EDIT ED AND PUBLISHED WEEKlTj BY
H. Ii. HOLMES.
Terms $2 50 per annum, if paid in advance; g3
if paid at the end of six months; or S3 50 at
the expiration of the year. Advertisements in
serted at the rate of sixty cents per square for the
first, and thirty cents for each subsequent inser
tion. . . .
rj Letters on business connected with this
establishment, must be addressed H. L. Holmes,
Editor of the North-Carolinian, and in all cases
post-paid.
11 IMPORTED FLATTEREK ;
-U- (Winner of the Grand Duke Michael Stakes,
at New Market, England, first October Meet
ing of 1834.) Having undertaken the man
agement of this splendid English Race Horse,
he will make the ensuing Season under my
direction, at my Stable in the Town of Fay
ette viile, an will be let to mares at 50 the
Season, $75 to insure, and fifty cents to the
Groom. The Season commences on the 1st
of March and end 1st July. Extensive and ex
cellent pasturage provided for mares, and sepa
rate lots for such as may have y tung foals, and
mares well fed with grain for thirty cents per
day. Every care will be taken to guard against
accidents, but no responsibility will be assumed
for any that may occur, nor for escapes. The
Season money will be due and payable when
tie mares are taken awav.
PEDIGREE.
FLATTERER was got by Muley,
(son of Orville and the famous mare Eleanour,)
his dam, Glare, (bred by Lord Egremonl in
1824) was got by Marmion, grand dam Har
palice by Gohanna, great grand dam Amazon
by Driver Fractious by Mercury VVood
pecker mare Everlasting by Eclipse Hyena
by Snap Miss Belsea by" Rtgulus Honey
wood's Arabian Byerly Turk mare, dam of
the two True Blues.
Mulet, the sire of Flatterer, was the best
bred son of Orville, who was a winner of the St.
Leger, and a most capital Stallion, having co
vered at as high as bit. Orville s is not only the
, most fashionable, but is also considered the best
I slock in England. Orvi'le is the sire of Emilus,
covering at 50 sovereigns, and, through him,
, imp. Priam, covering in this country at . 1 50
i of PJenipo, covering at 525 sovs. (all three win
ners of the Derby) Oxygen, winner of the
Oaks imp. Sarpeden imp. Merman imp.
Tranby, &c. Muley is also sire of Yespa,
winner of the Oaks of Muley Moloch imp.
' Leviathan imp. Margrave, &c. Jtfuley is out
j of Eleanour, the best bred mare ofhei day, who
won both the Derby and the Oaks, and who is
the only nag that has accomplished that great
feat. Eleanour (by Whiskey, that famous get
ter of the stout sort, out of that splendid brood
mare Young Giantess by Diomed,) is the grand
. dam of imp. Luzborough, and is full sister to
Julia, dam. of imp. Priam and half sister to the
Walton filly, dam of Langar, all distinguished
runners.
Clare, dam of Flatterer, was out of Harpalice
by Gohanna, the best four mile horse of his day.
aim a-s a oiamon equal toanyoj ant age. Har
palice, g. d. of Flatterer, was bred by the Earl
of Egremont, who has bred a greater number
of game hordes than any other turf-man in
England during the last forty yearsj and was
got by Gohanna, her dam by Herod, she was
the dam of Precipitate, out of Maiden by
Matcliem, from Mr. Pratt's old Squirt mare,
Mercury, sire of Gohanna, was got by the in
viucible Eclipse, out of Mi. O'Kelly's old Tar
car mare, g. d. Amazon, by Driver." This mare,
herself the dam of racers, was full sister to Han
nibal, winner of the Derby, and Carthage, a
distinguished racer and brood mare. Young
Amotion, full ('wier to M.u putli c, was itjc Uaiu
of Belwire, Tinwire, Goldwire, Trinket and
Sharper, all distinguished on the Turf. This
last. Sharper, so famous for liottom, was select
ed to run a 49 mile race in Russia, against the
Cossack horses he was sent there, run, and
won easily, under great disadvantage of weight.
