has no right, when the people are unanimous, to conclude that they are mistaken. He must either comply with their will or resign. For his part, he would not knowingly misrepresent the will of his constituents on this floor. "Mr. Hardin said he did not agree with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Randolph), for whom he had always a very high respect, who said that he knew not how the gentlemen could vote for the repeal of the law without refunding what they had received under the law. Mr. Hardin said he had resolved this subject in his mind, and saw no difficulty in it. He had voted for the law because he believed it correct. He should vote to repeal it, not because he believed he had done wrong, but because of an anxiety to conform to public sentiment, particularly on a matter between a member and his constituents. But he would not consent to acknowledge that he had cheated the people out of their money, as he should do by voting to refund it. "There was nothing dishonorable in keeping it. Besides, the power of Congress did not enable them to enforce such a law if they passed it. Was it possible for them to pass a valid law taking away from an individual money earned under a contract between him and the Government? Could they pass a law to take away from the Judges of the Supreme Court the salaries which they have received for years past? No. A salary may be destroyed prospectively, but you can not take away from a man what he has earned. You can not deprive a man by law of a vested right."

On the final vote as to repeal, one hundred and thirty-eight voted yea to twenty-seven nays. All the Kentucky Congressmen voted yea. On March 3d the Fourteenth Congress adjourned sine die. For the time Mr. Hardin retired from the cares and labors, the responsibilities and vexations, of official life. He had no cause, however, to review his career with dissatisfaction. He had achieved all that a reasonable ambition could have hoped. It was his misfortune, not his fault, that his action in regard to the compensation bill affected him unfavorably. He had but followed the lead of Colonel Richard M. Johnson, who was both before and after a favorite of fortune. Of all uncertain things nothing is more capricious than popular favor.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE COMPROMISE ERA.

1818 the furor over the" compensation law" having subsided, Mr. Hardin was again a candidate for Congress. He had for his opponent the late Richard Rudd, a reputable lawyer of Bardstown. Mr. Rudd had influential connections throughout the district, and was himself of agreeable and popular manners. Stories are still related about Bardstown illustrating the generosity of his character. After a heated canvass Mr. Hardin was elected, succeeding Thomas Speed. The first session of the Sixteenth Congress began December 6, 1819. Mr. Clay was elected speaker by the flattering vote of one hundred and forty-seven to eight scattering.

Mr. Hardin did not take his seat until the 14th of the month. The standing committees having all been appointed before his arrival, his work in that direction was confined to special committees and promiscuous services in Committee of the Whole. He had for his colleagues. from Kentucky Richard C. Anderson, Jr., William Brown, Alney McLean, Thomas Metcalfe, Tunstall Quarles, George Robertson, David Trimble, David Walker, and the speaker. In the Senate from Kentucky at that time were Richard M. Johnson and William Logan, the latter being succeeded in 1820 by Isham Talbott. Among the list of eminent senators at this period, Mr. Benton, in his "Thirty Years' View," names Colonel Johnson, and in the "array of distinguished talent in the House" after Mr. Clay he mentions Anderson, Trimble, Robertson, Hardin, and Metcalfe.

Richard Clough Anderson, Jr., was born at Louisville, August 4, 1788. His father (for whom he was named) was a gallant soldier of the Revolution. His mother was a sister of the celebrated General George Rogers Clark. He was educated in Virginia, graduated at William and Mary College, and studied law under Judge Tucker. He returned to Kentucky and began practice, soon attaining high rank. He served several years in the State Legislature. In 1817 he defeated Judge Stephen Ormsby for Congress, and in 1819 was re-elected. He was an amiable man and discreet politician. He was the brother of General Robert Anderson, of Fort Sumter fame, of ex-Governor

Charles Anderson, of Kentucky, and also of the late Larz Anderson, (of Cincinnati.,

William Brown was a native of Fauquier county, Virginia, whence he emigrated to Kentucky. This session witnessed his first entry into Congress, where he proved an active member.

General Thomas Metcalfe was also born in Fauquier county, Virginia, March 20, 1780. He was brought by his parents to Kentucky in 1785, settling first in Fayette county, but removing a few years afterward to Nicholas. His parents were poor and humble, who sent their son to school only long enough to acquire the English rudiments and a thirst for knowledge. At sixteen he was apprenticed to a stonemason. While learning his trade he devoted his leisure to study. At nineteen his father died, casting on him the burden of the family. He erected many important buildings in and out of the State, and among others in 1803 he worked on that stone court-house at Bardstown (still standing) whose walls have echoed the best forensic eloquence ever heard in the West. In 1809 he made his first public speech, calling for volunteers to fight the Spaniards. He obtained many volunteers, but the Spanish troubles ended peaceably, and they were not needed. At six consecutive elections he was chosen to represent Nicholas county in the State Legislature. He served in the war of 1812, and the company under his command distinguished itself for courage at the battle of Fort Meigs. In 1819 he was for the first time elected to Congress. He was an earnest and forcible public speaker, and from this and his trade the people delighted to call him "Old Stone-hammer."

