Suppose that it was in Delaware that such an event had occurred; do you suppose my friend here (Mr. Rodney) from Delaware would have offered such a resolution as this? And, by the terms of the resolution, I should presume my friends from New York think there is a little more dignity and power in forty representatives than only one. "

In September, 1841, a plan for a newly-invented Commonplace Book, as animprovement upon Locke's, was brought to Mr. Adams for hisrecommendatory notice; which he declined, from a general rule he hadadopted on the subject, but said he thought it might be very useful, ifa practical system of such a manual could be simplified to the intellectand industry of common minds, which he doubted. "I had occupied andamused a long life, " said he, "in the search of such a compendiouswisdom-box, but without being able to find or make it. I had made myselfmore than one of Locke's Commonplace Books, but never used any one ofthem. I had learnt and practised Byrom's Shorthand Writing, but no onecould read it but myself. I had kept accounts by doubleentry, --day-book, journal, and ledger, with cash-book, bank-book, house-book, and letter-book. I had made extracts, copies, translations, and quotations, more perhaps than other man living, without ever beingable to pack up my knowledge or my labors in any methodical order; andnow doubt whether I might not have employed my time more profitably insome one great, well-compacted, comprehensive pursuit, adapting everyhour of labor to the attainment of some great end. "

In December, 1841, Mr. Adams delivered before the MassachusettsHistorical Society a lecture on the war then existing between GreatBritain and China. The principles stated and maintained in that lecturewere so much in advance of the opinions entertained at the time, thatit is believed to have been published in but a single newspaper in thiscountry or in Europe, and never in a pamphlet form, except by theproprietors of the _Chinese Repository_, published in Macao, China, inMay, 1842. Though his views were ridiculed or repudiated by many whendelivered, they are at this day acknowledged; and are made some of thechief grounds of the justification of that invasion of the Chineseempire now apparently in successful progress. The subject is ofpreëminent importance, and is canvassed with that laborious researchand independence eminently characteristic of the author. 

In this lecture, after controverting the doctrine of an eminent Frenchwriter, who contended that there was no such thing as international law, and that the word law is not applicable to the obligations incumbentupon nations, on the ground that law is a rule of conduct prescribed bya superior; and that nations, being independent, acknowledge nosuperior, and have no common sovereign from whom they can receivelaw, --Mr. Adams proceeds to maintain that "by the law of nations is tobe understood, not one code of laws, binding alike on all the nations ofthe earth, but a system of rules varying according to the character andcondition of the parties concerned. " There is a law of nations, amongChristian communities, which is the law recognized by the constitutionof the United States as obligatory upon them in their intercourse withEuropean states and colonies. But we have a different law of nationsregulating our intercourse with the Indian tribes on this continent;another, between us and the woolly-headed natives of Africa; another, with the Barbary powers; another, with the flowery land, or Celestialempire. This last is the nation with which Great Britain is now at war. Then, reasoning on the rights of property, established by labor, byoccupancy, and by compact, he maintains that the right of exchange, barter, --in other words, of commerce, --necessarily follows; that a stateof nature among men is a state of peace; the pursuit of happiness man'snatural right; that it is the duty of men to contribute as much as is intheir power to one another's happiness, and that there is no other wayby which they can so well contribute to the comfort and well-being ofone another as by commerce, or the mutual exchange of equivalents. Theseviews and principles he thus illustrates:

 "The duty of commercial intercourse between nations is laid down in terms sufficiently positive by Vattel, but he afterwards qualifies it by a restriction, which, unless itself restricted, annuls it altogether. He says that, although the general duty of commercial intercourse is incumbent upon nations, yet every nation may exclude any particular branch or article of trade which it may deem injurious to its own interest. This cannot be denied. But, then, a nation may multiply these particular exclusions, until they become general, and equivalent to a total interdict of commerce; and this, time out of mind, has been the inflexible policy of the Chinese empire. So says Vattel, without affixing any note of censure upon it. Yet it is manifestly incompatible with the position which he had previously laid down, that commercial intercourse between nations is a moral obligation incumbent upon them all. 

 "The empire of China is said to extend over three hundred millions of human beings. It is said to cover a space of seven millions of square miles--about four times larger than the surface of these United States. The people are not Christians, nor can a Christian nation appeal to the principles of a common faith to settle the question of right and wrong between them. The moral obligation of commercial intercourse between nations is founded entirely and exclusively upon the Christian precept to love your neighbor as yourself. With this principle, you cannot refuse commercial intercourse with your neighbor, because, commerce consisting of a voluntary exchange of property mutually beneficial to both parties, excites in both the selfish and the social propensities, and enables each of the parties to promote the happiness of his neighbors by the same act whereby he provides for his own. But, China not being a Christian nation, its inhabitants do not consider themselves bound by the Christian precept to love their neighbors as themselves. The right of commercial intercourse with them reverts not to the execrable principle of Hobbes, that the state of nature is a state of war, where every one has a right to buy, but no one is obliged to sell. Commerce becomes altogether a matter of convention. The right of each party is only to propose; that of the other is to accept or refuse, and to his result he may be guided exclusively by the consideration of his own interest, without regard to the interests, the wishes, or other wants, of his neighbor. 

 "This is a churlish and unsocial system; and I take occasion here to say that whoever examines the Christian system of morals with a philosophical spirit, setting aside all the external and historical evidences of its truth, will find all its precepts tending to exalt the nature of the animal man; all its purpose to be peace on earth and good will towards men. Ask the atheist, the deist, the Chinese, and they will tell you that the foundation of their system of morals is selfish enjoyment. Ask the philosophers of the Grecian schools, --Epicurus, Socrates, Zeno, Plato, Lucretius, Cicero, Seneca, --and you will find them discoursing upon the Supreme Good. They will tell you it is pleasure, ease, temperance, prudence, fortitude, justice: not one of them will whisper the name of love, unless in its gross and physical sense, as an instrument of pleasure; not one of them will tell you that the source of all moral relation between you and the rest of mankind is to love your neighbor as yourself--to do unto him as you would that he should do unto you. 

 "The Chinese recognize no such law. Their internal government is a hereditary patriarchical despotism, and their own exclusive interest is the measure of all their relations with the rest of mankind. Their own government is founded upon the principle that as a nation they are superior to the rest of mankind. They believe themselves and their country especially privileged over all others; that their dominion is the celestial empire, and their territory the flowery land. 

 "The fundamental principle of the Chinese empire is anti-commercial. It is founded entirely upon the second and third of Vattel's general principles, to the total exclusion of the first. It admits no obligation to hold commercial intercourse with others. It utterly denies the equality of other nations with itself, and even their independence. It holds itself to be the centre of the terraqueous globe, --equal to the heavenly host, --and all other nations with whom it has any relations, political or commercial, as outside tributary barbarians, reverently submissive to the will of its despotic chief. It is upon this principle, openly avowed and inflexibly maintained, that the principal maritime nations of Europe for several centuries, and the United States of America from the time of their acknowledged independence, have been content to hold commercial intercourse with the empire of China. 

 "It is time that this enormous outrage upon the rights of human nature, and upon the first principle of the rights of nations, should cease. These principles of the Chinese empire, too long connived at and truckled to by the mightiest Christian nations of the civilized world, have at length been brought into conflict with the principles and the power of the British empire; and I cannot forbear to express the hope that Britain, after taking the lead in the abolition of the African slave-trade and of slavery, and of the still more degrading tribute to the Barbary African Mahometans, will extend her liberating arm to the furthest bound of Asia, and at the close of the present contest insist upon concluding the peace upon terms of perfect equality with the Chinese empire, and that the future commerce shall be carried on upon terms of equality and reciprocity between the two communities parties to the trade, for the benefit of both; each retaining the right of prohibition and of regulation, to interdict any article or branch of trade injurious to itself, as for example the article of opium, and to secure itself against the practices of fraudulent traders and smugglers. This is the truth, and I apprehend the only question at issue between the governments and nations of Great Britain and China. It is a general, but I believe altogether a mistaken opinion, that the quarrel is merely for certain chests of opium, imported by British merchants into China, and seized by the Chinese government for having been imported contrary to law. This is a mere incident to the dispute, but no more the cause of war than the throwing overboard of the tea in Boston harbor was the cause of the North American Revolution. 

 "The cause of the war is the pretension on the part of the Chinese that in all their intercourse with other nations, political or commercial, their superiority must be implicitly acknowledged, and manifested in humiliating forms. It is not creditable to the great, powerful, and enlightened nations of Europe, that for several centuries they have, for the sake of a profitable trade, submitted to these insolent and insulting pretensions, equally contrary to the first principles of the law of nature and of revealed religion--the natural equality of mankind--

 "'_Auri sacra fames, quid non mortalia pectora cogis?_'

 "This submission to insult is the more extraordinary for being practised by Christian nations, which, in their intercourse with one another, push the principle of equality and reciprocity to the minutest punctilios of form. "

This lecture concludes with a sketch of the treatment of Lord Macartneyby the Chinese emperor, in 1792, when sent to that court as ambassadorfrom Great Britain, illustrating and supporting its general argument. The remarks of Mr. Adams upon the distinction with a very smalldifference between "the bended knee" and "entire prostration, " as atoken of homage, --admitted as to the first, denied as to the last, bythe British ambassador, --are characteristic. 

 "The narrative of Sir George Staunton distinctly and positively affirms that Lord Macartney was admitted to the presence of the Emperor Kienlung, and presented to him his credentials, without performing the prostration of the Kotow--the Chinese act of homage from the vassal to the sovereign lord. Ceremonies between superiors and inferiors are the personification of principles. Nearly twenty-five years after the repulse of Lord Macartney, in 1816, another splendid embassy was despatched by the British government, in the person of Lord Amherst, who was much more rudely dismissed, without even being admitted to the presence of the emperor, or passing a single hour at Pekin. A Dutch embassy instituted shortly after the failure of that of Lord Macartney, fared no better, although the ambassador submitted with a good grace to the prostration of the Kotow. A philosophical republican may smile at the distinction by which a British nobleman saw no objection to delivering his credentials on the bended knee, but could not bring his stomach to the attitude of entire prostration. In the discussion which arose between Lord Amherst and the celestials on this question, the Chinese, to a man, insisted inflexibly that Lord Macartney had performed the Kotow; and Kiaking, the successor of Kienlung, who had been present at the reception of Lord Macartney, personally pledged himself that he had seen his lordship in that attitude. Against the testimony to the fact of the imperial witness in person, it may well be conjectured how impossible it was for the British noble to maintain his position, which was, after all, of small moment. The bended knee, no less than the full prostration to the ground, is a symbol of homage from an inferior to a superior, and if not equally humiliating to the performer, it is only because he has been made familiar by practice with one, and not with the other. In Europe, the bended knee is exclusively appropriated to the relations of sovereign and subject; and no representative of any sovereign in Christendom ever bends his knee in presenting his credentials to another. But the personal prostration of the ambassador before the emperor was, in the Chinese principle of exaction, symbolical not only of the acknowledgment of subjection, but of the fundamental law of the empire prohibiting all official intercourse upon a footing of equality between the government of China and the government of any other nation. All are included under the general denomination of outside barbarians: and the commercial intercourse with the maritime or navigating nations is maintained through the exclusive monopoly of the Hong merchants. "

At the opening of the session of Congress, on the 3d of December, 1841, Mr. Adams thus wrote concerning his own course and the country'sprospects:

 "Between the obligation to discharge my duty to the country and the obvious impossibility of accomplishing anything for the improvement of its condition by legislation, my deliberate judgment warns me to a systematic adherence to inaction upon all the controverted topics which cannot fail to be brought into debate. Upon the rule-question (that is, refusing to receive or refer petitions on the subject of slavery) I cannot be silent, but shall be left alone, as heretofore. I await the opening of the session with great anxiety; more from an apprehension of my own imprudence than from a belief that the fortunes of the country will be much affected, for good or evil, by anything that will be done. There is neither spotless integrity nor consummate ability at the helm of the ship, and she will be more than ever the sport of winds and waves, drifting between breakers and quicksands. May the wise and good Disposer send her home in safety!"

On the 24th of January, 1842, Mr. Adams presented the petition offorty-five citizens of Haverhill, Massachusetts, praying that Congresswould immediately take measures peaceably to dissolve the Union of theseStates. 1st. Because no Union can be agreeable which does not presentprospects of reciprocal benefits. 2d. Because a vast proportion of theresources of one section of the Union is annually drained to sustain theviews and course of another section, without any adequate return. 3d. Because, judging from the history of past nations, that Union, ifpersisted in, in the present course of things, will certainly overwhelmthe whole nation in utter destruction. Mr. Adams moved that the petitionbe referred to a select committee, with instructions to report an answershowing the reasons why the prayer of it ought not to be granted. 

The excitement the presentation of this petition produced was immediateand intense. Mr. Hopkins, of Virginia, moved to burn it in presence ofthe house. Mr. Wise, of the same state, asked the speaker if it was inorder to move to censure any member for presenting such a petition. Mr. Gilmer, also of Virginia, moved a resolution, that Mr. Adams, forpresenting such a petition, had justly incurred the censure of thehouse. Mr. Adams said that he hoped the resolution would be received anddiscussed. A desultory debate ensued, and was continued until the houseadjourned. A caucus was immediately held by the opponents of Mr. Adamsamong the representatives from the South and West, to take measures toeffect his expulsion. It was feared that the two thirds vote requisiteto expel a member could not be obtained. Three resolutions weretherefore prepared, the adoption of which it was deemed would in populareffect be equivalent to an expulsion. Thomas F. Marshall, of Kentucky, consented to present them the next day. The consideration of theseresolutions, which continued until the 5th of February, produced aseries of as violent and personal debates as perhaps the halls ofCongress ever witnessed. They were in these words:

 "WHEREAS, The federal constitution is a permanent form of government, and of perpetual obligation, until altered or modified in the mode pointed out in that instrument; and the members of this House, deriving their political character and powers from the same, are sworn to support it; and the dissolution of the Union necessarily implies the destruction of that instrument, the overthrow of the American republic, and the extinction of our national existence: a proposition, therefore, to the representatives of the people, to dissolve the organic laws framed by their constituents, and to support which they are commanded by those constituents to be sworn before they can enter into the execution of the political powers created by it and intrusted to them, is a high breach of privilege, a contempt offered to this House, a direct proposition to the legislature and each member of it to commit perjury, and involving necessarily in its execution and its consequences the destruction of our country, and the crime of high treason. 

 "_Resolved, therefore_, That the Honorable John Quincy Adams, member from Massachusetts, in presenting for the consideration of the House of Representatives of the United States a petition praying for the dissolution of the Union, has offered the deepest indignity to the House of which he is a member, an insult to the people of the United States, of which that House is the legislative organ; and will, if this outrage be permitted to pass unrebuked and unpunished, have disgraced his country, through their representatives, in the eyes of the whole world. 

