Newspapers / The North-Carolinian. / March 16, 1839, edition 1 / Page 1
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
T 1 ICi it 4 EDITED AND TCBL1SHED WEEELT, BY TI. Ii. HOLMES. Terms $2 50 per annum, it paid in advance; $3 if paid at the end of six months; or S3 50 at the expiration of Ihe year. Advertisements in serted at the rate of sixty cents per square for the 6rst, and thirty cents for each subsequent Inser tion. C3 Letters on business connected with this establishment, must be addressed EL L. Holmes, Editor of the North-Carolinian, and in all cases post-paid. DEBATE IN COXGRESS. MR. STRANGE'S SPEECH. (concluded.) But passing bv the evil for the present, let us look a little to the remedy proposed. Even allowing, for the sake of argument, the evil to exist at all, it is comparatively a small one, while the remedy proposed would introduce evils of the greatest magnitude. It would be like cutting off the head to relieve the tooth ache, or laying open the heart itself, to di minish arterial action ; it is striking at the very vitals of liberty to remove an unseemly pimple from her cheek. What are the evils which the bill would produce? They are nu merous, and I will consider a few of them. I. In the first place it introduces into our Legislation the odioii3 principles of distinc tion. It disunites the interests of the people and the office holders, and places them on different grounds. The great principle of equality lies at the base of ail our institutions, and distinctions, official or otherwise, except mere functionary distinctions, ought carefully to be shunned. If it were possible to have the functionary operations of the social com pact carried on without singling out individu als to perform them, it would doubtless have been done; and so far our institutions would have more approximated the pefection at which they aim. But it was impossible, and the mere distinction of holding office must necessarily exist. But it is altogether unwise and foreign to the genius of our institutions to render this distinction more couspicuous, and it is in principle a matter of indifference, whether this distinction be privative, or one of addition; and indeed it is doubtful whether the former is not the more mischievous of the two. For the robbery you practice upon the office holders, they will seek to indemnify themselves, by assuming something to which they have no right, and their claim, with the aid of a little sophistry, will probably be sus tained. "I am cut off from such and such privileges," they will argue, "and surely it is not unreasonable that I should enjoy such and such privileges in return." A generous peo ple in some moments of weakness, will allow the plea, and custom, if not law, will estab lish the right. Besides, it stifles the benevo lent feelings of the man, and forces him to pursue with more undivided aim, his own pe culiar interest. Any thing which segregates us, as it were, from our kind, or renders us unlike the rest of our species, weakens the claim which that species has upon our kind nesses and services, and separates our inter ests from theirs. Does not experience prove this in the case of deformed persons? Are they not, with some -honorable exceptions, suspicious, malicious and repulsive in their dispositions? Do they not seek to iudemui- fy themselves for the contempt which they most unjustly suppose is generally eutertained 'for them, by noting with peculiar severity ihe Jfaults, the vices, the tollies and the defects of ' f others? Again: when distinctions, h 't iwevcr associated with lrrrifll n IT Ifl tbfkf 1 111 VOtt ... L honors, while all the other evil effects and de- lticlu es the .A grading distinctions remain, it 5'4 subject of this distinction to magnify the hon- or with which it is associated, and to set upon it an unjust value. The mutilated Asiatic - who treads an eastern court, forgets, tor a 4 time, the wrong done to his nature, in cor ftemplatiou of the honor and power which it Ul U1S? IUU1, cltiU iU; I'l III knows no sympathy for t irary monarch may com; whom a; arni- : nit to Ins cruel d - ' minion. Just so with the olhe Holder in - .this laud, upon whom you fasten any tlegrad- j -&Jig distinction. He tomes at once falsely j to estimate the honors with which it is associ- j ,'ated, and strives, as rapidly as possible, to ' appropriate to himself all that comes within ! bi3 reach. In the present healthy state of j "public opinion, a public officer, who assumes official pomp and consequence, is certain to have the finger of scorn pointed at him; and , his fixes upon his mind an abiding sense that 'She has no property in his office, that he is s'jk mere public servant, pro hoc rice. 5i n. If this bill does not rend from their !jplaces, the pillars of the Constitution, it saps -fhe foundation upon which they rest. It has , feen well remarked that "the price of liberty is j eternal vigilance." liy this bill you propose i i close the eyes, stop the ears, and seal the lips f "those whose peculiar duty it is to watch. nd whose positions enable them to watch to most advantage. Constantly employed in ye public service, they acquire an intimate knowledge of public affairs and public men. rhey stand, as it were, upon an eminence, ! win wnence mey can iook around and see nger approaching from afar, and from any Quarter. False alarms they will doubtless of ten give. But in political matters the