I I. li
- TPEHS WEKKB (DELiiSIKBEjo
u. w. HUSTED, Ernxoug RALEIQH, AUGUST 23, 1843. CVoi.. i. n0. a.
I FROM THE KEGISTEEi
Hillsboro. August 5. 1843.
I ! I . .
Mr. Gales: A Communication of the Hon.
. M. Saunders,-in the Standard, referring to my
letter to you' of the 22d July; requires' some no
tice from. me. . ; ' .
In the Speech of that .gentleman at Raleigh, he
affirmed " the-table of "Post Office distances," to
be the rule by which the mileage of members of
Congress should be estimated, ami having pro
duced that Document, be declared thaIessrs.
'Rayner, Stanly, and many other members of Con
gress had received excessive allowances for mile
age, and that any one vyould discover this who
should compare the table or" distances with the
accounts of these members.
That, the Post Office Table furnishes no rule
on the subject of the mileage of members,, I said
in my letter to you ; and the correctness of my po
sition wjill be apparent from several considerations.
First, from the language of the Act of Congress
giving the mileage. It provides that each Sena
tor and Representative shall, receive "elfht dol
lors for every twenty miles of estimated distance
by the most usual road," fee. Most usual for
what for transporting the mail ? surely not
but most usual for travelling by the public cok
veyancejs. This is evident from a subsequent
provision in the same law, in these words "and
each member of the Senate 6hall be entitled to
the same, fee, allowance or, fee, travelling to
and from any meeting of the Senate," fee. It is
an allowance for travelling, , to be computed, not
by the distance actually travelled, but by that
usually travelled by the public conveyances.
Secondly from the j Retrenchment Bill of
Mr. Arnold, for supporting which Gen. Saunders
seems to think himself entitled to. special com
mendation ;! for one of the amendments proposed
by that Bill was to make the Post Office esti
mate, the rule for computing mileage in future-
a provision useless, and indeed absurd, if it had
been the rule already.
Thirdlyfrom the! uniform action of the mem
bers and officers of the two Houses for more than
twenty years, by none of whom (except General
Saunders) is it believed that the Post Office Table
was deemed to furnish the rule; but on the con-i
trary, by all of them the usual route of travel was
considered the only proper "guide. But we now
learn from Geri. Saunders, that the table, per se,
is not the rule, but the table corrected by ascer
taining the true distance offtravel. The General
it seems wrote to the Postmaster
learned that in his own case, the table and
terference; he had; nothing to do with it; and the
General might just as wetf have called to hisas
sistance any Clerk in the General Post Office, as
the head of. that
then between the
this I resorted to
General, and
the
fact did not agree, and he, in consequence of this
information, charged not1 according to the table,
but according to the supposed fact. Now when
the General wrote to
the
own. case, did he consult
ost Master as to his
him as to the proper
ft A
distances of Messrs. Rayner, Stanly, and the other
members referred to? If lso why did he. not give
the result of those inquiries If, as I suppose, he
did not do this," then in the only case in which he
consulted the Postmaster General, he found that
the table was erroneous, and he himself disre
garded it. Why, thefi, did he propose that as the
rule for others, by which he had not governed
himself and why did he assume the estimates of
a table to be right as against others, which by the
only instance in which their correctness had been
tested, he himself had found to be erroneous. This
was bringing forward evidence to accuse others,
which he knew was not worthy of trust . it was re
quiring them to submit to a rule by which he was
not willing to govern himself and it was more
than this. As Gen.,S. affirmed the Post Office
.table to be the true rule of calculation, and con
oemned others -for exceedingj its estiraate.while he
.-gave no intimation that he had rejected it in his
own case, was it not the nalural inference of all
that heard him, that his own account had been
settled by that rule which he had just declared to be
the true one 1 Whether Gen. S. designed to pro
duce this inferenee, which 'he knew was contra
ry to the truthr, he onlv can determine. This
much, however, is certain-J-he alleged the rule,
condemned others for not adhering to it, and was
at the same time perfectly I silent as to the fSct
that he had disregarded it. '
The table of Post Office distances being thus
et aside as a governing rull, in the calculation of
mileage, both by the confesioh and practice of
5en. Saundershimself.it is difficult to understand
why a Committee, consisting of the General and
a more appropriate
the Postmaster, -should be
1 ! -.