 "_Resolved, further_, That the aforesaid John Quincy Adams, for this insult, the first of the kind ever offered to the government, and for the wound which he has permitted to be aimed, through his instrumentality, at the constitution and existence of his country, the peace, the security, and liberty of the people of these States, might well be held to merit expulsion from the national councils; and the House deem it an act of grace and mercy when they only inflict upon him their severest censure for conduct so utterly unworthy of his past relations to the state, and his present position. This they hereby do, for the maintenance of their own purity and dignity. For the rest, they turn him over to his own conscience, and the indignation of all true American citizens. "

The scene which occurred, on their presentation, is thus graphicallydescribed in the newspapers of the day:

 "On the 25th of January, the whole body of Southerners came into the House, apparently resolved to crush Mr. Adams and his cause forever. They gathered in groups, conversed in deep whispers, and the whole aspect of their conduct at twelve o'clock indicated a conspiracy portending a revolution. Thomas F. Marshall, of Kentucky, rose, and, having asked and received of Mr. Gilmer leave to offer a substitute for his resolution of censure which was pending at the adjournment, presented the three prepared resolutions. He assumed a manner and tone as if he felt the historical importance of his position; spoke with great coolness and solemnity, --a style wholly unusual with him; assumed a solemn, magisterial air, and judicial elevation, as if he thought, in the insolence of his conceit, that he was about to pour down the thunder of condemnation on the venerable object of his attack, as a judge pronouncing sentence on a convicted culprit, in the sight of approving men and angels. Warming somewhat with the silent, imposing attention of the vast audience before whom he spoke, he expanded into an inflated exhibition of his own past relations to the object of his attack, and thus represented himself eminently qualified to act the part he had assumed of prosecutor, judge, and executioner. When he finished, the speaker announced to Mr. Adams that his position entitled him to the floor, bringing up to the imagination a parallel scene: 'Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself. '

 "Up rose, then, that bald, gray old man, his hands trembling with constitutional infirmity and age, upon whose consecrated head the vials of tyrannic wrath had been outpoured. Among the crowd of slaveholders who filled the galleries he could seek no friends, and but a few among those immediately around him. Unexcited, he raised his voice, high-keyed, as was usual with him, but clear, untremulous, and firm. In a moment his infirmities disappeared, although his shaking hand could not but be noticed: trembling not with fear, but with age. At first there was nothing of indignation in his tone, manner, or words. Surprise and cold contempt were all. But anon a flash of withering scorn struck the unhappy Marshall. A single breath blew all his mock-judicial array into air and smoke. In a tone of insulted majesty and reinvigorated spirit, Mr. Adams then said, in reply to the audacious, atrocious charge of 'high treason:' 'I call for the reading of the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Read it! read it! and see what that says of the right of a people to reform, to change, and to dissolve their government. '

 "The look, the tone, the gesture, of the insulted patriot, at that instant were most imposing. The voice was that of sovereign command. The burthen of seventy-five winters rolled off, and he rose above the puny things around him, who thought themselves his equals, from being his associates. 

 "When the passage of the Declaration was read that solemnly proclaims the right of reform, revolution, and resistance to oppression, the old man thundered out, '_Read that again!_' and he looked proudly round on the listening audience, as he heard his triumphant vindication sounded forth in the glorious sentences of the revolutionary Magna Charta. 

 "The sympathetic revulsion of feeling was intense, though voiceless. Every drop of free, honest blood in that vast assemblage bounded with high impulse, every fibre thrilled with excitement. 

 "A strong exhibition of the facts in the case, mostly in cold, calm, logical, measured sentences, concluded the high appeal of Mr. Adams, from the slaveholders of the present generation to the Father of that system of revolutionary liberty with which he is the coëval and the noblest champion. And then he sat down vindicated, victorious. "

Apart from the excited interest of friends, the malign aspersions ofpolitical enemies, and his own indignant response to the hollow tiradeof his assailants, his defence, reduced to its elements, was simplythis: that the petition was sent to him for presentation; that it was asubject for which the signers of it had a constitutional right topetition, and that in presenting it he had proposed that the committeeshould be instructed to report reasons why it ought not to be granted. He said that he should not enter further into his self-defence at thattime, but should wait to see the action of the house upon thoseresolutions. But whenever the proper time for his defence should come, he pledged himself to show that "a portion of the country from which theassailants came was endeavoring to destroy the right of habeas corpus, and of trial by jury, and all the rights in which the liberties of thecountry consist;"--"that there was in that portion of country asystematic attempt even to carry it to the dissolution of the Union, with a continual system and purpose to destroy all the principles ofcivil liberty among the free states, and by power to force the detestedprinciples of slavery on the free States of this Union;" a pledge whichin the course of his subsequent argument he fully redeemed. 

The last of January, Mr. Adams thus expressed himself concerning theseproceedings: "My occupations during the month have been confinedentirely to the business of the house, and for the last ten days to thedefence of myself against an extensive combination and conspiracy, inand out of Congress, to crush the liberties of the free people of thisUnion, by disgracing me with the brand of censure, and displacing mefrom the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for my perseverancein presenting abolition petitions. I am in the midst of that fieryordeal, and day and night absorbed in the struggle against this attemptat my ruin. God send me a good deliverance!"

Intemperate debates, with violence undiminished, succeeded, in which allthe topics of party censure, from the adoption of the constitution, werecollected and heaped upon Mr. Adams by Marshall, Wise, Gilmer, andothers. 

On the 3d of February Mr. Adams took the floor, and spoke for two hoursin his own defence, with an eloquence and effect to which no descriptioncan do justice. He touched the low underplot of the Committee on ForeignAffairs with pointed severity and bitter truth, and then gave amusingparticulars of missives he had received from the South threatening himwith assassination. Among other kindly hints sent through thepost-office was a colored lithograph portrait of himself, with thepicturesque annotation of a rifle-ball on the forehead, and a promisethat such a remedy "would stop his music. " He alluded to thesecommunications with perfect good nature, some of them being identicalwith words used towards him by Mr. Gilmer. A further account of themwill be given from the correspondent of the newspapers of the day. [1]

 [1] See the _Boston Courier_ and _New York American_ of the period. 

 "Among the many strange impressions of these singular scenes, nothing is more striking than the total, disgraceful ignorance which prevails as to who John Quincy Adams _is_. That he has been President of the United States, and had previously borne high offices, seems occasionally to be vaguely remembered by a few of the most intelligent of his persecutors. But of the part which he has borne for half a century in the history of America and of the world they know no more than they do of the Vedas and Puránas. 

 "The thread of this great discourse was his present and past relations to Virginia and Virginians. After gratefully acknowledging his infinite obligations to the great Virginians of the first age of the federal republic, he modestly and unpretendingly recounted the unsought exalted honors heaped upon him by Washington, Madison, and Monroe, and detailed with touching simplicity and force some of his leading actions in the discharge of those weighty trusts. As he went back through the historic vista of patriotic achievements, he seemed to renew his youth like the eagles, and rose into a still loftier and bolder strain than in the withering retort with which he struck down Wise and Marshall. In passing over the preliminaries of his discourse, he chanced to fix his eye on the latter, who was moving down one of the side aisles. Instantly, at the suggestion of the moment, he burst forth into a beautiful appeal to the hallowed memory of the venerated and immaculate Virginian who once bore the name of Marshall through a long career of judicial honor and usefulness. The general interest in this appeal to the past was impressive. The members of the house drew together around him; even his persecutors paid an involuntary tribute to 'the old man eloquent. '

 "Lord Morpeth was an attentive spectator and auditor of these scenes of turbulence; and it was interesting to see a British statesman looking up to learn from such a source the unwritten history of his own country, as well as of Europe. For such it was, when Mr. Adams gave the history of the movements at the court of the Emperor Alexander, and his connection with them, which resulted in the Russo-British alliance and in the overthrow of Napoleon. The early-chosen favorite of Washington, the trusted counsellor of Jefferson, the much-honored agent of Madison, the guide and chief support of Monroe, the restorer of the purity of the Washingtonian epoch to the Presidential chair, and for the last ten years the bold champion of universal liberty, stood there baited by absurd charges of perjury and treason, by insignificant beings of yesterday. 

 "The monument of a past age, a beacon to the present, a landmark to the future, he towered above the little things around him. The beautiful poetic appeal to Virginia, with which he concluded, caused a thrill of delighted admiration in the whole assembly. The emphasis, the pathetic intonation, touched every heart. The triumph of Mr. Adams was complete. "

On the eleventh day of this debate, Mr. Adams, in opening his defence, said that he had been charged by his assailant with consuming anunreasonable portion of the time of the house with his own affairs; buthe thought that six days could not be deemed an extravagant requirementfor the defence of a man situated as he was, when a great portion ofthat period had been consumed by his assailants, their associates, andothers. He did not desire to be responsible for any unnecessaryconsumption of the hours of debate. He wished, indeed, to state thewhole affair; and, to accomplish this, he should require a great dealmore time. He had laid out a great platform for his defence, if he wasforced to continue it; but he was willing to forego it all, provided itcould be done without sacrificing his rights, the rights of hisconstituents, and those of the petitioners. He then stated that if anygentleman would make a motion to lay the whole subject on the table, hewould forbear to proceed any further with his defence. This motion wasimmediately made by Mr. Botts, of Virginia, and the house decided inits favor, by a vote of _one hundred and six_ to _ninety-three_. Thepetition from Haverhill was then taken up and refused to be received;one hundred and sixty-six in the affirmative to forty in the negative. 

On the 12th of April, 1842, Mr. Adams, as chairman of the committee onthe Smithsonian fund, made a report in the form of a bill, the object ofwhich was to settle three fundamental principles for the administrationand management of the fund in all after time. The bill provided, First, that the principal fund should be preserved and maintained unimpaired, with an income secured upon it at the rate of six per cent. A year, fromwhich all appropriations for the purposes of the founder should be made. Second, that the portions of the income already accrued and invested instate stocks should be constituted funds, from the annual income ofwhich an astronomical observer, with suitable assistants, should besupported. Third, that in the future management of this fund no part ofit should be applied to any institution of education, or religiousestablishment. 

To the persevering spirit with which Mr. Adams on every occasion urgedupon Congress and the people of the United States the observance ofthose fundamental principles which he had first asserted and which heafterwards uninterruptedly maintained, notwithstanding a local andinterested opposition to them, may be justly attributed the preservationof that fund, and its subsequent application to the objects of thefounder's bequest, although in his prevailing desire that anastronomical observatory should be one of them, he did not succeed. Connected with this report, all the previous proceedings in relation toit were again published, for the information of Congress and the public. 

On the 14th of the same month, a bill making appropriations for thecivil and diplomatic expenses of government being under consideration, Mr. Linn, of New York, moved to strike out so much of it as related to aminister to Mexico, expressing his belief that the object of thismission was to bring about the annexation of Texas. A debate ensued, which was desultory and declamatory on the part of those advocating theappropriation. Mr. Wise, of Virginia, said that the tyrant of Mexico wasnow at war with Texas; that he threatened to invade her territory, andnever stop until he had driven slavery beyond the Sabine; and that thegentlemen opposed to the mission would let him loose his servile horde, and yet send no minister to remonstrate or to threaten. Our citizens hadclaims on that government to the amount of twelve or thirteen millions. Ten or a dozen of our citizens--of our own native citizens--were indegrading bondage in the mines of Mexico, or sweeping its streets; andyet a minister to Mexico was opposed because the President and a partyin this country wished to annex Texas to the Union. It was not only theduty of this government to demand the liquidation of our claims and theliberation of our citizens, but to go further, and demand thenon-invasion of Texas. We should at once say to Mexico, "If you strikeTexas, you strike us. " And if England, standing by, should dare tointermeddle and ask, "Do you take part with Texas?" his prompt answerwould be, "Yes, and against you. "

Mr. Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania, followed on the same side, maintainingthat Texas ought to be annexed to the Union, even at the risk of a warwith Great Britain. He said that he was a man of peace, and was notinsensible to the evils of war, but he contended that they were greatlyexaggerated. He wished the British minister to understand that war wouldnot do us so much harm as it would his own country. In the first place, if we chose to apply the principles of war, it paid all the state debtsat once, --two hundred millions of dollars. At all events, it suspendedthe interest during the war. We had a sufficient population, thecapacity of drilling that population, and all the materials for war. There were two vessels now within the sound of his voice to which therewas nothing in a British or French navy to be compared. Our lakes werecovered with transporting steamboats, which could easily be madeeffective for harbor defence. We lived in a republican country, in anarmed nation; and he would rather take this nation as it was than themost completely armed nation in the world. Having proceeded at greatlength in this strain, stating various particulars, some of which may begathered from Mr. Adams' reply, he concluded by challenging oppositionto the opinion that there was no right of search in time of war, andthat such a claim was a monstrosity. The greatest question in the world, which now agitated nearly all Christendom, was this mixed question ofthe slave-trade and the right of visit and search. To statements andarguments of this force and nature Mr. Adams made a scrutinizing andunanswerable reply, of which the following extract will sufficientlyexhibit the power and quality. 

 "The gentleman from Pennsylvania began by saying that he was for peace--for universal peace. Then followed a most learned dissertation to prove that it was an entire mistake to suppose that we are not now prepared for war; and to demonstrate that a nation which goes into a war unprepared will infallibly conquer; that it must be so; that every unarmed and unprepared nation always had conquered its armed opposers. No; we are not unprepared for war, --not at all, --because we have in sight of the windows of this capitol two armed steamers; one of them, as I am informed, nearly disabled, so that she will need, in a great measure, to be rebuilt, leaving for our use, in case of immediate hostilities, one entire steamer, and with that we are to burn London; and though the gentleman readily admitted that it was possible, nay, very probable, that New York would be burnt too, yet, as London was four or five times as large, we should have a great balance of burning on our side. Yes; we were to conquer Great Britain and burn London, and we were told that it would be a very cheap price for all this to have the city of New York burnt in turn, or burnt first. And this was an argument _for peace_!

 "What else did the gentlemen say? What else did he not say? He made a great argument and a valorous display of zeal in relation to the right of search. O, that--that was a point never to be conceded--no, never. He maintained that there is no such thing as a right of search--no such right in time of war, none in time of peace. Well, I do agree with the gentleman partially on that one point, so far as to believe that there is no need of our coming to an issue with Great Britain there, and we have not as yet. After reading, as I have done, and carefully examining the papers put forth on both sides, I asked myself, What is the question between us? And I have heard men of the first intelligence say that they found themselves in the very same situation. The gentleman has made a total misrepresentation of the demand of Great Britain in the matter. She has never claimed the right to search American vessels--no such thing. On the contrary, she has explicitly disclaimed any such pretension, and that to the whole extent we can possibly demand. What is it we do demand? Not that Great Britain should disclaim the right to search American vessels, but we deny her the right to board pirates who hoist the American flag. Yes; and to search British vessels, too, that have been declared to be pirates by the laws of nations, pirates by the laws of Great Britain, pirates by the laws of the United States. That is the demand of our late minister to London, whose letters are so much admired by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Now, it happens that behind all this exceeding great zeal against the right of search is a question which the gentleman took care not to bring into view, and that is the support and perpetuation of the African slave-trade. That is the real question between the ministers of America and Great Britain: whether slave-traders, pirates, by merely hoisting the American flag, shall be saved from capture. 

 "I say there is no such thing as an exemption from the right of search by the laws of nations, and I challenge and defy the gentleman to produce the proof. The right of search in time of war we have never pretended to deny. Nay, we ourselves exercised that right during the last war. And the Supreme Court of the United States, in their decisions of prize cases brought before them, sustained us in doing so, and said it was lawful according to the laws of nations. And, indeed, we should have had a very poor chance in a war with Great Britain, without it. 

 "But what is the right of search in time of peace? And how has Congress felt, and how has the American government acted, on this point? I have some knowledge on this subject. In the year 1817, when I was about to return from England to the United States, Mr. Wilberforce, then a member of the British Parliament, very celebrated for his long and persevering exertions to suppress the African slave-trade, wrote me a note requesting an interview. I acceded promptly to his request; and in conversation he stated to me that the British government had found that without a mutual right of search between this country and that, upon the coast of Africa, it would be impossible to carry through the system she had formed in connection with the United States for the suppression of that infamous traffic. I had then just signed with my own hand a treaty declaring 'the traffic in slaves (not the African slave-trade, but THE TRAFFIC IN SLAVES) unjust and inhuman, ' and in which both nations engaged to do all in their power to suppress it. Mr. Wilberforce inquired of me whether I thought that a proposal for a mutual, restricted, qualified right of search would be acceptable to the American government. I had at that time a feeling to the full as strong against the right of search, as it had then been exercised by British cruisers, as ever the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Ingersoll) had, in all his life. I had been myself somewhat involved in the question as a public man. It constituted one of the grounds of my unfortunate difference from those with whom I had long been politically associated; and it was for the exertions I had made against the admission of that right that I forfeited my place in the other end of the capitol, and, which was infinitely more painful to me, for this I had differed with men long dear to me, and to whom I had also been dear, insomuch that for a time it interrupted all friendly relations between us. 