story '( f the boy and the wolf does not apply. No natter how often the alarm is given, there will e plenty to listen to it; the difficulty is in krocuring to be given. How foolishly, then, lould we act in stopping the mouths of those ho are best situated for it! The proposal of &e Opposition to pass this bill reminds me of le table ot the sheep and the wolves. While sir ciogs remained witn the sheep, they were comparative satety ; but when the silly KeD Werfi nArfillarlofl tr mirronlor tVi.?.. A I hostages, the wolves fell upon the sheep id devoured them. JIL But not only would the pillars of th institution hf shaken hv tVia , . "7 aooage oi mis Du a breach would be made in its own -ble fabric. Congress ha3 no right to pass S ay law not expressly authorized by the Con litution, or necessarily incidental to the exer iise of some power expressly granted. So at tast every Democrat in this body holds. Now, fhat clause in the Constitution exnrelv Mhorizes the passage of this law? To what ranted power is it incidental If the power kists in either form, under the Constitution. knf 1. . ... , . . . tau point out tne clause in which grant is contained. They have not done Vol. I. "Ch.rMt.r U important to States, . it ta to Indlvi-luals; amg th glory of the state,!, the common property f it. eitizei FAYETTEVILLE, SATURDAY, MARCH 16, 1839. No. 3. V so, aud I defy them to do it. Nay, not only is the act not authorized, but it is expressly forbidden. By the first article of the amend ments to the Constitution, it is declared that "Congress shall make no law respecting the. establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the peo ple peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." And is not, I would ask, the liberty of speech assailed by this bill? Does the Constitution make any exception to the exclusion of office holders from the protection of this clause? Yet the Senator from Virginia says, let vis hear no more of arguments drawn from the alien and sedition laws, and their fate under the denunciations of the people of this coun try. Why should we hear no more? Are not those laws and the present bill so similar that they might well pass for the offspring of the same parent? The bill, as it now stands, is subject to all the objections to the sedition law, and if modified as the Senatorfrom Ken tucky proposes, it will then become subject to all the objections to the alien law also. Let us look for a moment to the language of the sedition law. "That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published," &c. What is the language of the bill under consideration? "That no mar shal, &c. shall, by word, message, or writing, or in any other manner whatsoever," &c. How similar in their objects, the act and the bill! How immediately an; both levelled at! the liberty of speech and of free discussions What, then, were the objections of the patriot of 179S to the sedition law? I will read from that celebrated report of Mr. Madison. "The second object against which the resolutions protest, says Mr. Madison's report, is the sedition act: Of this it is affirmed: "1. That it exercises a power not delegated by the Con stitution. 2. That the power, on the contra ry, is expressly forbidden. 3. That this is a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm; because it is levelled against die right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free commu nication thereon, which has ever been justly esteemed the only effectual guardian of every other right." The report then goes on to show that all these objections apply to the se dition law; and is it not obvious that they apply with equal force to the bill under con sideration? And shall we pass a law con taining all these odious features, which has been so fully exposed to the American peo-. pie, in the very able report from which I have read the extract? But I said, if the bill w is amended as proposed by the Senator from Kentucky, the objections to the alien law would be brought to bear upon it also. W hat are those objections? I will call them to the attention of the Senate, from the same source to which I have just adverted. "Of the alien act," says the report, "it is affirmed by the re solution: 1. That it exercises a power no where del gated to the Federal Government. 2. I hat it unites Legislative aud Judicial powers to those of the Executive. 3. That this onion of power subverts the general prin ciples offree Government. 4. That it sub verts the particular organization, and positive provisions, of the Federal Constitution." It will be found by the reasoning in the report, under the d objection, (with which I will not oecupv -he Senate,) that the indefinite terms in which the law was couched, gave force, if not oxi-tence, to that objection. And with a law so indefinite as the o.ie under con sidciHtion, commanding the President to dismiss from office all who shall be guilty of the acts against which the law may be sup posed to be directed, will he not be constitut ed, to a certain extent, legislator, judge, aud executive officer? No other judge, or even jury, intervenes to inquire into the facts; and so indefinite are the terms of the bill, that the field of construction is so wide as to amount to legislation, and then tne President himself is to execute the law. The President first says what the law shall mean. He then ad judges the culprit to have violated it, as