Newspapers / The Tarborough Southerner (Tarboro, … / Aug. 29, 1834, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Tarborough Southerner (Tarboro, 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
2 tj A. Whole JVo. 18. Tarborough, (Edgecombe Counh X C.) Friday, August 29, 183. Vol. XXo 50 mv ;koiu;k huwahd, Ispulh'.rlwocklv, ;lt y:;yo ami jrj W;;.v lu-r year, it paid n, advance or, Thrte Uol :r.v, at tht- expiration of the subscription vi-:ir. For my jK-noa k-s than a year, Twenty-Jive ' Cents per nuKth. (.!.M-t .!H rs are .it libcnv to discontinue at .tsv ti.nr, on v.ivim; muice thereof and pa arrears -those n-Mitinv; at a distance must invari.thlv pay in :nlv:mcetor yti e a responsible reference in this vioinitv Advertisements, not exceeding 16 liaes, will be in s; U'd at 0 cents the first insertion, and l cents each ..vntniuaiice. Longer ones :ir that rate for every 10 .vy. Advevtisements niusi l;e marked the number ei i..ertioi;s required, or they will be continued until , :hci wise ordered, ami charged accoidinly. Letters addressed to the Editor must be post paid, -t they may not be attended to. Communications. FOU THE FKLE 1'IiK.ss. The following letters leeemly received ly the relatives nT the Lite Pascal P. Mathvw urn. d)ov the hij;h estimation in which lie was held by Ins associates in the place he had select ed for his residence, as well as by those oi the place ol Jus nativity. To the family of the late Mr. Pascal p. Malhew sun, Tarborough, N. C. Providence, 11. .) . 2)iht 1834. Respected friends; h bas pleased Heaven to take your hflovrtJ brother Pascal from among us to his long home. The minute intelligence of his sickness ami death has ere this reached you, and thus the fond anticipations, the cherished hopes of hroihcly and sisterly affection are hlasted even while you was the most sanguine in their being realized. Permit us to mingle our sympathies with yours in this affliction, and while we mourn his departure, let us acknowledge the hand that directs and the power that governs all things for the best. On the day .succeed ing his death, the Union Adelphian So ciety, of which he was a member assem bled and passed unanimously the resolu tions appended. We subscribe oursclres yours, affec tionately, in behalf of the Society. M. IV. Chare. lie iij it miii I Stead. Edicard lX. Mason. The sudden decease of our fellow member, Pascal Paoli Mathewson, has called us together this evening. We meet to .express our common sympa thies for our common loss; we feel ih if in bis departure there is a void created which cannot be filled. His active ex ertions to advance our Society in intel lectual and moral improvement anima ting our meetings by his manly eh-. mn-nce, entwining himself in our alfee "ions by his ingenuous disposition, his de voted friendship, his sterling virtues and oy a high regard for truth and the cause of truth, all conspire to render his memo ry dear, and leave an "aching void" in deed in our social intercourse. Feeble is the attempt we make to express our real feelings. Our united voices can only say we mourn his loss: and, as a real sentiment of our hearts, be it Resolved: that we sympathize in the loss which his relations, friends, and the community have sustained by his early demise: Re solved, that as a testimony of our regard an orator be appointed to commemorate his character by delivering an eulogy in the early part of the ensuing month. Re solved, that we request of his friends copies of the addresses delivered before this Society on its two first anniversaries. Resolved, that we assemble as a body at his grave and plant there the locust, as emblematical of our affection for "The fresh bough of the locust tree Shall image forth his memory in our hearts." Resolved, that a copy of the preamble and resolutions be forwarded to his fam ily in Tarborough, N. C. signed by the President and Secretary. Edward N. Mason, President. Alexander B. Chace, Secr'v. To the brothers and sifters of the late Pascal P. Mathewon, Tarborough, N. C. At a meeting of the young Men's Bi ble ('lass of the Beneficent Congrega- Jinnl Scieiy,oiiSuii.lay,July 27,1834,fie frnrner.s of ,ho Constitution to be mo loilmvini,- preamble mid resolutions ce.l in miy functionary for the soleww- Were passed viy f ... ' Th , ' ,.7 , , lose of censuring or rebuking another;' history o! the past week, bears the mel-A o nwd " nrl. 1. . ( 1 ? 1 1 .1 anchnly ,Uinsof tlj sudden and early I t V . U)U 0 a member of this class. Death has M tctec V" lutom,e, lo jlhe one of the eo-or-ibrils victim that fair form and intelligent beam d.,,,?,te ll'l,il.rl.me,,l, iSxCUlive, Legisla in countenance, which associated with us in thilv" oi' Judicial, with such a power for person 01 rascal P. Mathewson. In view of th mournlnl Providence which has filled so man hearts with sorrow, and spread such gloo throughout the circle of his friends and acquaii. a nee Itesolued, That WE the members of h oung Men's Uible Class, while up aoLnnt. ed-e the wisdom of God in this afflictive S- )eusaiiini, heartily concur in the general c pressions of grief, for the loss of one whnsP ni. able qualities and amiable talents renderedlo society so valuable a member as our late friid l'aseal P. Mathewson. liesolccd, That our sympathies be mrtipnMv