Newspapers / The Whig Clarion (Raleigh, … / July 12, 1843, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Whig Clarion (Raleigh, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
ft ' ' II. w. HUSTED, Editor. RALEIGH, JULY 12, 1843. Vol. I. No. 8. From the Raleigh Register. ! Tn a Lite number of the Portsmouth Chronicle and Old Dominion, appeared an artlcle vvhich has been copied. in the llaleigh Standard, making an illiberal and unwarranted attack'upon our Repre sentative in Congress, the lion. Kenneth Rayner. The writerj signs! himself Currituck," and pro fesses to be a citizen of that county. The writer may live in! Currituck, but I incline to the opin ion, for reasons known to myself, that he resides much higher up. in the district, and that he pro fesses to live in that county, merely'for the pur pose of disguise, j ,'-!-.. I The article in question betrays as much ma levolence of feeling-,! as it does clumsiness of style and stupidity of intellect, jj ItUs jnalignant in tone, ungramrriatiealTn composition, and reckless of truth in jits statetjnents of facts. The writer of this has been! intimately acquainted with Mr. Rayner frqm the,commencemerit of his political career ; is; himself personally "conversant with many of the incidents alluded to, and so grossly misrepresented by 44 Currituck.' As to the abu sire epithets contained in the article alluded to, I have nothing to say. They are matters of taste, and in regard to them I am not disposed to dis pute with the write. As to the illiberal charges of ambitious demagogue,' 4 traitor to the cause,' 44 completely turned your coat" j&x&.c, they de serve nothing but contempt, and I doubt not they will receive ub other notice from Mr. Rayner The writer should recollect that abuse is not argument,Jand I presume Mr. R. has received too much of the former from his disappointed ene mies, to suffer his composure td be disturbed by it now. j ji " 'j; 1 ' I shall only notice 44 Currituck's" statement of acts, perverted and j misrepresented as they are. He fays that he " had been told that you (Mr. Rayner) commenced your career in Hertford as a devoted friend of jMr. Calhoun, breathing fire and vengeance, agiinst the advocates of the Tariff." 44 Had been told!" Then it seems that tile writer; of his own knowledge knows nothing about it ; and does the writer think it fair to pre fer grave charges against a public man, founded upon a piece of mere political gossippat a time when political and partizan malignity will do nd public man justice 1 j But admit Air. Rayner was a. devoted j friend of Mr. Calhoun yet, was he bound to adhere to Mr. Calhoun through all his political tergiversation Mr. Calhoun was at that time the advocate of a United States Bank ; for two years afterwards, in 18134, he advocated in the Senate, the rbcharter of the Bank for 12 years. He was at that time-, a violent opponent of Gen. Jackson's,1 as he; was at a later period, of Mr. Van Buren's administration-denouncing their profliga cy and extravagance;, and charging them and their partizans with being 44 rogues and royalists, held together only by the cohesive principles of the; public plunder." And after he) had thus taughtj his advocates to look on these men as so corrupt! and unprincipled, were they bound to changq their opinions with, him, and go over, at the word of command, to the! support of Mr. Van Buren whom Mr. Calhounjhad charged but a short time before, with possessing the attributes of no more noble animal than the 44 mink and the weazle"f Mr. Rayner is now exactly where Mr. Calhoun left him in 1837 advocating a National Bank "'and opposing corruption and extravagance in the administration ot tbe fire and xe'ngeanci against the Tariff' .'"land again patriotic avowals tjoshoulder j his , musket, and march to the defence of the gallarit Palmetto, i This is a very unfair statement of the case. 