so construed, and finally performs the Executive act of dismissal. If this is not confounding all the powers of Government in a single ill dividual, it is difficult to conceive what would be. The bill under consideration, then, combines all the objections to both the alien and the sedition law, and ought to be subject ed to the same condemnation, and will doubt less arouse the same popular indignation, should it become a law. I know it may be said that this law operates upon a peculiar class only, and can never endanger the free dom of the citizens generally. The same might have been said of the alien law. But it was not said, or at least it was not success fully urged. And is it not obvious that, if the principle is once conceded, the security of all is gone? If Congress has a right to le gislate with regard to one class of citizens, why may it not with regard to all upon the same subject? It is contended that this is a mere condition annexed to official tenure, and that Congress has a right to prescribe the terms upon which office created by itself may be held. If the latter position be true to any extent, it can be so no farther than may be necessary to ensure official fitness and fideli ty. It cannot be that Congress has an unli mited and capricious right to attach conditions to official tenure. If so, it might require a man to live single; to be deprived of some of his limbs or members, and Under the pretence of official conditions, compel him to submit to every species of tyranny and degradation, and to barter all his rights as a ckizen, for the poor privilege of holding office. It is only qua officers that any law can be made to ope rate upon those who may hold office, which may not be made to operate upon every other citizen of the country. Can it be pretended that because a man accepts office, he is bound hand and foot to Congress, that he is so far segregated from the rest of the community, that Congress acquires over him. a power greater than that of a master over a slave. All the powers of Congress are to be rigidly and rationally construed, and especially such as may be abused to the oppression and disfran chisement of any citizen. But in reply to the objection against the re moval from office, by the President, it is said that he already possesses that power to an un limited exteut, and this bill wdl add nothing to it. There is great fallacy in this reply. The present power of removal is held by the President, as the general Executive officer of the Government, who is responsible to the people for its proper conduct; and ought, there fore, to have it in his power to dismiss any agent for whom he is not willing to be re sponsible; and when an officer is removed un der that authority, it is only because the Pres ident judges him not qualified. His want of qualification may consist in moral delinquen cy, or in want of capacity, but in either case, he is dismissed not as a punishment for the past, but as a security for the future. But the bill under consideration enjoins removal ex pressly as a punishment, and in so doing con founds all constitutional distinctions, and creates evils similar to those for which the odious alien law was responsible. But the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Rives, in reply to the constitutional objec tion to this bill, cites several cases in which he supposes Congress has or may abridge the liberty of speech, and quotes, in the first place, the law passed at this session prohibit ing the carrying or sending a challenge to fight a duel. Iu the answer, it is proper to remark that this expression in the Constitu tion, "liberty of speech," has a specific and well settled meaning, aud i synonymous with the right of free discussion, the very thing against which the bill under consideration is levelled. But a right offree discussion is not inv olved in sending a challenge to fight a du el, which is a thing malum in se, and forbidden by the laws of every civilized nation. The right of Congress, therefore, to prohibit the sending a challenge, is not negatived by that clause of the Constitution which forbids the passctge of any law "abridging the freedom of speech;" and her riht to legislate upon that subject within the District of Columbia is part of her general exclusive legislative power over this District, beyond which she has not attempted, and could no. exercise it. The Senator next supposes the case of an office holder writing a letter or sending a mes sage to a voter, by which he informs him, if he will vote for such a man he will give him such an office; and asks if Congress cannot prohibit and direct the punishment of such an act. I answer, within the District of Colum bia it can unquestionably. Such an act, if not actually bribery, is so very like it that no moral distinction can be drawn between them; and I promise the Senator, if he will intro duce a bill to prohibit and punish such an act within the District of Columbia, I will willing ly vote for it, and if I thought the power of Congress over the subject extended so far, I would vote for it throughout the Union. But how does it happen that no such provision is included in this bill.' I suppose, either be cause no such thing has been practised, or the laws in relation to it are already sufficiently penal. The Senator lastly refers to the case of a judicial officer going about among the crowd at a court-house, and