extended to his immediate relatives, and tlx a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to thai. Jiesalccrf, I hat the above be nreserved mthe records of the Class. IT. S. Grceiie, Sec 17. for Tin: piiKE rni:ss. The, Case. kk.utly Stated. Mr. Howard: I have read with luch attention in a late number of your ppcr a eotntnunication of some ability andnuch ingenuity, proposing to state in a 'can did and impartial way" the "east be tween the President and Senate f the United States. Believing that ancle to be deceptive in its tone and fals: in ar gument and illustrations, 1 nowrropose, leaving my candor and impartially to be judged of by the reader, to exanine and expose its pretences and reaonings. I he basis ol the article is the tw resolu tions adopted by the Senate, mich fol low: Htsolccd, That the reasons assid bv the Secretary ol the Treasury for jle re'rrjval of the! p'lOlic depoMtes lium the Bank of .he United States, are imsitisTuctory and insufiicint. Itesulved, That the President, in lie late Ex ecutive proceedings in relation to llu public rev enue, has assumed upon himself a thority and power no conferred by the Consitution and laws, hut in derogation of both. 1 hese are the resolutions vhich your correspondent "Conrad," pnposes 4to anvass in a fair and impalial way." Yet yuiir readers must hnv perceived unh surprise that he is enirely silent upon the merits or demerits of vfust resolution. 1 he whole buthenof the article is the second. It is dear that to "state a case" fairly, the tchole case should be staled; but Cunnd seems to think he has stated the case in a "candid and impartial way," when le has stated almost half of it. Is Cunrnd afraid to canvass the merits of the fust resolution! Is he prepared to say tha: the reasons assigned by the Secretan are sufficient and satisfactory! I beg thai he will come up to the mark and give m; and the pub lie a "candid and impartial'' answer aye or nay. In the mean ui I leave it lo your readers to say if he Us yet redeem ed his promise made in ilie outset of his article, to give the resolution a "fair and impartial canvass." "Tlie first inquiry (says Conrad,) which presents itself is, hat! the Senate the right to pass the Resolutions'!" Is the right of the Senate to pass the first resolution denied! Is it not made by an act ol Congress the duty of the Secre tary, whenever he shall remove the de positee from the Bank to report his rev sons to Congress! Docs it not follow that Congress or either branch of it, has the right to decide for itself upon suffieiency of said reasons; unquestionably. The en quiry then must be confined to the second resolution. The question therefore is, had the Senate the authority to declare its opinions that the President had acted in "derogation of the Constitution and laws!" "Ours is a government of delega ted powers, and all which have not been expressly or by clear implication granted thereto are reserved," says Conrad. A greed. "It will not (he continues) be contended by any rational man, that the power in question was ever intended by such a purpose." Agreed. So far I a gree with Conrad entirely. I admit that ours is a government of "delegated pow ers." I admit that the framers of the Constitution could never have intended to clothe the Senate with any authority lor the sole, purpose of rebuking or cen suring the President. But what do these positions prove? Absolutely nothing, so far as the resolutions of the Senate are concerned. They do not touch, they do not reach it. The authority of the Senate to pass that resolution is not to be sought among the delegated powers. The resolution does not assert upoictr but an opinion. If ours be a government of delegated "powers," it is hardly one of delegated opinions yet. The Senate's authority to express ils opinions may be found where the President found his right to issue his Protest. Conrad howe ver qualifies his remarks "I do not mean (says he) to sny that one functionary may not speak of another" precious conces sion "or that they may not even put up on record their votes of censure, when they are made the basis of constitutional action." Conrad then does not deny the authority to speak in terms of censure. But what if the Senate speak approving ly Its authority to do that I suppose is clear. Is not this the veriest despotism? Let me state the case. Suppose the Senate to believe the President to have violated the Constitution. Is it not their bounden duty to declare il? Must the Senate sit tamely and acquiesce in usur pation, for want of authority to speak? Suppose further, that the alleged viola tion of the Constitution involves an inter ference with a quesiion which has been re ferred by the laws to the discretion of the Senate conjointly with the other House of Congress and a federal office. Does this authority of the Senate intend only to aquiescence? Suppose the Con stitution to have declared that Congress shall regulate the property of the U. States. Suppose the President should notwiilitanding attempt to regulate that part of the public property, deposited in the Bank. iMust the Senate silently see the Constitution violated and its oxen powers usurped. I put it to every free man in 1 lie Uepublic to answer. iIy position is, that the Senate has authority to