 "The first thing I said, in reply to Mr. Wilberforce, was: 'No; you may as well save yourselves the trouble of making any proposals on that subject; my countrymen, I am very sure, will never assent to any such arrangement. ' He then entered into an argument, the full force of which I felt, when I said to him, 'You may, if you think proper, make the proposal; but I think some other mode of getting over the difficulty must be resorted to; for the prejudices of my country are so immovably strong on that point, that I do not believe they will ever assent. '

 "I returned home, and, under the administration of Mr. Monroe, I filled the office of Secretary of State; and in that capacity I was the medium through which the proposal of the British government was afterwards made to the United States to arrange a special right of search for the suppression of the slave-trade. This proposition I resisted and opposed in the cabinet with all my power. And I will say that, although I was not myself a slaveholder, I had to resist all the slaveholding members of the cabinet, and the President also. Mr. Monroe himself was always strongly inclined in favor of the proposition, and I maintained the opposite ground against him and the whole body of his official advisers as long as I could. 

 "At that time there was in Congress, and especially in the House, a spirit of concession, which I could not resist. From the year 1818 to the year 1823, not a session passed without some movement on this point, and some proposition made to request the President to negotiate for the mutual concession of this right of search. I resisted it to the utmost; and so earnest did the matter become, that, on one occasion, at an evening party in the President's house, in a conversation between myself and a distinguished gentleman of Virginia, --a principal leader of this movement, now living, but not now a member of this house, --words became so warm that what I said was afterwards alluded to by another gentleman of Virginia, in an address to his constituents, against my election as President of the United States. It was made an objection against me that I was an enemy to the suppression of the slave-trade. That address and my reply to it are in existence, and the latter in the hands of a gentleman of Virginia now in this house, and who can correct me if I do not state the matter correctly. The address was written, and would have been published, with an allusion to what I had said in the conversation (which the writer heard, although it was not addressed to him), but the gentleman with whom I was conversing went to him, and told him that if he did refer in print to that private conversation, he would never speak to him; and so it was suppressed. I state these facts, sir, that I may set myself right on this question of the right of search. 

 "At that time a gentleman, who was the leader of one of the parties in this house, had endeavored from year to year to prevail with the house to require of the President a concession of the right asked. I name him to honor him; for he was one of the most talented, laborious, eloquent, and useful men upon this floor. I allude to Charles Fenton Mercer, of Virginia. Session after session, he brought forward his resolution; and he continued to press it, until, finally, in 1823, he brought the house by yeas and nays to vote their assent to it; and, strange to say, there were but nine votes against it. The same thing took place in the other house. The joint resolution went to the President, and he accordingly entered into the negotiation. It was utterly against my judgment and wishes; but I was obliged to submit, and I prepared the requisite despatches to Mr. Rush, then our minister at the court of London. When he made his proposal to Mr. Canning, Mr. Canning's reply was, 'Draw up your convention, and I will sign it. ' Mr. Rush did so, and Mr. Canning, without the slightest alteration whatever, --without varying the dot of an _i_, or the crossing of a _t_, --did affix to it his signature; thus assenting to our own terms in our own language. 

 "The convention came back here for ratification; but, in the mean time, another spirit came over the feelings of this house, as well as of the Senate. A party had been formed against the administration of Mr. Monroe; the course of the administration was no longer favored, and the house came out in opposition to a convention drawn in conformity to its own previous views. 

 "But now, as I do not wish to intrude on the attention of this committee a single moment longer than is necessary, I will pass over the rest of what I might say on this subject, and recur, in a few observations, to the other war-trumpet which we have heard within the last two days. 

 "They unite in one purpose, though they seem to be pursuing it by different means. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wise), confining his observations to our relations with Mexico, also urges us to war with the same professions of a disposition for peace as were so often repeated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania in regard to Great Britain. He does not immediately connect the questions of war with Mexico and war with Great Britain, but apparently knows and feels that they are in substance and in fact but one and the same question; and that, so surely as we rush into a war with Mexico, we shall shortly find ourselves in a war with England. The gentleman appeared entirely conscious of that; and I hope that no member of this committee will come to the conclusion that it is possible for us to have a war with Mexico without at the same time going to war with Great Britain. On that subject I will venture to say that the minister from England has no instructions. That is not one of the five points on which the gentleman from Pennsylvania tells us our controversy with England rests, and the surrendering of which is to open to that minister so easy a road to an earldom. The war with Mexico is to be produced by different means, and for different purposes. I think the gentleman from Virginia, in his speech, rested the question of the war with Mexico upon three grounds: 1st, That our citizens had claims against the Mexican government to the amount of ten or twelve millions; 2d, That some ten or twelve of our citizens had been treated with great severity, and suffered disgrace and abuse from the Mexican government, having been made slaves, and compelled to work at cleansing the streets; that these citizens were detained in servitude, while one British subject had been promptly released on the first demand of the British minister there; and, 3d, That a war with Mexico would accomplish the annexation of Texas to the Union. The gentleman was in favor of war, not merely for the abstract purpose of annexing Texas to the Union, but he was for war by peremptorily prohibiting Santa Anna from invading Texas. 

 "I will take up these reasons in order. And, first, as to going to war for the obtaining of these ten or twelve millions of dollars, being the claims of our own citizens on Mexico. This seems a very extraordinary reason, when, according to the doctrine of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, a state of war at once extinguishes all national debts. If we go to war with Mexico, her debts to our citizens will be expunged at once, if the doctrine of the gentleman from Pennsylvania be true. He did, to be sure, qualify the position by saying that war would at least suspend the payment of interest. If so, then it would equally suspend interest in the case of Mexico. The arguments of the two war gentlemen happen to cross each other, though they are directed to the same end. One of them will have us go to war with Mexico to recover twelve millions of dollars; the other would have us go to war with England to wipe out a debt of two hundred millions. I will not compare the arguments of the two gentlemen together; but I will say, in regard to the doctrine of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that it has quite too much of repudiation in it for my creed. I do not think that a war with England would extinguish these two hundred millions, but that, on the contrary, Great Britain would be likely to say to us, 'We will go to war to recover the money you owe us, ' That is one of the questions which we must settle if we go to war, but which we might otherwise, at least for a time, stave off. But, if we go to war, what must be the effect of the peace that follows? We must pay our two hundred millions, with the interest. As to our debt from Mexico, I believe the way to recover it is not to go to war for it; for war, besides failing to recover the money, will occasion us the loss of ten times the amount in other ways. 

 "As to war producing a suspension of interest on a national debt, let the gentleman look back a little to the wars of France. In 1793 France was at war with almost all the countries of Europe, and she immediately confiscated all her debts to them. But what happened thirty years after, when the reäction came? The allies took Paris, and, in the settlement which then took place, they compelled France to pay all her debts, with full interest on the whole period during which payment had been suspended. That was the consequence to France of going to war to extinguish debts. And, if we go to war with Great Britain to-morrow, she will make us, as one of the conditions of peace, pay our whole debt of two hundred millions, with interest. And what shall we gain? Spend millions upon millions every year, as long as the war continues; and, unless it is greatly successful, have to pay our debt at last, principal and interest. This would depend on the chances of war, or the issues of battle. And, as our contests would be chiefly on the ocean, we must first obtain a superiority on the seas before we can put her down and vanquish her; and this to save ourselves from the payment of two hundred millions justly due from our citizens to hers!

 "There is a second reason given by the gentleman from Virginia in favor of war. He reminds us, with great warmth, that there are some ten or twelve citizens of the United States now prisoners in the city of Mexico, and dragging chains about the streets of that city; that a British subject taken with them has been liberated, while they are kept in bondage. Now, if I am correctly informed, one American citizen, a son of General Coombs, has been liberated on the application of the minister of the United States, who was as fairly a subject of imprisonment as the British subject of whom the gentleman speaks. I certainly have no objections to our minister's making such representations as he can in favor of the release of citizens of the United States, although taken in actual war against Mexico, in association with Texian forces; but I am not prepared to go to war to obtain their liberation. I must first be permitted to ask how it is that these men happen to be in the streets of Mexico. Is it not because they formed part of an expedition got up in Texas against the Mexican city of Santa Fé? Were they not taken _flagrante bello_, actually engaged in a war they had nothing to do with, to which the United States were no party? In all this great pity and sympathy for American citizens made to travel hundreds of miles barefoot and in chains, the question 'How came they there?' seems never to be asked. And yet, so far as the interposition of this nation for their recovery is concerned, that is the very first question to be asked. 

 "I come now to the third ground for war urged by the gentleman from Virginia, and I hope I do not misrepresent him when I say that I understood him to affirm that if he had the power he would prohibit the invasion of Texas by Mexico; and if Mexico would not submit to such a requirement, and should persist in her invasion, he would go to war. The gentleman stated, as a ground for war, that Santa Anna had avowed his determination to 'drive slavery beyond the Sabine. ' That was what the gentleman from Virginia most apprehended--that slavery would be abolished in Texas; that we should have neighbors at our doors not contaminated by that accursed plague-spot. He would have war with Mexico sooner than slavery should be driven back to the United States, whence it came. If that is to be the avowed opinion of this committee, in God's name let my constituents know it! The sooner it is proclaimed on the house-tops, the better--the house is to go to war with Mexico for the purpose of annexing Texas to this Union!"

 CHAPTER XIII. 

REPORT ON PRESIDENT TYLER'S APPROVAL, WITH OBJECTIONS, OF THE BILL FORTHE APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. --REPORT ON HIS VETO OF THE BILLTO PROVIDE A REVENUE FROM IMPORTS. --LECTURE ON THE SOCIAL COMPACT, ANDTHE THEORIES OF FILMER, HOBBES, SYDNEY, AND LOCKE. --ADDRESS TO HISCONSTITUENTS ON THE POLICY OF PRESIDENT TYLER'S ADMINISTRATION. --ADDRESSTO THE NORFOLK COUNTY TEMPERANCE SOCIETY. --DISCOURSE ON THE NEW ENGLANDCONFEDERACY OF 1643. --LETTER TO THE CITIZENS OF BANGOR ON WEST INDIAEMANCIPATION. --ORATION ON LAYING THE CORNER-STONE OF THE CINCINNATIOBSERVATORY. 

On the 23d of June, 1842, President Tyler announced to the House ofRepresentatives that he had signed and approved an act for theapportionment of representatives among the several states, and haddeposited the same in the office of the Secretary of State, accompaniedwith his reasons for giving to it his sanction; by which it appearedthat, after having officially "approved" that act, he had declared, ineffect, that _he did not approve of it_, having doubts concerningboth its constitutionality and expediency, and that he had signed itonly in deference to the opinions of both houses of Congress. Mr. Adams, from the committee to whom these proceedings of the President had beenreferred, in a report to the House severely scrutinizes the course ofthe President in this respect. He declares that the duty of thePresident, in exercising the authority given him by the constitution tosign and approve acts of Congress, is prescribed in terms equallyconcise and precise; and that it has given him no power to alter, amend, comment upon, or assign his reasons for the performance of his duty. These views he illustrates by a minute examination of the language ofthat instrument, and shows that what the President had done was adeparture not only from the language but from the substance of the lawprescribing to him his duties in that respect. Mr. Adams then, in behalfof the committee, after showing that the proceeding of the President inthis instance is without precedent or example, and imminently dangerousin its tendencies, proceeds to remark:

 "The entry upon the bill is, 'Approved: John Tyler;' and that entry makes it the law of the land; and then, by a private note deposited with the law in the Department of State, the same hand which, under the sacred obligation of an official oath, has written the word '_approved_, ' and added the sign-manual of his name, feels it due to himself to declare that the bill is not approved, and that he doubts both its constitutionality and its policy, and that he signs it only in deference to the declared _will_ of both houses of Congress; not from assent to their reasons, but in submission to their _will_. 

 "And he feels it due to himself to say this, --first, that his motives for signing it may be rightly understood; secondly, that his opinions may not be liable to be misunderstood, or, thirdly, quoted hereafter erroneously as a precedent. The motives of a President of the United States for signing an act of Congress can be no other than because he approves it; and because, in that event, the constitution enjoins it upon him to sign it as a duty, which he has sworn to perform, and with which he cannot dispense. 

 "But no; in the present case the President feels it due to himself to say that his motives for signing the bill were not because he approved it, or because it was made by the constitution his duty to sign it, but to prove his submission to the will of Congress. He feels it due also to himself to guard against the liability of his opinions to misconstruction, or to be quoted hereafter erroneously as a precedent. His signature to the bill, preceded by the word '_approved_, ' taken in connection with the duties prescribed to the President of the United States by the constitution, certainly was liable to the construction that his opinions were favorable to the bill. They were, indeed, liable to no other construction respectful to him, or trustful to his honor and sincerity; nor can there be a doubt that they would have been quoted hereafter as a precedent. No man living could have imagined that the word '_approved_' could be construed to mean either doubt or obsequious submission to the will of others; and it is with extreme regret that the committee see, in the President's exposition of his reasons for signing an act of Congress, the open avowal that, in his vocabulary, used in the performance of one of the most solemn and sacred of his duties, the word '_approved_' means not approval, but doubt; not the expression of his own opinions, but mere obsequiousness to the will of Congress. "

The report proceeds to deny that the example of the advice given by thefirst Secretary of State to the first President of the United States, which the President adduces in his support, and the following thatadvice by that President, gave any "sanction to such recordedduplicity. " It asserts that such an example is of dangerous tendency--anencroachment by the Executive on legislative functions; that the reasonsgiven by President Tyler are a running commentary against the law, against its execution according to the intention of the legislature, andforestalling the appropriate action of the judicial tribunals inexpounding it. These and consentaneous views the report largelyillustrates, and concludes with a resolution declaring the proceedingsof the President in this case to have been unwarranted by theconstitution and laws of the United States, injurious to the publicinterest, and of evil example in future; solemnly protesting against itsever being repeated, or adduced as a precedent hereafter. 

On the 9th of August, 1842, President Tyler returned to the House ofRepresentatives the bill to provide a revenue from imports, and changingthe existing laws imposing duties on them, accompanied with hisobjections to it. The house referred the subject to a select committee, of which Mr. Adams was chairman. On the 16th of August he reported thatthe message was the last of a series of executive measures, the resultof which had been to defeat and nullify the whole action of thelegislative authority of the Union upon the most important interests ofthe nation;--that, at the accession of the late President Harrison, therevenue and the credit of the country were so completely disordered, that a suffering people had commanded a change in the administration;and the elections throughout the Union had placed in both houses ofCongress majorities, the natural exponents of the principles which itwas the will of the people should be substituted instead of those whichhad brought the country to a condition of such wretchedness andshame;--that there was a perfect harmony between the chosen President ofthe people and this majority; but that, by an inscrutable decree ofProvidence, the chief of the people's choice, in harmony with whoseprinciples the majorities of both houses had been constituted, was laidlow in death. A successor to the office had assumed the title, withtotally different principles, who, though professing to harmonize withthe principles of his immediate predecessor, and with the majorities inboth houses of Congress, soon disclosed his diametrical opposition tothem. 

The report then proceeds to show the several developments of this newand most unfortunate condition of the general government, effected by "asystem of continual and unrelenting exercise of executive legislation, "--bythe alternate gross abuse of constitutional power, and bold assumptionof powers never vested in him by any law, --resulting in four severalvetoes, which, in the course of fifteen months, had suspended thelegislation of the Union. It then states and comments upon the reasonsassigned by the President for returning this bill to the House ofRepresentatives, with his objections to it, as specified in the vetomessage referred to this committee; and, after a rigid analysis andcourse of argument, pronounces them "feeble, inconsistent, andunsatisfactory;" after which the report proceeds:

 "They perceive that the whole legislative power of the Union has been, for the last fifteen months, with regard to the action of Congress upon measures of vital importance, in a state of suspended animation, strangled by the _five_ times repeated stricture of the executive cord. They observe that, under these unexampled obstructions to the exercise of their high and legitimate duties, they have hitherto preserved the most respectful forbearance towards the Executive Chief; that while he has time after time annulled, by the mere act of his will, their commission from the people to enact laws for the common welfare, they have forborne even the expression of their resentment for these multiplied insults and injuries. They believed they had a high destiny to fulfil, by administering to the people, in the form of law, remedies for the sufferings which they had too long endured. The will of one man has frustrated all their labors, and prostrated all their powers. The majority of the committee believe that the case has occurred, in the annals of our Union, contemplated by the founders of the constitution, by the grant to the House of Representatives of the power to impeach the President of the United States; but they are aware that the resort to that expedient might, in the present condition of public affairs, prove abortive. They see the irreconcilable difference of opinion and of action between the legislative and executive departments of the government is but sympathetic with the same discordant views and feelings among the people. To them alone the final issue of the struggle must be left. In sorrow and mortification, under the failure of all their labors to redeem the honor and prosperity of their country, it is a cheering consolation to them that the termination of their own official existence is at hand; that they are even now about to return to receive the sentence of their constituents upon themselves; that the legislative power of the Union, crippled and disabled as it may now be, is about to pass, renovated and revivified by the will of the people, into other hands, upon whom will devolve the task of providing that remedy for the public distempers which their own honest and agonizing energies have in vain endeavored to supply. 