soliciting jurors to give their verdict iu a particular way, and the Senator asks, if this would not be a breach of official dignity, and subject the transgres sor to impeachment? Unquestionably it would, but as I see no similarity between the case supposed, and the one under considera tion, it would be au idle undertaking to point out their differences. IV. I now proceed to another objection to the bill under consideration, and that is, that it is based upon a radically false notion and estimate of the people of this country. A be lief seems to pervade the whole Opposition party, that the people arc stupid, ignorant, gullible, and altogether unfit for self govern ment, and require to be guarded by law against themselves. This I hold to be utter ly untrue. If a man acquires influence among the people, it must be upon the strength of a character for integrity and devotion to the in terests of the commonwealth, and a capacity for understanding well those interests. But so far from this influence being increased by his promotion to office, it is often, if not gen erally, greatly diminished. The people are, if any thing, over suspicious, but it is erring on the safe side, and, therefore, I will not complain of it. Let them for a moment sus pect a man to have any private interest in a question, and his influence however great be fore, is at once paralysed. This interest they are ready enough to suspect in an office hol der, whose established moral worth does not defy suspicion; and hence an office holder is generally dead at the polls, if he does not ac tually injure the cause he attempts to support. All experience is in favor of this position, and wherever the Administration has most office holders, there are its defeats the most signal. It is true, though an office holder cannot be i efficient in favor of the Administration under which he acts, he may be very much so against it. Apparently, then, he is acting against his interests, and die soundest judgment would infer that nothing but the deepest convictions of right, founded upon unquestionable means of knowledge, would induce him so to act. But a man advocating the Administration un der which he serves, is scarcely believed, al though he backs his assertions by the most convincing proofs. The people are ready enough to adopt the idea that he who has the control of a man's bread, has the control of the man, and to act with correspondent dis trust; and in that distrust is the true security against improper influence, and not in legis lative enactment. It answers well in decla mation to hold up this idea to the people "that control over the man's bread is control over the man," in order to keep them watchful, and the politician deserves no blame for so doing. But it is a fit subject only for declamation, as applied to the politics of our country; for how ever true as an abstract proposition, there are no facts to give it application. It is not true that the President has control oyer the bread of the office holders, for he can neither in crease nor diminish their salaries. It is true he may dismiss them from office, but he can hot do so without danger to himself, except ppon sufficient reason. So far is it from be ing true, that the President can exercise this control, that it has become exceedingly fash ionable for the office holders to be clamorous ly against him; aud it is little less than a libel upon the people of this country to say that there is danger of their being controlled by the office holders, or that they may be seduc ed by them into giving improper votes. A few individuals here and there may possibly be influenced, but no general control can be exercised. Man is frail in his best estate, and may be corrupted; and if the means ex isted to sufficient extent, bribery might con trol the elections. But stopping short of that, the agents of the Administration, should it think proper to employ any, would be worse than useless in procuring votes. Happily, the means of bribery are very limited, and the offence is already sufficiently checked by the laws of the States, who possess the only com petent authority upon the subject. V. But there is an objection to the bill, which, if possible, lies still deeper than those before noticed. Whether taken as it stands, or amended as proposed, it is essentially one of the most tyrannical measures ever proposed in this body. 1. Iu the first place, it sets forth the offence proposed to be punished in terms so very indefinite, that an act, inconsid erable in itself, may become the subject of most enormous punishments. It is a maxim lying at the foundation of all wholesome gov ernment, that the punishment should, in the sense of the community, bear some proportion to the offence. This principle is by this bill utterly disregarded. If a man shall but say a certain candidate is well qualified for the of fice to which he aspires, he must, in the pres ent form of the bill, be declared infamous, aud fined five hundred dollars, and either in its present or amended form, be dismissed from office. Now does any man perceive a just proportion here between the offence and the punishment? Well might the report say the people of this country would never consent to the cxecutioh of such a law. They never would agree that a man who holds an office emanating from them, should be thus bowed down in a slavery more grinding than that of any African iu the