G-. g. d Fractious, by Mercury, is the g. g. d.
f Lapdog and Spaniel, both winners of the
Derby perhaps the only instance where two
tolls from the same mare have won that great
race. The whole pedigree of Harpalice pre
fents a long list of splendid racers. From this
tame maternal line was descended the famous
English Stallion Tramp, whose dam wa8 got
by Gohanna, ami almost lull sister to Harpalice.
Hart's old Medley traces to the same source;
Chateau Margaux and Cetus, both imported,
and among the best, too, are from Gohanna
lua res, with much of the same blood as the g. d.
if Flatterer. Indeed, Chateau Margaux, with
the exception of one cross, has precisely the
same pedigree. Air. Prati's old Squirt mare;
Sir C. Bunhury's Young Giantess, and Mr.
O'Kelly's old Tartar mare, to whom Flatterer is
closely allied by blood, with the Duke of Graf
ton's Prunella, are regarded by the best sports
men and breeders as the best mares in En-jland.
FLATTERER, like ins sire Muley, who
was said to be the largest boned thorough-bied
in the Kingdom, and to he equai to 20 stone,
(280 lbs!) is a horse of the largest size, lull six
teen hands high, of immense power, large bone,
great subsiance, good aci ion, ;ong stride. sound
constitution, and excellent temper. His colour
is a fine hniwn, wiihout white. It will be seen
that his pedigree runs back to the 'anions old
English Eclipse, in an extremely short, and as
rich a line as could be desired.
tX3 The extraordinary performances of the
three year old filly Vashti, by Flatterer's half
brother Leviatlutn, of Tennessee, at the Raleigh
and other Courses in this Staie last Fall, and of
many others of that horse's get at the South and
South West, recommend his Slock to the favoi
able attention of breeders. Flalierer tias proved
a very sure horse. SAMUEL MIMS.
March 2, 1839. 1 tf
TCIOTEL. It is with much pleasure I
inform the public, that I have taken charge
of the LAFAYETTE HOTEL, in the Town of
CLINTON, Sampsnr. county, North Carolina. It
is with equal pleasure that I assure the public, that
no pains or exertions shall be dispensed with', ne
cessary to the comfort and ease of those who may
feel inclined to patronize me. My Table will at
all times be supplied with the best viands this coun
try can afford.
Families travelling East and West, North and
South, will find tbe accommodations in .he Lafay
ette Hotel inferior tit none in the Southern country.
Viaticum for their journey will be neatly provided
When required.
i The members of our Bar will meet with a most
kind and hospitable reception; every facility will
be afforded them for counselling with their clients.
B. STITH, M. D.
March 2. 18S9. j,f
jHTIlIS is to caution all persons
' i jm trad,n w'th my wifeCatharice, as ? am
resolved not to pay any debts of her contracting
(ahe having lelt me without any just cause.
1 Kr . MOSES EDWARDS.
; March 2, 1839. !lt
T L receved by Steamer Henrietta,
100,000 best SPANISH CIGARS,
50 boxes bunch RAISINS.
20 barrels BUTTER CRACKERS,
a variety of swpi...., . '
itr .. c A- M. CAMPBELL.
March 2, 1839. j ,r
A rf A W W m VI . ... '
'S9J'YAU! 4" KT on Hillsbo-
"Character la mm
important to State., a. It U to inrtl, tubals; ad tc K,ory r ,Ue Stls !,
common property of its citizens.'
Vol. I.
FAYETTE VILLE, SATURDAY, MARCH 9, 1830.
Ah
rough Stree
March 2, 1839
t, a few 3-ards below my Store
T. S. LUTTERLOH.
l-3w
TIN, Copper, and Sheet Iron
M ANUFACTUR T. The subscriber
informs his friends and the public that he has on
hand and continues to manufacture at his old esta
blishment, Hay Street, near the Post Office, every
article in the above line, and has on hand & large
assortment of Tin and Jappanned Ware, Copper
Stills, Worms, Hatter's Kettles, Dye Wash Kettles
Brass Kettles and Tea Kettles. '
Also a larsre assortment
of ST O VES and Stove
PIPE, consisting of Fire
place and Pipe Franklins,
Cooking, Boilingand Bak
ing Stoves, Six plate and
Box Stoves, Sheet Iron &
Foot Stoves ; and keeps
t-onstantly on hand Tin
s Plate 1 3 X and extra
sizes, Brass & Iron Wire,
Sheet and Bolt Conner.