meaium ot adjusting the meage, than was fur
nished by the consultation o( the Secretary of the
feenate and myself. The Postmaster was not an
Officer of Congress-JneithJr the law nor the
practice of that body gave him any power of in-
Department. The difference
General and myself is merely
the usual and proper mode of :
estimating jthe distance, and , he to one which
though not improper, was certainly unusual.- jl
see no reason to admit that the result in his case
was accurate rather than inmine :; but, if it were
so, my effort was as sincere as his, andf a mistaken
calculation-, I presume, even the General himself
will admit, constitutes nooffence.
The otjier charge made against roe in the Stan
dard and endorsed by Gen. Saunters, he alleges
that I have" evadedr-but this allegation like most
others that he has jintroduced into his gratuitous
and unprov6ked attack upon me, is without foun
dation. That charge, as I understood it, was, that
while paid for the whole extra Session, I came
home to attend a Superior Court.! Knowing that
I did not come home to attend any Court, during
the extra Session, nd that,l had left Washing
ton before the clos4 of the Executive Session, of
the Senate in the Spring ofl841, arid did attend a
Court, I naturally supposed this absence, was the
subject of reference. f I answered the charge sup
posed to have beenj'made, by stating that I was
present at the close of the extra Session, 'and
though I left the Senate while in Executive' Ses
sion in the Spring, jyet my pay stopped with my
departure. This the General considers but" a
small affair, and supposes I might have lost a day's
pay. If he had been as careful to ascertain and to
recollect facts, as he seemg to have been intent on
making charges, he might have learried that the
Executive. Session .referred to continued from the
5th to the 15th of March, and that I left Washing
ton -a 'full week before its termination.
The charge, I now learn is, that I was absent
on some other occasion, and . without deduction of
pay. I was absent once, during the extra Ses
sion. I ca.me home on an occasion of indisposition
in my famtly'of the de'epest interest ;to me as a
father and ; a husband, Finding, on reaching
home, that the crisis was over,, I took the very
next Stage orf my return to Washington. My
absence lasted six days, of which period four days
arid nights were spent 'on the road. I consulted
with a friend as to the propriety of deducting pay
for these days of fatigue, expense and i anxiety,
but was told that under the circumstances, my
absence was not voluntary, but compelled by a
necessity which fell under the eqiiity of that pro
vision of law whichjallows'pay to an absent mem
ber detained by sickness. This view struck me
i ii
as correct, and I acted accordingly, and I very
much doubt whether either for the absence or
the pay, any honorable man in the United States
will deem an excuse required. . jj
As Gen. Saunders seems to have made an in
vestigation somewhat particular into my absences
from Congress, it is not uncharitable to suppose
that when he alluded to my hurried journey home,
he was informed of the-necessity! which caused
it. Why did he withhold that information from
those to whom he made the charge of absence 1
Why, but because hie knew that to haVe commu
nicated that information, would have been to fas
ten attention upon the difference between a short
absence, under the! influence of considerations
having the force of I physical Coercion, and a long
and voluntary absence in the prosecution v of
a lucrative profession, and would thus have
made his charge against me recoil upon himself.
As to Mr. Arnold's Bill, of which the General
seems a great admirer and advocate, and which
he has drawn rather unnecessarily, as appears to
me, into this discussion, I have but a few words
to say. I was opposed to that . Bill as a whole,
because it proposed a very largededuction from
the pay of all Officers, Civil and Military, which
is within the control of Congress, and because it
i i ;
proposed no reduction of the pay of the Congress
who were to pass it, but a very large reduction of
the pav of their successors. The first would
have been a cruel iniurv to a lare class of meri
torious publip servants, and the second provision
made us to be generous to the country not at our
ojvd expense, but ai j.the expense of those who
saouiu come aiier us. i mougutj Desiues, mai
the compensation of members was not excessive
and ought not to bes reduced, but I was very de
cidedly in favor of fixing a common criterion by
which to determine mileage. Whether my views
were correct or not, they were certainly adopted
without the bias of linterest, for it was then as
very slender foundation1; for if the 'present rate of
compensation be not excessive, why should it 'be
reduced at all! And if it be, why should, not
tbe-red action be applied to those who judged it
excessive 1 " - . j. "' ' .
