The New Hampshire Gazette

MR. CLAY'S ADDRESS
To the People of the Congressional District
composed of the Counties of Fayette, Wood-
ford and Clarke, in Kentucky.
[CONCLUDED.]

Whether Mr. Adams would or would not
have been my choice of a President, if I had
been left freely to select from the whole mass
of American citizens was not the question sub-
mitted to my decision. I had no such liberty;
but I was circumscribed in the selection I had
to make, to one of three gentlemen whom the
people themselves had thought proper to pre-
sent to the House of Representatives. Whatever objections might be supposed to exist
against him, still greater appeared to me to apply to his competitor. Of Mr. Adams, it is but
truth and justice to say, that he is highly gifted, profoundly learned, and long and greatly
experienced in public affairs, at home and
abroad. Intimately conversant with the rise
and progress of every negotiation with foreign
powers, pending or concluded; personally acquainted with the capacity and attainments of
most of the public men of this country, whom
it might be proper to employ in the public
service; extensively possessed of much of that
valuable kind of information, which is to be
acquired neither from books nor tradition, but
which is the fruit of largely participating in
public affairs: discreet and sagacious; he
would enter on the duties of the office with
great advantages I saw in his election the
establishment of no dangerous example. I saw
in it, on the contrary, only conformity to the
safe precedents which had been established
in the instances of Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Monroe, who had respectively filled the same office from which he was to be
translated.

A collateral consideration of much weight
was derived from the wishes of the Ohio delegation. A majority of it, during the progress
of the session, made up their opinions to support Mr. Adams, and they were communicated
to me. They said, "Ohio supported the candidate who was the choice of Kentucky. We
failed in our common exertions to secure his
election. Now, among those returned, we
have a decided preference, and we think
you ought to make some sacrifices to gratify
us."

Was not much due to our neighbor and
friend?

I considered with the greatest respect, the
resolution of the General Assembly of Kentucky, requesting the delegation to vote for
Gen. Jackson. That resolution, it is true,
placed us in a peculiar situation. Whilst every other delegation, from every other State in
the Union, was left by its Legislature entirely
free to examine the pretensions of all the candidates, and to form its unbiassed judgment.
the General Assembly of Kentucky thought
proper to interpose and to request the delegation to give its vote to one of the candidates,
whom they were pleased to designate. I felt
a sincere desire to comply with a request
emanating from a source so respectable, if I
could have done so consistently with those paramount duties which I owed to you and to the
country. But, after full and anxious consideration, I found it incompatible with my best
judgment of those duties to conform with the
request of the General Assembly. The resolution asserts, that it was the wish of the people of Kentucky, that their delegation should
vote for the General. It did not inform me by
what means that body had arrived at a knowledge of the wish of the people. I knew that
its members had repaired to Frankfort before I
departed from home to come to Washington.
I knew their attention was fixed on important
local concerns, well entitled, by their magnitude, exclusively to engross it. No election,
no general expression of the popular sentiment
had occurred since that in November, when
by an overwhelming majority, had decided
against General Jackson. I could not see how
such an expression against him, could be interpreted into that of a desire for his election.
If, as is true, the candidate whom they preferred, were not returned to the House, it is equally true, that the state of the contest as it presented itself here to me, had never been considered, discussed, and decided by the people
of Kentucky, in their collective capacity.--
What would have been their decision on this
new state of the question, I might have undertaken to conjecture, but the certainty of any
conclusion of fact, as to their opinion, at which
I could arrive, was by no means equal to that
certainty of conviction of my duty to which I
was carried by the exertion of my best and
most deliberate reflections. The letters from
home, which some of the delegation received,
expressed the most opposite opinions, and there
were not wanting instances of letters from
some of the very members who had voted for
the resolution, advising a different course. I
received from a highly respectable portion of
my constituents a paper, instructing me as follows: "We the undersigned voters in the
Congressional district, having viewed the instruction or request of the Legislature of Kentucky, on the subject of choosing a President
and Vice-President of the United States, with
regret, and the said request or instruction to
our Representative in Congress from this district, being without our knowledge or consent;
we for many reasons known to ourselves, connected with so momentous an occasion, hereby
instruct our Representative in Congress, to
vote on this occasion agreeable to his own judgment, and by the best lights he may have on
the subject, with or without, the consent of the
Legislature of Kentucky."