This was the second term Aldney McLean had served with Hardin in Congress.

Tunstall Quarles had been long in public life. He was a member of the Kentucky Legislature from Woodford county as early as 1796, and from Pulaski in 1811 and 1812. He entered Congress in 1817

and was re-elected in 1819.

This was Judge George Robertson's second term of Congressional service.

David Trimble was born in Frederick county, Maryland, about 1782-educated at William and Mary college-studied law and emigrated to Kentucky about 1803. He represented Montgomery county in the Legislature, and afterward removed to Greenup. He was elected to Congress in 1817, and re-elected in 1819. He was a man of integrity-energetic and faithful.

David Walker had served the term preceding his election to the present Congress-being at that time the successful competitor of the celebrated Matthew Lyon.

The great and exciting question of this, as well as the previous session, was that of admitting Missouri as a State of the Union. Its admission was resisted by certain Northern Congressmen because its constitution recognized and protected slavery.

On the other hand, it was urged that Congress had no power to impose restrictions on a new State, further than to require its form of government to be Republican; and further contended that by the treaty of cession of the Louisiana territory from France to the United States, the citizens of that territory (of which Missouri was part), were guaranteed in their rights of property and personal rights, and that included in the former was the right to slaves. The debate on these questions was long, animated, and able. The speech delivered by Mr. Hardin in the course of the discussion, favoring admission (February 4, 1820), was one of the best presentations of that side of the question. He insisted that the opponents of the bill sailed under false colors-that the pretense that they acted from motives of humanity, morality, and religion was but a cloak to conceal the real design-political consequence and mastery. "On our side of the House," said he, "we are contending not for victory, but struggling for our political existence." He discussed the questions involved under three leading heads: First, had Congress the power under the Constitution of the United States to annex, as an irrevocable condition upon the admission of Missouri into the Union, that the State, when organized, should prohibit the further introduction of slaves. within her limits, and emancipate the future increase of all those who might be holden in slavery at the time the State government was formed? Second, if Congress had the constitutional power, could it be exercised without violating the national faith under the treaty of cession from France? Thirdly, if Congress had the power to impose the restriction, and would not violate national faith in so doing, was the proposed restriction expedient? He refuted as absurd the idea advanced by some of the opponents of admission, that the declaration of independence of 1776 had emancipated all the slaves in the thirteen colonies. He denied that precedents were binding if in violation of the Constitution, and argued that the conditions annexed to the admission of the former new States were unauthorized, yet, being consented to by them, constituted no precedent. In answer to the

position that the treaty-making power could not limit the powers of Congress, he argued that the terms of cession of the Louisiana territory having been recognized by Congress, by paying the price of it to the French, the nation was bound by it.

In the course of his remarks he thus formulated his opinion on the nature of the government:

"I take this proposition to be undeniable; that were it not for the contract between the States, which is the Constitution of the United States, that the States would be completely sovereign to all intents and purposes, and that every power and attribute incidental to, or connected with, sovereignty would belong to the States. The proposition is equally incontrovertible that as the Government of the United States possessed no sovereignty originally, or even existence itself, and being composed entirely of delegated powers from the States, that it possesses none of the original attributes of sovereignty, and it can do nothing that it is not authorized to do by the Constitution, either by an express grant of power or by an implied grant as necessary to carry into effect some power already given."

Some member had claimed authority for the obnoxious restriction, under that provision of the Constitution which authorized Congress to provide for the general welfare. Mr. Hardin thus replied:

"Mr. Chairman, I am heartily tired with the continued and repeated I claims of this General Welfare. When he was but a youth we made him considerable presents from time to time at the expense of State rights. When he grew to be a man we provided him a handsome marriage portion by giving him a bank of thirty-five millions.* He is a great favorite, for even the judiciary, who by law is to have no sympathies, has taken him under its special care and keeping. It is time we should resist his claims and stop him in his high career of universal dominion. In examining, sir, his pretensions, for he is like most of our generals in the commencement of the late warwe find him only brave, formidable, and dangerous on paper."

To those who contended that the proposed restriction was authorized under the "necessary powers" of Congress, he thus responded:

"This doctrine, that Congress can enact any law which it may deem needful and necessary for the health and prosperity of the general government is a most dangerous one, and, if persisted in, must lead to the complete consolidation of this Government. All men in power are grasping after more, and by every means in their reach endeavoring to extend it-proclaiming to the world that power in their hands is harmless, as it respects the rights of their fellowmen. It is time, sir, that this plea of necessity for the extension of power should be disregarded. I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to cast your eyes back upon the nations of the world, both ancient and

Referring to the United States Bank chartered in 1816.