sippi Rivers. Mr. Douglas was an active and zealous supporter of this great work, and took a deeper interest in its success than in any other measure before the Legislature. The friends of the work were nearly equally divided into two parties, advocating different plans for accomplishing the same end. The one supported the plan of feeding the canal with the waters of Lake Michigan, by a deep excavation some thirty miles through the dividing ridge which separates the waters flowing into the St. Lawrence from those flowing into the Mississippi and Gulf of Mexico, and running the canal parallel with, and on, the immediate banks of the Illinois River to Peru, its pres ent termination, instead of improving the navigation of the river for steamboats that distance by locks and dams. The other party advocated a canal upon the surface across the dividing ridge, supplied in the usual mode from the adjacent streams, and the improvement of the Illinois River by locks and dams for steamboats. It was admitted at that time, and is not, we believe, questioned at this day, that the latter plan would cost three millions of dollars less than the former, and could be constructed several years sooner. This latter plan, known as the "slack and shallow cut," in contradistinction to the "old deepcut" plan, Mr. Douglas supported. Some of the ablest speeches of his life are said to have been made upon this question; and he held a majority of the House in favor of his plan for about six weeks, while a majority of the Senate adhered firmly to the other. Finding that this difference of opinion among the friends of the measure might hazard its success in any shape, a few members yielded their preferences, and the favorite plan of Mr. Douglas was defeated. The other plan, after having undergone some important modifications by a committee, of which he was a member, was adopted. It received his vote, because he preferred that plan to the loss of the measure. Under this law, the work proceeded for several years, until the resources and credit of the state failed, when it was suspended for want of means. It has since been revived by an arrangement between the state and its creditors. The "deep-cut" plan was immediately abandoned, as unwise and impracticable in the present condition of the state finances. We have reason to believe, upon the authority of one holding a position which gives sanction to what he may say, that that part of Mr. Douglas's plan

which proposed to lock and dam the Illinois River would have been adopted, if the work had not been so nearly finished on that part of the line.

His course on this question, however, rendered him for several years very unpopular in that section of the state through which the canal runs, and lost him many votes for Congress two years afterward. The people there opposed him at that time as violently as they have since cordially approved his course. They now believe that if his opinions had prevailed in 1836, this great work would have been long since finished, and the state relieved from much of its embarrassment. They have since done him justice by giving him their unanimous support in his election last year to the Senate of the United States.

During the same session, the great Illinois rail-road system was adopted. It was the era of grand and magnificent projects, and the mania seems to have pervaded the whole people as well as legislatures and city councils. The people of Illinois demanded a general system of internal improvements. Two plans were presented to the Legislature. The one provided that the state should subscribe one third or one half of the stock in all companies which had been or should be chartered by the Legislature, and that individuals should subscribe the other half or two thirds, as the case might be, and should have the controlling power in the companies. A list of the companies in existence, and pending before that Legislature, for internal improvements, shows an aggregate capital stock of more than fifty millions of dollars; the corporators were authorized to organize their respective companies by paying from one to five dollars on a share of one hundred dollars, and could then have called upon the state for its subscription. It was objected to this plan that the state would furnish all the money without the power to control its application. The other plan proposed that the state should make, own, and control the works. Mr. Douglas supported the last of these plans, and early in the session proposed a series of resolutions indicating his individual views upon the subject. They are as follows:

1st. That the Legislature should provide for a general system of internal improvements, to be constructed and owned by the state.

2d. That the system be composed of the following works:

1. The completion of the Illinois and Michigan Canal. 2. The northern cross rail-road, from Quincy on the Mississippi River, to the Indiana line in the direction of Lafayette. 3. The central rail-road, from the mouth of the Ohio to Galena.

4. That surveys and estimates should be made of such other works as should be deemed advisable, to be reported to a subsequent session of the Legislature for future action.

The plan adopted differs from the one proposed in this respect, that all the rail-roads were to be commenced and prosecuted at once, instead of confining the resources of the soil to two roads, and making surveys and estimates to enlighten future legislation as to the numerous others.

Mr. Douglas, then, proposed to finish the canal, make two rail-roads, and provide surveys and estimates on the other routes for the information of subsequent legislatures. But, instead of two, a bill was reported for eight rail-roads, all to be commenced and prosecuted at the same time. They were all embodied in one bill, and must all have been adopted or all rejected. He stood pledged to his constituents to support a general system of internal improvements, and was, moreover, instructed to support the bill before the House, notwithstanding his individual opinions as expressed in his resolutions. The bill, which was adopted by an overwhelming majority, received his vote.