 "The power of the present Congress to enact laws essential to the welfare of the people has been struck with apoplexy by the executive hand. Submission to his will is the only condition upon which he will permit them to act. For the enactment of a measure, earnestly recommended by himself, he forbids their action, unless coupled with a condition declared by himself to be on a subject so totally different that he will not suffer them to be coupled in the same law. With that condition Congress cannot comply. In this state of things he has assumed, as the committee fully believe, the exercise of the whole legislative power to himself, and is levying millions of money upon the people, without any authority of law. But the final decision of this question depends neither upon legislative nor executive, but upon judicial authority; nor can the final decision of the Supreme Court upon it be pronounced before the close of the present Congress. In the mean time, the abusive exercise of the constitutional power of the President to arrest the action of Congress upon measures vital to the welfare of the people has wrought conviction upon the minds of a majority of the committee that the veto power itself must be restrained and modified by an amendment of the constitution itself; a resolution for which they accordingly herewith respectfully report. "

The report was signed by ten members of the committee, including thechairman. The resolution with which it closed provided for submitting tothe States a proposed modification of the constitution, by substitutingthe words "majority of the whole number, " instead of the words "twothirds, " by which the power of the House of Representatives to pass alaw, notwithstanding the veto of the President, is at presentrestricted. 

The report was agreed to in the house by a majority of one hundred ayesto ninety nays, and the resolution itself passed by a majority ofninety-eight ayes to ninety nays; but the constitution, in such cases, requiring two thirds majority, it was of consequence rejected. 

In November, 1842, Mr. Adams delivered a lecture before the FranklinLyceum, at Providence, Rhode Island, on the Social Compact, in which heenters into "an examination of the principles of democracy, aristocracy, and universal suffrage, as exemplified in a historical review of thepresent constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with somenotice of the origin of human government, and remarks on the theories ofdivine right, as maintained by Hobbes and Sir Robert Filmer, on oneside, and by Sydney, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau, on the other. "

He shows, from the history of Massachusetts, that the fundamentalprinciple asserted in the fifth article of our declaration of rights, that all power resides originally in _the people_, is derived from theabove-named writers, and explains how this power has been practicallyexercised by the people of that state. The assertion of Rousseau, thatthe social compact can be formed only by unanimous consent, because therule itself that a majority of votes shall prevail can only beestablished by agreement, that is, by compact, Mr. Adams controverts, maintaining in opposition to it that the social compact constitutingthe body-politic is, and by the law of nature must be, a compact notmerely of individuals, but of families. On this view of the subject helargely animadverts. The philosophical examination of the foundationsof civil society, of human governments, and of the rights and duties ofman, he views as among the consequences of the Protestant Reformation. The question raised by Martin Luther involved the whole theory of _therights_ of individual man, paramount to all human authority. Thetalisman of _human rights_ dissolved the spell of political as well asof ecclesiastical power. The Calvinists of Geneva and the Puritans ofEngland contested the right of kings to prescribe articles of faith totheir people, and this question necessarily drew after it the generalquestion of the origin of all human government. In search of itsprinciple, Hobbes, a royalist, affirmed that the state of naturebetween man and man was a state of war, whence it followed thatgovernment originated in _conquest_. This theory is directly oppositeto that of Jesus Christ. It cuts the gordian knot with the sword, extinguishes all the rights of man, and makes fear the corner-stone ofgovernment. It is the only theory upon which slavery can be justified, as conformable to the law of nature. This is Sir John Falstaff's law, when, speaking of Justice Shallow, he says, "If the young dace be abait for the old pike, I see no reason in _the law of nature_ why I maynot snap at _him_. " Sir Robert Filmer, by a theory far more plausible, though not more sound, than that of Hobbes, derived the origin of humangovernment from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, from the grant ofthe earth to Adam, and afterwards to Noah. 

But the vital error of Filmer was in assuming that the naturalauthority of the father over the child was either permanent orunlimited; and still more that the authority of the husband over thewife was unlimited. Sir Robert Filmer did not perceive that by the lawsof nature and of God every individual human being is born with rightswhich no other individual, or combination of individuals, can takeaway; that all exercise of human authority must be under the limitationof right and wrong; and that all despotic power over human beings isexercised in _defiance_ of the laws of nature and of God--all, Sir JohnFalstaff's law of nature between the young dace and the old pike. 

The history of Filmer's work was remarkable. It was composed andpublished in the heat of the struggle between King Charles the Firstand the Commons of England, which terminated in the overthrow of themonarchy, and in the death of King Charles upon the scaffold. It wasthe theory of government on which _the cause_ of the house of Stuartwas sustained. No man can be surprised that such a cause was swept awayby a moral and political whirlwind; that it carried with it all theinstitutions of civil society, so that its march was a wild desolation. James, by relying on the principles of Filmer's theory, fell back intothe arms of the Church of Rome, and vainly struggled to turn back thetide of religious reformation, and revive the divine right of kings, and passive obedience, and non-resistance. The republican spirit hadslumbered on the white cliffs of Albion, and in his sleep, like theman-mountain in Lilliput, had been pinned down to the earth by thethreads of a spider's web for cords. On the first reäppearance ofFilmer's book, he awoke, and, like the strong man in Israel, at thecost of his own life, shook down the temple of Dagon, and buriedhimself and the Philistines again under its ruins. 

The discourses of John Locke concerning government demolished whilethey immortalized the work of Filmer, whose name and book are nowremembered only to be detested. But the first principles of morals andpolitics, which have long been settled, acquire the authority ofself-evident truths, which, when first discussed, may have beenvehemently and portentously contested. John Locke, a kindred soul toAlgernon Sydney, seven years after his death published an elaboratesystem of government, in which he declares the "false principles andfoundation of Sir Robert Filmer and his followers are detected andoverthrown. " Subsequently, he published an essay concerning the trueoriginal extent and end of civil government. "The principles, " says Mr. Adams, "of Sydney and Locke constitute the foundation of the NorthAmerican Declaration of Independence; and, together with the subsequentwritings of Montesquieu and Rousseau, that of the constitution of theCommonwealth of Massachusetts, and of the constitution of the UnitedStates. " Neither of these constitutions separately, nor the two incombined harmony, can, without a gross and fraudulent perversion oflanguage, be termed a _Democracy_. They are neither democracy, aristocracy, nor monarchy. They form together a mixed government, compounded not only of the three elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy, but with a fourth added element, _Confederacy_. Theconstitution of the United States when adopted was so far from beingconsidered as a democracy, that Patrick Henry charged it, in theVirginia Convention, with an awful squinting towards monarchy. Thetenth number of the Federalist, written by James Madison, is anelaborate and unanswerable essay upon the vital and radical differencebetween a democracy and a republic. But it is impossible to disconnectthe relation between names and things. When the anti-federal partydropped the name of Republicans to assume that of _Democrats_, theirprinciples underwent a corresponding metamorphosis; and they are nowthe most devoted and most obsequious champions of executive power--thevery life-guard of the commander of the armies and navies of thisUnion. The name of Democracy was assumed because it was discovered tobe _very taking_ among the multitude; yet, after all, it is but theinvestment of the _multitude_ with absolute power. The constitutions ofthe United States and of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are both thework of the people--one of the Union, the other of the State--not ofthe whole people by the phantom of universal suffrage, but of the wholepeople by that portion of them capable of contracting for the whole. They are not democracy, nor aristocracy, nor monarchy, but a compoundof them all, of which democracy is the oxygen, or vital air, too purein itself for human respiration, but which in the union of otherelements, equally destructive in themselves and less pure, forms thatmoral and political atmosphere in which we live, and move, and have ourbeing. 

The preceding abstract, given almost wholly in the language of Mr. Adams, shows the general drift of this characteristic essay. 

On the 17th of September, 1842, a convention of delegates from thedistrict he represented received Mr. Adams at Braintree, and expressedtheir thanks for his services on the floor of Congress, especially forhis fidelity in their defence "against every attempt of Southernrepresentatives and their Northern allies to sacrifice at the altar ofslavery the freedom of speech and the press, the right of petition, theprotection of free labor, and the immunities and privileges of Northerncitizens. " Mr. Adams, in reply, after expressing his sensibility attheir unabated confidence in the integrity of his intentions, and in hiscapacity to serve them, declared that it had been his endeavor todischarge all the duties of his station "faithfully and gratefully tothem; faithfully to our native and beloved Commonwealth; faithfully toour whole common country, the North American Union; faithfully to theworld of mankind, in every quarter of the globe, and under every varietyof condition or complexion; faithfully to that creator, God, who rulesthe world in justice and mercy, and to whom our final account must bemade up by the standard of those attributes. " He then proceeded tostate, that on receiving their invitation to attend that meeting, it hadbeen his intention to avail himself of the opportunity to unfold to themthe professions, principles, and practices, of the federaladministration of these United States, under the successive Presidentsinvested with executive power, from the day when he took his seat astheir representative in Congress to the then present hour. 

 "I trusted it would be in my power to present to your contemplation, not only the outward and ostensible indications of federal policy, proclaimed and trumpeted abroad as the maxims of the Jackson, Van Buren, and Tyler administrations, but to lay bare their secret purposes, and never yet divulged designs for the future government or dissolution of this Union. 

 "Further reflection convinced me that this exposition would require more time than you could possibly devote to one meeting to hear me. My friend and colleague, Mr. Appleton, has, in an answer to an invitation of his constituents to a public dinner, lifted a corner of the veil, and opened a glance at the monstrous and horrible object beneath it; but South Carolina nullification itself, with its appendages of separation, secession, and the forty-bale theory, was but the struggles of Quixotism dreaming itself Genius, to erect on the basis of state sovereignty a system for seating South Carolina slavery on the throne of this Union in the event of success; or of severing the present Union, and instituting, with a tier of embryo Southern States to be wrested from the dismemberment of Mexico, a Southern slaveholding confederation to balance the free Republic of the North. 

 "'The passage, ' says Mr. Appleton, 'of the revenue bill imposing discriminating duties with a view to the protection and encouragement of American industry, is, under the circumstances, an event of the very highest importance. Notwithstanding the system had been formerly established in 1816, and fortified by succeeding legislation; notwithstanding its success in the development of our resources and the establishment of manufactures and arts, surpassing the expectation of the most sanguine; notwithstanding the immense investments of capital made on the faith of the national legislation inviting such application, the attempt was seriously entertained of breaking down this whole system, with a reckless disregard of consequences, either in the wanton destruction of capital, or, what is far more important, in the general paralysis of the industry of the country. _The origin of this attempt may be traced to the mad ambition of certain politicians of South Carolina, who, in 1832, formed the project of a Southern Confederacy, severed from the rest of the Union, with that state for its centre, as affording more security to the slave states for their peculiar institutions than exist under the general government. _

 "'This project led to the invention of a theory of political economy, which was maintained with an ingenuity and perseverance worthy of a better cause, founded on the assumption that all imports are, in effect, direct taxes upon exports. So indefatigable were the promulgators of this theory, that the whole South was made to believe that a protective tariff was a system of plunder levied upon their productions of cotton, rice, and tobacco, which constituted the bulk of our exports to foreign markets. '"

Mr. Adams then proceeds to state that the principles of nullificationwere never more inflexibly maintained, never more inexorably pursued, than they had been by all that portion of the South which had giventhem countenance, from the day of the death of William Henry Harrisonto the present, and that nullification is the creed of the executivemansion at Washington, the acting President's _conscience_, and thewoof of all his vetoes. 

"Nullification, " he adds, "portentous and fatal as it is to theprospects and welfare of this Union, is not the only instrument ofSouthern domination wielded by the executive arm at Washington. Thedismemberment of our neighboring republic of Mexico, and the acquisitionof an immense portion of her territories, was a gigantic and darlingproject of Andrew Jackson, and is another instrument wielded for thesame purpose. 

 "Within five weeks after the proclamation of the constitution of the Republic of Texas followed the battle of San Jacinto; and from that day the struggles of the Southern politicians, who ruled the councils of this nation, were for upwards of two years unremitting, and unrestrained by any principles of honor, honesty, and truth: openly avowed, and audaciously proclaimed, whenever they dared; clandestinely pursued, under delusive masks and false colors, whenever the occasion required. 

 "No sooner was the event of the battle of San Jacinto known than memorials and resolutions, from various parts of the Union, were poured in upon Congress, calling upon that body for the immediate recognition of the independence of the Republic of Texas. Many of these memorials and resolutions came from the free states, and one of them from the Legislature of Connecticut, then blindly devoted to the rank Southern, sectional policy of the Jackson administration, by that infatuation of Northern sympathy with Southern interests, which Mr. Appleton points out to our notice, and the true purposes of which had already been sufficiently divulged in an address of Mr. Clement C. Clay to the Legislature of Alabama. But there was another more hidden impulse to this extreme solicitude for the recognition of the independence of Texas working in the free states, quite as ready to assume the mask and cap of liberty as the slave-dealing champions of the rights of man. The Texan land and liberty jobbers had spread the contagion of their land-jobbing traffic all over the free states throughout the Union. Land-jobbing, stock-jobbing, slave-jobbing, rights-of-man-jobbing, were all, hand in hand, sweeping over the land like a hurricane. The banks were plunging into desperate debts, preparing for a universal suspension of specie payment, under the shelter of legislative protection to flood the country with irredeemable paper. Gambling speculation was the madness of the day; and, in the wide-spread ruin which we are now witnessing as the last stage of this moral pestilence, Texan bonds and Texan lands form no small portion of the fragments from the wreck of money corporations contributing their assets of two or three cents to the dollar. All these interests furnished vociferous declaimers for the recognition of Texan independence. "

Mr. Adams next states the proceedings of Congress on this subject duringthe whole of the residue of the Jackson administration, terminating withthe recognition by Congress of the independence of Texas. At this periodMr. Van Buren--a Northern man with Southern principles--assumed thefunctions of President of the United States. But the recognition of theindependence of Texas availed nothing without her annexation to theUnited States. In October, 1837, a formal proposition from the Republicof Texas for such annexation was communicated to Congress, with thestatement that it had been declined by Mr. Van Buren. But the passionfor the annexation of Texas was not to be so disconcerted. Memorials forand against its annexation poured into Congress, and were referred tothe Committee on Foreign Affairs. "In the debate which arose from theirreport, " says Mr. Adams, "I exposed the whole system of duplicity andperfidy towards Mexico, which had marked the Jackson administration fromits commencement to its close. It silenced the clamors for theannexation of Texas to this Union for three years, till the catastropheof the Van Buren administration. The people of the free states werelulled into the belief that the whole project was abandoned, and thatthey should hear no more of the slave-trade cravings for the annexationof Texas. Had Harrison lived, they would have heard no more of it tothis day. But no sooner was John Tyler installed into the President'shouse than nullification, and Texas, and war with Mexico, rose againupon the surface, with eye steadily fixed upon the polar star ofSouthern slave-dealing supremacy in the government of the Union. "

Mr. Adams then comments upon the history of the Santa Fé expedition, which was fitted out in the summer of 1841, shortly after the accessionof Mr. Tyler, by the then President of Texas, having been originated andconcerted within these states, and carried on chiefly by citizens of theUnited States. That it was known, countenanced, and encouraged, at thepresidential house, was, said Mr. Adams, more than questioned; for, while it was on foot, and before it was known, frequent hints were givenin public journals, moved by Executive impulse, that at the comingsession the annexation of Texas was to be introduced by a citizen of thehighest distinction. "But the Texan expedition was ill-starred. Insteadof taking and rioting upon the beauty and booty of Santa Fé, they wereall captured themselves, without even the glory of putting a price ontheir lives. They surrendered without firing a gun. " The failure of thisexpedition discomfited the war faction in Congress, and injured for amoment, and only for a moment, the project to which Southernnullification clung with the grasp of death. 

