{"character_count": 5540, "word_count": 959, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9641000032424927], "ccnet_perplexity": [1134.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
SlOil. It iS ttluS tENtldSitt FtSs

 "On motion of Mr. Mangum, to amend the bill by inserting, section l, line 1, after the word man. the words being q citiaen of He UHiied Stdies."

 Ii was rejected, yeas l2. nays 90

 YEAS, ,"Messrs. CLAY of KcatUcky, Clay ton, Crittenden, Dixon, Graham, Huntington, Knight, Mangum, Merrick, Prentlss, Preston' Ruggles," erery man c Ebig.

 Many other amendments tending to render the bill less favorable to settlers were pro- posed, for all of which Henry Clag voted.

 Page l50, the bill was passed by vote ot yeas 3l to nays l9.

 NAYs. 'Messrs Bayard, Calhoun, CLAY ol KENTUCKY, Clayton, Cfttenden, Dixon, Graham, Huntingdon, Kerr, Knight, Mangum, Merriek, Phelps, Pfentiss, Preston, RlFes, Roane, Ruggles, Southagd, ail y digs 6m hco.

 These extracts show what Henry C{ag DID. Let us now see what he SAID.

 We have before us copies of three letters written by Henry Clay explaining his course upon the pre-empton laws, and denying the harsh expressions in reference to the settlers, which had been imputed to him,

 The first is dated lst June, 1859, and Is addressed to Aston E. Estes, of Tennessee In this letter he says:

 .I'he extracts from the Globe are entire perversions of what passed in the Senate on the occasions 10 which itrelers-peyerslon which are habtual with that print whenever am concerned.

 II aeper used Hs expressions against pre- emptioners, which were attributed to me, al= though was opposed to the passage of pre- emption laws At the last session of the Senate, an explanation was made of what l really did say at the previous session. on which occasion Senator from Illinois ac- knowledged that he had inferred the eXcep- tionabIe expressions from the tenor of my speech, and that had mol used them. What passed was correctly published i'll the Nation- al Intelligeucer, but regret thal have not a copy of 1t by me to ransmitto voue

 In this letter there is not a word eXeusing himself for his potcS or pretending that he was ill favor of pre-empton rights iit aatg shaPe.

 His second letter was dated Eth Sept, l842, addressed to some person in Arkansas. In this letter he says:

 "AIy speeches on the pre-emption system were never regularly reported. They were delivered, from time to time, in sort of run ming debate, and l was. .shociingiy caricatm- cd in tde Globe. When it was stated, think, by AIr, Young of Indiana, in the Senate, that ! had applied degrading eptieis to the pre- cmptiouefs, denied 1t positively; and my correction was published i'll the lntelltgeneer, but regret that have no copy by me.

 ''l was opposed to the pre-emption by itself. thought unequal to the public, was an IT, regular mode of acquiring the public lands, and led to disputes and controversies among the settlers. When public land was taken possession of, without the authority of law, l considered ita trespass, aud characterized 1t as such. So did Mr. Van Buren, who used that identical word Ill one of his messages Gin 1887 or S) 10 Congress.

 s'0n general settlement of the land ques- ton, was willing to allow pre-empdons pro- perly guarded. Accordingly, you will find ill the Senate Journal, 1840 and Fl, pages l55 and 56, voted for d resolution of MT. CHttenden, to allow pIe-cmptions to thep poor settler, to the exclusion ol the Iich and the specnlator.

 ''I voted at the extra session Of 1911, for the distribution bill. in which a provision is incorporated for pre-empiions."

 The thrd leaerwas dated 25th September, l843, and addressed to .Hr. J. II Clag .Nadd oi Iowa. is of similar tenor with his letter 10 Arkansas.

 There are sunday points OH which these letters are worthy of considerations

 l. Mir. Clay says, .'on general settlement of the land question, l was willing 10 allow Pre-emptioas properly guarded and he al- ludes 10 his, votes to connect pre-empdons with distribution in lS40 and lS4I. But il was m January, 1858, feo or Three gears De- fore these eoteS, that he voted against the pre- empiion law, denounced the system as abom- inably corrupt and the settlers on the public lands as lawlcss rabble and plunderers of the public property. Moreover, he had before that time brought before the Senate no less than five billsto distribute the proceeds of the public lands among the S;ates, ia not one of 1rticb 'cas thcre aay propiSioa 70 grant pre- cmptioa rights!

 Il was not until after 1888, therefore, that hf. Clay was willing to grant pre-emption rights on a13y teyMS.

 ,, Ar. Clay denies using the expressions In relation 10 pre-emptioners, which he says. had been grossly misrepresented by the re- ports in the Globe He admits, however, that he was reported correctly in the Naiion- al Intelligenccr.

 Well, passing over the report of the Globe, let us take that of tue mtelligencer where he admits that what passed is 'cortecfly pub lshed." In that paper of the 18th January, 1858, the proceedings pf the 26th of that month, are reported, and there we find the following, viz;

 ''Alr. Clay of Kentucky, said, that in no stape aeaica could 55 sieea 10 Ais bill, could he sicc a his ro'e. In any respect, 1t was to be considered as bounty or grant of the property of the whole people to a small part of the people, often the speculator, and Mr. C. would like 10 kHow by @bat authority Sach 6iH could 5e passed9 He regarded it as rc~ard fer the VIOLATION OF THE LAW, as a direct encouragement to intruding ta'efessly on the lands of the United States, and for selecting and taking what the TRES pleased of the property ofthe whole |