Sheet Brass, Iron, Steel and Zinck; Sheet, Bar and
Pig Load, Spelter, Round and Hoop Iron; Nail and
Spike Rods; Thick Planished Steel; first quality
Mill and Cross Cut Saws, with a general assort
ment of ol her articles in his line, which he would
respectfully invite the attention of country mer
chants and others to examine. He will sell as low
as can be bought in this place.
JAMES MARTINE.
Fayetteville, March 2, 1839. I-3m
DEBATE IN CONGRESS.
No. 2.
jii i-rr 0 ft . rr mm
By J AMES FOSTER,
LIBERTY POINT PAYETTETILLE OPPOSITE
The Jackson Iloleh
Morch 2, 1S39. l-6w
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Sampson County.
Court of Pleas and Cuarter Sessions, February
erm, low.
John Robinson i
vs. Constable's Levy on Land.
Losan Matthews.
T appearing to the satisfaction of the Court
that the Defendant hath removed from thin
State, so that a personal notice of said levy cannot
be served on him, it is therefore Chdered bv the
Court, that publication be made in The North
Carolinian for 6 weeks, no.'ityinff said Defendant of
said levy on his land, and requiring him to appear
at the next Term of said Court, and shew cause
against the same, or an order will be made by said
Court for the sale of the lands levied on as, afore
iM, nj. mi, ?.msiuiuon ol riain. ill's demand.
Witness, Thomas I. Faison, Clerk of said Court,
at office in Clinton, the third Monday in February,
A. D. 1839, and of American Independence, the
63rd. THOS. I. FAISON , C lerk.
March 2, 1839. 1 6w
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Sampson County.
Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions, February
Term, 1839.
William C. Draughon
vs. Levy on Land.
Jordon Wooton. J
IT appearing to the satisfaction of the Court
that the Defendant hath removed from this
State, so that a personal notice of said levy cannot
be served on him, it is therefore Ordered by the
Court that publication be made in The North Caro
linian for 6 weeks, notifying the said Defendant of
said levy on his land, and requiring him to appear
at the next Term of the Court, and shew cause
against the same, or an order will be made by said
Court for the sale of the lands levied on as aforesaid
for the satisfaction of Plaintiff's demand.
V itness, Thomas I. Faison, Clerk of said Court,
at office, in Clinton, the thiid Monday in February,
A. D. 1839, and of American Independence, the
63rd. THOS. I. .FAISON, Clerk,
March 2, 1839. 1 6w
STATE OF NORTH-CAROLINA,
.Sampson County.
Court ot Pleas and Quarter Sessions, February
Team, 1839,
Jonathan Carr, Executor of Caveat of the will
Jonathan Carr, deceased, f of the dee'd, and issue
vs. I thereupon of " devi-
Everet Carr. swvit vel non."
A Paper writing:, purporting to be the last
will and testament of Jonathan Carr, deceased,
being exhibited in open court and oflered for pro
bate, by Jonathan Carr the Executor therein consti
tuted, and the defendant Everct Carr having enter
ed a coveat against the probate thereof, an issue was
thereupon made up to be tried by a jury of the coun
try. Whether the said paper writing is the last will
and testament of the said Jonathan Carr, dee'd.;
and it appearing to the court that Hardy A. Carr,
Alfred Turner and his wife Anne, and Mary Ann,
Elizabeth, Margaret and Rachel Rowles, interested
as the next of kin ot the deceased, are not in
habitants of tliis State, It is ordered by the Court
that publication lie made in " The North-Carolinian"
for risht weeks, notifying the said par
ties and next ol kin, to appear at the next Court of
Pleas and Quarter Sessions, to be held fbr the
County of Sampson, at the Court House in Clinton,
on the 3d Monday in May next, then and there to
make themselves parties of record to the suit on the
trial of the said issue, otherwise they will be pre
cluded from all right thereafter of coveating or oth
erwise hindering the nrolv.itc of said will.
Witness, Thoinns I. Faison, Clerk of said Court,
t office, in Clinton, the third Monday in February.
u. ..i.iuiii American Independence the 63d.