Mr. Adams next proceeds to exhibit the evidence to show "theparticipation of the administration at Washington with this incursion ofbanditti from Texas against Santa Fé, " and to explain "the legislativeexploit" by which the treasury of the United States was made tocontribute to "the dismemberment of Mexico, and the annexation of animmense portion of its territory to the slave representation of theUnion. " The internal evidence he regarded as irresistible that "theexpedition against Santa Fé was planned within your boundaries, andcommitted to the execution of your citizens, under the shelter ofMexican banners and commissions. "

In the subsequent portion of this address Mr. Adams, regarding theprinciples of nullification as being at the basis of Mr. Tyler's wholepolicy, enters at large into its nature, and thus speaks of its originand association with democracy:

 "Let me advert again to the important disclosure in the letter of Mr. Appleton to his constituents, from which I have taken the liberty of reading to you an extract. Nullification was generated in the hot-bed of slavery. It drew its first breath in the land where the meaning of the word democracy is that a majority of the people are the goods and chattels of the minority; that more than one half of the people are not men, women, and children, but things, to be treated by their owners, not exactly like dogs and horses, but like tables, chairs, and joint-stools; that they are not even fixtures to the soil, as in countries where servitude is divested of its most hideous features, --not even beings in the mitigated degradation from humanity of beasts, or birds, or creeping things, --but destitute not only of the sensibilities of our own race of men, but of the sensations of all animated nature. That is the native land of nullification, and it is a theory of constitutional law worthy of its origin. _Democracy_, pure democracy, has at least its foundation in a generous theory of human rights. It is founded on the natural equality of mankind. It is the corner-stone of the Christian religion. It is the first _element_ of _all_ lawful government upon earth. Democracy is self-government of the community by the conjoint will of the majority of numbers. What communion, what affinity, can there be between that principle and nullification, which is the despotism of a corporation--unlimited, unrestrained, _sovereign_ power? Never, never was amalgamation so preposterous and absurd as that of nullification and democracy. "

Of the hostility of nullification to the prosperity of the free stateshe thus speaks:

 "The root of the doctrine of nullification is that if the internal improvement of the country should be left to the legislative management of the national government, and the proceeds of the sales of the public lands should be applied as a perpetual and self-accumulating fund for that purpose, the blessings unceasingly showered upon the people by this process would so grapple the affections of the people to the national authority, that it would, in process of time, overshadow that of the state governments, and settle the preponderancy of power in the free states; and then the undying worm of conscience twinges with terror for the fate of _the peculiar institution_. Slavery stands aghast at the prospective promotion of the general welfare, and flies to nullification for defence against the energies of freedom, and the inalienable rights of man. "

After stating and commenting upon the policy of General Jackson, ashaving for its object the "dismembering of Mexico, and restoring slaveryto Texas, and of surrounding the South with a girdle of slave states, toeternize the blessings of the peculiar institution, and spread them likea garment of praise over the whole North American Union, " he explainedthe effect of party divisions always operating in the United States, andthe character of the several proportions of their power. Their results, in tending to revive and strengthen slavery and the slave-trade, whichMr. Adams then foretold, excited melancholy anticipations in the mind ofevery reflecting freeman. What was then prophecy is now history. 

 "There are two different party divisions always operating in the House of Representatives of the United States, --one sectional, North and South, or, in other words, slave and free; the other political--both sides of which have been known at different times by different names, but are now usually denominated Whigs and Democrats. The Southern or slave party, outnumbered by the free, are cemented together by a common, intense interest of property to the amount of twelve hundred millions of dollars in human beings, the very existence of which is neither allowed nor tolerated in the North. It is the opinion of many theoretical reasoners on the subject of government that, whatever may be its form, the ruling power of every nation is its property. Mr. Van Buren, in one of his messages to Congress, gravely pointed out to them the anti-republican tendencies of associated wealth. Reflect now upon the tendencies of twelve hundred millions of dollars of associated wealth, directly represented in your national legislature by one hundred members, together with one hundred and forty members representing persons only--freemen, not chattels. Reflect, also, that this twelve hundred millions of dollars of property is peculiar in its character, and comes under a classification once denominated by a Governor of Virginia _property acquired by crime_; that it sits uneasy upon the conscience of its owner; that, in the purification of human virtue, and the progress of the Christian religion, it has become, and is daily becoming, more and more odious; that Washington and Jefferson, themselves slaveholders, living and dying, bore testimony against it; that it was the dying REMORSE of John Randolph; that it is renounced and abjured by the supreme pontiff of the Roman Church, abolished with execration by the Mahometan despot of Tunis, shaken to its foundations by the imperial autocrat of all the Russias and the absolute monarch of Austria;--all, all bearing reluctant and extorted testimony to the self-evident truth that, by the laws of nature and nature's God, man cannot be the property of man. Recollect that the first cry of human feeling against this unhallowed outrage upon human rights came from ourselves--from the Quakers of Pennsylvania; that it passed from us to England, from England to France, and spread over the civilized world; that, after struggling for nearly a century against the most sordid interests and most furious passions of man, it made its way at length into the Parliament, and ascended the throne, of the British Isles. The slave-trade was made piracy first by the Congress of the United States, and then by the Parliament of Great Britain. 

 "But the curse fastened by the progress of Christian charity and of human rights upon the African slave-trade could not rest there. If the African slave-trade was piracy, the coasting American slave-trade could not be innocent, nor could its aggravated turpitude be denied. In the sight of the same God who abhors the iniquity of the African slave-trade, neither the American slave-trade nor slavery itself can be held guiltless. From the suppression of the African slave-trade, therefore, the British Parliament, impelled by the irresistible influence of the British people, proceeded to point the battery of its power against slavery itself. At the expense of one hundred millions of dollars, it abolished slavery, and emancipated all the slaves in the British transatlantic colonies; and the government entered upon a system of negotiation with all the powers of the world for the ultimate extinction of slavery throughout the globe. 

 "The utter and unqualified inconsistency of slavery, in any of its forms, with the principles of the North American Revolution, and the Declaration of our Independence, had so forcibly struck the Southern champions of our rights, that the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of slaves was a darling project of Thomas Jefferson from his first entrance into public life to the last years of his existence. But the associated wealth of the slaveholders outweighed the principles of the Revolution, and by the constitution of the United States a compromise was established between slavery and freedom. The extent of the sacrifice of principle made by the North in this compromise can be estimated only by its practical effects. The principle is that the House of Representatives of the United States is a representation only of the persons and freedom of the North, and of the persons, property, and slavery, of the South. Its practical operation has been to give the balance of power in the house, and in every department of the government, into the hands of the minority of numbers. For practical results look to the present composition of your government in all its departments. The President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, are all slaveholders. The Chief Justice and four out of the nine Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States are slaveholders. The commander-in-chief of your army and the general next in command are slaveholders. A vast majority of all the officers of your navy, from the highest to the lowest, are slaveholders. Of six heads of the executive departments, three are slaveholders; securing thus, with the President, a majority in all cabinet consultations and executive councils. From the commencement of this century, upwards of forty years, the office of Chief Justice has always been held by slaveholders; and when, upon the death of Judge Marshall, the two senior justices upon the bench were citizens of the free states, and unsurpassed in eminence of reputation both for learning in the law and for spotless integrity, they were both overlooked and overslaughed by a slaveholder, far inferior to either of them in reputation as a lawyer, and chiefly eminent for his obsequious servility to the usurpations of Andrew Jackson, for which this unjust elevation to the Supreme Judicial bench was the reward. 

 "As to the house itself, if an article of the constitution had prescribed, or a standing rule of the house had required, that no other than a slaveholder should ever be its Speaker, the regulation could not be more rigorously observed than it is by the compact movements of the slave representation in the house. Of the last six speakers of the house, including the present, every one has been a slaveholder. It is so much a matter of course to see such a person in the chair, that, if a Northern man but thinks of aspiring to the chair, he is only made a laughing-stock for the house. 

 "With such consequences staring us in the face, what are we to think when we are told that the government of the United States is a democracy of numbers--a government by a majority of the people? Do you not see that the one hundred representatives of persons, property, and slavery, marching in solid phalanx upon every question of interest to their constituents, will always outnumber the one hundred and forty representatives only of persons and freedom, scattered as their votes will always be by conflicting interests, prejudices, and passions?

 "But this is not all. The second party division in the house to which I have alluded is political, and known at present by the names of Whigs and Democrats, or Locofocos. The latter are remarkable for an exquisite tenderness of affection for _the people_, and especially for the poor, provided their skins are white, and against the rich. But it is no less remarkable that the princely slaveholders of the South are among the most thoroughgoing of the Democrats; and their alliance with the Northern Democracy is one of the cardinal points of their policy. "

The residue of this address is devoted to a searching and severeexamination of the whole course of President Tyler's administration, showing that "the sectional division of parties--in other words, theconflict between freedom and slavery--is the axle round which theadministration of the national government revolves. " "The politicaldivisions with him, and with all Southern statesmen of his stamp, aremere instruments of power to purchase auxiliary support to the cause ofslavery even from the freemen of the North. "

In closing this most illustrative address, he apologizes to hisconstituents for any language he may have used in debate which might bedeemed harsh or acrimonious, and asks them to consider the adversarieswith whom he had to contend; the virulence and rancor, unparalleled inthe history of the country, with which he had been pursued; and toremember that, "for the single offence of persisting to assert the rightof the people to petition, and the freedom of speech and of the press, he had been twice dragged before the house to be censured and expelled. "One of his assailants, Thomas F. Marshall, had declared, in an addressto his constituents, his motives for the past, and his purposes for thefuture, in the following words:

 "Though petitions to dissolve the Union be poured in by thousands, I shall not again interfere on the floor of Congress, since the house have virtually declared that there is nothing contemptuous or improper in offering them, and are willing again to afford Mr. Adams an opportunity of sweeping all the strings of discord that exist in our country. I acted as I thought for the best, being sincerely desirous to check that man, who, if he could be removed from the councils of the nation, or _silenced_ on the exasperating subject to which he seems to have devoted himself, _none other, I believe, could be found hardy enough, or bad enough, to fill his place_. "

"Besides this special and avowed malevolence against me, " Mr. Adamsremarks, --"this admitted purpose to expel or silence me, for the sakeof brow-beating all other members of the free representation, byestablishing over them the reign of terror, --a peculiar system oftactics in the house has been observed towards me, by _silencers_ ofthe slave representation and their allies of the Northern Democracy. "

The system of tactics to which he alludes was, first, to turn him outof the office of chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and, this failing, to induce a majority of the servile portion of thatcommittee to refuse any longer to serve with him; their purpose beingexactly that of Mr. Marshall, to remove him from the councils of thenation, or to silence him, for the sake of _intimidating_ all others by"an ostentatious display of a common determination not to serve withany man who would not submit to the gag-rule, and would persist inpresenting abolition petitions. " Mr. Adams then illustrates thepowerful effect of such movements to overawe members from the freestates. 

"Another practice, " he observed, "of this communion of Southern, sectional, and Locofoco antipathy against me is, that I never can takepart in any debate upon an important subject, be it only upon a mereabstraction, but a pack opens upon me of personal invective in return. Language has no word of reproach or railing that is not hurled at me;and the rules of the house allow me no opportunity to reply till everyother member of the house has had his turn to speak, if he pleases. Byanother rule every debate is closed by a majority whenever they getweary of it. The previous question, or a motion to lay the subject onthe table, is interposed, and I am not allowed to reply to the grossestfalsehoods and most invidious misrepresentations. "

This course of party tactics Mr. Adams exhibits by a particularnarrative of the misrepresentation to which he had been subjected, closing his statement with the following acknowledgment: "I must do manyof the members of the House of Representatives from the South thejustice to say that their treatment of me is dictated far more by thepassions and prejudices of their constituents than by their own. Were itnot for this curse of slavery, there are some of them with whom I shouldbe on terms of the most intimate and confidential friendship. There aremany for whom I entertain high esteem, respect, and affectionateattachment. There are among them those who have stood by me in mytrials, and scorned to join in the league to sacrifice me as a terror toothers. "

In September, 1842, at the invitation of the Norfolk County TemperanceSociety, Mr. Adams delivered at Quincy an address, --not perhaps incoïncidence with the prevailing expectations of that society, but inperfect unison with his own characteristic spirit of independence. Heinstituted an inquiry into the effect of the _principles_ of totalabstinence from the use of spirituous liquors, the administration ofpledges, or, in other words, the contracting of engagements by vows;and examined the whole subject with reference to the essentialconnection which exists between temperance and religion. In the courseof his argument he maintains that the moral principles inculcated bythe whole tenor of the Old Testament, with regard to temperance, are, --1. That the _temperate_ use of wine is innocent, and without sin. 2. That excess in it is a heinous sin. 3. That the voluntary assumptionof a vow or pledge of total abstinence is an effort of exalted virtue, and highly acceptable in the sight of God. 4. That the habit of excessin the use of wine is an object of unqualified abhorrence and disgust. He concluded with a warning to his fellow-citizens to "stand fast inthe liberty wherewith Christ has made you free, and be not entangledagain with the yoke of bondage;" and, after applauding the members ofthe Norfolk County Temperance Society for their attempts to suppressintemperance, declaring it a holy work, and invoking the blessing ofHeaven on their endeavors, he bids them "go forth as missionaries ofChristianity among their own kindred. Go, with the commendation of theSaviour to his apostles when he first sent them forth to redeem theworld: 'Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. ' Inthe ardor of your zeal for moral reform forget not the rights ofpersonal freedom. All _excess_ is of the nature of intemperance. Self-government is the foundation of all our political and socialinstitutions; and it is by self-government alone that the laws oftemperance can be enforced. .. . Above all, let no tincture of partypolitics be mingled with the pure stream from the fountain oftemperance. "

The spirit of this address, and the intimate knowledge of the ScripturesMr. Adams possessed, will be illustrated by the following extract:

 "Throughout the whole of the Old Testament the vine is represented as one of the most precious blessings bestowed by the Creator upon man. In the incomparable fable of Jotham, when he lifted up his voice on the summit of Mount Gerizim, and cried to the men of Shechem, 'Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you, ' he told them that when the trees of the forest went forth to anoint them a king to reign over them, they offered the crown successively to the olive-tree, the fig-tree, and the _vine_. They all declined to accept the royal dignity; and when it came to the turn of the vine to assign the reasons for his refusal, he said, 'Should I leave my _wine_, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?' In the one hundred and fourth Psalm, --that most magnificent of all descriptions of the glory, the omnipotence, and the goodness of the Creator, God, --wine is enumerated among the richest of his blessings bestowed upon man. 'He causeth the grass to grow, ' says the Psalmist, 'for the cattle, and herb for the service of man, that he may bring forth food out of the earth, and wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread that strengtheneth man's heart. '

 "But, while wine was thus classed among the choicest comforts and necessaries of life, the cautions and injunctions against the inordinate use of it are repeated and multiplied in every variety of form. 'Wine is a mocker, ' says Solomon (Prov. 20:1); 'strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. ' 'He that loveth pleasure shall be a poor man; he that loveth wine and oil shall not be rich. ' (21:17. ) 'Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry _long_ at the wine; they that go _to seek_ mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth its color in the cup, when it moveth itself aright, '--say, like sparkling Champagne. --'At the _last_ it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange wonders, and thine heart shall utter perverse things; yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth on the top of a mast. They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again. ' Never was so exquisite a picture of drunkenness and the drunkard painted by the hand of man. 

 "Yet in all this there is no interdict upon the _use_ of wine. The caution and the precept are against excess. "

On the 29th of May, 1843, Mr. Adams delivered before the MassachusettsHistorical Society a discourse in celebration of the Second CentennialAnniversary of the New England Confederacy of 1643. This work ischaracterized by that breadth and depth of research for which he wasdistinguished and eminently qualified. It includes traces of the earlysettlements of Virginia, New England, Pennsylvania, and New York; of thecauses of each, and the spirit in which they were made and conducted, and of the principles which they applied in their intercourse with theaboriginals of the forest. He then proceeds to give an account of theconfederation of the four New England colonies, Plymouth, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Haven, in 1643, with appropriate statements of theprinciples and conduct of the founders of each settlement, and of thecharacter and motives of the leaders of each of them. 