'Tis true:, Mr. Rayner was a strict States Fights constructionist : and" whilst protesting against the gratification of Gen. Jackson s malignant passions by sustaining him i;rt his warfare against South. Carolina,; or rather Air. Calhoun, yet he uniforrn ly took the ground, in 1832, when canvassingjfor the Legislature in Hertford county, that although South Carolina might have acted hastily and im prudently, yet as opposition to the high Tariff of 1823 was a common! cause throughout the South, and as the gratification of Gen Jackson's passion would establish a precedent that would lor al future time, subject the States to Federal con trol therefore it became every Southern State and every- Southern! man, to prevent the subjuga tion ot bouui Carol na by Federal bayonets Does Curritnc.k rrifidn to insinuate that. Mr. Rnv- was opposed to a Tarifi in any and every ao such tiimsr. ihis would involve h un in the advocacy of raising revenue for the support jor tiie government bv direct taxation against which I hate always understood hid to protest. iut wnat blame can Currituck attach to Mr. llayner m regard to the Tariff! He voted jrovernment. " Breaming pi i u against the advocates of i tlik tins vviiLci epcatva ui iui j. o ner ever ehaue 7 against the Tariff o ?cr he voled against the last Session : and whetli it because he did not approve oi its range ot duties, or Decau.se he would ho gratify John Tyler in his attempt to dictate1 to Congress exactly what kind of a Tariffthe v should pass still Mr. R sj vote stands recorded against it. How then can 'Currituck complain of him jn regard to. the Tariff! What evidence has he that Mr; R. has turned his coat" on this ques tion? J. . - I . n ! After speaking of Mr. Rayner's violent opposi tion to the Tariff, which I suDDOse must be re ferred to 1832 Clirrituck roes on to sav 44 and a little later, your list Session iff Raleigh, I have been informed the Democrats made a formal pro- posaito run you (Mr. itayner) for Speaker against the Federal Candidate Mr. Graham, and you en tertained the proposal long enough to sound vour professed party friends, the VVhis, until vou found that you could carry none off with you, and hen you declined the canvass." Here the wri ter again speaks of what he "has been informed." r 11 i .fi... would again asK Currituck is it lair, is it gene rous, to prefer a grave accusation like this, pub- icly, through the columns of a newspaper, upon mere report, which so seldom doe! a public man ustice l 1 he writer of this happens to know something of the facts connected with the inci dent here referred to not from what he "has been informed" of, but of his own personal knowl edge. I have conversed with Mr. Rayner on the j subject, since the appearance of the article m the 'Chronicle and Old Dominion," and his recol- ection oi tne iacts correspond with mv own. as ar as I learnt them from Air. Rayner at the time. Mr. Rayner's last .Session at Raleigh, was the winter ot 1838-39. 1 was thea m'llaleirh. and he relations between'Mr. R. and myself were of an intimate and confidential character. The facts of the case are these. It' is true that a proposi tion was made by two of the prominent members of the Democratic party to Mr. Rayner, to run rum for Speaker of the Commons, in opposition to Mr. Graham. ,It can only be accounted for in this way. It was known that Mr. Rayner had been a strict States-Rights man and a friend 4of Mr. Calhoun, and I suppose those who made the proposition to Mr. R. thought it probable, that as so many who professed to be State-Rights men had gone over to the opposite party with Mr. Calhoun, it was therefore reasonable to suppose that Mr. R. was also lukewarm and indifferent in the, Whig cause. When the proposition was made to run him for Speaker by the Democrats, Mr. Rayner replied that he would be doing mjus- ice to the Democrats themselves, to allow them to vote for him under a misapprehension as to his political views. That he was opposed to them in principle, that he had taken open ground against the Sub-Treasury, their favorite measure, in the canvass in Hertford. But, said one of the. gentlemen, "you are not in favor of a United States Bank! Mr. Rayner stated that he had also taken ground in favor of a Bank. After some further conversation the same gentleman remarked to Mr. R. that at all events, they (tfte Democrats,) would vote for him, if he would agree to it, and that he (the gentleman making the proposition,) would nominate him, (Mr. R.) if he would consent.. Mr. Kavner refused to yield that consent. It is not true that Mr. Ray ner 44 entertained the proposal long enough to sound his professed party friends." It