THOS. I. FAISON, Clerk.
March 2. 1839. j 8w
a
A. D
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Sampson County.
Courtof Pleas and Quarter Ses ions, February
n otrt
x erm , looa.
William Tew Original Attachment levied
vs: on the lands of the Deten
Losan Matthews. ) dant.
ITT appearing to the satisfaction of the Court
that the Defendant hath removed beyond the
limits ot this State, so that, the ordinary process of
law cannot be served on him, it is therefore Ordered
by the Conrt, that publication be made fbr eight
weeks in The North Carolinian, notifying said De
fendant of the levy of said attachment, and requir
ing him to appear, replevy and plead at the next
term of this Court, or judgment, by default, will be
awarded against him. and the lands levied on will
be condemned to the satisfaction of PlantifPs de-I
mind.
Witness, Thomas I. Faison, Clerk of said Court,
at office,. in Clinton, the third Monday in February,
A. D. 1839, and of American Independence, the
63rd. THOS. I. FAISON, Clerk.
March 2, 1839. 1 8w
SPEECH OF MR. STRANGE,
Of North Carolina,
In Senate of" U. States, February 13, 1839
On the bill to prevent the interference of
certain Federal officers with elections.
Mr. STRANGE said: Mr. President. I
am not a volunteer in this debate. At the
beginning of the session, the Senate thought
proper to assign me a place on an important
committee, to which the subject now under
consideration was reterred, and upon it the
chairman of that committee presented a long
and able report. To the credit of the exclu
sive authorship of that report, the chairman is
entitled. Both its substance and its language
are his own. But although I lay no claim to
any part of the authorship of the report, I yiel
ded it my hearty assent, and it is due to my
self to show that I did not yield that assent
hastily, or upon insufficient reasons. Upon
the report the most extraordinary attack has
been made; perhaps the most violent to be
found in the history of this body. I had not
the good fortune to hear the remarks made by
the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Critten
den, but I listened attentively to the assault
made upon the report by the Senator from
Virginia, Mr. Rives, who appeared to nie
to have wrought himself up to a most extrava
gant pitch of excitement. He spoke of the
report as fraught with doctrines subversive of
liberty, and so corrupting in their nature, that
the Senate ought to undergo a lustration to
purify itself from their contaminating effects.
I listened to the Senator with equal surprise
and disappointment. Surprise, at the fury
into which he seemed to have wrought him
self, and disappointment, at the result of his
argument I was not prepared to find his
extravagant promises fall so far short of ful
filment, and little expected to see an advoca
cy of the bill result in its total abandonment.
I he Senator stated, he was so much sur
prised and bewildered at the reading of the
report, that he was at a loss to know whether
he was in the Senate of the United States or
in the kingdom of France or of England. I
am not at all disposed to question the truth of
this statement, for it furnishes the only mode
known to me of accounting for the strange
statements made by the Senator in relation to
the report. No man in his sober sense in
the full possession of all his faculties, could
take up that report, and extract from it the
doctrines ascribed to it by the Senator from
Virginia. Those high faculties, that good
sense which usually characterize mat Senator,
were for some reason in abeyance. He
must have been, as he himself declares, be
wildered, for I cannot suppose (the only re
maining alternative) that thJft- j2hl
rtood.' So perfect was tho Senator's bewil
derment, that he not only asserted that cer
tain doctrines were set forth in the report,
which I insist are not to be found there, but
pledged himself to the proof, and proceeded
to read therefrom certain passages for that
purpose. His first allegation is, that the re
port inculcates on the office holders of the
General Government the duty of intermed
dling with the elections of the country, and is
calculated to stir them up to greater exertions.
If any one will take the trouble to examine
that report he will find that, so far from incul
cating upon the office holders of the Govern
ment improper intermeddling with the elec
tions, its tendency is directly the other way.
The following is one of the passages it con
tains, which is, I think, any thing but a per
suasion to intermeddle improperly in elec
tions: "That elections ought to be pure and incor
rupt is a principle admitted by all, and no
language can be too strong to express the ab
horrence felt by the committee against any
attempt to destroy this freedom and purity.
