traffic in slaves-in alluring the aboriginal hunters of our land to the cultivation of the soil and of the mind-in exploring the interior regions of the union, and in preparing, by scientific researches and surveys, for the further application of our national resources to the internal improvement of our country.

"In this brief outline of the promise and performance of my immediate predecessor, the line of duty, for his successor, is clearly delineated. To pursue to their consummation those purposes of improvement in our common condition, instituted or recommended by him, will embrace the whole sphere of my obligations. To the topic of internal improvement, emphatically urged by him at his inauguration, I recur with peculiar satisfaction. It is that from which I am convinced that the unborn millions of our posterity, who are in future ages to people this continent, will derive their most fervent gratitude to the founders of the union; that in which the beneficent action of its government will be most deeply felt and acknowledged. The magnificence and splendor of their public works are among the imperishable glories of the ancient republics. The roads and aqueducts of Rome have been the admiration of all

after ages, and have survived,

thousands of years, after all her conquests have been swallowed up in despotism, or become the spoil of barbarians. Some diversity of opinion has prevailed with regard to the powers of congress for legislation upon objects of this nature. The most respectful deference is due to doubts, originating in pure patriotism, and sustained by venerated authority. But nearly twenty years have passed since the construction of the first na tional road was commenced. The authority for its construction was then, unquestioned. To how ma ny thousands of our countrymen has it proved a benefit? To what single individual has it ever proved an injury? Repeated liberal and candid discussions in the legislature have conciliated the senti ments, and approximated the opinions of enlightened minds, upon the question of constitutional pow

er.

I cannot but hope, that, by the same process of friendly, patient, and persevering deliberation, all constitutional objections will ultimately be removed. The extent and limitation of the powers of the general government, in relation to this transcendently important interest, will be settled and acknowledged, to the common satisfaction of all; and every specu lative scruple will be solved by a practical public blessing.

"Fellow citizens, you are ar

quainted with the peculiar circumstances of the recent election, which have resulted in affording me the opportunity of addressing you at this time. You have heard the exposition of the principles which will direct me in the fulfilment of the high and solemn trust imposed upon me in this station. Less possessed of your confidence, in advance, than any of my predecessors, I am deeply conscious of the prospect that I shall stand more and oftener in need of your indulgence. Intentions upright and pure; a heart devoted to the welfare of our country, and the unceasing application of the faculties allotted to me, to her service, are all the pledges that I can give for the faithful performance of the arduous duties I am to undertake. To the guidance of the legislative councils; to the assistance of the executive and subordinate departments; to the friendly co-operation of the respective state governments; to the candid and liberal support of the people, so far as it may be deserved by honest industry and zeal, I shall look for what ever success may attend my public service and knowing that, except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain, with fervent supplications for his favor, to his overruling Providence, I commit, with humble but fearless confi

dence, my own fate, and the future destinies of my country."

The vacancies which were made in the cabinet by the election of the secretary of state and war to the presidency and vice-presidency, and by the retirement of the secretary of the treasury, rendered it expedient to convene the senate, immediately after the dissolution of the eighteenth congress. On the 4th of March, the same day when the president was inaugurated, the members assembled, and after the necessary formalities were gone through, the vice-president took the chair, and addressed the senate upon the importance of its duties, and the immediate dependence of all the other departments of the government upon that body. After glancing at the construction of the senate, and commending the character it had sustained, he proceeded to say, that while presiding, "he should only regard the senate and its duties, and should strive with a feeling of pride to preserve the high character already attained by the senate for dignity and wisdom, and to elevate it, if possible, still higher in public esteem." The new members then appeared, and took their seats. Upon the presentation of the credentials of Mr. Lanman, of Connecticut, a question was raised as to his right to a seat under the following cir

cumstances. Previous to the expiration of his term of service, the legislature of Connecticut had endeavored without success to choose a person to fill the vacancy whenever it should occur, and finally adjourned without making a choice. After the adjournment of the legislature, the governor transmitted to Mr. Lanman a temporary appointment as senator, in contemplation of the vacancy, under that part of the constitution authorising appointments by the state executives, "when vacancies happen by resignation or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature."

A committee was appointed to search for precedents, and reported the following cases bearing on the question before the senate.

On the 27th of April, 1797, William Cocke was appointed a senator by the governor of Tennessee, to fill the vacancy caused by the expiration of his term of service on the 3d of March preceding, and took his seat on the 15th of May, and was qualified.

This case differed from Mr. Lanman's only in the fact that Mr. Cocke was appointed after the vacancy had occurred, and Mr. L. was appointed in anticipation of a vacancy. The case of Uriah Tracy, from Connecticut, in 1801, resembled the one before the senate

tion was there raised as to his right to take his seat. The senate then determined in favor of Mr. Tracy by a vote of 13 to 10.