One other remark, Sir, and I will encroach no
arther on your columns. When Gen.-Saunders
iq his Raleigh Speech, at which ! was present,
produced the Post.Office table announced it to
be the.- rule bv which mileage should be estinaa
ted accused several members of Congress by
name who were absentwith overcharging, and
referred his'audftory to the book ind accounts for
proof-the'"infererice waslnevitable; that he had
beer engaged m the laudable business of making
the examination, to which he?, invited "others.
When afterwards in, another Address', a't which I
was not present, he added my name to, those
hich he had before singled out for accusation,
it was certainly not an overstrained,, ihferenqe,
nai i was in thehrst instance omitted because 1
was present,,and in the second! named because I
was ' absent. That such conduct deserved to be
called unmanltf, none surely could doubt, and to
sme, imightfierh'ytd merit a harsher epithet.
am it seems tne mrerence 1 so naturally drew
wa's mistaken'andthat the discovery as to myself
was made after the Raleigh Speech was delivered.
am glad to learn that it is so, and desire to express
my felicitations to the General, that the contin
ual succession of his electioneering appointments
yet leftitiim leisure to pore over, the table of Post
Office distances that each day of diligent inquiry
added somewhat 'fo his store of ' matter for villi rl-
cation; and though' I cannot praise the spirit
which prompted his efforts, his industry is undeni
ably entitled to commendation. ' j
And ,r think, Sir, I may congratulate my
self, that after all his energy of inquisition, he
bas been able to produce but two charges one
supported by a proof which he himself has
discredited, aud the other which, if he 'deems
an, offence, he is the only man -in America who
Would.
Of the flourish about facing with which the
General very appropriately and characteristically
concludes his note, I shall say nothing, because
i! j - - i i : " i.- i u f '
ii deserves no repiy wnicn ii wouiu Decome
me to make.
1 am Sir, very respectfully, '
Your ob't. ser't
WILL : A. GRAHAM.
certained that I was not to be a member of the
ensuing Congress, and the passage of the Bil
would not have affected my own interests a penny
But surely the self-complacency of Gen. Saun
ders in the support he crave to this Bill rests on a
its of the revenue standard ! What does that
mean? Wtio ia to define that standard ?
The duty ohisugar at this moment is nearly
one hundred per cent. Is that revenue dnty t
Ifo, the most ultra protectionist need not
desire any higher ratte of duties than the re.
venue rate, j Yet the opponents of the Tariff
in jLouisiana while they denounce protection
the-Whigs and Henry Clv in one breath,
are upholding the sugar duty and complain
ing that it is jnot high enough. ?
If the professions of the " free trade" men
are sincere why do they ajdvocate a higher
rate of dnty upon sugar than upon tea or cof
TeeT. iThe ainswer which must be given to
this questioncanriotbut be a direct refuta
tion of their abstract principle ; it cannot hut
be an avbwalj of the true principle of protec
tion as"advo4ated by the Whigs. 4 Suppose
er domestic
quibbling to
THE TARIFF AND THE SUGAR. INTEREST.
The New Orleans papers are engaged in
discussing the subject of the Tariff as it re
lates to the duty on sugar. I ho free-trade
advocates are labourieg to show that they are
not opposed to the sugar duty ;' but they
maintain that it is a revenue; duty onlv, al
though protection results from it. In point
of prihciple lhey are hostile to, protection ;
the 'democratic doctrine required that they
should be. The practical application of this
doctrine, however, seems to be that they are
to oppose protection, to all intf rests except
theirown. .i !
