Newspaper Page Text
MR. JONES’LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF j
THE MACON MESSENGER. . j
Washingi<rn v \%th March, 1834.
.Gen. Robt. A. Beall:
My dear Sir —l have only a few days past
teen your editorial remarks iu the paper of the
20th February. I say your, for although all edit
orial article® properly belong to ail the editors yet
I judge, “ex pedt Hmcules, ’’that this must have
been penned by you. Although you have prom
ised to wait till you shall have seen my speech,
before the voice of condemnation goes forth, yet
you have actually in that article denounced me,
and in doing so you have done injustice both to
xue and to yourself; for you have condemned me
before hearing the reasons for my opinion, and
you have placed both me and you in a situation
before the public which comp< Is me to combat
not only your opinion, but that pride of opinion
which i9 generally more difficult to *ome
than the opinion itself, and therefore require* ‘*
not only to yield the opinion formed, but to re
tract the opinion expressed, and expressed too
under a threat of denunciation. Notwithstand
ing the difficulty of the situation, 1 do not dee
pair of satisfying you that 1 do not deserve de
nunciation, if I shall not be so fortunate as to con
vince you I am correct in principle:—for you
must be convinced that 1 have not wilfully erred
& blindly supported the exercise of powers which
the best and ablest men of the country have u n
tended belong to the Executive department, and
have exercised without a doubt beiDg expressed
as to the constitutional right.
1 undertake this task with the less hesitation,
fVom a belief that you do not feel unfriendly to
me, end that you have magnanimity sufficient t>
retract an opinion, when convinced of its error,
more especially when that opinion and its ex
pression have done injustice to a friend.
You say the deposits have been “ ravished, from
the Bank.” and speaking of Gov. Gilmer and
myself, “When they are heard, should onr ap
prehensions be realized should they justify, or,
refusing to justify, should they forbear to de
nounce the usurpation, we promise, that no re
niemhermce of former attachment,” &o. &c. “no
apprehension foe. the safety and unity ot a party
Bho| j deter us from speaking out the language ot
condemnation, in a voice that shall be heard in ev
ery corner of the We look at this as a vi
tal question, to differ upon which, is to differ
upon every thing ‘hat is dear to us as freemen;
because on our side we are struggling to maintain
the Constitution —to project the sacred in-tstu
fions of our fathers, and to save the country from ‘
an overwhelming bankruptcy and ruin.”
Before 1 proceed to an examination ot the grave
questions embraced in the above extracts, permit
me to say, that I have not undertaken the expo
sition of the reasons which induced my opinion,
to deprecate that condemnation, nor from any
dread of consequences to my=elf. If there wer*
no deeper interests involved—if my * ngle sell
were alone concerned, 1 would remain silent; bn*
as l believe the highest int< rests ot the country
are involved in this controversy with the Bank,
and upon its result must depend the recharter <>i
the Bank and its continuance forever, regard D-s
of the isbor and of any consequences to myself, i
will defend these interest* to the extent of w\
powers.
For the pnrpoe of ascertaining whether the de
posits have been i, rarishtd” from the Bank, and
p.nact of usurpation committed, we must inquire’
whether—
-Ist. The President has the right of removal of
bis Cabinet officers?
2d. For what cause® the President may exer
cise this right of removal?
3d. Whether the Secretary of the Treasury
has the right of removing the deposits from the
Bank of the Uniten States, and the causes for
which In- may exercise that removal?
For if the President may remove from office
with or without good and sufficient reasons; ir,
other words, if the power cf removal be only lim
ited by his discretion, then he can he guilty ot no
“u surpahon ” in the exercise of that rizht; and if
the Secretary of the Treasury may order and di
rect the removal at his discretion and assion* hi*
reasons to Congress for their removal, then he
lias not been guilty of “ravishing” the deposit*
from the Bank, but ha* withdrawn them in tin
exercise of an undoubted right granted to him by
the charter of the Bank.—And although the rea
sons of the removal may he deemed insufficient,
there is no infringement of the “Constitution,”
t>o violation of* the sacred institution ß of onr fa
there.” no “vital question” involved, which
should, by a difference of opinion, sever the ties
of former friendship and close-linked connex on,
end jeopard ‘‘the safe y and unity of a party.”