was well known who were Mr. Rayner's most intimate friends. Of course he would have 44 sounded" them on this subject first. It is a fact, that those friends are now ready to certify, as some of them have informed me, that immediately after the proposition was made tolling Mr. R. communica ted the fact to them ; and so far from his consult ing them, or 44 sounding" them on the propriety of his acceding to the proposal of being run by the Democrats, he (Mr. Rayner,) mentioned the matter to his friend?, as" a good joke, and as an evidence of the difficulty in which the Democrats were ' placed. Mr. Gilliam, ! of Granville, Dr. Speed, of Gates, Dr. Hill, of Brunswick. Mr. VVaddell, of Chatham, and Mr. Cherry, of Bertie, will if called on, certify that Mr. Rayner, in men tioning the matter to them, so far from having the matter under advisement, so far from con sulting them as to what he should .do, spoke of it as a matter, about whieh he had never en tertained a doubt. And on the very evening of the day, on which this proposition was made to Mr. R. he (Mr. R. went to the Whig meeting, proposed Mr Graham as the J candidate of the Whigs for Speaker, and on next day nominated Mr. Graham in the House of Commons. Be- cause Mr. itayner treaiea piueiy inose wno made the proposition to him, because he did not rudely and insultingly reject the proposition, be cause he may have evaded the proposal by sug gesting difficulties is he to be charged with 44 entertaining the proposal long enough to sound his professed party friends, the Whigs," as to the chance of success ! I defy, as I feel confident, Mr. Rayner can defy, any one member of Mr. R's. then 44 professed" party friends, the Whigs," in the Legislature of 1833-39 tb say that Mr. R. ever 44 sounded," or advised with him as to the propriety of his agreeing to berun for Speaker by the Democrats. The mere tender of voting for Mr. R. for such a station was a compliment; and of course, he treated politely and even kindly, j those making it, and rather evaded the propose tion by suggesting difficulties, instead of scorn fully and indignantly rejecting it in their pres ence. ' He may have said when eavjng the room, by way of getting clear of the pbject, " well I shall see you again,"' but that lie ever took ad measure towards ascertaining the probability of success is not true. He immediately mentioned it to his intimate friends ; and fpoke of it as a matter that was not to be thought of. And must he now be censured for that very 44 cordiality of bearing," which 44 Currituck" speaks of, as .the secret of hiss political success The fact is,another Democrats, and he also refused the object being, j as stated to Mr. Kayner, to defeat the regularly nominated Whig candidate, who it was .sure, would be Mr. Graham. Speaking of this proposition from the Democrats to run Mr. Rayner for Speaker in Nov. 1833 44 Currituck" goes on to say; 44 Major Sawyer had voted for the Sub-Treasury.as doubtless you yoiir- i self j (Mr. Rayner) would have done; for even then your first lOve for Mr. Calhoun had lost none of its fervor. This was enough for you (Mr. Rayner). You 'took the ground in opposition to him, and came out for a United States Bank, and other Federal measures. Had he voted against the Sub-Treasury, you would have voted for it, for this was certainly your natural position." Here is a tissue of misrepresentation, from beginning to end'; and " Currituck" had better acquaint himself with facts and dates, before he again at tempts to cast censure upon, or deal in uncharita ble insinuations! towards a public man. Mr. Ray ner advocated a United States Bank in his public speeches, when canvassing for the Legislature in Hertford, as far back as 1834, as will be recollect ed by both parties in that County. He again ad vocated it publicly in the canvass of 1836, arid again in 1838. i This is a matter of public noto riety in Hertford. Here then, Mr. R. was the open advocate of a National Bank three .years ibefore Mr. Sawyer was a candidate for Congress. When Mr. S. became a candidate in 1837 Mr. R. advjised him (Mr. S.) to come out1 in favor of such ah institution, which he (Mr. Sawyer) did. Mr. Rayner was in Washington a few days atter Mr. Van Buren had sent in his message to Con gress at