country. Second. It is tyrannical in that it invades the sanc tity of the private circle, and begets suspicion, and jealousy, and caution, where the most unbounded confidence and freedom should forever reign. Under it, a man's own household may furnish enemies for his des truction. As the bill stands, the hope of gain is held out to them, to induce its members to become so; and, should one of them think proper to charge him falsely, there is no mode of rebutting the charge; he cannot prove a negative. The son may unwillingly be made the accuser of his own father, nay, in the pro gress of depravity, one may be found a swift witness iu the destruction of a venerable par ent. English history furnishes such instan ces. The consciousness that the slightest expression may be construed into a persua sion or dissuasion, will cause one member of the same family to look with suspicion upon, and speak with caution before another. The great value of our institutions of Government is the security and protection they throw around the domestic circle; but wheuthey are rendered the destroyers of all its confidence and innocent freedom, they may truly be said to be worse than war, pestilence, and famine. Let us suppose a case: A venerable man, surrounded by sons and sons-in-law one who has grown gray in the service of his coun try is the holder of an office; his sons and sons-in-law hold conversation, in his pres ence, respecting some pending election, and he finds them all inclined to vote in favor of a man whom he knows to be a Cataline at heart, and ready to seize the earliest opportu nity of prostrating the institutions of his coun try; yet is he condemned to silence, or doom ed to endure the penalties of this rathless law! Or, to make the case still stronger, one of these persons, who are by nature entitled to the fruits of his wisdom and experience, turns to him and asks his opinion. His lips are sealed; he dare not utter a word; and, from one of the holiest offices of paternal love, is cruelly cut off. Can a bill producing such results, deserve any countenance from the Senate? Does it not fill every bosom with horror in their contemplation? Thirdly. It is tyrannical, inasmuch as it interferes with the rights of common conver sation among neighbors. If a man is so un fortunate as to hold an office, however inti mate the footing upon which he may be with a friend, politics, that subject so interesting to every man under a free Government, must be altogether excluded from their conversa tion. It is impossible to conceive of tyranny more absolute than that which stands form embodied in this bill. Fourthly. Again: this tyranny is rendered doubly oppressive to its victims, from its par tial operation. Distinctions are made by it between different classes of office holders. Misery loves company, and the sorrows of the captive are always embittered by contrasting his condition with that of those who are sport ing in the air of freedom. W7hy is this dis tinction made among different classes of of fice holders? Are those upon whom the law is intended to operate, more likely to be mis chievous than those who are left free from its fetters? Surely not. The humble officers are the subjects of the law, while the aristo cratic officers are left free. The district at torneys, those gentlemen on whose lips dwell the notes of soft persuasion, are left at large to practice such electioneering arts as may suit them. Unfortunately, but few officers are found friendly to the Democratic cause. This is not the time or place to inquire into the reason, but it is a melancholy truth that a very large portion of the lawyers aud mer chants of the country are opposed to a Demo cratic admidistration of the government. Fifthly. A fifth- objection to the bili is, that it forces upon the Executive removal from office. I speak not of it now as I did when I objected to it as an invasion of the Consti tution, similar to that of the alien law, but in a totally different point of view. How fre quently do we hear upon this floor of Execu tive patronage, and what complaints are made whenever the President exercises his consti tutional power of removal? It never happens but the motives of the President are impugn ed, ind the torch of party strife is lighted. The bill proposes greatly to multiply and ag gravate this evil. Whenever any one shall be removed under it, the elements of civil strife will be set in motion. Every man re moved, will have his friends, who will ques tion the propriety of the act. They will con ceive that a stigma has been unjustly placed upon one whom they esteem and love, and in their efforts to remove that stigma, they will endeavor to hurl the magistrate from his place. Politicians will lay hold of this excitement, and political feuds, now sufficiently bitter, will more and more distract the nation. The fabled apple cf discord, if caused to roll abroad through the country, could scarcely be more fruitful in theproduction of strife. VI. Auotner. objection to the bill is, that it is calculated to degrade, morally, the holders of office. It will fix upon them a disgrace ful mark, and lower them in their own esti mation. Who does not know, who has not felt, the sustaining power ot a consciousness of being held in high moral estimation by his fellow men against the pressure of temptation? As long as a man can maintain a conscious ness of his own moral clevatiou, there is little danger of his failing into disgraceful acts; but as soon as you force him to place a low estimate on his own moral worth, you accomplish one step, at least, in his downward progress. When you fix upon him the stig ma of baseness, you go far towards preparing him for base deeds. Upon the general moral elevation of our citizens depends the?