Besides these leading questions, Mr. Douglas took a prominent part in the general legislation. He was chairman of the Committee on Petitions, which was one of the most laborious in the House.

Soon after the adjournment of the Legislature, he received a commission from the President of the United States, appointing him, by the advice of the Senate, Register of the Landoffice at Springfield, Illinois. He had not been an applicant for the office, and hesitated some time before accepting it. He was anxious to return to his profession, and make that the business of his life among the people who had received him so kindly when a stranger, and had honored him with their confidence by making him their representative. The advice of his friends, that to accept the office would promote his pecuniary interests, without materially interfering with his professional business, and would, at the same time, enable him to serve his

old friends in a different capacity, at length prevailed, and he entered upon the discharge of his new duties in April, 1837. He retained this office for two years, and then resigned for the purpose of devoting himself exclusively to his profession.

In the mean time, however, he had again become actively engaged in politics. The paper system had exploded; the banks throughout the Union were in a state of suspension; credit was destroyed; and pecuniary embarrassment and bankruptcy seemed to threaten all classes. The President of the United States, Mr. Van Buren, convened an extra session of Congress, and proposed his well-known measure for "divorcing" the government from all banking institutions, called the Sub Treasury, or Independent Treasury. The principles of this measure harmonized with the previous opinions of Mr. Douglas. But a few months before, he had strenuously advocated the same principles in the Legislature of his own state, and had there struggled, as we have seen, not only against a vicious banking system, but especially against the union of bank and state. His own previous convictions were strengthened by results, and he became at once the warm advocate of the great "divorce measure." The history of that period is familiar to our readers. Panic and dismay pervaded the Democratic party throughout the Union. Mr. Van Buren, who had been elected by a triumphant majority, backed by large majorities in both houses of Congress, found himself, in less than one year, in a hopeless minority. The entire delegation in the lower house of Congress from Illinois, with many other leading men of the party in different portions of the Union, abandoned the administration on this question, and allied themselves with the opposition. The political horizon never looked darker, especially in that part of Illinois in which Mr. Douglas resided, where it was supposed that the Whigs would certainly elect their candidate. for Congress by an immense majority. Under these circumstances, he again entered the political arena. In November, 1837, he was nominated by a convention of his party the Democratic candidate for Congress at the election to be held on the first Monday in August, 1838. At the time of his nomination he was ineligible, not being of the age of twenty-five years; but he attained that age before the day of election arrived. He accepted the nomination with no confident expectation of being

elected, but with the hope of consolidating and strengthening the party in future elections. The canvass was conducted in true Western style, with extraordinary energy. For nearly five months the candidates were constantly riding through the district, addressing the people every day except Sundays. The district was the largest in the United States, owing to the vast tide of emigration setting in; and when the votes were counted, it was decided that out of more than thirty-six thousand cast, Mr. Stuart, the Whig candidate, was elected over Mr. Douglas by five votes. In explanation, however, of this result, it is proper to state, that some of the votes cast for Mr. Douglas were rejected by the board of canvassers, in consequence of an error in the spelling of his name. Had these votes been counted for him, or had all the misspelling on both sides been rejected, Mr. Douglas believes that he would have had a majority. His friends were anxious that he should have contested the election, but this he declined to do on the ground that he was unwilling to trouble Congress with a question so tedious and vexatious, especially when he could not reasonably have hoped for a decision during the term for which he claimed to have been elected, because there were already two cases of contested elec tions pending before the House, the celebrated New Jersey case, and that of Ingersoll and Naylor, of Philadelphia. Although deprived of his seat in Congress, he made a great deal of character and popularity out of the canvass. Such a defeat was considered by his friends as a great triumph, especially in view of the fact that the same district at the next election gave General Harrison a majority of more than three thousand votes over Mr. Van Buren.

The election being over, Mr. Douglas again returned to his profession, to which he bent all his energies until the spring of 1840, when he laid aside all other business, and devoted his time exclusively, from the 1st of April until the 1st of November, to the presidential campaign. He had long since resigned the office he held under the government, was not a candidate for any office himself, and had no other interest in the result of the election than that which was common to any other citi zen of the republic. For seven months he traversed the state, attending political meetings, and addressing the people, upon an average, once a day during the entire period. These efforts se