CHAPTER IX.

TH

A POLITICAL CALM.

HE high position Mr. Hardin had maintained during his official service in Congress, the arduous and important duties he had performed, and the entire fulfillment of the trust reposed in the repre sentative by the constituent caused a feeling of pardonable pride on his part in the retrospect of his career. Forgetting that republics are ungrateful, he deluded himself with the hope of meeting, at home, an approving constituency. He was of the majority party (so far as party lines were defined), and faithful service had been accustomed to the reward of re-election as of course. His pleasant anticipations, however, had a rude shock. The brilliant John Hayes, of Bardstown, then in the full meridian of his remarkable powers, was a candidate for his seat, and had already made a thorough canvass of the district.

A hasty survey of the condition of affairs convinced Mr. Hardin. that his re-election would cost a struggle. The magnetism of Hayes, and his indescribable, persuasive eloquence had drawn the people to him in such a way that they were unwilling to give audience to an opponent. Still further adding to Mr. Hardin's embarrassment, Hayes declined a joint canvass, alleging his lack of sufficient money to defray his expenses. To canvass the district alone was an unpromising task. Mr. Hardin's oratory might have been justly compared to that of a fixed star, emitting a uniform and steady light, but that of Hayes had a cometary brilliance that paled the glory of all the constellations. While this was true, Mr. Hardin felt that, in debate, he would, at least, be on equal terms; but the trouble was to obtain meetings for such a purpose. In this dilemma, Hardin suggested to his opponent that he had just arrived from Washington with a great part of his salary, and that he would willingly lend him money for his expenses. This offer was accepted, and a joint canvass begun. The comets out-dazzle the stellar world, yet their glory is ephemeral, while the fixed stars shine on through the ages. Hayes' brilliant periods and eloquent sentiments, when unchallenged, were omnipotent with the people. But, when they gathered again to hear and be

charmed, they found their idol confronted by the master of all the arts of debate. In the use of logic, invective, wit, humor, and ridicule, the eloquent Hayes was sadly overmatched. In the daily debates of the canvass, he rapidly lost the advantage he had won. Either from disappointment or chagrin, or because of his ungovernable passion for drink, he had gained for himself, by the end of the canvass, the reputation of hopeless, helpless sottishness. The result was the easy

re-election of Mr. Hardin.

Mr. Hardin has been criticised for his course toward Hayes at this time. The charge has been made by the admirers of Hayes that the joint canvass was a mere device, and that the money was furnished with foreknowledge that he would weakly use it to disgrace himself. This charge is gratuitous, and, like a sword without a guard, dangerous to him who uses it. If Hayes was so helpless in the presence of his constituency, with every incentive to abstinence and self-control, with a little money, what would he have become with the license of the national capital and a per diem adequate to the wildest dissipation?

Monday, December 3, 1821, began the first session of the Seventeenth Congress. A quorum was present and Mr. Hardin was in his seat. The first question was the election of a speaker.

On the first ballot ex-speaker J. W. Taylor, of New York, received sixty votes, Cæsar A. Rodney, of Delaware, forty-five, Louis McLane, also of Delaware, twenty-nine votes, and Samuel Smith, of Maryland, twenty, while seven votes were scattering. During the seven ballots taken the first day, the highest vote received by Mr. Taylor was seventy-seven, and that by Mr. Rodney seventy-two, and the others less. On the day following the balloting was resumed-the same persons being voted for, except that the name of Mr. McLane was withdrawn and that of Philip P. Barbour, of Virginia, was added to the list. On the twelfth ballot, Mr. Barbour received eighty-eight votes to sixtyseven for Mr. Taylor, and eighty-eight being one more than necessary to a choice, Mr. Barbour was declared elected. The new speaker had been in Congress continuously from 1814, and was a member of a distinguished family-one of the oldest and most respected in Virginia -to which Mr. Hardin was allied by marriage. When quite a young man he had emigrated to Kentucky and begun practicing law, but shortly returned to his native State. His talents were of a high order -solid, however, rather than showy. He was studious, earnest, candid, laborious, and patient, and in other ways eminently qualified to adorn the speaker's chair.

While thus accomplished, a story is repeated about him showing that he was more distinguished for talents than for piety His son, a young physician, in this respect was in marked contrast, being devotedly pious. He had located in another State, where, not long afterward, he was married. Writing to his parents, announcing that event, he eulogized his young wife as "a person of great piety." Judge Barbour, reading the letter, mistook the word "piety." "Well, Tom has married a woman of great property," said he to his wife. But Mrs. Barbour, on reading the letter, replied that it said nothing about property.

"Oh, yes," rejoined the judge, "he says his wife is a 'person of great property.'

"That word is 'great piety,' not 'great property.

"Piety! piety!" said the judge, “d—n the piety."

Among the famous names that graced this Congress may be mentioned C. C. Camberling, of New York, James Buchanan and John Sergeant, of Pennsylvania, Andrew Stevenson and John Randolph, of Virginia, and George McDuffie, of South Carolina.

Of the Kentucky delegation, the following members of the Sixteenth Congress were returned: Messrs. Metcalfe, Montgomery, Francis Johnson, and Trimble. The new members were Messrs. Breckinridge, J. T. Johnson, New, Smith, and Woodson.