This instruction came both unexpected and
unsolicited by me, and it was accompanied by
letters assuring me, that it expressed the opinion of a majority of my constituents. I could not
therefore regard the resolution as conclusive
evidence of your wishes.

Viewed as a mere request, as it purported to
be, the General Assembly doubtless had the
power to make it. But then with great deference, I think it was worthy of serious consideration whether the dignity of the General Assembly ought not to have induced it to forbear
addressing itself, not to another legislative body, but to a small part of it, and requesting the
members who composed that part, in a case
which the constitution had confided to them,
to vote according to the wishes of the General
Assembly, whether those wishes did or did not
conform to their sense of duty. I could not
regard the resolution as an instruction; for,
from the origin of our State, its legislature has
never assumed or exercised the right to instruct the Representatives in Congress. I did
not recognize the right, therefore, of the legislature to instruct me. I recognized that right
only when exerted by you, That the portion
of the public servants who made up the General Assembly have no right to instruct that portion of them who constituted the Kentucky
delegation in the House of Representatives, is
a proposition too clear to be argued. The
members of the General Assembly would have
been the first to behold as a presumptuous interposition, any instruction, if the Kentucky delegation could have committed the absurdity
to issue from this place any instruction to them
to vote in a particular manner on any of the
interesting subjects which lately engaged their
attention at Frankfort. And although nothing
is further from my intention than to impute
either absurdity or presumption, to the General Assembly, in the adoption of the resolution
referred to, I must say that the difference between an instruction emanating from them to
the delegation, and from the delegation to them,
is not in principle, but is to be found only in
the degree of superior importance which belongs to the General Assembly.

Entertaining these views of the election on
which it was my duty to vote, I felt myself bound in the exercise of my best judgment,
to prefer Mr. Adams; and I accordingly voted for him. I should have been highly gratified if it had not been my duty to vote on the
occasion; but that was not my situation, and
I did not choose to shrink from any responsibility which appertained to your representative. Shortly after the election, it was rumored
that Mr. Kremer was preparing a publication,
and the preparations for it which were making
excited much expectation. Accordingly, on
the 26th of February, the address under his
name, to the "Electors of the ninth Congressional District of the State of Pennsylvania,"
made its appearance in the Washington City
Gazette. No member of the House, I am persuaded, believed that Mr. Kremer wrote one
paragraph of that address, or of the plea, which
was presented to the committee, to the jurisdiction of the House. Those who counselled
him, and composed both papers, and their purposes, were just as well known as the author
of any report from a committee to the House.
The first observation which is called for by the
address is the place of its publication. That
place was in this city, remote from the centre
of Pennsylvania, near which Mr. Kremer's district is situated, and in a paper having but a
very limited, if any circulation in it. The
time is also remarkable. The fact that the
President intended to nominate me, to the Senate for the office which I now hold, in the
course of a few days, was then well known;
and the publication of the address was, no
doubt, made less with an intention to communicate information to the electors of the ninth
Congressional District of Pennsylvania, than
to affect the decision of the Senate on the intended nomination. Of the character and contents of that address of Messrs. George Kremer & Co. made up as it is, of assertion without proof, of inference without premises, and of
careless, jocose, and quizzing conversations of
some of my friends, to which I was no party,
and of which I had never heard, it is not my
intention to say much. It carried its own refutation, and the parties concerned saw its abortive nature the next day in the indignant countenance of every unprejudiced and honorable member. In his card, Mr. Kremer had been
made to say, that he held himself ready "to
prove to the satisfaction of unprejudiced minds.
enough to satisfy them of the accuracy of the
statements which are contained in that letter,
to the extent that they concern the course of conduct of H. Clay." "The object for excluding
my friends from this pledge has been noticed.
But now the election was decided, and there
no longer existed a motive for discriminating
between them and me. Hence the only statements that are made, in the address, having
the semblance of proof, relate rather to them
than to me; and the design was, by establishing something like facts upon them, to make
those facts react upon me.