Two cases subsequently occurred similar to this precedent, viz. Joseph Anderson, a senator from Tennessee, in 1809, and John Williams, from Tennessee, in 1817. To the admission and qualification of these senators no objection was made. The question was considered as settled by the decision in 1801, and they took their seats. The senate now, however, came to an opposite conclusion, and by a vote of 23 to 18, decided that Mr. Lanman was not entitled to his seat.

The senate then went into the consideration of executive business, and confirmed the nominations made by the President for the several departments. Henry Clay, of Kentucky, was appointed secretary of state; Richard Rush, of Pennsylvania, secretary of the treasury; James Barbour, of Virginia, secretary of war.

To the appointment of Mr. Clay, a warm opposition was made on the part of a few senators, and the injunction of secrecy being removed, the vote appeared to have been 27 in favor, and 14 against it.

taken, requested permission to record his name in the affirmative, but the senate decided it not to be in order. As the vote removing the injunction of secrecy did not extend to the reasons urged by the opposers of his appointment, we cannot present to our readers their motives for voting against Mr. Clay. Mr. Noble, however, thought it necessary, on account of his absence, to declare what his vote would have been, and to assign his reasons for voting in favor of Mr. Clay these were, first, his distinguished talents, and secondly, "because he would not oppose an administration, at the commencement, for party purposes."

After disposing of the nominations made by the executive, the senate took into consideration the treaty made with Colombia for the suppression of the slave trade. This treaty was made in conformity with a resolution of the house of representatives, recommending to the executive to make treaties, giving the mutual right of search of vessels in suspected parts of the world, in order more effectually to prevent the traffic in human flesh. The amendments proposed by the senate, at the last session, to the treaty with Great Britain, for the same purpose, were introduced into this treaty, but the fate of the treaty with England had probably caused a change in the minds of

some of the senators, and other views had been taken of the subject by others, and the treaty was rejected by a vote of 28 to 12.

The divisions which had been taken on the foregoing questions, left little doubt that the new administration was destined to meet with a systematic and organized opposition; and, previous to the next meeting of congress, the ostensible grounds of opposition were set forth at public dinners and meetings, so as to prepare the community for a warm political contest, until the next election. Those who placed themselves in opposition to the administration, without reference to its measures, urged as reasons for their hostility, that Mr. Adams' election was the result of a bargain between Mr. Clay and himself; and his election of Mr. Clay, as secretary of state, was relied upon as a conclusive proof of the bargain; that he was elected against the expressed will of the people; and that congress, by not taking general Jackson, the candidate having the highest number of votes, had violated the constitution, and disobeyed their constituents. Personal objections were also urged; but as these formed no part of the justification of the opposition which was to be arrayed in anticipation of measures, it is unnecessary to give them a place. Those who were friendly to the

new administration, or disposed to judge of it by its acts, replied to these objections, that Mr. Clay, as a representative, was obliged to decide between three candidates for the presidency, and that his vote was in accordance with all his previous declarations: that his own situation as a candidate who might possibly succeed, rendered it unsuitable for him to express any preference for either of the other candidates, until the decision by the legislature of Louisiana (first heard at Washington 27th December,) had left him free to decide between his former competitors: that Mr. Crawford, though constitutionally a candidate, was virtually with drawn by the situation of his health, and that as between Mr. Adams and general Jackson, the previous deliberate expression of his sentiments as to the latter's character and qualifications for a civil office, rendered it impossible for him to vote for him without the most gross inconsistency: that Mr. Adams' experience, learning, and talents were guarantees for his proper performance of the duties of the chief magistracy, which were not in the power of his competitor to offer, and that having been compelled to discharge this duty as a representative of the people, it would have argued an improper distrust of his own character and of public opinion, to have

refused to take the appointment of secretary of state from Mr. Adams, because he had contributed by his vote to elect him to the presidency. As to the fact of his selection as secretary of state, they vindicated it on the ground, that his situation as speaker of the house, and his long and intimate acquaintance with our national affairs, made him the most prominent candidate for that station, and the strong support he received in the west for the presidency, showed that his appointment would gratify a part of the union, which, until then, had never been complimented with a representative in the cabinet.

The other objections to the election of Mr. Adams, they contended were contrary to the spirit and letter of the constitution. By the electors refusing to give a majority for either of the presidential candidates, they had committed the question to the decision of congress. The will of the people, so far as expressed, was, that no person should be elected, except by the concurrence of thirteen states in congress; and they were empowered to select either of the three highest candidates. That this constitutional provision was to prevent the choice by any number less than a majority, and that to confine congress to the selection of the candidate having the highest number, was to