If objections were to be made, one might have supposed that Cheves, Clay, and Calhoun would have resisted Gallatin’s idea because it offered too much encouragement to mercantile speculation resting on violation of law; but nothing was more uncertain than the moral sensitiveness of a political body. What seemed to one statesman a right and proper act seemed evident dishonesty to another; nor had the science of ethics made sensible progress toward the invention of practical tests. Statesmen who saw nothing improper in the seizure of West Florida, the attacks on East Florida, or the campaign of Tippecanoe; who maintained the doctrine that the admission of Louisiana dissolved the Union, or that Champagny’s letters satisfied the demands of government and the Acts of Congress,--war Democrats and Federalists alike, representing the morality and the energy of the country, joined in attacking Gallatin’s plan. Langdon Cheves, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, after reporting from the committee, November 25, a resolution to leave the subject to the Secretary of the Treasury, began a speech, December 4, by declaring that he trembled for the consequences of the measure; it would shake the party to pieces; it would make angels weep. “I trust in God,” cried Cheves, “no man who may be thus consigned by this House to the Secretary of the Treasury to await his decision and to supplicate his clemency, will so far forget what he owes to his own true interests and to his character as a free citizen as to give an equivalent for that sum of money which may be demanded as the government’s share of the profits. I would rather see the objects of the war fail,--I would rather see the seamen of the country impressed on the ocean and our commerce swept from its bosom,--than see the long arm of the Treasury indirectly thrust into the pocket of the citizen through the medium of a penal law.” Henry Clay admitted and favored total confiscation, but not the idea of a compromise:-- “The law ought to be enforced or not. He thought a compromise in the case dangerous and undignified; indeed, he felt shocked at the idea of an equivalent. Already are our laws too openly violated or fraudulently eluded. Shall we degrade them still further by carrying them into the market and fixing a price upon their violation? Extend the principle of an equivalent, from cases of prohibition merely, to instances of moral turpitude,--to felony and homicide,--and every gentleman will see its enormity. No, sir! Let us not pollute our hands with this welt-gild!” Calhoun would not allow that the government could properly act at all:--