the author of the letter ‘a base and infamous calumniator,’ and called upon him, whoever he might be, to come out boldly, avow and sustain the charge. This was answered a few days after, by a member of congress from Pennsylvania, Mr. George Kremer, who admitted himself the author, and also his readiness to substantiate his assertions in relation to the character of Mr. Clay. Subsequent developements have made it more than probable that Kremer did _not_ write the epistle in question, his declaration to the contrary notwithstanding, but that it was written by the individual who sustained the ‘Columbian Observer,’ John H. Eaton, and the latter did not deny the authorship, although Mr. Clay directly charged him with it. The evidence elicited was such as to show Mr. Kremer’s entire passivity in the whole matter――a mere machine, moved by the hands of the vile plotters behind the scene, made to speak and act as they directed, and caused to father the villainous slander, which was generated amid the slime of their hearts, as destitute of honor and patriotism as the icebergs of Greenland of verdure. This supple tool had the frankness (to his credit be it spoken,) to acknowledge afterwards to Mr. Crowninshield, a member of congress from Massachusetts, that he _was not_ the originator or author of it. The more effectually to vindicate himself, Mr. Clay desired to place the subject before the house. To this he was prompted by his own feelings, and also by the belief that the dignity and honor of the body over which he presided, demanded that a complete investigation should be instituted, of those gross charges which had caused such disreputable imputations to rest upon his character. In accordance, therefore, with his request, a committee was appointed on the fifth of February, 1825, consisting of many leading members in the house, all of whom were his political opponents. Probably the matter had now gone farther than Mr. Kremer wished or expected it to go, as he began to manifest considerable uneasiness respecting the result, notwithstanding he had but a day or two previous arisen in his place and substantially reiterated the contents of the communication he had acknowledged, stating that ‘if, upon an investigation being instituted, it should appear that he had not sufficient reason to justify the statements he had made, he trusted he should receive the marked reprobation which had been suggested by the speaker. _Let it fall where it might, he was willing to meet the inquiry and abide the result._’ And yet, when it was proposed to adopt a course which would establish the truth or falsehood of his statements, which would test this willingness ‘_to meet the inquiry_,’ he shrank back and shuffled under a mean subterfuge. The committee, in their report, declared that Mr. Kremer refused to appear before, or communicate to them any facts of which he had virtually admitted himself to be in possession, and protested against