which, disdaining to wait for danger, meets it half way. Haughty as she is, we once triumphed over her, and, if we do not listen to the counsels of timidity and despair, we shall again prevail. In such a cause, with the aid of Providence, we must come out crowned with success; but if we fail, let us fail like men, lash ourselves to our gallant tars, and expire together in one common struggle, fighting for

FREE TRADE AND SEAMEN'S RIGHTS.

[Mr. CLAY resigned his seat in Congress on the 19th of January, 1814, having been appointed by President Madison a Commissioner to proceed to Gottenburg (afterward changed to Ghent) to meet Commissioners from Great Britain to negotiate a Treaty of Peace. The thanks of the House were tendered him on his retirement, for his able and impartial discharge of the duties of Speaker: Yeas 144, Nays nine-scarcely a sixth of the Federalists voting against it in that period of the bitterest party spirit and the most excited political feelings. He returned thanks in a brief and feeling address.

Mr. CLAY repaired to Ghent, took a leading part in negotiating the Treaty,* and returned amid the enthusiastic acclamations of the whole country. During his absence he had been unanimously re-elected to Congress, but, some doubts being started of the legality of that election, he was unanimously elected over again upon his return. On taking his seat, he was at once chosen Speaker, by 87 votes to 35 blanks and scattering; and again re-elected in 1818, by 140 votes to 6 for Gen. Samuel Smith, of Maryland, and again in 1819 by 148 to 7 scattering.]

The following anecdote of Mr. Clay at Ghent is worth repeating:

Being on a tour through the Netherlands, preparatory to the negotiation, Hon. Henry Goulbourn, one of the British Commissioners, procured and sent him a file of London papers, containing accounts of the Burning of Washington by the British troops, with a courteous epistle, stating that he presumed Mr. C. would be happy to re ceive the latest news from America. Mr. Clay returned his thanks for the civility, and in further acknowledgement enclosed to Mr. G. a later file of Paris papers, containing accounts of the defeat of Sir George Provost at Plateburgh, and the utter destruction of the British flotilla in the fight off that place!

ON INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT.

IN THE HOUSE Of RepresentatIVES, MARCH 13, 1818.

[The subject of Internal Improvement, and of the aid which ought to be afforded it by the federal Government, began deeply to agitate the public mind, soon after the close of our last War with Great Britain. New York commenced her gigantic undertaking, (as it then truly seemed,) and called upon Congress for assistance. Other sections also presented claims, and urged them with earnestness and force A report in favor of appropriating the bonus paid for her charter by the United States Bank to this purpose, was made by a Select Committee. The general question being under discussion, Mr. CLAY addressed the House as follows:]

I HAVE been anxious to catch the eye of the Chairman for a few moments, to reply to some of the observations which have fallen from various gentlemen. I am aware that, in doing this, I risk the loss of what is of the utmost value-the kind favor of the House, wearied as its patience is by this prolonged debate. But when I feel what a deep interest the Union at large, and particularly that quarter of it whence I come, has in the decision of the present question, I cannot omit any opportunity of earnestly urging upon the House the propriety of retaining the important power which this question involves. It will be recollected, that if unfortunately there should be a majority both against the abstract proposition asserting the power, and against its practical execution, the power is gone for ever—the question is put at rest so long as the constitution remains as it is; and with respect to any amendment, in this particular, I confess I utterly despair. It will be borne in mind, that the bill which passed Congress on this subject, at the last session, was rejected by the late President of the United States; that at the commencement of the present session, the President communicated his clear opinion, after every effort to come to a different conclusion, that Congress does not possess the power contended for, and called upon us to take up the subject in the shape of an amendment to the Con

