scarcely admitted the possibility that two such nations, both of whom had so much to gain by peace, and so much to lose by war, would fall into hostilities on such a question. He thought it would be a crime in them to do so, and would be so regarded by the wise and the good of Christendom. He denied that there was any thing in the correspondence between the two governments to show that this mode of settlement had been exhausted. He declared he would not vote for the " notice" until we had made such reasonable preparations as would meet the first shock of war, in the possible contingency of that event. He wished to see the preparations made first; and, until that was done, he avowed that he would vote for no measure, except under a stronger necessity than he then saw, which even might bring on a war with such a power as Great Britain. He did not, however, insist upon any protracted delay in settling the question. But he did not wish to restrict the period within which this might be done to twelve months, particularly while, he contended, we were losing nothing by the delay, and might, in the mean time, prepare for the event. Hel then added:

"In view of some of the considerations which I have presented, I do not mean to say that I will not vote for the notice, if nothing shall occur before the adjournment of Congress to make it unnecessary, provided I see Congress setting about in earnest to prepare for the emergency. But I will not vote for it now. To-morrow I may regret it if I do. To-morrow I can not regret not having done it to-day; for, if I shall then see the propriety of it, I can do it at once. What I am willing to do now is to carry out the other recommendations of the President. I am willing to extend our laws regulating trade and intercourse with the Indians east of the Rocky Mountains, to such' tribes as dwell beyond them.' I am willing to vote that provision be made for establishing an Indian agency, and such subagencies as may be deemed necessary, beyond the Rocky Mountains. For the protection of emigrants while on their way to Oregon, against the attacks of the Indian tribes occupying the country through which they pass.' I am willing to provide that a suitable number of stockades and block-house forts be erected along the usual route between our frontier settlements on the Missouri and the Rocky Mountains, and that an adeVOL. I.-II

quate force of mounted riflemen be raised to guard and protect them on their journey.' I am willing to extend the protection of our laws, both civil and criminal, over our citizens in Oregon.' All these recommendations of the President I am will. ing to aid in carrying out. But, for the reasons I have given, I can not vote at this time for giving the notice for the termi nation of the Convention of 1818."

He has voted against appropriations for internal improvements. He denies that the government possesses the constitu tional power to carry on such a system, and is of opinion that, even if the power existed, its exercise would be inexpedient. He sustained Mr. Tyler at the first session of the twenty-eighth Congress, in his veto of the bill then known as the Eastern Harbor Bill, and in the twenty-ninth Congress voted to sustain Mr. Polk in his veto of the general River and Harbor Bill. In the first of these two cases he entered into an elaborate de fense of the veto power, justifying it as democratic in its nature, as one of the most conservative and republican features of the Constitution, and as having a direct tendency to sustain popular supremacy. Speaking of Mr. Tyler, he said:

come.

"I will not be betrayed into a defense of the President against the attacks which have been made upon him. The time has not arrived when he can have justice done him; but it will When the passions of the present hour have passed away, and Reason has resumed her empire, he will be esteemed one of the boldest of the defenders of the Constitution, and his memory will be cherished with gratitude for much he has done, when many of those who revile him will be forgotten, or only remembered to have execrations heaped upon their names."

With not less emphasis did he uphold Mr. Polk in his veto of the other bill mentioned. He thought that it placed the President, if he did not stand there before, on the ground of the most orthodox Republicans, and that his construction of the Constitution rescued the clause which gave to Congress the power to regulate commerce from the sweeping character which the ingenuity of politicians had endeavored to place upon it.

He has co-operated heartily with the present administration in all the measures of its financial policy, and especially in its opposition to the protective system. His speeches on this branch of national politics are undoubtedly among the most powerful

and argumentative delivered in either house. We note espe cially his speech in reply to Mr. Hudson, of Massachusetts, on the corn-trade of England, as one which called forth many tributes of praise from public and private sources, as well foreign as domestic. He believes that the power to levy protective duties is not only without warrant in the Constitution, but that it is palpably in derogation of its spirit. He contended that other nations are throwing off commercial shackles which were the growth of centuries, and that we must follow their example. He believes that the days of the restrictive policy are numbered, and that, though it may drag out a sickly existence for a brief period, yet it will pass away to be remembered only by its folly.

