paper the ideas he had already expressed to him in conversation. By him
and other Senators they were held to be conclusive, so conclusive that the
plaintiffs were speedily brought to see that the path of safety, for the
present at least, lay in the direction of abandoning the treaty and
allowing it to be quietly laid in the grave in which it since has rested.
That such should have been their course was, at the time, much regretted
by the defendants, as they would have greatly preferred an earnest and
thorough discussion of the question before the court. Had opportunity been
afforded it _would_ have been discussed by one, at least, of the master
minds of the Senate;[1] and so discussed as to have satisfied the whole
body of our people, authors and editors, perhaps, excepted, that their
cause was that of truth and justice; and that if in the past there had
been error it had been that of excess of liberality towards the plaintiffs
in the suit.

[Footnote 1: Senator Clayton of Delaware.]

The issue that was then evaded is now again presented, eminent counsel
having been employed, and the opening speech having just now been made.[2]
Having read it carefully, we find in it, however, nothing beyond a labored
effort at reducing the literary profession to a level with those of the
grocer and the tallow-chandler. It is an elaborate reproduction of Oliver
Twist's cry for "more! more!"--a new edition of the "Beggar's Petition,"
perusal of which must, as we think, have affected with profound disgust
many, if not even most, of the eminent persons therein referred to. In it,
we have presented for consideration the sad case of one distinguished
writer and admirable man who, by means of his pen alone, had been enabled
to pass through a long life of most remarkable enjoyment, although his
money receipts had, by reason of the alleged injustice of the consumers of
his products, but little exceeded $200,000; that of a lady writer who, by