forward, to destroy sensations thus pleasing?  Was it not much better and kinder, both to sleep upon them myself, and to allow others also the pleasure of sleeping upon them?  But if it be meant, by sleeping upon his speech, that I took time to prepare a reply to it, it is quite a mistake.  Owing to other engagements, I could not employ even the interval between the adjournment of the Senate and its meeting the next morning, in attention to the subject of this debate.  Nevertheless, Sir, the mere matter of fact is undoubtedly true.  I did sleep on the gentleman’s speech, and slept soundly.  And I slept equally well on his speech of yesterday, to which I am now replying.  It is quite possible that in this respect, also, I possess some advantage over the honorable member, attributable, doubtless, to a cooler temperament on my part; for, in truth, I slept upon his speeches remarkably well.

But the gentleman inquires why he was made the object of such a reply.  Why was he singled out?  If an attack has been made on the East, he, he assures us, did not begin it; it was made by the gentleman from Missouri.  Sir, I answered the gentleman’s speech because I happened to hear it; and because, also, I choose to give an answer to that speech, which, if unanswered, I thought most likely to produce injurious impressions.  I did not stop to inquire who was the original drawer of the bill.  I found a responsible indorser before me, and it was my purpose to hold him liable, and to bring him to his just responsibility without delay.  But, sir, this interrogatory of the honorable member was only introductory to another.  He proceeded to ask me whether I had turned upon him in this debate, from the consciousness that I should find an overmatch, if I ventured on a contest with his friend from Missouri.  If, sir, the honorable member, modestiae gratia, had chosen thus to defer to his friend, and to pay him compliments, without intentional disparagement to others, it would have been quite according to the friendly courtesies of debate, and not at all ungrateful to my own feelings.  I am not one of those, sir, who esteem any tribute of regard, whether light and occasional, or more serious and deliberate, which may be bestowed on others, as so much unjustly withholden from themselves.  But the tone and the manner of the gentleman’s question forbid me thus to interpret it.  I am not at liberty to consider it as nothing more than a civility to his friend.  It had an air of taunt and disparagement, something of the loftiness of asserted superiority, which does not allow me to pass it over without notice.  It was put as a question for me to answer, and so put as if it were difficult for me to answer whether I deemed the member from Missouri an overmatch for myself in debate here.  It seems to me, sir, that this is extraordinary language, and an extraordinary tone, for the discussions of this body.