But men of talents, who came here for a flyer for two or four years, can not support themselves on it as they have been used to live at home. As to the idea of patriotism being a sufficient motive to come here, it was absurd. Patriotism is that which urges a man to serve his country without expectation of personal benefit or reward. But, Mr. Hardin asked, did the gentleman from Kentucky believe there was a single man who ever came to Congress who did not come without some other motive than that for the gratification of his own vanity, to have his ears tingle with the ring of greatness, or for the advancement of his own interest? Such language as that of the gentleman, who considered patriotism the leading and sufficient motive for bringing men here, sounds handsomely, cuts a good figure here or in a newspaper, but there is not much substance in it. No, Mr. Hardin said, it was not patriotism that would bring men of talents here, to the great prejudice of their private interests. He agreed with gentlemen that this House ought not to be the mere stepping-stone to executive offices; not a theater on which a man should show his eloquence a day or two, and then go off in a lucrative embassy to Europe or elsewhere. A seat in this House, said he, was in theory, and ought to be in practice, the most honorable of any station in the Government, for it is held at the will of the people, and not of the President. Mr. Hardin did not go further into the reasons which had induced him at the last session to vote for the compensation law, since the subject had been fully illustrated in the report of the select committee, on every topic but that to which he referred, respecting the class of the people among whom the talents of the country were to be found.

"Mr. Hardin then proceeded to assign briefly the reasons which influenced his vote to repeal the law of the last session. He did not, he said, allow to the right of instruction that latitude for which some gentlemen contended; but with the will, not only of his constituents, but of the whole people of the United States, he thought himself bound, in the present case, to comply. He agreed, whether this will was made known in the form of regular instruction or in any other way or shape, it was equally obligatory. He could not agree with the gentleman from Virginia that a Representative is, from the term of his office, bound to obey the will of his constituents. A member of this House, Mr. Hardin said, was to represent the particular interests of the people who send him to Congress, whenever those interests are in question. Having done that, he is to assume the more expanded and important character of a legislator for the nation, and consult the general good. All general laws ought to be acted on with a view to that which produces the most general good. Am I, said Mr. Hardin, to vote for a law to sacrifice the interests of the whole nation, because it will benefit my immediate constituents? No; I represent my constituents on particular topics, and on general questions consider what the general good requires. Every member of this House is the representative of his constituents; but he is at

the same time a legislator for the nation. I do solemnly protest, said he, against legislative instructions-I detest them more than Adam did the serpent. They are the greatest bane that ever crept into a well-regulated gov ernment. It is an encroachment by the States, in their corporate capacity, on the rights of this House. The members of this House, with the Senators, Mr. Hardin said, made laws to operate on the people, not on the States in their sovereign capacity, and the States, therefore, had nothing to do with instructions. These had originated, he said, he had no doubt, in a wish to screen some favorite man here who had been doubtful whether his acts were popular or not, from responsibility therefor to the people. But the people throughout the American continent seem to have expressed their decided disapprobation of the law now proposed to be repealed. Hence, in retrac

ing his steps he should not only follow the will of his constituents, but the voice of the American people. For, he said, if the will of the American people was contrary to that of his constituents, he should obey that will, believing it his duty to legislate for the nation.

"Mr. Hardin said he could not agree with his colleague (Mr. Clay) that the people were dissatisfied with the manner, and not with the matter, of the act of the last session, though such might be sometimes the case in the gentleman's district. In regard to this law, when in my district I met with a sensible man, I conversed with him sensibly; and when I was accosted by a furious demagogue, I gave him as good as he sent; and when I came across a fool, I laughed at him. I would ask the Speaker (Mr. Clay) one question. Does he believe that his constituents, any more than mine, would have objected to the manner, if we had fixed our annual compensation at five hundred dollars? Not a man in my district would have taken exception to such a change in the mode of compensation, unless he wished to come here in my place. Mr. Hardin said he did not believe the present compensation too high, but he must conform to the views of the people who, he had no doubt, wished to see the compensation reinstated in the situation in which it stood before the law passed.

"Mr. Hardin said he felt some little anxiety that this course should be taken, not only because it was the will of the people, but because it would take a powerful tool from the hands of political demagogues. The persecuting spirit had been carried by them to great lengths, in regard to this act so far, as his colleague (Mr. Johnson) had informed the House, that a man in Kentucky had refused to let a young man court his daughter unless he would forswear the compensation law. I never heard of this fact before, but do not doubt that the honorable gentleman either knows the fact practically, or has heard of it. If practically, the old gentleman stood very much. in his own light, for I do not know how he could have suited his daughter better than by promoting instead of preventing the match. But all through the State of Kentucky the same spirit prevailed. If a man came into the

county court to be appointed a constable or surveyor of the road, he entered his solemn protest against the compensation law. If a petty demagogue wanted to go into the Legislature, he must post up or put in the newspapers his protest against it. To deprive such knaves and rascals of any pretense under that act, Mr. Hardin said, he would repeal it. Why, some of the new fry that are coming into Congress, he had heard, had declared that they would vote for the repeal of the act; and, if it was not effected, would reserve all their pay over six dollars per day, and at the end of each session lay it out in churches and meeting-houses!

"It had been said that money had resumed its former value. Not at all, he said; though he hoped Congress would restore something like life to the circulating medium before they parted hence. Another argument used in favor of the repeal was by a gentleman who, having voted to increase his own compensation, could not resist the exorbitant demands of others for an increase of their pay. That consideration, he said, did not affect him. If it was proper, he would cheerfully increase the compensation of any public officer; if not, he would as cheerfully vote against it. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wright), who had surely spoken in his best manner and done justice to this subject, asked what should be done with the next fry-so Mr. Hardin said he called them-he knew no better name for them-with the next fry that came into this House. They rode into the House on the law of the last session, avarice in their hearts, and patriotism in their mouths! Their patriotism told them they did not want the money, but their avarice told them they did. And for them, he said, let them take the six dollars per day, or the responsibility of raising it. I am willing to leave no law in existence regulating the pay, and to let the next members fix their own compensation.

"There was one more reason he assigned which had induced him to conform to the wishes of the people, and vote for the repeal of the law of the last session. This House, he said, was the only branch of the Government which seemed to have an analogy to the people; the only one which formed any counterpoise to the weight of the Executive and other branches; the only barrier against encroachments on the rights of the people, or of the States.

But,

"It was impossible for this House so to act as to retain the confidence of the people, unless they obeyed the general will and showed a willingness to respect it. But, gentlemen had said, the alleged expressions of public opinion were mere newspaper slang, the work of newspaper editors, etc. said Mr. Hardin, he believed that was not a fact. He did most solemnly believe that it was the public sentiment. It might have been originally the work of demagogues, whose breath had raised one wave, which had produced another, until a storm had covered all the popular ocean. But, he said, he had no right to reason on the motives or causes of the excitement. A man

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.

N 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