in Congress, Mr. Botts, undoubtedly, could.
We do not see, indeed, how his claims could be overlooked, especially when we see that Tennessee is to be admitted because a son-in-law of the President is a Senator from that State.
With regard to talents and statesmanship, we think our contemporary wrong when he says Mr. Botts will be the peer of any man in the Senate.
There is no man in the Senate whose abilities are at all comparable to those of Mr. Botts Mr. Botts held his own when there were giants in Congress; when Clay Webster and Calhoun were in the Senate; when Prentiss, Marshall and John Quincy Adams were in the Lower House.
In the present Senate he would be like Saul among the prophets.
He would be a head and shoulders taller than the tallest of them.
Nor do we conceive that we pay Mr. Botts an exaggerated compliment when we say this much of him. A man of abilities much inferior to his would be amply qualified to take the lead in that body, as at present constituted.