He who is guilty of either, by bribing or cor
rupting voters, violating the ballot box, or set
ting at nought its voice, forging or suppres
sing returns, or disobeying the laws enacted
fbr securing any elective right, is guilty of
treason against Republican institutions, and
ought to be regarded by all as a dangerous foe
to liberty."
I will now proceed to review the passages
cited by the Senator, and, so far as my me
mory serves me, read them all over again to
the Senate. The first is as follows:
"The foundation of representative Govern
ment is based upon the intelligence of the
citizen, and to insure that intelligence, it is
both the right and die duty of every one, free
ly to discuss and communicate, both publicly
and privately, such matters as he may suppose
will advance the public interest, or inform the
public mind. One of the most salutary and
effectual agents, to promote such interest, is
an enlightened public opinion. To evolve
such opinion, and to give form and direction
to the general course of national policy, and
the future destinies of all, every citizen, whe
ther intrusted with public office or not, has a
like deep, abiding, and active interest, and no
citizen is at liberty to withdraw himself from
this high responsibility, inseparably connect
ed with Republican institutions. One of the
most celebrated law makers of one of the an
cient Republics, declared every citizen infa
mous, who refused to take part in the affairs
of his country; and the word idiot, derived
from the language of that Republic, bears
through all times this impi ess of their institu
tions, denoting one who was destitute of the
spirit or intelligence requisite for the dis
charge of mis highest duty of a citizen.
"The elective right is not conferred by the
Constitution of the United States, but belongs
to representative Government, and springs
from its very nature; and the very essence of
that right, under our institutions, is the right
of electing the members of the General and
State Governments.. The value and the ad
vantages of this right, so far as respects the
public, depend upon the knowledge of public
measures, and of the qualifications of candi
dates for public trust, and, consequently, upon
cquai ana unrestricted freedom of discus
sing their comparative merits and demerits.
Ihe citizen who, by the choice of his fellows,
is distinguished by being selected to perform
olhcial duties and trusts, is not thereby eleva
ted above them, nor degraded below them.
He parts with no riwhta rr; u:.. .
mains an equal among equals; still connected
with them by the strong and enduring liVa.
ments of mutuality of rights and privileges.
Under our constitution, the people, not the
government, possess the sovereignty: and the
doors of office can be opened only by the
powerful charm of the public voice, and no
degrading sacrifice of any of the privileges of
citizenship, or any separation from thecom
munity of rights, feelings, and interests, which
pwpic iu iub voverumeut, is requi
red. c These positions are all general, including
every citizen, and not asserting auy peculiar
rights or duties as belonging to office holders
in relation to elections. Can any dispassion
ate man discover any thing, in' any part of
the foregoing passage, incitiug office holders
to the exercise of improper influence in elec
tions? Is it not true that enlightened public
opinion is the basis upon which our institu
tions rest? Is it not true that free discussion
is important to the formation of sound public
opinion? And is it not the duty of every
man, whether he holds an office or not, to
contribute his mite towards euliiihteuina the
public mind, and giving to public opinion a
direct and healthy current? And is it not al
so true, that those who shrink from that duty
are, for the most part, idiots, in the more mo
dern acceptation of that word, or men so thor
oughly selfish as to be indifferent to every
thing but their own private concerns? Men
so indolent by nature as to decline every spe
cies of exertion, or so devoted to the acquisi
tion of fortune as to be toU ' unmindful of
the public weal, so that affairs are so conduc
ted as to enable them to feather well their own
nests? The report goes on to say: "The ob
ject of the bill is to render what is lawful and
praiseworthy, and in strict conformity with
both the letter and spirit of our institutions,
for all citizens, criminal in a particular class,
who have been honored by the confidence of
the people of the whole States." here is
the inceutive in that passage to office holders
to intermeddle with elections? What is there
in it not accordant with the strictest propriety?
It states what every man must see to lc the
effect of the bill. It contains solemn truth,
which no man can doubt who is not wilfully
blind. The next passage to which the Sena
tor calls our atteution is:
"It is as well his inherent right a his duty
to discuss and promulgate freely the measures
conduct of those who support or oppose it, as
well to control them by the censorship of pub
lic opinion, as to subject them to the test of
the Constitution. In doing so, he may w in
tho confidence of his fellow-c itizens by his
declared opinions, or may become indentified
with some great principle which conciliates
their support. All this is innocent and praise
worthy, even if the motive is the acquisition
of office, because it promotes the public good.