Of the few topics of the address upon which
I shall remark, the first is, the accusation,
brought forward against me of violating instructions. If the accusation were true, who
was the party offended, and to whom was I
amenable? If I violated any instructions, they
must have been yours, since you only had the
right to give them, and to you alone was I responsible. Without allowing hardly time for
you to hear of my vote, without waiting to
know what your judgment was of my conduct,
George Kremer & Co. chose to arraign me
before the American public as the violater of
instructions which I was bound to obey. If,
instead of being as you are, and I hope always
will be, vigilant observers of the conduct of
your public agents, jealous of your rights, and
competent to protect and defend them, you had
been ignorant and culpably confiding, the gratuitous interposition as your advocate, of the
honorable George Kremer, of the ninth Congressional District of Pennsylvania, would have
merited your most grateful acknowledgements.
Even upon that supposition, his arraignment
of me would have required for its support one
small circumstance, which happens not to exist, and that is the fact of your having actually instructed me to vote according to his pleasure.

The relations in which I stood to Mr. Adams
constitute the next theme of the address, which
I shall notice. I am described as having assumed "a position of peculiar and decided hostility to the election of Mr. Adams," and expressions towards him are attributed to me,
which I never used. I am made also responsible for "pamphlets and essays of great ability,"
published by my friends in Kentucky, in the
course of the canvass. The injustice of the
principle of holding me thus answerable, may
be tested by applying it to the case of Gen.
Jackson, in reference to publications issued, for
example. from the Columbian Observer. That
I was not in favor of the election of Mr. Adams,
when the contest was before the people, is most
certain. Neither was I in favor of that of Mr.
Crawford or General Jackson. That I ever
did any thing against Mr. Adams, or either of
the other gentlemen, inconsistent with a fair
and honorable competition, I utterly deny. My
relations to Mr. Adams have been the subject
tion. I have been stated to be under a public
pledge to expose some nefarious conduct of that
gentleman, during the negotiation at Ghent;
which would prove him to be entirely unworthy
of public confidence; and that, with a knowledge of his perfidy, I nevertheless voted for him.
If these imputations are well founded, I should,
indeed, be a fit object for public censure; but
if, on the contrary, it shall be found that others, inimical both to him and to me, have substituted their own interested wishes for my
public promises, I trust that the indignation,
which they would excite, will be turned from
me. My letter, addressed to the Editors of the
Intelligencer, under date of the 15th November, 1822, is made the occasion for ascribing to
me the promise and the pledge to make those
treasonable disclosures on Mr. Adams. Let
that letter speak for itself, and it will be seen
how little justification there is for such an assertion. It adverts to the controversy which
had arisen between Messrs. Adams and Russell,
and then proceeds to state, that "in the course
of the several publications, of which it has been
the occasion, and, particularly, in the appendix
to a pamphlet which had been recently published by the Hon. John Quincy Adams, I think
there are some errors (no doubt unintentional)
both as to matters of fact and matters of opinion, in regard to the transactions at Ghent, relating to the navigation of the Mississippi, and
certain liberties claimed by the United States
in the Fisheries, and to the part which I bore in
those transactions. These important interests
are now well secured." "An account, therefore, of what occurred in the negotiation at
Ghent, on those two subjects, is not, perhaps,
necessary to the present or future security of
any of the rights of the nation, and is only interesting as appertaining to its past history.
With these impressions, and being extremely
unwilling to present myself, at any time, before
the public, I had almost resolved to remain
silent, and thus expose myself to the inference
of an acquiescence in the correctness of all the
statements made by both my colleagues; but I
have, on more reflection, thought it may be expected of me, and be considered as a duty on
my part, to contribute all in my power towards
a full and faithful understanding of the transactions referred to. Under this conviction, I will,
at some future period, more propitious than the
present, to calm and dispassionate consideration, and when there can be no misinterpretation of motives, lay before the public a narrative of
those transactions, as I understood them."