the extra session in September 1837; and advised Mr. Sawyer not to commit himself in favor of the Sub-Treasury which Mr. Van Bu ren had just recommended. Mr. Calhoun had not then taken ground in favor of thej scheme, al though it was intimated that he was favorably n clined to it. Upon the solicitation of; some of his friends, that he should call on Mr. Calhoun and hear him talk on the subject, Mr. Rayner positiye- lyrefused, and came home openly denouncing the Sub-Treasury. From that day to this, since the very first day that this system was proposed, Mr. R. has been its uniform and consistent oppo nent. And it is well known to all, who have been acquainted with Mr. Rayner's political course, that he expressed aloss of confidence in, and aban doned the support of Mr. Calhoun, as soon as he committed himself in favor of the Sub-Treasury. 4 Currituck" says Mr. Rayner 44 would doubtless have voted for the Sub-Treasury as Major Saw yer did, for even then, his (Mr. R.'s) first love for Mr. Calhonn had lost none of its fervor." Here 44 Currituck" has unadvisedly exposed himself. Here is a plain assertion that it was the "fert vor" of 44 first love for Mr. Calhoun" which has Whicr Member of the House o "sounded" on the same subjecti Commons was bv some of the induced so many of Mr. C.'s friends to follow him in support of the Sub-Treasury. fc 44 Curri tuck" does not seem to imagine that principle had, or could have, any influence with Mr. Cal houn's friends and that in the absence of some interested motive, Mr. R. 44 would doubt less I have voted" for the Sub-Treasury. ; And why ! Because, his 44 first love for Mr. Calhoun had lost nonfe of its fervor." Pretty reason this for supporting a measure truly ! This was the very reason that caused $lr. Rayner to doubt whether his " first love for Mr. Calhoun had not been misapplied. And from doubt, he was led to conviction, by Mr. (j.'s subsequent course. " Currituck" says, 44 had he (Mr. Sawyer) vo ted against the Sub-Treasury, you (Mr. Rayner) would have voted for it, for this certainly was your . natural position." Here the writer of the article in question has again ignorant ly expo sed himself. He does not seem tb know that Mr. Sawyer voted against the Sub-Treasury at the extra session in 1837. Why did not Mr. Rayner then come out for it, if his object was to make up an issue with Mr. Sawyer! So far from! it, he sustained Mr. S. and had he (Mr. S.) continued to oppose the Sub-Treasury, and sus tain ja U. States Bank, opposition to him from any quarter would have been unavailing, personally popular as he was in the district. ." Vour (Mr. Rayner's) natural position." I see but one meaning implied in this that having once been a friend of Mr. Calhoun, it was 44 natural" that Mr. R. should follow! him wherever he might go. "Currituck" says Mr. Rayner 44 came out in favor of a United States Bank, and other federal measures" What " other Federal measures ?" j I defy the writer to point to a single: great politi cal question on which Mr. R. has; changed his ground. If consistency be so great a virtue in the estimation of 44 Currituck," then is Mr. R. entitled to hs highesfcommendation. Mr. Rayner came out for a United States Bank, when he first en tered public life, and has sustained it ever since. He advocated the distribution of the land fund in a speech in the State Legislature, in 1836-'37, and still advocates that measure. He has, ever since the removal of the deposites in 1832, been strunfcrling against the! enlargement of Executive I powW, an! still opposes it, even to the extent of limiting the exercise ot the veto. He opposed the hiirh a nd unequal Tariff of 1828 and although thejTariff of 1642 was not so objectionable, yet his vote is recorded against that. For what then is he denounced? Merely because he would not take every political somerset practiced by . Mr. Ca houn. ."Currituck" asks "why was the farce of a Convention got up," to nominate Mr. Rayner.- Mr. R. has answered him sufficiently in his letter of acceptance. Mr. R. then says that having no disposition to continue longer in public life Mil yielding to the solicitationof friends, he suggest ed the propriety of a convention to let his con stituents pass 'upon his conduct, and to give the new; Counties of the District an opportunity of being heard. 