Can it be wise, or even just, to punish as a
crime, when a citizen attains office, what was
patriotic and praiseworthy while he was seek
ing it? Yet why should office seeking and
office holding be thus separated by arbitrary
enactments, which bestow honors and confi
dence upon the one, and penalty and ignomi
ny upon the other, for doing the same act?"
Now is not all this just and true? Is it not
souud doctrine? And would it be pretended
by any one that a free discussion of public
men and public measures should be forbidden
to any citizen? Would any bill containing
such a proposal, in plain and undisguised
terms, meet with favor from any quarter? And
yet all that is asserted in the passage quoted
is, in substance, that no such restriction ought
to be imposed. The next passage quoted in
support of the first charge is the following:
"The committee can perceive no reason
for the adoption by Congress of any restric
tion upon any of what they deem the inherent
and unalienable rights of every class of citi
zens, merely because they have been honored
with the confidence of the people."
And does any man see a reason why a ci
tizen should be deprived of his inherent and
unalienable rights, merely because he has
been appointed to office? I challenge any
man in the Senate to assume such ground.
Neither the Senator from Virginia, nor any
other member, dare assume it. And shall the
report be denounced for asserting its untena
bility? Upon these passages it is that the
Senator from Virginia has based his assertion
that the report urges the office holders to an
improper interference in the elections of the
country. And does not the bare reading of
these passages dispel at once the plausibility
of the charge? I have said I was surprised
that the charge should have been made. But
I admit I ought not to have been surprised.
After what has occurred under my 'own obser
vation, my capacity for surprise at any opi
nion uttered, or auy language used by the
Senator upon apolitical subject, should have
been exhausted.
; And now, having utterly failed to prove the
dangerous nature of the report, the Senator
o-oes on to say that he would not have felt
himself so imperatively called upon to assail
it, could he consider it as the mere work of
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, or
even as the production of all the committee;
but he regards it as an exposition of the opin
ions and sentiments of a whole political party
by which he evidently meant what is called
the Administration party. Now, if the Sena
tor intended to insinuate that any sentiment
contained in the report was supplied from any
source extraneous to the committee, that it
was dictated by that Executive of whom the
Senator seems to have conceived such a sud
den, violent, and holy honor, he does great
injustice to the committee, to the chairman,
and still greater injustice to himself. But if
he means no more than to assert that the re
port contains only such doctrines and opini
ons as are entertained by a great political
party of this country, he asserts what is strict
ly true. It does contain, upon the subject of
which it treats, the opinions and doctrines of
the purest party of which this country will ever
boast; a party of which any man may feel
proud to be a member; a party numbering in
its ranks a Franklin, a Jefferson, a Madison;
a Taylor, a Jackson, and a host of orher stars
which have shone the brightest in the political
galaxy of our country.
But the Senator further imputes to the report
an attempt to degrade the States, and put them
upon a level with the private corporations of
their own creation. This charra wms to
me to be quite as baseless and gratuitous as
'the one which preceded it. The Senator
does not, as in the former case, cite the pas
sages in which he fancies this lurkiue vice is
to be found, but contents himself with making
the charge; and I defy any man to point out a
portion of the report that at all justifies the
imputation. I have, for the purpose of de
tecting such a vice, if it exists, in vain ran
sacked the report from end to end. But two
or three times are the State Governments and
corporations mentioned in connection, and
in every instance, I believe the Federal Gov
ernment is found in the same company; so
that if the levelling process is introduced at
all, it is by levelling up as well as levelling
down. But let the. passages speak for them
selves: "While one set of functionaries under the
Federal Government, and all those of the
State Governments, and the officers of the
corporations of associated wealth, are left with
an unrestricted freedom of speech and of the
press, this bill puts gags and fetters upon a
few proscribed men, in respect to public men
and public measures. Why this discrimina
tion? Are the proscribed officers more cor
rupt or liable to corruption than other office
holders? Is it to guard against the corrupting
influence and patronage of the Federal Ad
ministration? If so, the effect of the bill
would be still more objectionable, as in de
grading them by taking from them the rights
common to all others, it would prepare them
to become the willing instruments of corrup
tion or ambition. The bill would create a
caste among office holders, deriving their au
thority from the same high source, the people,
aud requiring the same high qualifications to
discharge their duties."