speak in terms of censure whenever it may think the Constitution violated, and more particularly when said violation in volves an usurpation of its own power and authorities. Conrad nextcitcs the "famous Middlesex Election," as a case "analo gous" to the case before us. A most un happy illustration truly. I defy the whole school of logicians to point out one single point of analogy between the Mid dlesex case and the present. In their whole nature and every feature they are totally dissimilar. In the one case the English Parliament decides upon the qualifications of one of its members in the other, the American Senate passes up on the reasons of a fiscal officer for a finan cial net, and the Executive proceeding in relation thereto. The striking analo gy between the two cases was first (lis covered by Air. Benton, and attempted to be traced by the same distinguished gen tleman in the Senate; but the wide vari ance between the case adduced and the ease in hand was fully exposed at the time. It is with no little surprise there fore that 1 now see the same famous Middlesex Election dressed up for the particular use of the good people of Edge combe. I advise Conrad when he next goes in pursuit of analogies to refer to the Koman Senate, in the times of the Cajsars, or the English Parliament in the times of the Stuarts. Conrad next (I take up his articles re gularly) indulges in a paragraph of vit.l criticism upon the resolutions, in which he proves very clearly that the Constitu tion and the laws mean one and tho snme thing, and as clearly convicts Mr. Clay of "useless repetition and absolute sur plusage." Now this may all be so, but it strikes me as a small matter very small to be mingled with the grave mat ters treated of. So small, I shall notice it no further than to say that it is hardly "a candid and impartial way" to canvass the merits of a resolution. Conrad having disposed of the prelimi nary enquiry as to the authority of the Senate to pass the resolutions, now takes up the main question whether the Pre sident has violated the Constitution aa alleged by the Senate. "We are told (says he) by the highest J'giIutive body in the Union, that the Chief Magistrate has violated the Constitution. Let us enquire if this be so." 1 should prefer to present Conrad's answer to this enquiry in his own words; but lest I exceed the proper limits of a communication, shall present only his points. "It will not be pretended (says he) by any dispassionate man, that the President has violated the Constitution in dismiss ing from office the late Secretary, Mr. Duane." 1 will admit, as it seems to have been admitted by the im.jorily of those Senators who voted for the resolu tions, that the long practice of 'he govern ment authorized the President to act up on the construction. I will add, however, that the power of removal i not an ex press power, but an implied one; nor is the implication very clear to my mind. I will also remind Conrad, that "a can did impartial" reasoner will not attribute to his adversary positions which he never maintained, but expressly disclaimed. It is agreed then, that the President did not derogate from th Cons imtion in re moving Mr. Duane. Conrad then jumps to the conclusion that the President could not have violated the Constitution, us ho had no agency in the removal of the de posits except the removal of Mr. Duane." 1 own (says he) he assumed the responsibility. But what if he did?" Ah, there's the rub. What if he did, it is asked? Why, 1 answer, that in doing so lie assumed a responsibility which the Constitution has placed in other hands. The Constitution places the public treas ure under the control of Congress. Congress in this case had exerted that control, declared its discretion. The President has usurped that control, inter fered with that discretion. Did he not thus usurping violate the Constitution? Who docs not know that the separation between the Executive depart raent of government and the public revenue has always been considered one of the main safeguards of liberty? Who does not know, that even in the British monarchy, a British King dare not touch one shil ling of the public purse without the. eon sent of the British Parliament? But the President did not assume the control of the public purse for selfish purposes no matter. The motive cannot alter tho principle. The criminality may be less, but the act is the same, so far as it is known to the Constitution. Had the President's motives been corrupt, he would have deserved impeachment. Suppose him honest in his rrror, the cen sure conveyed in the resolution of tho Senate is perhaps punishment sufficient. What if he did assume the responsibility indeed? Why that is precisely the offence, the violation comph'int"! f It was in this that he "acted in derogation of the Constitution and laws." "Does not the Judge (says Conrad) who sentences the criminal to the gallows assume the re sponsibility of his execution? In truth the Judge does not assume the responsibility. It is with the Jury. Hut suppose it. Conrad says, what does it prove? where is the analogy? The Judge assumes a
The Tarborough Southerner (Tarboro, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Aug. 29, 1834, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75