stitution; and, moreover, that the predecessor of the present and late Presidents, has also intimated his opinion that Congress does not possess the power. With the great weight and authority of the opinions of these distinguished men against the power, and with the fact, solemnly entered upon the record, that this House, after a deliberate review of the ground taken by it at the last session, has decided against the existence of it, (if such, fatally, shall be the decision,) the power, I repeat, is gone-gone for ever, unless restored by an amendment of the constitution. With regard to the practicability of obtaining such an amendment, I think it altogether out of the question. Two different descriptions of persons, entertaining sentiments directly opposed, will unite and defeat such an amendment; one embracing those who believe that the constitution, fairly inter preted, already conveys the power, and the other, those who think that Congress has not and ought not to have it. As a large portion of Congress, and probably a majority, believes the power to exist, it must be evident, if I am right in supposing that any considerable number of that majority would vote against an amendment which they do not believe necessary, that any attempt to amend would fail. Considering, as I do, the existence of the power as of the first importance, not merely to the preservation of the Union of the States, paramount as that consideration ever should be over all others, but to the prosperity of every great interest of the country, agriculture, manufactures, commerce, in peace and in war, it becomes us solemnly, and deliberately, and anxiously to examine the constitution, and not to surrender it, if fairly to be collected from a just interpretation of that instrument.

With regard to the alarm sought to be created as to the nature of the power, by bringing up the old theme of "State Rights," I would observe, that if the illustrious persons just referred to are against us in the construction of the constitution, they are on our side as to the harmless and beneficial character of the power. For it is not to be conceived that each of them would have recommended an amendment to the constitution, if they believed that the possession of such a power, by the General Government, would be detrimental, much less dangerous, to the independence and liberties of the States. What real ground is there for this alarm? Gentlemen have not condescended to show how the subversion of the rights of the States is to follow from the exercise of the power of internal im

provements by the General Government. We contend for the power to make roads and canals, to distribute the intelligence, force, and productions of the country through all its parts; and for such jurisdiction only over them as is necessary to their preservation from wanton injury and from gradual decay. Suppose such a power is sustained and in full operation; imagine it to extend to every canal made, or proposed to be made, and to every post-road, how inconsiderable and insignificant is the power in a political point of view, limited as it is with regard to place and to purpose, when contrasted with the great mass of powers retained by the state sovereignties! What a small subtraction from the mass! Even upon these roads and canals, the state governments, according to our principles, will still exercise jurisdiction over every possible case arising upon them, whether of crime or of contract, or any other human transaction, except only what immediately affects their existence and preservation. Thus defined, thus limited, and striped of all factitious causes of alarm, I will appeal to the candor of gentlemen to say if the power really presents any thing frightful in it? With respect to post-roads, our adversaries admit the right of way in the general government. There have been, however, on this question, some instances of conflict, but they have passed away without any serious difficulty. Connecticut, if I have been rightly informed, disputed, at one period, the right of passage of the mail on the Sabbath. The general government persisted in the exercise of the right, and Connecticut herself and every body else, have acquiesced in it.

pressly granted, or necessary and proper to carry into effect some granted power. I have not sought to derive power from the clause which authorizes Congress to appropriate money. I have been contented with endeavoring to show, that according to the doctrines of 1798, and according to the most rigid interpretation which any one will put upon the instrument, it is expressly given in one case, and fairly deducible in others.

[Here Mr. Clay read sundry passages from Mr. Madison's report to the Virginia legislature, in an answer to the resolutions of several States, concerning the Alien and Sedition laws, snowing that there were no powers in the general government but what were granted, and that, whenever a power was claimed to be exercised by it, such power must be shown to be granted, or to be necessary and proper to carry into effect one of the specified powers.]

It will be remarked, that Mr. Madison, in his reasoning on the constitution, has not employed the language fashionable during this debate; he has not said that an implied power must be absolutely necessary to carry into effect the specified power, to which it is appurtenant, to enable the general government to exercise it. No! This was a modern interpretation of the constitution. Mr. Madison has employed the language of the instrument itself, and has only contended that the implied power must be necessary and proper to carry into effect the specified power. He has only insisted that when Congress applied its sound judgment to the constitution in relation to implied powers, it should be clearly seen that they were necessary and proper to effectuate the specified powers. These are my principles; but they are not those of the gentleman from Virginia and nis friends on this occasion. They contend for a degree of necessity absolute and indispensable; that by no possibility can the power be otherwise executed.

That there are two classes of powers in the constitution, I believe has never been controverted by an American politician. We cannot foresee and provide specifically for all contingencies. Man and his language are both imperfect. Hence the existence of construction and of constructive powers. Hence also the rule that a grant of the end is a grant of the means. If you amend the constitution a thousand times, the same imperfection of our nature and our language will attend our new works. There are two dangers to which we are exposed. The one is, that the general government tay relapse into the debility which existed in the old confederation,