The origin, motives, and objects of that confederation, he explains;analyzing the distribution of power between the commissioners of thewhole confederacy and among the separate governments of the colonies, and showing that it combined the same identical principles with thosewhich gathered and united the thirteen English colonies as the preludeto the Revolution which severed them forever from their nationalconnection with Great Britain; and that the New England Confederacy of1643 was the model and prototype of the North American Confederacy of1774. 

His sketch of the founder of the Colony of Rhode Island will give ageneral idea of the spirit and bearing of this discourse:

 "Roger Williams was a man who maybe considered the very impersonation of a combined conscientious and contentious spirit. Born in the land of Sir Hugh Evans and Captain Fluellen, educated at the University of Oxford, at the very period when the monarchical Episcopal Church of England was purging herself, as by fire, from the corruptions of the despotic and soul-degrading Church of Rome, he arrived at Boston in February, 1630, about half a year after the landing of the Massachusetts Colony of Governor Winthrop. He was an eloquent preacher, stiff and self-confident in his opinions; ingenious, powerful, and commanding, in impressing them upon others; inflexible in his adherence to them; and, by an inconsistency peculiar to religious enthusiasts, combining the most amiable and affectionate sympathies of the heart with the most repulsive and inexorable exclusions of conciliation, compliance, or intercourse, with his adversaries in opinion. 

 "On his first arrival he went to Salem, and there soon made himself so acceptable by his preaching, that the people of Mr. Skelton's church invited him to settle with them as his colleague. But he had broached, and made no hesitation in maintaining, two opinions imminently dangerous to the very existence of the Massachusetts Colony, and certainly not remarkable for that spirit of charity or toleration upon which he afterwards founded his own government, and which now, in after ages, constitutes his brightest title to renown. The first of these opinions was that the royal charter to the Colony of Massachusetts was a nullity, because the King of England had no right to grant lands in foreign countries, which belonged of right to their native inhabitants. This opinion struck directly at all right of property held under the authority of the royal charter, and, followed to its logical conclusions, would have proved the utter impotence of the royal charter to confer power of government, any more than it could convey property in the soil. 

 "The other opinion was that the Church of Boston was criminal for having omitted to make a public declaration of repentance for having held communion with the Church of England before their emigration; and upon that ground he had refused to join in communion with the Church of Boston. 

 "By the subtlety and vehemence of his persuasive powers he had prevailed upon Endicott to look upon the cross of St. George in the banners of England as a badge of idolatry, and to cause it actually to be cut out of the flag floating at the fort in Salem. The red cross of St. George in the national banner of England was a grievous and odious eye-sore to multitudes, probably to a great majority, of the Massachusetts colonists; but, in the eyes of the government of the colony, it was the sacred badge of allegiance to the monarchy at home, already deeply jealous of the purposes and designs of the Puritan colony. "

On the 4th of July, 1843, Mr. Adams, in a letter addressed to thecitizens of Bangor, in Maine, declining their invitation to deliver anaddress on the 1st of August, the anniversary of British emancipation ofslavery in the West Indies, thus expressed his views on that subject:

 "The extinction of SLAVERY from the face of the earth is a problem, moral, political, religious, which at this moment rocks the foundations of human society throughout the regions of civilized man. It is indeed nothing more nor less than the consummation of the Christian religion. It is only as _immortal_ beings that all mankind can in any sense be said to be born equal; and when the Declaration of Independence affirms as a self-evident truth that all men are born equal, it is precisely the same as if the affirmation had been that all men are born with immortal souls; for, take away from man his soul, the immortal spirit that is within him, and he would be a mere tamable beast of the field, and, like others of his kind, would become the property of his tamer. Hence it is, too, that, by the law of nature and of God, man can never be made the property of man. And herein consists the fallacy with which the holders of slaves often delude themselves, by assuming that the test of property is human law. The soul of one man cannot by human law be made the property of another. The owner of a slave is the owner of a living corpse; but he is not the owner of a man. "

In illustration of this principle he observes that "the naturalequality of mankind, affirmed by the signers of the Declaration ofIndependence to be _held up_ by them as self-evident truth, was not soheld by their enemies. Great Britain held that sovereign power wasunlimitable, and the natural equality of mankind was a fable. Franceand Spain had no sympathies for the rights of human nature. Vergennesplotted with Gustavus of Sweden the revolution in Sweden from libertyto despotism. Turgot, shortly after our Declaration of Independence, advised Louis Sixteenth that it was for _the interest_ of France andSpain that the insurrection of the Anglo-American colonies _should besuppressed_. But none of them foresaw or imagined what would be theconsequence of the triumphant establishment in the continent of NorthAmerica of an Anglo-Saxon American nation on the foundation of thenatural equality of mankind, and the inalienable rights of man. "

Mr. Adams then states and reasons upon these consequences in Europe andthe United States: the abolition of slavery by the judicial decision ofthe Supreme Court of Massachusetts, three years after the Declaration ofIndependence. Since that day there has not been a slave within thatstate. The same principle is corroborated by the fact that theDeclaration of Independence imputes slavery in Virginia to George theThird, as one of the crimes which proved him to be a tyrant, unfit torule a free people; and that at least twenty slaveholders, if notthirty, among whom were George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, avowedabolitionists, were signers of that Declaration. 

He next states that "the result of the North American revolutionary warhad prepared the minds of the people of the British nation tocontemplate with calm composure the new principle engrafted upon theassociation of the civilized race of man, the self-evident truth, thenatural equality of mankind and the rights of man. " He then introducesAnthony Benezet, a member of the society of Friends, and GranvilleSharp, an English philanthropist, "blowing the single horn of humanliberty and the natural equality of mankind against the institution ofslavery, practised from time immemorial by all nations, ancient andmodern; supported by the denunciation of the traffic in slaves by thepopular writers both in France and England, --by Locke, Addison, andSterne, as well as by Raynal, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Voltaire;succeeded by the association of Thomas Clarkson and two or threeEnglishmen together, for the purpose of arraying the power of theBritish empire for the total abolition of slavery throughout the earth. "The success of that association he next illustrates, --until this"emanation of the Christian faith is now, under the cross of St. George, overflowing from the white cliffs of Albion, and sweeping theslave-trade and slavery from the face of the terraqueous globe. " Heproceeds:

 "People of that renowned island!--children of the land of our forefathers!--proceed, proceed in this glorious career, till the whole earth shall be redeemed from the greatest curse that ever has afflicted the human race. Proceed until millions upon millions of your brethren of the human race, restored to the rights with which they were endowed by your and their Creator, but of which they have been robbed by ruffians of their own race, shall send their choral shouts of redemption to the skies in blessings upon your names. O, with what pungent mortification and shame must I confess that in the transcendent glories of that day our names will not be associated with yours! May Heaven in mercy grant that we may be spared the deeper damnation of seeing our names recorded, not among the liberators, but with the oppressors of mankind!"

After inquiring what we have done in the United States to support "theprinciple proclaimed to the world as that which was to be the vitalspark of our existence as a community among the nations of the earth, "and declaring that we have done nothing, he thus enumerates theproceedings which disqualify us from presuming to share in thefestivities and unite in the songs of triumph of the 1st of August, andshows how little we have concurred with Great Britain in her attempts tobreak the chain of slavery. He inquires into what we are doing:

 "Are we not suffering our own hands to be manacled, and our own feet to be fettered, with the chains of slavery? Is it not enough to be told that, by a fraudulent perversion of language in the constitution of the United States, we have falsified the constitution itself, by admitting into both the legislative and executive departments of the government an overwhelming representation of one species of _property_, to the exclusion of all others, and that the odious property in slaves?

 "Is it not enough that, by this exclusive privilege of property representation, confined to one section of the country, an irresistible ascendency in the action of the general government has been secured, not indeed to that section, but to an oligarchy of slaveholders in that section--to the cruel oppression of the poor in that same section itself? Is it not enough that, by the operation of this radical iniquity in the organization of the government, an immense disproportion of all offices, from the highest to the lowest, civil, military, naval, executive, and judicial, are held by slaveholders? Have we not seen the sacred right of petition totally suppressed for the people of the free states during a succession of years, and is it not yet inexorably suppressed? Have we not seen, for the last twenty years, the constitution and solemn treaties with foreign nations trampled on by cruel oppression and lawless imprisonment of colored mariners in the Southern States, in cold-blooded defiance of a solemn adjudication by a Southern judge in the Circuit Court of the Union? And is not this enough? Have not the people of the free states been required to renounce for their citizens the right of habeas corpus and trial by jury; and, to coërce that base surrender of the only practical security to all personal rights, have not the slave-breeders, by state legislation, subjected to fine and imprisonment the colored citizens of the free states, for merely coming within their jurisdiction? Have we not tamely submitted for years to the daily violation of the freedom of the post-office and of the press by a committee of seal-breakers? And have we not seen a sworn Postmaster-general formally avow that, though he could not license this cut-purse protection of the peculiar institution, the perpetrators of this highway robbery must justify themselves by the plea of necessity? And has the pillory or the penitentiary been the reward of that Postmaster-general? Have we not seen printing-presses destroyed; halls erected for the promotion of human freedom levelled with the dust, and consumed by fire; and wanton, unprovoked murder perpetrated with impunity, by slave-mongers? Have we not seen human beings, made in the likeness of God, and endowed with immortal souls, burnt at the stake, not for their offences, but for their color? Are not the journals of our Senate disgraced by resolutions calling for _war_, to indemnify the slave-pirates of the Enterprise and the Creole for the self-emancipation of their slaves; and to inflict vengeance, by a death of torture, upon the heroic self-deliverance of Madison Washington? Have we not been fifteen years plotting rebellion against our neighbor republic of Mexico, for abolishing slavery throughout all her provinces? Have we not aided and abetted one of her provinces in insurrection against her for that cause? And have we not invaded openly, and sword in hand, another of her provinces, and all to effect her dismemberment, and to add ten more slave states to our confederacy? Has not the cry of war for the conquest of Mexico, for the expansion of reïnstituted slavery, for the robbery of priests, and the plunder of religious establishments, yet subsided? Have the pettifogging, hair-splitting, nonsensical, and yet inflammatory bickerings about the right of search, pandering to the thirst for revenge in France, panting for war to prostrate the disputed title of her king--has the sound of this war-trumpet yet faded away upon our ears? Has the supreme and unparalleled absurdity of stipulating by treaty to keep a squadron of eighty guns for five years without intermission upon the coast of Africa, to suppress the African slave-trade, and at the same time denying, at the point of the bayonet, the right of that squadron to board or examine any slaver all but sinking under a cargo of victims, if she but hoist a foreign flag--has this diplomatic bone been yet picked clean? Or is our _indirect_ participation in the African slave-trade to be protected, at whatever expense of blood and treasure? Is the supreme Executive Chief of this commonwealth yet to speak not for himself, but for her whole people, and pledge _them_ to shoulder their muskets, and to endorse their knapsacks, against the fanatical, non-resistant abolitionists, whenever the overseers may please to raise the bloody flag with the swindling watch-word of 'Union'? O, my friends, I have not the heart to join in the festivity on the First of August--the British anniversary of disenthralled humanity--while all this, and infinitely more that I could tell, but that I would spare the blushes of my country, weigh down my spirits with the uncertainty, sinking into my grave as I am, whether she is doomed to be numbered among the first liberators or the last oppressors of the race of immortal man!

 "Let the long-trodden-down African, restored by the cheering voice and Christian hand of Britain to his primitive right and condition of manhood, clap his hands and shout for joy on the anniversary of the First of August. Let the lordly Briton strip off much of his pride on other days of the year, and reserve it all for the pride of conscious beneficence on this day. What lover of classical learning can read the account in Livy, or in Plutarch, of the restoration to freedom of the Grecian cities by the Roman consul Flaminius, without feeling his bosom heave, and his blood flow cheerily in his veins? The heart leaps with sympathy when we read that, on the first proclamation by the herald, the immense assembled multitude, in the tumult of astonishment and joy, could scarcely believe their own ears, and made him repeat the proclamation, and then '_Tum ab certo jam gaudio, tantus cum clamore, plausus est ortus, totiesque repetitus, ut facile appararet nihil omnium bonorum multitudini gratius quam libertatem esse_. --Then rang the welkin with long and redoubled shouts of exultation, clearly proving that, of all the enjoyments accessible to the hearts of men, nothing is so delightful to them as liberty. ' Upwards of two thousand years have revolved since that day, and the First of August is to the Briton of this age what the day of the proclamation of Flaminius was to the ancient Roman. Yes! let them celebrate the First of August as the day to them of deliverance and glory; and leave to us the pleasant employment of commenting upon their motives, of devising means to shelter the African slaver from their search, and of squandering millions to support, on a pestilential coast, a squadron of the stripes and stars, with instructions sooner to scuttle their ships than to molest the pirate slaver who shall make his flagstaff the herald of a lie!"

In July, 1843, the Cincinnati Astronomical Society earnestly solicitedMr. Adams to lay the corner-stone of their Observatory. No invitationcould have been more coïncident with the prevailing interest of hisheart, and he immediately accepted it, notwithstanding his advanced age, and the great distance which the performance of the duty required him totravel. Some of his constituents having questioned the propriety of thisacceptance, and expressed doubts whether the duties it imposed werecompatible with his other public obligations, Mr. Adams, in an addressto them, at Dedham, on the 4th of July, took occasion to state that theencouragement of the arts and sciences, and of all good literature, isexpressly enjoined by the constitution of Massachusetts. The patronageand encouragement of them is therefore one of the most sacred duties ofthe people of that state, and enjoined upon them and their children as apart of their duty to God. "The voices of your forefathers, founders ofyour social compact, calling from their graves, command you to thisduty; and I deem it, as your representative, a tacit and standinginstruction from you to perform, as far as may be my ability, that partof your constitutional duty for you. It is in this sense that, inaccepting the earnest invitation from a respectable and learned society, in a far distant state and city of the Union, to unite with them in theact of erecting an edifice for the observation of the heavens, andthereby encouraging the science of astronomy, I am fulfilling anobligation of duty to you, and in your service. " The nature of this dutyhe thus illustrates:

 "From the Ptolemies of Egypt and Alexander of Macedon, from Julius Cæsar to the Arabian Caliphs Haroun al Raschid, Almamon, and Almansor, from Alphonso of Castile to Nicholas, the present Emperor of all the Russias, --who, at the expense of one million of rubles, has erected at Pulkova the most perfect and best-appointed observatory in the world, --royal and imperial power has never been exercised with more glory, never more remembered with the applause and gratitude of mankind, than when extending the hand of patronage and encouragement to the science of astronomy. You have neither Cæsar nor Czar, Caliph, Emperor, nor King, to monopolize this glory by largesses extracted from the fruits of your industry. The founders of your constitution have left it as their dying commandment to you, to achieve, as the lawful sovereigns of the land, this resplendent glory to yourselves--to patronize and encourage the arts and sciences, and all good literature. "

Mr. Adams left Quincy for Cincinnati on the 25th of October, andreturned to Washington on the 24th of November. At Saratoga, Rochester, Buffalo, he was received with marked attention; and in every place wherehe rested assemblages of the inhabitants took occasion to evidence theirrespect and interest in his character by congratulatory addresses, andwelcomed his presence by every token of civility and regard. At Columbushe was met by a deputation from Cincinnati, and, in approaching thatcity, he was escorted into it by a procession and cavalcade. Nodemonstration of honor and gratitude for the exertion he had made, andthe fatigues he had undergone, for their gratification, was omitted. Hiswhole progress was an ovation. 

In the presence of a large concourse of the citizens of Cincinnati, Mr. Adams was introduced to the Astronomical Society by its president, JudgeBurnet, who gave, in an appropriate address, a rapid sketch of thehistory of his life and his public services, touching with delicacy andjudgment on the trials to which his political course had been subjected. The following tributes, from their truth, justice, and appropriateness, are entitled to distinct remembrance:

 "Being a son of one of the framers and defenders of the Declaration of Independence, his political principles were formed in the school of the sages of the Revolution, from whom he imbibed the spirit of liberty while he was yet a boy. 

