And it may well be that the Omniscient eye sees a far larger harvest of usefulness gathered from the presence of Theodore Frelinghuysen in academic halls than could have been gained from the longest and most successful forensic career.

CHAPTER IV.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

1829-1835.

Composition of the Senate.-Great Questions agitated.-Mr. Frelinghuysen's Course.-The Indian Bill.-The Sunday-Mail Question.-Day of Fasting for the Cholera.-Encomiums of Clay and Webster.-Letter of the Hon. Edward Everett.

IN the year 1829 Mr. Frelinghuysen took his seat in the Senate of the United States, where he continued until the expiration of the term for which he was elected. During the first four years his colleague from New Jersey was the Hon. Mahlon Dickerson, afterward Secretary of the Navy under Presidents Jackson and Van Buren; during the remaining two years, his old classmate, Samuel L. Southard, who had been Secretary of the Navy under Presidents Monroe and J. Q. Adams, was his associate.

It has generally been admitted that the Senate never contained a larger number of eminent men than it did at this period. The leading minds of every section of the country and of every political party were to be found on the floor of the upper house of Congress. Among these, three names stand out with a prominence not to be mistaken. Even now the person, character, policy, and influence of Daniel Webster, of Henry Clay, and of John C. Calhoun, are better known than those of more than one holder of that great prize, the presidential chair, after which they

all unsuccessfully aspired, and will be freshly remembered long after the latter are buried in oblivion. These three differed widely in their origin, training, and cast of mind, but they were all men of stronglymarked character, of unusual natural gifts, and well adapted to lead great parties in the republic. Each was a well-read lawyer, an experienced legislator, a far-seeing statesman, and a practiced debater; and when they met in the Senate in opposition to the administration of General Jackson, it was in the maturity of their powers and fame. But besides these there were many others in the Senate inferior only to them in ability and influence. Such were Holmes of Maine, Woodbury of New Hampshire, Foot of Connecticut, Robbins of Rhode Island, Marcy and Wright of New York, Dallas and Wilkins of Pennsylvania, Clayton of Delaware, Rives, Tyler, and Tazewell of Virginia, Mangum of North Carolina, Hayne and Preston of South Carolina, Forsyth of Georgia, King of Alabama, Poindexter of Mississippi, Edward Livingston of Louisiana, Grundy and White of Tennessee, Bibb of Kentucky, Ewing of Ohio, and Benton of Missouri; every one of whom not only achieved distinction in his own state, but also had considerable national reputation.*

The period of Mr. Frelinghuysen's senatorial service was distinguished by the importance of the issues before the country, as well as by the greatness of the men who discussed and decided them. The bold and pronounced character of General Jackson did not al

* One half of them either had been, or became cabinet officers or representatives of the country at foreign courts.

low him to follow tortuous courses or pursue an equivocal policy. On every question he took his position clearly, and was prepared to push his opponents to the wall. Debate was not confined to side issues or incidental points, but touched fundamental principles, and affected questions coeval with the formation of the government. The currency, the tariff, the autonomy of the Indian tribes, the scope of pension laws, the powers of the executive in relation to Congress, and the powers of the general government in relation to the states-these, and such as these, were the great themes which then occupied the time and thought of the statesmen of the country. On the last of these issues our generation has seen a decision practically reached by force of arms in resistance to a causeless and treacherous rebellion. But the principles underlying that subject have never been more thoroughly, ably, and eloquently discussed than they were in the years 1832 and 1833. The whole case was then exhausted; nor has any thing been added on either side, in the shape of argument, to what was then urged, although, of course, the appeal to force has forever settled the question, and shown that the proclamation of General Jackson in December, 1832, will henceforth be deemed a just exposition of the Federal Constitution.

In all these conflicts Mr. Frelinghuysen took a decided part, for he never affected a neutral position. Believing the principles of the party with which he acted to be correct and wise, he gave them a cordial and persistent support. But his fidelity to political associates never degenerated into mere partisanship.

He disliked a factious opposition to the administration, and rigidly confined his course to such measures as seemed clearly called for by the circumstances of the country. On one memorable occasion, when the Senate acted upon the nomination of the Hon. Martin Van Buren as minister to Great Britain, Mr. Frelinghuysen had great difficulty in concurring with his party in a vote of disapproval. He, however, yielded at last, and his name stands upon the record with the majority in opposition to the nomination. But he always declared that the measure, however justifiable, was an impolitic one, and predicted the very consequences which in a few years ensued from it. Indeed, his political sagacity was not often at fault. His coolness and fairness gave his mind fair play, and disembarrassed his judgment from the passions and prejudices which frequently mislead very able men.

At a time when party lines were very strictly drawn, and personal animosities added to the bitterness of political divisions, he still maintained an independent judgment; and although habitually acting with the opponents of the administration, he never hesitated to differ from them rather than violate his own sense of right.

His participation in the business of the Senate justified the hopes inspired by the success of his previous career. Although by no means the equal of any of the three great representatives of the East, West, and South, he yet held a prominent place in the committee-room and on the floor of the Senate, and maintained with signal ability the honor of the state he represented. Indeed, it may be doubted whether New Jer