-permanency of our institutions. By degrading your officers, you tend towards the degraflation of the people also. "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump;" and widi still more rapidity does moral contagion spread through society. This is, to me, a powerful argument against the bill. But all arguments in favor of the bill hav ing failed, an effort is made to rest it upon that which is always resorted to for the sup port of that which has nothing else to sustain it precedent. A nd from whence is the pre cedent drawn? From England! And at the mention of the very name of England, the heart of the Senator from Virginia Mr. Rives seemed to be warmed with a sacred fire, and he burst forth into an impassioned eulogium upon her institutions. I could not but be reminded of Mr. Hamilton's remark, that the British constitution, with all its cor ruptions, was the most perfect system of gov ernment that ever existed. We have heard enough, in by-gone years, of English insti tutions Here Mr. Rives disclaimed having eulo gised British institutions as they existed. He spoke merely of the great principles they con tained. I certainly did misunderstand the Senator, as he has explained himself, as, I doubt not, correctly. But it is not singular I should have misunderstood him, for the drift of the argu ment was calculated to mislead me. A pre cedent is cited from England, and the object is to give force to that precedent. The na tural mode of doing so was to laud and com mend to our favor those institutions, of which the precedent constituted a part, aud not to eulogise mere abstract principles, which had no particular connection with the precedent. But let that pass. I believe myself the Brit ish constitution has many excellences, but I believe also it is thoroughly soaked with cor ruption through all its pores. I do not be lieve, with the Senator, that the free princi ples of our government were derived from the British constitution. Those great principles had their existence in the clear heads and pure hearts of the framers of our constitution. They did not engraft them into our constitu tion because they were in the British. They esc'vved the evils of the British costituiion, but they did not throw away anything that was good because it happened to be there. I ad mit they surveyed the long track of ages, and gathered from it a large stock of experience. The history of England formed a portion of their study, and helped them in maturing their great designs; but the principles upon which they acted existed without the British constitu tion. Our constitution contains many things in common with the British, but it is purged of its corruptions; and, I, for oue, am un willing to see them' restored. Was it because British institutions were free and equal, and just iu their operatiou, that our forefathers fled from the comforts of home and civilization, to build us an empire in the western wilderness? I have always heard it was for a very differ ent reason. It was, as I have learned, that they might rear a fabric of liberty in which they might enjoy, unmolested, those rights and privileges inestimable to them, which the British constitution did not secure. But it is not only insisted that we ought to follow this English precedent, but that, in fact, there is a greater necessity for such a provision here than in England. We are told, iu substance, that liberty is in more danger from the en croachments of the President of the United States than from those of the King of Great Britain, and that because the one is elective and the other hereditary. And is this indeed so? It is wonderful, then, that our forefath ers, in their admiration of the British consti tution, had not borrowed from it an heredita ry monarch along with the other admirable features. It is strange they did not guard against the daSgers of an elective Chief Ma" f!rafe lTieir views, I fancy, most hare differed from those of the Senator from Vir ff r.;Tlie. Senator then proceeds to point oiftjfj ormities which gave rise to the prece-deut,-and draw's a glowiug picture of the ty rany of the Stuarts. It is a little siugular that, among the many tyrannical kings of England, whenever gentlemen wish to portray a tyrant, they ponuce upon one of these un fortunate Stuart kings. I am not die advocate af tne Stuarts, nor do I deny the right of the British to expel this family and choose their own rulers, but I must insist they were not the most tyrannical of the British kings, and that when Britain exchanged the weak and bigot ed James for his ungrateful son-in-law, (to say the least of him) they did not commit them selves to the government of one who was no less a tyrant. But what were the tyrannical acts of these odious Stuarts to which the Se nator has called our attention? The first is closeting with members of Parliament; and it is intimated that similar acts have been prac tised in this country. Wrhen, I would atk? If the Senator had specified time and place, perhaps a more definite answer might be give;; to the charge. But how does the