{"character_count": 5411, "word_count": 944, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9697999954223633], "ccnet_perplexity": [937.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}


 < On motion of MT. Mangum, to amend the bill by inserting, section i, line l, after the word man,' the words being C citizen of the Uaited Stafcs.o

 It was rejected, yeas 12, nays 90.

 YEAS, Messrs CLAY of Keatneiy, Clay ton, Crittenden, Dixon, Graham, Huntington, Knight, Mangum, Merriek, Prentss, Preston, l Ruggles," eeery man C Whig.

 Many other amendments tending 10 render the bill less favorable 10 settlers were pro- posed, for all of which Henry Clay voted.

 Page l56, the bill was passed by vote oi yeas 3l to nays l9.

 NAYS, "1Tessrs Bayard, Calhoun, CLAY of KENTUCKY, Clayton, Crittenden, Dixon, Graham, Huntington, Kerr, Knight, bangum, Menick, Phelps, Prentiss, Preston, Rives, Roane, Ruggles, Southard," aU Whigs but two.

 These extracts show what Henry Clay DID. Let us now see what he SAID.

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

 The first is dated 1st June, 1889, and Is addressed to Aston B. Estes, of Tennesse. In this letter he says:

 The extracts from the Globe are entire peryersions of what passed in the Senate on the occasions to which trelers-peryersion which are habitual with that print whenever 1 am concerned

 :. aevcr used t4s expressions against pre- emptioners, which were attributed to me, al though was opposed to the passage of pre- emplion laws At the last session of the Senate, an explanation was made of what ] really did sag at the previous session; on which occasion a Senator from Illinois ac- knowledged that he had inferred the excep- tionable expressions from the tenor of my speech, and that ! had not used Hem What passed was correctly published in the Nation al Intelligencer, but regret that have not a copy Of t by me to transmit to you.o

 In this letter there IS not a word excusing himselflor his ed'es or pretending that he was in favor of pre-emption rights ie aay shape.

 His second letter was dated 27th Sept, l842, addressed 10 some person in Arkansas In this letter he says:

 My speeches on the pre-emption system were never regularly reported. They were delivered, from time 10 time, in sort of run hing debate, and was shockingly caricatured in the Globe. When 1t was stated, think by Mir. Young of Indiana, in the Senate, thai l had applied degrading epithets 10 the pre- emptionefs, I denied it positively. and m3 correction was published in the Intalligencer but l regret that have no copy by me.

 II was opposed to the pre cmption by itself thought it 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 takef possession of, without the authority of law considered it q h,espa$s, and characterized itas such. So did Mr. Van Buren, who uset that identical word in one of his messages dn 1887 or 8) to Congress.

 "Ona general settlement of the land ques- ton, was willing to allow pre-emptions pro perly guarded. Accordingly, you will fnt in the Senate Journal, 1810 and Al, page. 155 and 56, ] voted for a resolution of Mir Cuttenden, to allow pre-emptions to the poo settler, to the exclusion of the rich and the speeulator.

 's voted at the extra session of 1911, fol the distribution bill, ill which provision Is incorporated for pre-emptions'a

 The third letter was dated 25th September l843, and addressed to .5ir. J IF Clay .Hudd of Iowa. Itis of similar tenor with his letter 10 Arkansas.

 There are sundry points on which these letters are worthy of consideration:

 l. MT. Clay says, on general settlement of the land question, was willing 10 allow pre-emptions properly guarded" and he al ludes 10 his votes to connect pre-emptions with distribution in I840 and 1911. But Ii was in January, 1888, tlc0 or Mrce years 6s- l fdre tbese coteS, that he voted against the pre- I emption law, denounced the system as abom- inably corrupt and the settlers on the public lands as a lawless rabble and plunderers oI the public property. Moreover, he had before that time brought before the Senate no less than five bills to distribute the proceeds of the public lands among the States, in not one ot 'chich aras Here any prorjsioa 10 grant pre- emption riehtst

 It was not until after 1898, therefore, that 2hfr. Glay-was willing to grant pre-emption rights on aay tera,s.

 2, Mir. Clay denies using the expressions in relation to pre-emptioners, which he says, had been grossly .nisrepresented by the re- ports in the Globe. He admits, however, that he was reported correctly in the National Intelligencer.

 We'll, passing over the report of the Globe, let us take that of the lntelligencer, where he admits that what passed Is correctly pab- lishcd" In that paper of the 18th January, 1 1888, the proceedings of the 26th of that month, are reported, and there we find the i following, viz:

 Mr. Clay of Kentucky, said, that in no sbape achich could De gircn 10 His 67l. could he gioe t lis rote. In any respect, t was to be considered as bounty or grant of the property of the whole people to a small part of the people, often the speculator5 and Mir c. would like 10 know ~ 1ehat authority suc6 6ill could be passed2 He regarded it as relcard for the VIOLATION OF THE LAW, as direct encouragement to intruding .Jeae1,t r,4, +Aa nF tl,o Gt.4a.