From even a careless perusal of that letter,
it is apparent, that the only two subjects of the
negotiations at Ghent, to which it refers, were
the navigation of the Mississippi and certain
fishing liberties; that the errors, which I had
supposed were committed, applied to both Mr.
Russell and Mr. Adams, though more particularly to the appendix of the latter; that they
were unintentional; that they affected myself
principally; that I deemed them of no public
importance, as connected with the then, or future security of any of the rights of the nation, but only interesting to its past history;
that I doubted the necessity of my offering to
the public any account of those transactions;
and that the narrative which I promised, was to
be presented at a season of more calm, and
when there could be no misinterpretation of
motives. Although Mr. Adams believes otherwise, I yet think there are some unintentional errors, in the controversial papers between him
and Mr. Russell. But I have reserved to myself an exclusive right of judging when I shall
execute the promise which I have made, and I
shall be neither quickened nor retarded in its
performance, by the friendly anxieties of any of
my opponents.

If injury accrue to any one by the delay in
publishing the narrative, the public will not
suffer by it. It is already known, by the publication of the British and American projets,
the protocols, and the correspondence between
the respective plenipotentiaries, that the British government made at Ghent a demand of the
navigation of the Mississippi, by an article in
their projet nearly in the same words as those
which were employed in the treaty of 1783;
that a majority of the American commissioners
was in favor of acceding to that demand, upon
the condition that the British government would
concede to us the same fishing liberties within
their jurisdiction, as was secured to us by the
same treaty of 1783; and that both demands
were finally abandoned. The fact of these
mutual propositions was communicated by me
to the American public in a speech which I delivered in the House of Representatives, on the
29th day of January, 1816. Mr. Hopkinson
had arraigned the terms of the treaty of peace,
and charged upon the War and the Administration, the loss of the fishing liberties, within the British jurisdiction, which we enjoyed prior to the war. In vindicating, in my reply to him,
the course of the government and the conditions of the peace, I stated:

"When the British commissioners demanded, in their projet, a renewal to Great-Britain
of the right to the navigation of the Mississippi, secured by the treaty of 1783, a bare majority of the American Commissioners offered
to renew it, upon the condition that the liberties in question were renewed to us. He was
not one of that majority. He would not trouble
the committee with his reasons for being opposed to the offer. A majority of his colleagues
actuated, he believed, by the best motives, made,
however, the offer, and it was refused by the
British Commissioners."-See Daily National
Intelligencer, of the 21st March, 1816.]

And what I thought of my colleagues of the
majority, appears from the same extract. The
Spring after the termination of the negotiations at Ghent. I went to London. and there entered upon a new and highly important negotiation with two of them, {Messrs. Adams and Gallatin,
which resulted, on the 3d July, 1815, in the
Commercial Convention, which has been since
made the basis of most of our commercial arrangements with foreign powers. Now, if I
had discovered at Ghent, as has been asserted,
that either of them was false and faithless to
his country, would I have voluntarily commenced with them another negotiation? Further:
there never has been a period, during our whole
acquaintance, that Mr. Adams and I have not
exchanged, when we have met, friendly salutations, and the courtesies and hospitalities of social intercourse.

The address proceeds to characterize the
support which I gave to Mr. Adams as unnatural. The authors of the address have not stated why it is unnatural, and we are therefore left to conjecture their meaning. Is it because Mr.
Adams is from New-England, and I am a citizen of the West? If it be unnatural in the
Western States to support a citizen of New-
England, it must be equally unnatural in the
New-England States to support a citizen of the
West. And, on the same principle, the New
England States ought to be restrained from
concurring in the election of a citizen of the
Southern States, or the Southern States from
co-operating in the election of a citizen of New-
England. And, consequently, the support which
the last three Presidents have derived from
New-England, and that which the Vice President recently received, has been most unnaturally given. The tendency of such reasoning
would be to denationalize us, and to contract
every part of the Union within the narrow
selfish limits of its own section. It would be
still worse: it would lead to the destruction of
the Union itself. For if it be unnatural in one
section to support a citizen in another, the Union itself must be unnatural; all our ties; all our
glories; all that is animating in the past; all
that is bright and cheering in the future, must
be unnatural. Happily, such is the admirable
texture of our Union, that the interests of all
its parts are closely interwoven. If there are
strong points of affinity between the South and
the West, there are interests of not less, if not
greater, strength and vigor, binding the West,
and the North, and the East.

