ing from the operation of laws like that now before us, as there will be from all human laws. But they will be but temporary in their duration. The country will soon accommodate itself to the new condition of affairs, and the general benefits will greatly outweigh the partial evils. In my opinion, it will be found, if we take a comprehensive and statesmanlike view of our whole Confederacy, that there is in truth no necessary conflict of interest between the North and the South, or the East and the West. The very diversities of soil, of climate, of population and of production, which at the first view might be supposed to create antagonistic interests, are, when rightly considered, the most fruitful sources of strength and union and harmony. Providence seems to have wisely ordained that as we are separated by the broad Atlantic from the eastern hemisphere, we should have all the elements of national greatness, and wealth and power within our own borders. We have a climate and a soil adapted to every constitution, to every production and to every occupation. We have all the elements of national prosperity, vegetable and mineral, in the greatest abundance; and all that is necessary for their full development is a liberal and enlightened system of legislation. Who can unroll the map of this great Confederacy and cast his eye over its extended surface without feeling emotions of pleasure and pride, mingled with sentiments of gratitude to the great Disposer of events for the magnificent inheritance which He has been pleased to bestow upon us? Let him then contemplate, for a moment, the separate and distinctive characteristics imposed upon each geographical division, by the hand of the Creator himself, and how will these sentiments be strengthened and invigorated! Then let him reflect upon the mutual relations and dependence of each division upon the other, and of the capacity of each to minister to the wants of the others, and how profoundly must he be penetrated with the sense of the wisdom and the beneficence of Him whose hands prepared the dry land!"

He then described the productions of the tropical climate, such as sugar and rice; the cotton region; the grain-growing and grazing fields of the great West with their flocks and herds; and the extreme North, whose less genial climate and comparatively sterile soil, discouraged the labor of the husbandman, but developed a hardy, industrious, and intelligent population devoted to manufactures, to commerce, and to the sea. These diversities of climate, and soil and population, necessarily produced diversities of production and occupation among the inhabitants of the various districts, and thus supplied the wants of the whole country.

"When we undertake to legislate for a country like this," he declared, "we should look at it as a whole, and not confine our views to mere local or sectional interests. We should indulge a catholic spirit, a spirit of enlarged patriotism, which can embrace in its grasp the whole Confederacy, from the St. Lawrence to the Sabine. We should look at the great interests of the nation, not as something separate and distinct from each other, but as constituting parts of a grand system, intimately connected together, wisely fitted to each other, and when properly brought into action, working harmoniously together, and mutually giving and receiving nutriment and support."

This speech was received with great favor by the Whigs of the country, and the author received many letters of commendation, among them one from Horace Greeley saying that he had received a copy of the speech "but had barely had a chance to read it before it was spirited away from my table," and requesting Mr. Stuart to send him a copy as he wanted to publish it in his American Laborer.

The bill passed both houses of Congress, but the President vetoed it, because it contained the land revenue distribution clause. The Whigs thought that the proceeds of the sale of public lands should not be treated as a source of revenue for the support of the Government but belonged to the States; while the Democrats and Tyler men insisted

that these proceeds should go into the Treasury and constitute a part of the national revenue.

The veto message was referred to a select committee of thirteen. Mr. Adams, the chairman, in a few days submitted a report signed by all the committee, except two members, in which the President was censured for his vetoes of the two bank bills and the two tariff bills, especially the last one. The report of the committee was adopted by a large majority, but the tariff bill failed to receive the necessary votes to pass it over the veto. President Tyler sent in a protest to the House against the report of the committee on his tariff veto message. During the discussion on the protest it developed that President Tyler was a member of the Senate in 1834, when that body adopted resolutions condemning President Jackson for removing the deposits from the Bank of the United States. President Jackson sent to the Senate a protest against the right of the Senate to express any opinion censuring his public course, and that body after long discussion adopted three resolutions. The first denied the right of the President to make a formal protest against the proceedings of the Senate, or to request that such protest should be entered on its journal as illegal and unconstitutional. The second declared that the protest was a breach of the privileges of the Senate, and the third that the President had no right to send a protest to the Senate against any of its proceedings. The vote was taken on each of these resolutions separately, and all three were adopted, Tyler voting for all of them. A resolution was offered and carried to adopt these resolutions in regard to President Tyler's protest, and thus the matter was closed.

Congress had now been in session nine months and could not adjourn without providing for the Treasury. A third bill was, therefore, prepared raising duties above twenty per centum, thereby suspending the land revenue distribution. This bill passed both houses of Congress and was approved by the President on August 30th, and Congress adjourned.

Mr. Stuart had taken an active part in the organization of the House and in the debates on the bank and on the tariff bills. His speeches exhibited a thorough acquaintance with all the details of those subjects, and were delivered in a manner that commanded the close attention of the House. At the close of the session he was recognized as one of the leading members of the Whig party, a position he continued to hold until that party disintegrated.

Sargent' describes Mr. Stuart's style of speaking on the President's veto of the tariff bill as follows:

"Mr. Stuart spoke with the coolness of an experienced statesman. He took issue with Mr. Tyler upon some points of his message and with much dignity, courtesy of manner and fairness of argument overthrew the position assumed by the message. He occasionally indulged in a strain of scornful reproach; but these indulgences were only used as condiment to give zest to his general remarks. He elicited most respectful attention from both sides of the House."

1Public Men and Events, p. 173.

CHAPTER VII

WRITES FOR THE RICHMOND WHIG-DELIVERS ADDRESS BEFORE THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE.

T the close of the Twenty-Seventh Congress, Mr. Stuart retired from public life and resumed the practice of his profession.

In the early spring of 1843 there was a strong feeling to nominate Henry Clay for the Presidency in 1844, and it was deemed important in advance of the Presidential election to arouse the interest of the Whigs. Mr. Stuart, therefore, took

some part in the campaign. At this time the two leading papers in the State were the Enquirer, Democratic, and the Whig, both published in Richmond. The former was edited by Mr. Ritchie and the latter by Mr. Pleasants. These gentlemen were accomplished scholars and able journalists, and their papers held a commanding position in the State and wielded a powerful influence upon public sentiment. Mr. Ritchie challenged the Whig to publish a certain number of articles on the Democratic side of the questions involved in the approaching election, and he would publish an equal number in the Enquirer from the Whig standpoint. Mr. Pleasants accepted the proposition as a fair one, and asked Mr. Stuart to write the articles. The Enquirer did not meet the engagement but the Whig published the articles written by Mr. Stuart, in February, 1844, under the title of "The Fair Proposition." They were seventeen in number and treated in an exhaustive manner the United States Bank and the tariff. They were received with much favor, and were republished in pamphlet form and used as campaign documents in the Presidential election of that

year.

In 1844 Mr. Stuart accepted an invitation to deliver the