James D. Breckinridge, of Louisville, had served in the State Legislature in 1809-10-11, and was prominent as a lawyer. The present was his first term in Congress.

Major John T. Johnson was a lawyer by profession, a native of Scott county, and a younger brother of Colonel Richard M. Johnson. He had seen service in the war of 1812, was subsequently a member of the Legislature, and with the present session entered upon his congressional career.

Anthony New succeeded Alney McLean. He had served two former sessions-1811-13 and 1817-19. He attended the sessions of Congress, though the reported proceedings do not disclose the part he took. He was an early settler of that territory now embraced in Todd county; was a member of the Baptist church, and prominent in denominational affairs. In a letter dated at Shawneetown, July 7, 1827, addressed to Governor Ninian Edwards, the writer, General Joseph M. Street, thus refers to a speech by Mr. New at Princeton, he being at the time a candidate for Congress against Chittenden Lyon and John F. Henry "New's speech was the declamation of a handsome, agree

able man, of common capacity, agreeably delivered, and was pleasing to many, but there was, in fact, nothing in it—it was entirely a dish of elegant flummery, suited tolerably well to the occasion."

At that time New was an Adams or administration man, and was defeated by Lyon.

Colonel John Speed Smith was born in Kentucky the year it became a State. He became a lawyer, settled in Richmond, and rapidly rose to prominence. In 1817 he was awhile a candidate for Congress, but withdrew. In 1819 he was again a candidate to succeed George Robertson. "On reaching home," said Judge Robertson, referring to this period, "I found John Speed Smith a candidate for my seat; and, although I did not desire a re-election and had so announced, yet unwilling to be apparently shoved out, I felt it due to honor to become a candidate again. But after canvassing the district a few days Smith declined." He was, however, chosen to the State Legislature at the succeeding election.* He was first elected to Congress in 1821. His career indicates great energy and force of character.

Samuel Woodson was clerk of the courts in Jessamine county at one time.† Mr. Hardin once referred to meeting him at Richmond in 1805, where he was practicing as a circuit lawyer. He represented Jessamine county in the legislative session of 1819. The same year he was Grand Master of the Masonic fraternity of Kentucky, succeeding Mr. Clay in that position, and also occupying the latter's seat in the Seventeenth Congress.

The Kentucky delegation were placed on standing committees as follows:

Elections-Mr. Smith. Claims Mr. Metcalfe. Post-office and Post-roads-Francis Johnson. Agriculture-Mr. New. Public Expenditures-Mr. Montgomery. Manufactures-Mr. Woodson.

Only six of the ten members were thus honored, and Mr. Hardin was not of the six. Although diligent, painstaking, and laborious, he delighted in the privileges of a free lance. While a member of the majority party in Congress, he had a natural predilection to battle on the side of the minority and sympathize with the opposition. He resented party domination with much the same spirit that the oldtime Kentucky militiaman rebelled against military discipline. But before the session was over Mr. Hardin was placed on various select committees, that on Retrenchment being the most important. So

Mr. Collins is mistaken in saying that this was while Martin Hardin lived at Richmond. Mr. Hardin had removed to Frankfort before Mr. Sinith came to the bar.

As late as 1814 Amos Kendall speaks of his holding that office.

far as shown by the reported proceedings, no member took a more active part, or spoke more frequently. No member from his own. State approximated the amount of labor he performed. Reports of his speeches and informal remarks on the many questions presented are exceedingly meager, and do but scant justice to the substance of what he said. His pithy style and tone are almost wholly lost. There were but few of the more important questions that arose on which he was not heard. Among these, the question of apportionment of congressional representation among the States has as much, or more, interest to the modern reader than any other.

The fourth census having been made in 1820, the questions of every decade recurred in the Seventeenth Congress. (1) Of how many members shall the House of Representatives consist? (2) Shall the ratio of representation be increased or diminished? On these questions the inclination was for the representatives of the smaller States to be arrayed against those of the larger. The former objected to a diminution of their numbers, and they were prolific in illogical arguments to maintain their position. To prevent diminution, the only alternative was an increase in the number of representatives. The increase, it was said, would lessen the dangerous influence of executive patronage. The larger the body to be bribed, the less danger of bribery. Besides, the increase of population demanded an increase of representation, in order that the representative might be familiar with the interest of his constituent-difficult, or impossible, in a numerous constituency.

Propositions to fix the ratio of representation varied between thirty-five thousand and seventy-five thousand. The larger States, for the most part, favored a large number. They replied that the relative representation of the small States was the same-whether the ratio was small or great. It was also argued that too large a body would be cumbrous, too expensive, and that, in fact, the hall of the House would not hold a large increase on the existing number. These are samples of the arguments pro and con.

Mr. Hardin addressed the House on the apportionment bill to the following effect:

"Mr. Hardin said there were some features in our Government of a national and others of a confederated character. Of the former class was the operation of the public laws; of the latter was the election of the Senate. It has been a matter of some question to which class belonged the election of the representation of this House. He was inclined to believe it appertained