 "Having been brought up among the immediate descendants of the Puritan fathers, whose landing in Massachusetts in the winter of 1620 gave immortality to the rock of Plymouth, his moral and religious impressions were derived from a source of the most rigid purity; and his manners and habits were formed in a community where ostentation and extravagance had no place. In this fact we see why it is that he has always been distinguished for his purity of motive, simplicity of manners, and republican plainness in his style of living and in his intercourse with society. To the same causes may be ascribed his firmness, his directness of purpose, and his unyielding adherence to personal as well as political liberty. You have recently seen him stand as unmoved as the rock of Gibraltar, defending the right of petition, and the constitutional privileges of the representatives of the people, assembled in Congress, though fiercely assailed by friends and by foes. 

 "It is a remarkable fact that during the whole of his public life, which has already continued more than half a century, he never connected himself with a political party, or held himself bound to support or oppose any measure for the purpose of advancing or retarding the views of a party; but he has held himself free at all times to pursue the course which duty pointed out, however he may have been considered by some as adhering to a party. This fact discloses the reason why he has been applauded at times, and at other times censured, by every party which has existed under the government. The truth is that, while the American people have been divided into two great political sections, each contending for its own aggrandizement, Mr. Adams has stood between them, uninfluenced by either, contending for the aggrandizement of the nation. His life has been in some respects _sui generis_; and I venture the opinion that, generally, when his course has differed most from the politicians opposed to him, it has tended most to the advancement of the public good. 

 "As a proof of the desire Mr. Adams has always cherished for the advancement of science, I might refer to his annual message to Congress in December, 1825, in which he recommended the establishment of a National University, and an Astronomical Observatory, and referred to the hundred and thirty of those 'light-houses of the skies' existing in Europe, as casting a reproach on our country for its unpardonable negligence on that important subject. The manner in which that recommendation was received and treated can never be forgotten. It must at this day be a source of great comfort to that devoted friend of science that those who yet survive of the highly-excited party which attempted to cast on him reproach and ridicule for that proposition, and especially for assimilating those establishments to light-houses of the skies, have recently admitted the wisdom of his advice by making ample appropriations to accomplish the very object he then proposed. "

The oration Mr. Adams delivered on that occasion is, perhaps, the mostextraordinary of his literary efforts, evidencing his comprehensivegrasp of the subject, and the intensity of his interest in it. Itembraces an outline of the history of astronomy, illustrated by anelevated and excited spirit of philosophy. Those who cultivated, thosewho patronized, and those who advanced it, are celebrated, and theevents of their lives and the nature of their services are brieflyrelated. The operations of the mind which are essential to its progressare touched upon. The intense labor and peculiar intellectualqualifications incident to and required for its successful pursuit areintimated. Nor are the inventors of those optical instruments, who hadcontributed to the advancement of this science beyond all previousanticipation, omitted in this extensive survey of its nature, progress, and history. 

After celebrating "the gigantic energies and more than heroic labors ofCopernicus, Tycho Brahe, Kepler, and Galileo, " he pronounced Newton "theconsummation of them all. "

"It was his good fortune, " observed Mr. Adams, "to be born and to livein a country where there was no college of cardinals to cast him intoprison, and doom him to spend his days in repeating the sevenpenitential psalms, for shedding light upon the world, and publishingmathematical truths. Newton was not persecuted by the dull and ignorantinstruments of political or ecclesiastical power. He lived in honoramong his countrymen; was a member of one Parliament, received thedignity of knighthood, held for many years a lucrative office, and athis decease was interred in solemn state in Westminster Abbey, where amonument records his services to mankind, among the sepulchres of theBritish kings. 

"From the days of Newton down to the present hour, the science ofastronomy has been cultivated, with daily deepening interest, by all thecivilized nations of Europe--by England, France, Prussia, Sweden, several of the German and Italian states, and, above all, by Russia, whose present sovereign has made the pursuit of knowledge a trulyimperial virtue. "

After speaking of the patronage extended to this science by the nationsand sovereigns of Europe, he terminates his developments with thisstirring appeal to his own countrymen:

 "But what, in the mean time, have we been doing? While our fathers were colonists of England we had no distinctive political or literary character. The white cliffs of Albion covered the soil of our nativity, though another hemisphere first opened our eyes on the light of day, and oceans rolled between us and them. We were Britons born, and we claimed to be the countrymen of Chaucer and Shakspeare, Milton and Newton, Sidney and Locke, Arthur and Alfred, as well as of Edward the Black Prince, Harry of Monmouth, and Elizabeth. But when our fathers abjured the name of Britons, and 'assumed among the nations of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled them, ' they tacitly contracted the engagement for themselves, and above all for their posterity, to contribute, in their corporate and national capacity, their full share, ay, and more than their full share, of the virtues that elevate and of the graces that adorn the character of civilized man. They announced themselves as _reformers_ of the institution of civil society. They spoke of the laws of nature, and in the name of nature's God; and by that sacred adjuration they pledged us, their children, to labor with united and concerted energy, from the cradle to the grave, to purge the earth of all slavery; to restore the race of man to the full enjoyment of those rights which the God of nature had bestowed upon him at his birth; to disenthrall his limbs from chains, to break the fetters from his feet and the manacles from his hands, and set him free for the use of all his physical powers for the improvement of his own condition. The God in whose name they spoke had taught them, in the revelation of the Gospel, that the only way in which man can discharge his duty to Him is by loving his neighbor as himself, and doing with him as he would be done by; respecting his rights while enjoying his own, and applying all his emancipated powers of body and of mind to self-improvement and the improvement of his race. "

 CHAPTER XIV. 

REPORT ON THE RESOLVES OF THE LEGISLATURE OF MASSACHUSETTS PROPOSING ANAMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN EFFECT TO ABOLISHA REPRESENTATION FOR SLAVES. --FOURTH REPORT ON JAMES SMITHSON'S BEQUEST. --INFLUENCE OF MR. ADAMS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL OBSERVATORYAND THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION. --GENERAL JACKSON'S CHARGE THAT THE RIOGRANDE MIGHT HAVE BEEN OBTAINED, UNDER THE SPANISH TREATY, AS A BOUNDARYFOR THE UNITED STATES, REFUTED. --ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS AT WEYMOUTH. --REMARKS ON THE RETROCESSION OF ALEXANDRIA TO VIRGINIA. --HIS PARALYSIS. --RECEPTION BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. --HIS DEATH. --FUNERAL HONORS. --TRIBUTE TO HIS MEMORY. 

In April, 1844, certain resolves of the Legislature of Massachusetts, proposing to Congress to recommend, according to the provisions of thefifth article of the constitution of the United States, an amendment tothe said constitution, in effect abolishing the representation forslaves, being under consideration, and a report adverse to suchamendment having been made by a majority of the committee, Mr. Adams, and Mr. Giddings, of Ohio, being a minority, united in a report, inwhich, concurring in the opinion of the majority so far as to believethat it was not, at that time, expedient to recommend the amendmentproposed by the Legislature of Massachusetts, they were compelled todissent from the views and the reasons which had actuated them in comingto that conclusion. 

 "The subscribers are under a deep and solemn conviction that the provision in the constitution of the United States, as it has been and yet is construed, and which the resolves of the Legislature of Massachusetts propose to discard and erase therefrom, is repugnant to the first and vital principles of republican popular representation; to the self-evident truths proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; to the letter and spirit of the constitution of the United States itself; to the letter and spirit of the constitutions of almost all the states in the Union; to the liberties of the whole people of all the free states, and of all that portion of the people of the states where domestic slavery is established, other than owners of the slaves themselves; that this is its essential and unextinguishable character in principle, and that its fruits, in its practical operation upon the government of the land, as felt with daily increasing aggravation by the people, correspond with that character. To place these truths in the clearest light of demonstration, and beyond the reach of contradiction, the subscribers proceed, in the order of these averments, to adduce the facts and the arguments by which they will be maintained. "

The report then proceeds, in reply to the reasoning of the majority ofthe committee, to maintain that "the principle of republican popularrepresentation is that the terms of representative and constituent arecorrelative;" that "democracy admits no representation of property;"that "the slave representation is repugnant to the self-evident truthsproclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. " The truths in thatDeclaration the report illustrates from history, from Scripture, andfrom the teachings of Jesus Christ; who was aware that wars, and theirattendant, slavery, would continue among men, and that the destiny ofhis Gospel itself was often to be indebted for its progressiveadvancement to war. 

 "'I came not, ' said he, 'to send peace upon earth, but a sword;' meaning, not that this was the object of his mission, but that, in the purposes of the Divine nature, war itself should be made instrumental to promote the final consummation of universal peace. Slavery has not ceased upon the earth; but the impression upon the human heart and mind that slavery is a wrong, --a crime against the laws of nature and of nature's God, --has been deepening and widening, till it may now be pronounced universal upon every soul in Christendom not warped by personal interest, or tainted with disbelief in Christianity. The owner of ten slaves believes that slavery is not an evil. The owner of a hundred believes it a blessing. The philosophical infidel has no faith in Hebrew prophecies, or in the Gospel of Jesus. He says in his heart, though he will not tell you to your face, that the proclamation of the natural equality of mankind, in the Declaration of Independence, is untrue; that the African race are physically, morally, and intellectually, _inferior_ to the white European man; that they are not of one blood, nor descendants of the same stock; that the African is born to be a slave, and the white man to be his master. The worshipper of mammon and the philosophical atheist hold no communion with the signers of the declaration that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. But, with these exceptions, poll the whole mass of Christian men, of every name, sect, or denomination, throughout the globe, and you will not hear a solitary voice deny that slavery is a wrong, a crime, and a curse. "

This report then proceeds to maintain that the representation of slavesas persons, conferred not upon themselves but their owners, is repugnantto the self-evident truth proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, and equally repugnant both to the spirit and letter of the constitutionof the United States, and to the constitution of almost every state ofthe Union; that it is deceptive, and inconsistent with the principle ofpopular representation;--all which is supported by reference to thewritings of Thomas Jefferson, a slaveholder, concerning the relations ofmaster and slave. It is shown how, by the effect of that article in theconstitution, all political power in the states is absorbed andengrossed by the owners of slaves, and the cunning by which this hasbeen effected is explained. The report then enters into the history ofslavery, declaring that "the resolves of the Legislature ofMassachusetts speak the unanimous opinions and sentiments of thepeople--unanimous, with the exception of the sordid souls linked to thecause of slavery by the hopes and expectations of patronage. "

In June, 1844, Mr. Adams, as chairman of a select committee on theSmithsonian fund, reported a bill, in which he referred to its actualstate, and proposed measures tending to give immediate operation to thatbequest. In support of its provisions, he stated that, on the first dayof September, 1838, there had been deposited in the mint of the UnitedStates, in gold, half a million of dollars, --the full amount of thebequest of Mr. Smithson, --which, on the same day, under the authority ofan act of Congress, and with the approbation of the President, had beenvested by the Secretary of the Treasury in bonds of the States ofArkansas, Michigan, and Illinois; that the payment of the interest onthese bonds had been almost entirely neglected; that the principal andarrears of interest then accumulating amounted to upwards of six hundredand ninety-nine thousand dollars; that the payment of these bonds wasremote, and unavailable by Congress for application to the objects ofthis bequest. 

In accepting this legacy, the faith of the United States had beenpledged that all money received from it should be applied to the humaneand generous purpose prescribed by the testator; and he contended that, for the redemption of this pledge, it was indispensably requisite thatthe funds thus locked up in the treasury, in bonds of these states, withthe accruing and suspended interest thereon, should be made availablefor the disposal of Congress, to enable them to execute the sacred trustthey had assumed. 

The committee then reported a bill providing, in effect, for theassumption by Congress of the whole sum and interest, as a loan to theUnited States, invested in their stock, bearing an annual interest ofsix per cent. , payable half-yearly, and redeemable at the pleasure ofCongress by the substitution of other funds of equal value. Inconnection with this purpose they reported a bill making appropriationsto enable Congress to proceed immediately to the execution of the trustcommitted to them by the testator, and for the fulfilment of which thefaith of the nation had been pledged. 

In specifying the objects to which it should be applied, that of theestablishment of an Astronomical Observatory was not omitted. Thisrecommendation decided the fate of the bill; for there was no purpose onwhich the predominating party were more fixed than to prevent thegratification of Mr. Adams in this well-known cherished wish of hisheart. 

In October, 1823, Mr. Adams, being then Secretary of State, hadaddressed a letter to a member of the corporation of Harvard University, urging the erection of an Astronomical Observatory in connection withthat institution, and tendering a subscription, on his own account, ofone thousand dollars, on condition a requisite sum should be raised, forthat purpose, within two years. His proposal not meeting correspondentspirit among the friends of science at that time, in October, 1825, herenewed the offer, on the same condition and limitation. In both cases aconcealment of his name was made imperative. [1]

 [1] Quincy's History of Harvard University, vol. II. , p. 567. 

The establishment of an Astronomical Observatory was recommended in hisfirst message to Congress, as President of the United States; but theproposition fell on a political soil glowing with a red heat, enkindledby disappointed ambition. Opposition to the design became identifiedwith party spirit, and to defeat it no language of contempt or ofridicule was omitted by the partisans of General Jackson. In everyappropriation which it was apprehended might be converted to itsaccomplishment, the restriction "_and to no other_" was carefullyinserted. In the second section of an act passed on the 10th of July, 1832, providing for the survey of the coasts of the United States, thefollowing limitation was inserted: "_Provided that nothing in this act, or in the act hereby revived, shall be construed to authorize theconstruction or maintenance of a permanent Astronomical Observatory_. "Yet, at the time of passing this act, it was well understood that theappropriation it contained was to be applied to that object; andsubsequently, in direct defiance of this prohibition, Congresspermitted that and other appropriations to be applied to the erectionof an Astronomical Observatory in the city of Washington, to whichannual appropriations were successively granted in the bill providingfor the navy department; the authors of the proviso being aware of theuses to which the fund would be applied, but causing its insertion forthe purpose of preventing its erection from being attributed to theinfluence of Mr. Adams. To such disreputable subterfuges party spiritcan condescend, to gratify malignity, or to obscure merit from theknowledge of the world, to the power of which it is itself compelled toyield. 

Nothing was effectually done, on the subject of the Smithsonian fund, until the 22d of April, 1846, when a bill to carry into effect thatbequest was reported by Mr. Owen, of Indiana, and earnestly supported byhim and others. In its important general features it coïncided with theviews of Mr. Adams, except only that it made no provision for anAstronomical Observatory. After various amendments, it received thesanction of both houses of Congress, Mr. Adams voting in its favor. Onthe 10th of August, 1846, it received the signature of the President ofthe United States. 

During the debate upon this bill, its supporters acknowledged "that Mr. Adams had labored in this good cause with more zeal and perseverancethan any other man. "

In the course of the same debate it was said by one member that, "inasmuch as the views of Mr. Adams had been carried out in respect ofan Astronomical Observatory, by the government, in the District ofColumbia, "--and by another, that, "as building light-houses in theskies had grown into popular favor, "--it was hoped he would find nodifficulty in giving his vote for the bill. On which Mr. Adams observed, that "he was very glad to hear that the 'building light-houses in theskies had grown into popular favor. ' The appropriation for thisAstronomical Observatory had been clandestinely smuggled into the law, under the head of a _dépôt_ for charts, when, a short time before, aprovision had been inserted in a bill passed that _no appropriationshould be applied to an Astronomical Observatory_. He claimed nomerit for the erection of an Astronomical Observatory, but, in thecourse of his whole life, no conferring of honor, of interest, or ofoffice, had given him more delight than the belief that he hadcontributed, in some small degree, to produce these AstronomicalObservatories both here and elsewhere. [2] He no longer wished anyportion of the Smithsonian fund to be applied to an AstronomicalObservatory. "

 [2] _Congressional Globe_, vol. XV. , p. 738. 