In answer to a letter from R. C. Nicholas,
Esq. of Louisiana, on this subject of protec
tion to the sugar interest, Mr. UALitouNsays:
"1 concur in most of your views and reflec
tions on the identity of interest (fairly con
sidered) between cotton ami sugar ; and, as
far as my principles will admit icill see full
justice done to the lntter, to the. extent that it
can be effected by my exertions, j I can, how
ever, agree to no duty but such as the reve
nue may require ; and none so high on any
article as will push it beyond the greatest
amount of revenue that can be derived from
the article. These are the limits within
which I may act, and within them exercise a
sound discretion. But, in determining the
amount of revenue required, Ij shall expect
economy and retrenchment oij the part of
those having the control, as far is pnblic pol
icy may permit ; and that no part of the pub
lic revenue shall be given awayl Ohserv ing
these rules, and with the scopejthev will ad
mit;! shall take pleasure in PROTECTING
your great staple against the machinations of
the opponents of slave labor. They are ever
on the watch, and stand ready to seize every
opportunity to render our labr worthless,
and to weaken our title to our property."
Now if revenue duties are laid for 'protec
tion.; if under an ostensible denunciation of
the Tariff the real benefits of the Tariff are
sought, is it not evident that grve statesman,
preaching up free trade in theory and con
demning it in practice, arc plaving a petty
game of artifice, which high j minded men
should disdain? Protection within the iiin-
thev were imperatively called upon,, by
necessity notlto be evaded, to lay a duty upon
tea; or coffejor both, for revenue, as in our
judgment ought to be done now. Would
they put an jmpost upon either of these ar
ticles asJfigH as the dutynow laid on sugar !
Would "their jrerenwe duty Vnj-tea or coffee
rise as high 'as one hundred percent or near
it? We may safely answer, No. We do not
grow tea or coffee, and have no home inter
est in those commodities to "protect. And
the! reason wily tlie duty oh sugar is maintain
ed its present rate, while no duty at all
is laid on led or coffee is, as the planters of
Louisiana kWow Very well, because protec-
lionis due td their interest as well as loom-
interests. It is a.x poor sort of
evade' this, and to talk of reve-
nue duties and free trade in so inconsistent
a manner a? some do.
But there Is another impost included in out
Tariff which the free trade men of the Souttr
may consider the duty on raw cotton. Ia
that a revenue duty 7 lit is not ; it is even
more than protective in its character ; it is a
prohibitive ftuty. If it were removed the
cotton of Texaswould come largely into our
ports ' But the Southern members of the last
Congress would not allow it to be removed ;
they would laise a great clamour if it were
touched. , Revenue ! There is not a cent
of revenue derived from this duty on foreign
cotton. Yei in the face of Mr. Calhoun'.
" principles,?' of which he speaks to Mr.
Nicholas, this duty stands; and he himself
would object to its being abolished ; and the
only reason why it stands is because it pro
lects a Southern interest.
As to the identity of interest (fairly con
sidered) between cotton and sugar,' it re
quires no great amount of investigation to
discover it. Vjlf the sugar duty were removed,
theiplantersc-f Louisiana, thrown out of their
business as Sugar growers, would cultivate
cotton, and the increased production thus
brought intc the, market would affect the
prices of the article injuriously. The South
Caro'ina planters are awtre of this ; and le
them rave against protection as much as they
will, verballv1 J thev will take good care to
protect the sugar interest notwithstanding.
When Southern, politicians, in their devo
tion to principle?, are ready to destroy pro
tection to thdir own interests, it Will be time
to credit their assertions of patriotic opposi
tion to protection in general. Until then let
their own inconsistencies answer their argu
ments; aud jet them not complain if men of
sense smile !at their inconsiderate violence,
and nay little respect to their professions of
sincerity.
A red-haired man went into a barber' shop
to tiave his locks trimmed. The barber s
monkey troubled him, and he gave the crea
ture a f kick. Jacko revenged . himself by
gathering up. the firey locks, sticking thern
under the shingles, and blowing away at
them as thou'gh he would set the house on
fire. Moral ; (red-haired men should not kick
monkeys. j
H3 At the late Congressional Election in Mar- '
tin County, a Moore man wrote on the back of
his ticket" This will catch a coon." A Rayner
man, standing by, iramediitely endorsed on hif
" This will kill a Terrapin." Old North Suite.
The Rullig Passion. A President Judge,
not many leagues from Cleveland, Ohio, who has
been pomoted from the bench to a nomination tor
Congress, recently close a stump speech with
" Gentlemen, you will now retire in charge of the
Constable !"