Ist. Has the President the right of removal of
the Cabinet officers?
In 1789 this question was extensively debated
in flie House of Representatives, upon a motion
to strike out the clause averring his right of renn
val, from a bill organizing the ctate department,
and in which the necessity, the danger and th?
propriety of recognizing this right in the Exeou
five, were fully discussed, not only a* regards the
i-tate department, hut as to the other three then
about to be established, to wit, the Treasury,
War and Navy, ft would be occupying unne
ct -*ary time and taking unnecessary trouble to
Blake extracts from that debate. Some may be
found in my speech, and many may be found in
others The persons who eontt-nded for this
power in the Executive, among whom were
Mr. . adis-n and Mr. Baldw in, insisted, among
other*, on the following propositions:
That the Government was divided into three
department ß , the Executive, Legislative and Ju
diciary; that it was intended by the framers of
the Constitution to keep these departments as
distinct as possible, thougfi they had been neces
sarily compelled to mingle them in some parts of
the Constitution; that thi mingling of two or
rut.re departments in the exercise of any power,
lad been a principal cause of objection to it, in ma
ny cf the State*, when presented for ratification,
and that Congress were bound, in giving a con
struction to it, an t in pa*mg a law to carry it in
to effect, not to join any two of the departments
in !h* exercise of any power, where they bad not
been joined by the Constitution; that the power
of appointment and of removal was strictly an
Executive duty and belonged to the Executive
depart ment, and if the Constitution had been si-
Icu’ *to the mode of appointment the Execu
tive musl have exercised that power alone; that
in requiring the advice and consent of the Senate
to confirm the appointment, they had departed
from and made an exception to the general prin
ciple; that they did not intend to carry (he ex
ception any further, and therefore left the power
of removal, where the general principle had
plated it, with the Executive; without the inter
ference of the Legislative department. Upon
the ground of expediency, they urged that the
President was bound to see the laws faithfully ex- i
ecuted; that these officers wcie given to hiui as j
itibordinates and parts of the Executive depart- \
meiit to assist him; that he was responsible to the
people for their good conduct; that they must be,
necessarily subject to hi* control; that they could
not be subject to his control without the of
rtuioval at his wiil an- pleasure and that hr
mold not be responsible for their conduct unless
be could control them and had the right of remo
val. After averai days debate, which was some- ’
what extraordinary in those days, the motion to.
sink* out that clause was lost by a considerable
majority. This deci-ion of the House ot Repre
sentatives wa§ confirmed by the Senate by ~a
small majority, and it was then settled that the
President had the power of removal from office. 1
would not be understood to say it was decided
(hat he had th e constitutional right, for although
this was contended for, and it was maintained
that the law was only declaratory, yet it is not so
declared in the law. The power is distinctly giv-’
en, and whether the right necessarily arose out
of the Constitution, or was conferred by law, is <
now unimportant; —it was retained in the law,
and has been always considered as settled by
that discussion and the decision then made. At
the same time that this question was settled, the
cau ß es for the exercise of that power were also
established; and those causes were neither more
nor less than the discretion of the President,
These questions were not only decided at that
time, but they have never since (until the remo
al of the deposits) been called iu question; they
ha, never been disputed or even doubted, and
have been exercised by every President from ti e
signing of the Constitution down to the present *
time. Whether this right be conferred by the
Constitution and cannot he taken away -whether
the right ought not to have been admitted or
granted by the J rt w then paved, 1 will not di<- ;
cuss. It is sufficient for my purpose that the law
was passed and the power granted; and I am sure
you will agree with me, that it was a better tune ■
to make the decision, when no case was before .
them—when no personal, political or party feel- ‘
ing were excited—but when the only arguing!
was, is it best for the interest of the People to giie ‘
this power to the President alone, or to him aud
the Senate? J
This power of removal has not only born exer
cised by all the Presidents, but it ha® been ex- ‘
ercised by them at their discretion, without ass
igning any reason, or, for auglu we know, with
out having any, but a mere preference tor anoth- j
er person.
