HENRY CLAY AND PREVENTION
{"character_count": 5899, "word_count": 1027, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9804999828338623], "ccnet_perplexity": [685.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
ed to him for present Pre-emption Lau, and for the hofmillion of acres fund granted to Arkansas by the extra session of Congress, in l84l

 We have repeatedly denied that this is true We have said that MT. Clay has not shown himself to be friendly to Western interests We deny that We are indebted to him for present Pre-emptioa Laao, for the half million of of land. But oh the contrary, assert that he has proven him self to be inimcal to Western interests, whenever opportunity has offered; that our present Pre-emp ton Law did not owe its origin to hm-and, more- over, would have been much more liberal to actual settlers the public lands, but for his opposition and that, so far from aidiag us to get the hof mil lion of acres of land, he actually preUeaed us from getting MILLION of acres instead.

 These facts have been stated repeatedly, both in our columns and elsewhere-both by our correspon- dents, and by ourself. But they have been denied by Mr. Clay friends, in speeches and in newspa- pers; and letters, purporting to have been written by Mir Clays own hand, have been published, in which similar denial has been made, and in which great merit is claimed by Mr. Clay for giving us the present Pre-empton Law

 Here then is the issue We adhere to all we have I said and confidently re-assert it. The friends of Mr. Clay deny it. Who have told the truth We contend that ,oe have told the truth. Nor do we rest the issue upon own mere assertion. We appeal to the undeniable history of the measures al luded to, derived from the authentic records of the Government, for the truth of what we have said.- On this we rely to sustain our charges against MT. Clay and thus fortified we challenge contradiction

 The charges, in this connection, which we have made against MT. Clay, and which we here repeat, are

 1st That he has shewn himself to be iaintical to Western interests and particularly to Me settlers on the public funds, by opposition to liberal Pre-emp- lion La,c;

 2d. That he has shewn himself to be tnineical to Western interests and particularly to .ArsanSas, by opposing and defeating the proposition to give us million of acres of land, had previously been given to Ohio; and thus cutting us off with only half million of acres.

 In proof of these charges, we invite attention to the following history of the Distribution and Pre- emption Law of 1S4l.

 It is we'll known to all, that when the extra ses- sion of Congress called, in 1s4I, Mir. CLAY, as the leader of the whig party went into the Senate, pledged and determined to accomplish four gfeat ob- l of the Independent Treasury 2d. The establish ment of National Bank; srd. The passage of the Bankrupt Law; 4th. Tue Distribution Of the pro ceeds of the Public Lalds among the sereral States

 This was the grand series of achievements which he had proposed to accomplish-with which he had resolved to signalize the very commencement of his Dictatorship. For that he assumed, and intended to play the part of Dictator, during the Tippecanoe dy- nasty, no one doubts, who. knows any thing of the character of the man, or who observed his course of proceeding

 The first of these movements he made with prompt ness and facility; declaring it to be necessary, in order to have clear foundation upon which to erect the splendid superstructure he had planned. The second he attempted, but failed to accomplish; LER.

 The hud he accomplished.

 The fourth measure, which was the "Distfi6laioa Bill, met with very determined opposition. And it was finally passed not in its original form, nor as he had desired and ordered it. but by reluctantly submitting to very material notifications and addi- tons. Here is its history:

 This Bill was introduced in the Hous@of Repre- sentatives, by MT. Clays man, Wllliam Cost John son, of Maryland, as simple and naked Distribu- ton measure. In this form, (and aUittoa aay fea- lure ofPre-emption) it was reported from the Com mittee on Public Lands, on the 22d of June It then considered in Committee of the Whole House Here it was found that as a naked Distri- button measure it could not, even with whig ma jority, be forced through. It became necessary, therefore, to modify it, by adding the Pre-emption feaf alya tern members. Accordingly, on the 23d, 1t was recommitted to the Committee Public Lands, for the purpose of modification; and the 21th, reported again, then containing the Pre-emption feature and recommitted to the Committee of the Whole.-T See Journal ofhe House of Representatives, ertra session l84l, pp. I75, 1S3, 1SS.

 On this occasion, MT. Johnson, as chairman of the Committee on Public Lands, made long and elabo- rate speech, in favor of the Bill advocating it solely and exclusively as a measure of Distribution ay ! never once mentioning the subject of Pre-emption leaving that tail, to take care of itself- Thus, it is evident that Distribution, and not Pre- emption, was the object of the authors of this Bill for when 1t had come directly from the brain of Mir Clay, through Mir. Johnson, it went exclusively for Distribution; and now, when western members had forced them to modify it with Pre-emption, as an feature its osensble father is found contending for it exclusively as Distribution mea- sure.-[ See ". Cost Johnson's speech, in House Of Reps, June 25h, 1S4l-C Congressional Globe, pp. I22-3

 The Bill was again discussed, in Committee of the Whole, June 29th, July lst, 2nd, 3rd, and 9th and was advocated on account of its l,re-emp lion feature. Indeed on the Srd July, Mr. Kennedy, of Maryland, another of Mr. Clay's men, expressly laid aside the preemption provision, and boldly de- clared that he object of the friends of the Bill was distribution alone.

 On the 9th July, the Bill called up, and forced through, by the Previous Question between II and l2 o'clock at night. In all the discussion upon the Bill Dre e1nnou ,;,as