Now is there any thing in this paragraph
drawing a distinction between any classes of
officers degrading to the governments of the
States? Is it not. on the contrarv, the drift of
tmctions which it alleges the bill will create:
"Why says the report in another place
should those officers be rendered aliens, and
be prohibited from the enjoyment of the social
rights of discussing political subjects, even
under the protection of their own household
gods, while the other functionaries of the Fe
deral and State Governments, and the officers
of the corporations of associated wealth, and
the employees of private persons, are per
mitted to retain the full rights of citizens?
This bill degrades the right of suffrage, the
guardian of all political rights, by meting it
out as a boon in different portions to different
citizens, all equally worthy of trust, and dis
tinguished by popular favor, and by placing it
under an odious espionage."
Are there here auy invidious distinctions
or degrading comparisons drawn; on the con
trary, are they net, as before, disapproved and
complained of? The report goes on to say:
"The committee can find no scales in the
Constitution in which to weigh the relative
patriotism, integrity, and independence of the
functionaries of the Federal and State gov
ernments, and the officers of corporations, or
the employees of individuals. They cannot
believe that the employees of the Federal Go
vernment are more corrupt or corrupting than
those of other bodies corporate or politic, or
of individuals."
Is not this precisely the reverse of what is
charged? The report declares that greater
honesty is not to be found in one class of citi
zens than another, or, if so, that the committee
know of no means of ascertaining its exist
ence; so far is it from placing the officers of
the Federal Government upon any point of
peculiar elevation, or degrading the State
officers and those of corporations to a level
below them, as is most unjustly charged by
the Senator from Virginia.
From this topic the Senator launches forth
into a philippic against what he is pleased to
call modern democracy, one of whose charac
teristics he charges to be a tendency to cur
tail Legislative power and to extend Execu
tive. Democracy is just what it always has
been under our institutions. Its distinctive
principles consist in tracing the political
power to its true source, aud circumscribing
all the departments of the government strictly
within their constitutional limits; and, as ex
perience has shown that legislative usurpation
is of much more frequent occurrence than
executive, against the former has its efforts,
through the whole history of our country, been
chiefly directed.
The Senator speaks of his early democra
cy, and dates it back, I believe, as far as the
year 179S, when, without meaning to compli
ment, I am sure the Senator must have been
a very young politician. Against which, then,
I pray you, were the celebrated resolutions of
that period directed, legislative "or executive
usurpation? Was it not against the former?
Was it not against a law passed by Congress,
and not against any supposed. misapplication,
by the executive, of power conferred by that
law? Every one acquainted with the history
of that transaction knows it is so. And we
mav be well assured, that while we are able to
preserve
the Constitution from legislative en-
cr
i-oachment, we have nothing to fear from the
Executive. If a despot should ever complete
uruunuw oi me mstn-.uions ot American
liberty, it must be when legislative violence
has diminished their strength. And of the
latter it is that democracy is justly and partic
ularly watchful. Its principles are now the
same that they ever have been. Men may
change, Mr. President, but principles never.
Yea, men do change, and to justify or conceal
their changes, endeavor to create confusion
in principles themselves. The principles of
the democracy are n&w what they were in
179S, and the principles of its opponents are
the same, also, however they may seek to dis
guise them under new names. The princi
ples that distinguished the opponents' of de
mocracy then, are the principles that "distin
guish them now; and what would have made
a federalist of that day, and subsequently a
federal republican, aud still later a national
republican, makes a wh ig now. Men may
change their principles, and thus the federal
ist of one day may be the democrat of ano
ther. But it is only by changing his princi-
I pies, that a man becomes the one, from hav
ing been the other. The principles them
selves are as immutable as truth.