Seuator know that it has been practised? Has he any thing but vague and uncertain rumor? I ad mit, if it ha been practised in die sense inti mated by the Seisutor, "it is" a grievous fault, and grievously should Caesar, (or any body else) answer it." But docs the Senator speak ex cathedra? Does he mean to say it was practised when ho is supposed to have had, in a peculiar degree, the e. of the -Executive? If so, he ought to have informed us of this be fore. There was a time when it was his right, and even his duty to hav e made the disclo sure. But after having slumbered upon, I will not say his rights, but his duty, for so long a time, it seems a little out of place to make the charge now. ' It forcibly reminds me of an anecdote which is said to have ocj etirred some years ago in my own town. There resided a certain preacher, remarkable for his eloquence, and equally so for his high estimate of his own powers. There also re sided a lawyer, far advanced in life, who, al though not much interested in matters of re ligion, yet for fashion's sake, or the pleasure derived from listening to the eloqueuce of the preacher, occasionally went to hear him, and especially of an evening, when a hearty din ner, washed down with a glass or two of good wine, rendered the lawyer rather inclined to doze. Under these circumstances, even the eloquence of the preacher did not serve always to keep him awake. This rather netded the divine, who could not bear to think that any intelligent listener could fall asleep under his exhortation. One Sabbath evening he took the lawyer to task for this violation of deco rum, and by way of enforcing his admonition, "Do you not know," said he, "that I will be called upon at the last day to testify against you for all these tilings?" "If you should be called upon," replied the ready lawyer, "I do not doubt you will willingly testify, for I have always heard the greatest rogues are apt to turn State's evidence." Now I do not mean to apply any approbrious apilhet to the Sena tor from Virginia, or to insinuate that he has acted dishonestly. I only mean forcibly to to convey the idea that a man bringing such charges against an Administration of which he once formed a part, and with which he has since fallen out, does not stand in an enviable position. But if, as I believe, the Senator had nothing but idle rumor whereon to ground his charge, he is certainly to blame in lending the sanction of his name, from the place he occupies, to an accusation so grave, upon such authority, and basing thereon a serious argument. The next complaint against the Stuarts is, that circulars were issued advising, command ing, and seducing the people to vote for pai ticular candidates; and the Senator again in timates that the same tiling has been practised in this country, and singles out the Secretary at Wrar as the guilty person. He then burst forth iuto an impassioned eulogy upon the distinguished gentleman whom he supposes to have been the victim of this interference. Now I am not at all disposed to question the merits of tho gentleman on whom the eulogy is bestowed, or to deny its justice. But I must be pardoned for saying, it is out of place at present, as the defeat of that gentleman has nothing to do with the subject under discus sion. I have high authority for declaring that the charge against the Secretary is altogether founded in misapprehension. If the gentle men on the other side have any cause to com plain of him upon that subject, it is for refus ing to intermeddle in the election. It is known to every one, that up to the time of his taking office under the present Administra tion, no man stood higher before the country for his talent, his patriotism and moral worth, than the Secretary of War. On an important occasion he signalized the honor of your flag, more than he could have done, had he borne it in triumph over an ensanguined field. But no sooner does he become a member of the Administration, than the shafts of malice are levelled at his " fame. Such is the Moloch spirit of party, and that, too, among those who cry out the loudest against party! Nay more, upon the vague surmises of a party press, a charge is solemnly brought against him upon the floor of the Senate. These were some of the evils complained of under the Stuarts, and this is the precedent of facts. And these evils, we are told, the glorious IVhigs of that day attempted to reme dy, and I fancied there was something in the mitnner and tone of voice, in the allusion to the glorious Whigs of that day, which seem ed to glance off to ihe glorious Whigs of the present day, on this side of the Atlantic. And I thought there was an intimation that the glorious- IVhigs of this day should imitate the glorious IVhigs of that in their noble achievements. There was a time, I think, when the Senator from Virginia would not be found cheering on the Whigs of the pres ent day to any enterprise; when he would have looked upon any triumph of theirs, as a triumph over the true interests of the country. Wrhat then has wrought this change in his opinion and feelings? But I do not desire to assume the office of catechist to the Senator, or to render him my political catechumen. I will content myself with the inquiry, if. the Senator does not desire the triumphs of the Whigs of the present day, why this significant I
March 16, 1839, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75