Notwithstanding this disclaimer, the four reports of Mr. Adams, on theSmithsonian fund, in 1836, 1840, 1842, and 1844, which were neithercoïncident with the views nor within the comprehension of his opponents, will remain imperishable monuments of the extent and elevation of hismind on this subject. When the continued and strenuous exertions withwhich Mr. Adams opposed, at every step, the efforts to convert that fundto projects of personal interest or ambition are appreciated, it will beevident that the people of the United States owe to him whatever benefitmay result from the munificence of James Smithson. History will be justto his memory, and will not fail to record his early interest andstrenuous zeal for the advancement of astronomical science, and theinfluence his eloquence and untiring perseverance, in illustrating itsimportance with an unsurpassed array of appropriate learning, exerted onthe public mind in the United States, not only in effecting theestablishment of other Astronomical Observatories, but absolutelycompelling party spirit, notwithstanding its open, bitter animosity, tolay the foundation of that Observatory which now bears the name of"National. "

In February, 1843, Andrew Jackson addressed a letter to Aaron VailBrown, a member of Congress, strongly recommending the annexation ofTexas, and giving his reasons for that measure, which he commenced bystating the following facts:

 "Soon after my election, in 1829, it was made known to me by Mr. Erwin, formerly our minister at the court of Madrid, that whilst at that court he had laid the foundation of a treaty with Spain for the cession of the Floridas, and the settlement of the boundary of Louisiana, fixing the western limit of the latter at the Rio Grande, agreeably to the understanding of France; that he had written home to our government for power to complete and sign this negotiation; but that, instead of receiving such authority, the negotiation was taken out of his hands, and transferred to Washington, and a new treaty was there concluded, by which the Sabine, and not the Rio Grande, was recognized and established as the boundary of Louisiana. Finding that these statements were true, and that our government did really give up that important territory, when it was at its option to retain it, I was filled with astonishment. The right to the territory was obtained from France, Spain stood ready to acknowledge it to the Rio Grande, and yet the authority asked by our minister to insert the true boundary was not only withheld, but, in lieu of it, a limit was adopted which stripped us of the whole vast country lying between the two rivers. "

The letter containing this statement Aaron Vail Brown kept concealedfrom the public until March, 1844, when he gave it publicity tocounteract a letter from Mr. Webster against the annexation of Texas tothe United States. This statement of Andrew Jackson having thus beenbrought to the knowledge of Mr. Adams, he took occasion, on the 7th ofOctober in that year, in an address to a political society of young menin Boston, to contradict and expose it in the following terms:

 "I have read the whole of this letter to you, for I intend to prolong its existence for the benefit of posterity. " [After reading the above extract from the letter of Andrew Jackson, Mr. Adams proceeds. ] "He was filled with astonishment, fellow-citizens! I am repeating to you the words of a man who has been eight years President of the United States; words deliberately written, and published to the world more than a year after they were written; words importing a statement of his conduct in his office as chief magistrate of this Union; words impeaching of treason the government of his predecessor, James Monroe, and in an especial manner, though without daring to name him, the Secretary of State, --a government to which he (Andrew Jackson) was under deep obligations of gratitude. 

 "In what language of composure or of decency can I say to you that there is in this bitter and venomous charge not one single word of truth; that it is from beginning to end grossly, glaringly, wilfully false?--false even in the name of the man from whom he pretends to have derived his information. There never was a minister of the United States in Spain by the name of Erwin. The name of the man who went to him on this honorable errand, soon after his election in 1829, was George W. Erving, of whom and of whose revelations I shall also have something to say. I do not charge this distortion of the name as wilfully made; but it shows how carelessly and loosely all his relations and intercourse with him hung upon his memory, and how little he cared for the man. 

 "The blunder of the name, however, is in itself a matter of little moment. Mr. George W. Erving never did make to Mr. Jackson any such communication as he pretends to have found true, and to have filled him with astonishment. Mr. Erving never did pretend, nor will he dare to affirm, that he had laid the foundation of a treaty with Spain for the cession of the Floridas, and the settlement of the boundary of Louisiana, fixing the western limit at the Rio Grande. The charge, therefore, that our government did really give up that important territory, when it was at its option to retain it, is purely and unqualifiedly untrue; and I now charge that it was known by Mr. Brown to be so when he published General Jackson's letter; for, in the postscript to Jackson's letter, he says 'the papers furnished by Mr. Erwin, to which he had referred in it, could be placed in Mr. Brown's possession, if desired. '

 "They were accordingly placed in Mr. Brown's possession, who, when he published Jackson's letter to the _Globe_, alluding to this passage asserting that Erving had laid the foundation of a treaty with Spain, fixing the western limit at the Rio Grande, otherwise called the Rio del Norte, subjoined the following note: 'That this boundary could have been obtained was doubtless the belief of our minister; _but the offer of the Spanish government was probably to the Colorado--certainly a line far west of the Sabine_. '

 "This is the note of Aaron Vail Brown, and my fellow-citizens will please to observe, --

 "First, That it blows to atoms the whole statement of Andrew Jackson that Erving had laid the foundation of a treaty by which our western bounds upon the Spanish possessions should be at the Rio Grande; and, of course, grinds to impalpable powder his charge that our government did give up that important territory when it was at its option to retain it. 

 "Secondly, That this note of Aaron Vail Brown, while it so effectually demolishes Jackson's fable of Erving's treaty with Spain for the boundary of the Rio del Norte, and his libellous charge against our government for surrendering the territory which they had the option to retain, is, with this exception, as wide and as wilful a departure from the truth as the calumny of Jackson itself, which it indirectly contradicts. "

Mr. Adams then enters into a lucid and elaborate statement of Erving'sconnection with this negotiation with the Spanish government, withminute and important illustrations, highly interesting and conclusive;severely animadverting upon the conduct of General Jackson and Mr. Brown. He says:

 "The object of the publication of that letter of Andrew Jackson was to trump up a shadow of argument for a pretended reännexation of Texas to the United States, by a fabulous pretension that it had been treacherously surrendered to Spain, in the Florida treaty of 1819, by our government, --meaning thereby the Secretary of State of that day, John Quincy Adams, --in return for greater obligations than any one public servant of this nation was ever indebted for to another. The argument for the annexation, or reännexation, of Texas is as gross an imposture as ever was palmed upon the credulity of an honest people. "

In conclusion Mr. Adams addresses in a serious and exciting strain ofeloquence the young men of Boston; and, after recapitulating part of anoration which he delivered on the 4th of July, 1793, before theirfathers and forefathers, in that city, he closes thus:

 "Young men of Boston, the generations of men to whom fifty-one years bygone I gave this solemn pledge have passed entirely away. They in whose name I gave it are, like him who addresses you, dropping into the grave. But they have redeemed their and my pledge. They were your fathers, and they have maintained the freedom transmitted to them by their sires of the war of independence. They have transmitted that freedom to you; and upon you now devolves the duty of transmitting it unimpaired to your posterity. Your trial is approaching. The spirit of freedom and the spirit of slavery are drawing together for the deadly conflict of arms. The annexation of Texas to this Union is the blast of a trumpet for a foreign, civil, servile, and Indian war, of which the government of your country, fallen into faithless hands, have already twice given the signal: first by a shameless treaty, rejected by a virtuous Senate; and again by the glove of defiance hurled by the apostle of nullification at the avowed policy of the British empire peacefully to promote the extinction of slavery throughout the world. Young men of Boston, burnish your armor--prepare for the conflict; and I say to you, in the language of Galgacus to the ancient Britons, 'Think of your forefathers! think of your posterity!'"[3]

 [3] _Niles' National Register_, Second Series, vol. XVII. , pp. 105-111. 

On the 30th of the same month Mr. Adams delivered to his constituents atWeymouth an address equally elaborate, comprehensive, and historical, ina like fervid and characteristic spirit, [4] which thus concludes:

 [4] _Niles' National Register_, Second Series, vol. XVII. , pp. 154-159. 

 "Texas and slavery are interwoven in every banner floating on the Democratic breeze. 'Freedom or death' should be inscribed on ours. A war for slavery! Can you enlist under such a standard? May the Ruler of the universe preserve you from such degradation! 'Freedom! Peace! Union!' be this the watchword of your camp; and if Ate, hot from hell, will come and cry 'Havoc!' fight--fight and conquer, under the banner of universal freedom. "

In February, 1845, our title to Oregon being the subject of debate inCongress, Mr. Adams joined in it, displaying his full knowledge of thesubject, and declaring that it was time to give notice to Great Britainthat the affair must be settled. He was desirous as any man to bringthis subject to an issue, but he did not wish to enter upon thediscussion of this matter before the world until we could show that wehad the best of the argument. He wished to have the reasons given tothe world for our taking possession of seven degrees of latitude, andperhaps more; and whenever we took it, too, he hoped we should have itdefined geographically, defined politically, and, more than all therest, defined _morally_; and then, if we came to question with GreatBritain, we should say, "Come on, Macduff!" In answer to the inquirywho had been the means of giving this country a title to Oregon, Mr. Adams answered, it was a citizen of Massachusetts that discovered theColumbia River; and that he (Mr. Adams) had the credit of inserting theclause in the treaty on which our right was based. If it had not beenfor the attacks which had been made upon him, the fact would have gonewith him to the grave. 

In February, 1845, in a speech on the army bill, he treated ironicallythe spirit of conquest then manifesting itself towards Mexico, Oregon, and California. He said, at some future day we might hear the Speakernot only announce on this floor "the gentleman from the RockyMountains, " or "the gentleman from the Pacific, " or "the gentleman fromPatagonia, " but "the gentleman from the North Pole, " and also "thegentleman from the South Pole;" and the poor original thirteen stateswould dwindle into comparative insignificance as parts of this mightyrepublic. 

In November, 1845, in answer to a letter soliciting his opinion on theconstitutionality of the law of Congress retroceding Alexandria toVirginia, Mr. Adams replied: "I have no hesitation to say I hold thatact unconstitutional and void. How the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates would consider it I cannot undertake to judge, nor how theywould carry it into execution, should they determine the actunconstitutional. The constitution of the United States '_Stat magnanominis umbra_. '"

In the great debate on the Oregon question, which commenced in January, 1846, the intellectual power of Mr. Adams, and the extent and accuracyof his acquaintance with the facts connected with that subject, werepreëminently manifested. Though conscious, being then in hisseventy-eighth year, that he stood on the threshold of human life, hesought no relaxation from duty, no exemption from its performance. Tocounteract the effect of a nervous tremor, to which he wasconstitutionally subject, he used for many years an instrument to steadyhis hand when writing, on the ivory label of which he inscribed themotto "Toil and trust, " indicative of the determined will, which hadcharacterized his whole life, "to scorn delights and live laboriousdays. " His step, however, now became more feeble, and his voice lessaudible, but his indomitable spirit never failed to uplift him indefence of liberty and the constitution of his country, when assailed. 

In a debate on the Oregon question, in August, 1846, when Mr. Adamsarose to speak, the hall was found too extensive for the state of hisvoice, and the members rushed to hear him, filling the area in front ofthe Speaker. That officer, in behalf of the few who remained in theirseats, called the house to order, and Mr. Adams continued his remarkswith his accustomed clearness and energy. 

At the close of the session, in 1846, he returned to his seat in Quincy, with unimpaired intellectual powers, and with no perceptible symptom ofimmediately declining health, until the 19th of November, when, walkingin the streets of Boston, an attack of paralysis deprived him of thepower of speech, and affected his right side. In the course of threemonths, however, he was sufficiently recovered to resume his officialduties at Washington. 

On the 16th of February, 1847, as he entered the Hall of the House ofRepresentatives for the first time since his illness, the house rose asone man, business was at once suspended, his usual seat surrendered tohim by the gentleman to whom it had been assigned, and he was formallyconducted to it by two members. After resuming it, Mr. Adams expressedhis thanks to the member who had voluntarily relinquished his right inhis favor, and said: "Had I a more powerful voice, I might respond tothe congratulations of my friends, and the members of this house, forthe honor which has been done me. But, enfeebled as I am by disease, Ibeg you will excuse me. "

After this period, on one occasion alone he addressed the house. On therefusal of President Polk to give information, on their demand, as tothe objects of the then existing war with Mexico, and the instructionsgiven by the Executive relative to negotiations for peace, Mr. Adamsrose, and maintained the constitutional power of the house to call forthat information; denying that in this case the refusal was justified bythat of President Washington on a similar demand; and declaring that thehouse ought to sustain, in the strongest manner, their right to call forinformation upon questions in which war and peace were concerned. 

From this time, though daily in his seat in the House ofRepresentatives, he took no part in debate. On the 21st of February, 1848, he answered to the call of his name in a voice clear and emphatic. Soon after, he rose, with a paper in his hand, and addressed theSpeaker, when paralysis returned, and, uttering the words, "This is thelast of earth; I am content, " he fell into the arms of the occupant ofan adjoining seat, who sprang to his aid. The house immediatelyadjourned. The members, greatly agitated, closed around him, untildispersed by their associates of the medical faculty, who conveyed himto a sofa in the rotundo, and from thence, at the request of the Speakerof the House of Representatives, Robert C. Winthrop, he was removed tothe Speaker's apartment in the capitol. There Mrs. Adams and his familywere summoned to his side, and he continued, sedulously watched andattended, in a state of almost entire insensibility, until the eveningof the 23d of February, when his spirit peacefully departed. 

The gate of fear and envy was now shut; that of honor and fame opened. Men of all parties united in just tributes to the memory of John QuincyAdams. The halls of Congress resounded with voices of apt eulogy. Aftera pathetic discourse by the Chaplain of the House of Representatives, the remains of the departed statesman were followed by his family andimmediate friends, and by the senators and representatives of the Stateof Massachusetts, as chief mourners. The President of the United States, the heads of departments, both branches of the national legislature, themembers of the executive, judicial, and diplomatic corps, the officersof the army and navy, the corporations of all the literary and publicsocieties in the District of Columbia, also joined the procession, whichproceeded with a military escort to the Congressional cemetery. Fromthence his remains were removed, attended by thirty members of the Houseof Representatives, --one from each state in the Union, --toMassachusetts. 

Every token of honor and respect was manifested in the cities andvillages through which they passed. In Boston they were received by acommittee appointed by the Legislature of Massachusetts, and by themunicipal government; and, passing through the principal streets, weredeposited, under care of the mayor of the city, in Faneuil Hall, whichwas appropriately draped in mourning. Here they lay in state until thenext day, when, attended by the representatives of the nation, theExecutive and Legislature of Massachusetts, and the municipalauthorities of Boston, they were removed to Quincy, the birthplace ofMr. Adams. There, in its Congregational church, after an eloquentaddress, [5] these national tributes to the departed patriot closed, beside the sepulchre of his parents, amidst the scenes most familiar anddear to his heart. 

 [5] By William P. Lunt, minister of the First Congregational Church in Quincy. 

 * * * *

The life of a statesman second to none in diligent and effectivepreparation for public service, and faithful and fearless fulfilment ofpublic duty, has now been sketched, chiefly from materials taken fromhis published works. The light of his own mind has been thrown on hislabors, motives, principles, and spirit. In times better adapted toappreciate his worth, his merits and virtues will receive a moreenduring memorial. The present is not a moment propitious to weigh themin a true balance. He knew how little a majority of the men of his owntime were disposed or qualified to estimate his character with justice. To a future age he was accustomed to look with confidence. "_Alterisæculo_" was the appeal made by him through his whole life, and isnow engraven on his monument. 

The basis of his moral character was the religious principle. His spiritof liberty was fostered and inspired by the writings of Milton, Sydney, and Locke, of which the American Declaration of Independence was anemanation, and the constitution of the United States, with the exceptionof the clauses conceded to slavery, an embodiment. He was the associateof statesmen and diplomatists at a crisis when war and desolation sweptover Europe, when monarchs were perplexed with fear of change, and thewelfare of the United States was involved in the common danger. Afterleading the councils which restored peace to conflicting nations, hereturned to support the administration of a veteran statesman, and thenwielded the chief powers of the republic with unsurpassed purity andsteadiness of purpose, energy, and wisdom. Removed by faction from thehelm of state, he re-entered the national councils, and, in his old age, stood panoplied in the principles of Washington and his associates, theablest and most dreaded champion of freedom, until, from the stationassigned him by his country, he departed, happy in a life devoted toduty, in a death crowned with every honor his country could bestow, andblessed with the hope which inspires those who defend the rights, anduphold, when menaced, momentous interests of mankind.