The Senator next goes on to charge the
report with stirring up the people to rebellion
against the law; and to establish that charge,
cites from it the following passage:
"It deserves serious consideration, says
the report whether a law like this bill could
ever be carried into execution at this day, and
under our free institutions a law which pros
trates the freedom of thought, of action, of
speech, and of the press, so far as respects a
large portion of the most intelligent, respect
ed, and meritorious of our citizens. The
great body of the functionaries whom this bill
would affect have been honored by the selec
tion of the people, to discharge responsible
duties, for their honesty, capacity, and fidelity
to the Constitution. The habitual reviler of
republican institutions, aud of the capacity of
the people for self-government, may in vain
attempt to fix a stigma upon all officers who
derive their appointments from the people, for
the purpose of thus gradually undermining
their confidence in the government of then
choice; but the people will always be found
true to themselves, and will never submit to
the execution of a law which deprives their
fellow-citizen of his inherent, common, and
equal rights, simply because they had distin
guished him by their favor and preference."
What is there here in the nature of an ex
hortation to the people to rebellion? What
were the famous resolutions of '98, but an
appeal to the people to restore the breaches of
the Constitution, not by force and violence,
but by the exercise of their sovereign and
constitutional powers? And does the Sena
ator venture to complain of those resolutions?
But this report dees not go even so far as the
resolutions; it makes no appeal to the people,
but merely utters the voice of warning to this
body against the passage of the proposed bill.
By the will of our constituents we all profess
to be governed, and the report only declares
what its framer believes to be the immovable
will of our common constituents.
S'lllil-.m mis7ieaeTTomN
nates Loco Focoism. Now, whether it is
Loco Focoism, or not, it is solemn truth.
This word Loco-Foco is one of those caba
listic terms which a cetain class of politicians
use to conjure up any accusation it may suit
their convenience to fasten upon their adver
saries. Its acknowledged unintelligibility
relieves them from all obligation to explain,
and it fixes a sort of undefined odium upon
whomsoever they choose to denounce. Those
who use it seem to attach to it no other idea
than that of a nomen generate of whatsoever is
odious and detestable to them in politics. At
one time it is Agrarianism; at another, a ge
neral community of every thing, unregulated
by law; at a third, hostility to corporations;
and, at a fourth, it is made to signify a sedi
tious stirring up of the people.
But the Senator doubts whether he is a
competent judge of Federalism and Loco Fo
coism. Now I admit, in a philogical sense,
no man is competent to define Loco Foco
ism; but if it is to be taken as the proper name
of any political party in the country, the Se
nator is, I think, altogether too modest in dis
avowing his competency to speak of it. If
there is any truth in the maxim, experientia
docet, (experience teaches,) the Senator is un
usually well qualified to speak of the parties
of this country and to define them. He has
avowedly belonged to two, and the evidences
are pretty strong that he is now uniting him
self with a third. He ought, therefore, to be
well acquainted with what lies upon the sur
face of things, palpable to the eye of any dis
cerning man; and if there be any party se
crets or mysteries in any of the parties of this
country, they, also, cannot fail io be known,
to him who has been initiated into all.
But, after all, these violent assaults upon
the report of the committee are not so much
to be wondered at. The report has been very
troublesome to the gendemeu on the other
side. It so far shook the confidence of the
Senator who introduced the bill, as to induce
him to propose an amendment, changing
materially its character; and the Senator from
Virginia is for abandoning the bill altogether,
and substituting in its place a string of reso
lutions. A general must be much dissatisfied
with )iis position who changes it in the face
of an enemy. But this our adversaries ought
not to be allowed to do; they have made an
issue before the country, and they ought to be
required to meet it. It is one of the artifices
of war, when a party is weak at home to en
deavor to transfer the scene of strife to the
territory of the enemy, and by a similar arti
fice do the gentlemen seek to turn away ob
servation from the normitie3 of the bill, by
directing it to the supposed defects in the re
port. But to little purpose is it adopted. The
report scarcely admits of defence, because, in
truth, it has no assailable point. The Sena
tor from Virginia i3 unqestionably a gentle
man of ingenunity and talent, and has come
to the onset with a hearty will, if possible, to
demolish the report. But every assault made
hv him has sirnallv failed. His blows were
dealt with dexterity enough, but they were
unaccompanied with the force of truth. The
bill, on the other hand, is assailable at every
position, and were a shot directed against
every weak point, it would le converted into