Before I close this address, it is my duty,
which I proceed to perform with great regret,
on account of the occasion which calls for it,
to invite your attention to a letter addressed by
General Jackson to Mr. Swartwout, on the 23d
February last. The names of both the General and myself had been before the American
public, for its highest office. We had both
been unsuccessful. The unfortunate have usually some sympathy for each other. For myself, I claim no merit for the cheerful acquiescence which I have given in a result by which
I was excluded from the House. I have believed that the decision by the constitutional authorities, in favor of others, has been founded upon a conviction of the superiority of their pretensions. It has been my habit, when an election
is once decided, to forget, as soon as possible, all the irritating circumstances which attended the
preceding canvass. If one be successful, he
should be content with his success. If he have
lost it, railing will do no good. I never gave
General Jackson nor his friends any reason to
believe that I would, in any contingency support him. He had, as I thought, no public
claim, and I will now add, no personal claims,
if these ought to be ever considered, to my
support. No one, therefore, ought to have been
disappointed or chagrined that I did not vote
for him. No more than I was neither surprised
nor disappointed, that he did not, on a more recent occasion, feel it to be his duty to vote for
me. After commenting upon a particular phrase used in my letter to Judge Brooke. a calm re-
consideration of which will, I think, satisfy any
person that it was not employed in an offensive
sense, if, indeed, it have an offensive sense, the
General, in his letter to Mr. Swartwout, proceeds to remark, "No one beheld me seeking.
through art of management, to entice any representative in Congress from a conscientious
responsibility to his own, or the wishes of his
constituents. No midnight taper burnt by me
no secret conclaves were held, nor cabals entered into to persuade any one to a violation of
pledges given, or of instructions received. By
me no plans were concerted to impair the pure
principles of our republican institutions, nor to
prostrate that fundamental maxim which maintains the supremacy of the people's will. On
the contrary, having never, in any manner, before the people or Congress, interfered, in the
slightest degree, with the question, my conscience stands void of offence, and will go quietly with me, regardless of the insinuations of
those who, through management, may seek an
influence not sanctioned by integrity and merit."

I am not aware that this defence of himself was rendered necessary by any charges brought forward against the General. Certainly I never made any such charges against him. I will
not suppose that in the passages cited, he intended to impute to me the misconduct which
he describes; and yet, taking the whole context of his letter together, and coupling it with
Mr. Kremer's address, it cannot be disguised
that others may suppose he intended to refer
to me. I am quite sure that if he did, he could
not have formed those unfavorable opinions of
me upon any personal observation of my conduct made by himself; for, a supposition that
they were founded upon his own knowledge.
would imply that my lodgings and my person had
been subjected to a system of espionage wholly
incompatible with the open, manly, and honorable conduct of a gallant soldier. If he designed any insinuations against me, I must believe that he made them upon the information
of others, of whom I can only say, that they
have deceived his credulity, and are entirely
unworthy of all credit. I entered into no cabals, I held no secret conclaves; I enticed no
man to violate pledges given, or instructions
received. The members from Ohio, and from
the other Western States, with whom I voted,
were all of them as competent as I was to form
an opinion on the pending election. The McArthurs and the Metcalfes, and the other gentlemen from the West (some of whom have, if
I have not, bravely "made an effort to repel
an invading foe") are as incapable to dishonor
as any men breathing; as disinterested, as
unambitious, as exclusively devoted to the best
interests of their country. It was quite as
likely that I should be influenced by them, as
that I could control their votes. Our object
was not to impair, but to preserve from all danger the purity of our republican institutions.
And how I prostrated the maxim which maintains the supremacy of the people's will, I am
entirely at a loss to comprehend. The illusions of the General's imagination deceive him.
The people of the United States had never decided the election in his favor. If the people
had willed his election, he would have been
elected. - It was because they had not willed his election, nor that of any other candidate, that
the duty of making a choice devolved on the
House of Representatives.