1 44 Currituck" asks why were, not "Currituck and j Camden represented" , in the Convention ? Simply because they idid 'not see fit to send Delegates. Four-fifths: of the Counties iij the District, 8 out of 10, were represented and that by primary meetings held -with due notice to all, in open day ;nd not by some five or six party leaders, secretly convened around a grog-shop counter, or in the back room of a grocery, as was the pase with some of the meetings, that appointed delegates to the Locofoco convention that nomi nated Dr. Moore in opposition to Mr. Rayner. Although Mr. Rayner is opposed with unusual bitterness and malignity, yet all he asks is JUSTICE. j ASTOUNDING CORRUPTION. Major Charles Gerrakd, a gallant Officer of the Revolution, died, leavinga Widow ; that wi dow afterwards intermarried with Mr. Harry Hunter, of Edgecomb, when he also died, leav ing the same lady surviving him as his widow. Mrs. Hunter, believing herself entitled to a Pen sion, as the widow of her first husband, Major Gerrard,' procured the services of a gentleman named Mosely to prepare her papers and proofs, and present them to the Pension Agent 'Thii was done, the claim was presented and rejected, because the applicant, Mrs. Hunter, was, at the time of her application, the widow of Hunter the second husband, and not the widow of the Officer Gerrard. To suit this case, a law of Congress became necessary. The claim was placed in the hands of Gen. Saunders, a member of the last Congress, to get it allowed ; a Bill was introduced, covering this identical case, and declaring that the second marriage of the widow of an officer or sol dier should not deprive her of her Pension, if she was a widow at the time of her application. (See Act of 27th Congress, 2d Session, Chap. 191, page 123, approved 23d August, entitled an Act to amend the Acts of July 1836, and 1838, allow ing Pensions to certain widows.") Provision now being made for Mrs. Hunter, her claim is present ed and allowed ; he gets possession of her Certi ficate, comes home, and demands a fee for his serT vices of One Hundred Dollars ! Payment of the fee is refused, and Gen .Saunders refuses to de liver up the Certificate, unless his exaction is complied with. The Son of Mrs. Hunter applies" to Counsel, and under his advice, takes a witness and makes a formal demand of the Pension Cer tificate, giving at the same time a distinct intima ! tion, that he designs it as the foundation of a law suit.- To avoid public exposure, the CertificaU is then surrendered. " ' i . Now for a few questions to Gen. Saunders. You must answer them, Sir an indignant con stituency demands it x ;lst Was the claim of Mrs. Hunter rejected in the first instance 1 2d. Was it thereafter placed in your handito have it allowed f 1 3d. Was there a law passed at the last Con ress, of which you were a member, to cover her ase !' ' 4th. Did you obtain her Pension under that law! ! 5th. Did you demand pay for your services, and so, state what those services were, besides voting r the law passed for Jier relief 1 Cth. Did you refuse to deliver Mrs. Hunter or hier.A gent, the Certificate of Pension, unless you l rr ii r J l a were paid oiuu, or some omer iee, ana wnai . 7th. Did you thereafter give it up to young unter, upon being threatened with a law suit 8th. The Voters of this District have a right to know your opinions. Dp you fthink that a law maker should demand or receive pay from Peti tioners for making laws for their exclusive bene fit ; or that a member of Congress should demand from Claimants on the Government compenga tJion for passing laws' for their relief ; or that a Judge should decide a cause in which he is inter ested, in his own favor ; or demand or receive a fee from the successful party, in a suit tried be fore him 1 Sir, you must clear up this matter, if you wish to represent this District of honorable Freemen. Your bare denial of it won't do. Hera is! no question for parties to differ about, Explain arid come clean put of this matter, or you arc, ci villy and politically, m dead man. ' " i A YU1&K. ii: r
The Whig Clarion (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
July 12, 1843, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75