The consistency of his political course having been made the subject-matter of comment in the House, the following explanatory remarks seem entitled to a place here. They have reference to some observations made by Garrett Davis, of Kentucky:

"But the gentleman does not choose to confine himself to accusations of inconsistency in reference merely to the question before the House; he has traveled out of the record, as the lawyers say, in order to inform the House that in 1840 I was a Whig, and had, at one time, made Whig speeches in Ohio. I tell the gentleman that he is totally misinformed. I dislike the appearance of vanity-the egotism which speaking of myself implies. The remarks of the gentleman, however, make it necessary to give a formal contradiction to his statements. The first vote I ever gave in my life was for General Jackson, in 1832, against the venerable gentleman from Massachusetts.' "A member. Mr. Clay.'

"Mr. Bayly. 'I thank my colleague for the correction; it was against the Magnus Apollo of Kentucky that I cast my vote in favor of General Jackson.'

"Mr. Davis. May I ask the gentleman a question?'

"The Speaker. Yes, if the gentleman admits it, and it be in explanation.'

"Mr. Bayly. 'I am ready to hear the question.'

"Mr. Davis. 'I ask the gentleman, then, whether he did not vote for General Harrison?'

"Mr. Bayly. 'I believe I can answer that question to your satisfaction. In 1836, the competitors for the presidency were

son.

Martin Van Buren, Hugh L. White, and William H. HarriI believed that Judge White was as good a Republican as Mr. Van Buren. Both were against the bank; both were against internal improvements. Judge White denied the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. Mr. Van Buren, although he repudiated the propriety of exercising the power, admitted its existence, and in that contest I voted in the State of Virginia, and supported Judge White for the Presidency, and cast my vote for him, and not for General Harrison.' "Mr. Davis. 'Mr. Speaker, may I—'

6

"The Speaker. Will the gentleman from Virginia give way for explanation?"

"Mr. Davis. May I ask the gentleman whether he addressed any Whig meetings in Ohio?"

"Mr. Bayly. During my peregrinations in Ohio-not political peregrinations, for I was attending to private business—it happened that I was called on to make a speech at Columbus on occasion of the great Whig festival there, and with that invitation I complied. [Laughter.] Well, gentlemen may laugh; but let me tell them what was the purport of my speech on that occasion. Did I recommend or advocate any of the Federal measures of the gentleman from Kentucky? No, sir. And I never shall forget that my denunciations of abolitionism, and the general tone and tenor of my speech were considered so very mal apropos by the Whig leaders, that they were very glad to get clear of me. [Renewed laughter.] And, sir, although I had some little reputation then as a public speaker, yet, after the specimen of my oratory which I gave them on that occasion, and notwithstanding they were hard run for speakers, I can assure you that they did not afterward honor me with any invitations to address Whig meetings. [Laughter.] And let me add here, that, for the activity with which I opposed the election of General Harrison, I was visited with a bitterness of denunciation perhaps rarely heaped on any other man. I was then, as now, in the Accomac District, and it was then the boasted banner district of the Union. It was precisely at that dark hour that, in the district, I was most active in maintaining the great state rights and Democratic principles to which I have ever been, and trust I ever shall be, devotedly attached. Of the part taken by me in the last contest, it is not for me to

speak. It is enough to say, I never gave a Federal vote; I never maintained a Federal principle. I have never failed, to the utmost of my ability, to maintain the principles which distinguish the democracy of Virginia.””

Mr. Bayly opposed the interference of Congress with the subject of the naturalization laws, when it was brought up on certain resolutions of the General Assembly of Massachusetts, asking for such amendments as would protect the ballot-box from fraud. This, he thought, was equivalent to asking Congress to interfere with the right of suffrage in the States. He insisted that the subject was one over which the general government possessed no jurisdiction; that the States might admit to the exercise of that right whom they pleased; and that there was no power in the general government to control them; and he considered that to ask Congress to interfere with this right was a bold attempt to usurp the acknowledged right of the States.

The earnestness with which he advocated the annexation of Texas as well in respect to the act itself as to the mode of its accomplishment by joint resolution-is generally known. And we thus come, by an easy transition, to his vote on the Mexican War Bill. We find his name recorded in its favor; but we see by the record that, before the vote was taken, he asked leave to be excused from voting; and, under a rule then, but not now existing, assigned his reasons for the request. He said:

"I can not vote in silence without placing myself in a false position. I consider this bill virtually a declaration of war, made without executive recommendation-for I do not understand the message, from hearing it read, as recommending a declaration of war-and made, too, when we do not know that the invasion of our territory and the aggressive acts are sanctioned by the Mexican government. They may yet be disavowed, and reparation made. I am unwilling, therefore, at this time, and under the circumstances, to vote for a declaration of war. I do not think such a declaration necessary to meet the emergency. On the other hand, I am anxious to vote such supplies of men and money as will afford succor to our army, and repel the invasion. I must, as I am now situated, decline to do this, or vote for the bill before the House. I shall