The General remarks: Mr. Clay has
never yet risked himself for his country. He
has never sacrificed his repose nor made an effort to repel an invading foe; of course his conscience assured him it was altogether wrong in
superior man to lead his countrymen to battle and victory." The logic of this conclusion is not very striking. General Jackson fights better than he reasons. When have I failed to concur in awarding appropriate honors to those who on the sea or on the land have sustained the glory of our arms, if I could not always approve the acts of some of them? It is true that it has been my misfortune never to have repelled an invading foe, nor to have led my countrymen to victory. If I had, I should have left to others to proclaim and appreciate the deed. The General's destiny and mine have led us in different directions. In the civil employments of my country, to which I have been confined, I regret that the little service which I have been able to render it, falls far short of my wishes. But, why this denunciation of those who have not repelled an invading foe, or led our armies to victory? At the very moment when he is inveighing against an objection to the election to the Presidency, founded upon the exclusive military nature of his merits, does he not perceive that he is establishing its validity by proscribing every man who has not successfully fought the public enemy? And that by such a general proscription, and the requirement of successful military service as the only condition of civil preferment, the inevitable effect would be the ultimate establishment of a Military Government.

If the contents of the letter to Mr. Swartwout were such as justly to excite surprise, there were other circumstances not calculated to diminish it. Of all the citizens of the United States, that gentleman, is one of the last to whom it was necessary to address any vindication of Gen. Jackson. He had given abundant evidence of his entire devotion to the cause of the General. He was here after the election. and was one of a committee who invited the General to a public dinner, proposed to be given to him in this place. My letter to Judge Brooke was published in the papers of this city, on the 12th of February. The General's note declining the invitation of Mr. Swartwout and others, was published on the 14th in the National Journal. The probability therefore is, that he did not leave this city until after he had a full opportunity to receive, in a personal interview with the General, any verbal observations upon it which he might have thought proper to make. The letter to Mr. Swartwout bears date the 23d of February. If received by him in New-York. it must have reached him, in the ordinary course of the mail, on the 25th or 26th. Whether intended or not as a "private communication," and not for the "public eye," as alleged by him, there is much probability in believing that its publication in New-York, on the 4th March, was then made, like Mr. Kremer's address, with the view to its arrival in this city in time to affect my nomination to the Senate. In point of fact. it reached here the day before the Senate acted on that nomination.

Fellow-citizens, I am sensible that, generally, a public officer had better abstain from any vindication of his conduct. and leave it to the candor and justice of his countrymen, under all its attending circumstances. Such has been the course which I have heretofore prescribed to myself. This is the first, as I hope it may be the last, occasion of my thus appearing before you. The separation which has just taken place between us, and the venom, if not the vigor, of the late onsets upon my public conduct, will, I hope, be allowed in this instance to form an adequate apology. It has been upwards of 20 years since I first entered the public service. Nearly three-fourths of that time, with some intermissions, I have represented the same district in Congress, with but little variation in its form. During that long period, you have beheld our country passing through scenes of peace and war, of prosperity and adversity, and of party divisions, local and general, often greatly exasperated against each other. I have been an actor in most of those scenes. Throughout the whole of them you have clung to me with an affectionate confidence which has never been surpassed. I have found in your attachment, in every embarrassment in my public career, the greatest consolation, and the most encouraging support. I should regard the loss of it as one of the most afflicting public misfortunes which could befall me. That I have often misconceived your true interests is highly probable. That I have ever sacrificed them to the object of personal aggrandizement I utterly deny. And for the purity of my motives, however in other respects I may be unworthy to approach the Throne of Grace and Mercy, I appeal to the justice of my God, with all the confidence which can flow from a consciousness of perfect rectitude.

Your obedient servant,

H. CLAY.