It wa* done by Washington, by the elder Ad
amß, by Jefferson, by Madison, by Monroe, by i
the younger Adams, and by Jackson before the
removal of Duane, and the right to do so has not
been questioned.
The heads of Departments have hern removed
for “mere opinion’s sake.” Il is not customary
for every new President, oppn entering into of
tice, to turn out all the old Cabinet officers and
appoint new ones? The inquiry is never made,
what did he turn them out fr? Did they not
faithfully discharge their dutie*? These reinovt.ls
are not confined to the coming in ot anew Presi
dent of different politics, win n they would be
certainly for “opinion’s sake,” hot they are fre- j
quently made w Utn the old and the new Presi
dents are of the same politics, because the Presi- i
dent wishe® to have his personal friends around
him a hi* advisees and assistants. And when
ttie President has appointed his Cabinet, and finds
lie has been mi-taken in the opinions, or even
feelings, of anv of them toward* him, it has ever
been considered hi* right to -c-inove them. With
out going back farther than the present admini*- ;
(ration, you will recollect that Mr. Van Bun n
ami Mr. Eaton resigned, and the President re
quired the res? to resign. Then Ingham, Secre
tary of the Treasury, Branch and Berrien, re
signed their appointments, under the intimation
that the President expected tin cn to do so, and
they distinctly tind* rstood that unless they did
I *o they would bp removed. Not one word wa ß
said against the right of the President to exercise
this pavy* r; nor would any thing have heen now
said, unless the Bank had been concerned; and
I have no doubt a* much would have been said
at that time if the Bank had been concerned, if
the Secretaries bud heen di ß mi cß ed because they
: were favoring the Bank and opposing the views
of the President in regard to that institution;
! but the Bank was not then concerned, and the
! right to remove them was never disputed. On
| (he other hand, it may be literally said, that the
j President turned them out because he wished
to do so, and he was sustained in the exfrcise
of the right without inquiring into hi? reasons.
Let me a*k yon whether you did at that time
make any objection to hi exercise of this r:ght,
winch had bteii granted or admitted to belong to
him by the law above mentioned, and sanctioned
hy the practice r.f our wisest ami best men for
forty years? If you did not, and if the right was
not doubted by the country, I am warranted iu
the conclusion that it was then conceded to the
President; and l cannot believe it would now
have been questioned, ii the Bank of th*- United
States had not been deeply concern and in this
exercise of this undoubted right. Ido not be
lieve that you have been influep._id by any feel
ings friendly to (lie Bank, but I believe the
clamor has been raised by the Bank and its par
ticular frieuds, and the cry esiusurpation! usurpa
tion! usurpation! has been so continually repeat
ed, and your warm and excitable fee lings having
been roused against the President for his lawless
violence in (he prod unation, and his wanton ex
ercise of unc nstitntion.il power, in ordering
troops against South Carolina and into Alabama,
sh t you too readily believed he had been guilty
of‘'usurpation” in the exercise of a power which
h.* B been granted by law and exercised by every
President. 1 will close this part of my letter by
referring to Mr. Clay’s resolutions in tho Senate,
and herewith enclosed, by which you will see a
virtual admission of the right, and by which he
seek- to take that riant away; and an extract from
Mr. Calhoun’s speech on (hi* question. “1 cannot
doubt (says be) that under the Constitution the
President has the right of removal from office; nor
can 1 doubt that the power of removal, wherever
it exists, does from necessity involve the power cf
Government supervision; nor can 1 doubt that it
might lie constitutionally exercised in reference
to the deposits Reverse the present case: sup
pose the hve Secretary, inste >d of be*ng against,
had been in favor of the removal; and the Presi
dent, instead ofbeing for, had been against i<,
deeming the removal not only inexpedient, but
under circumstance ß illegal; would any rgau doubt
that under such circumstances he had a nnht to
remove Ids Secretary , if it were the only means of
preventing the removal of the deposites? Nay.
would it-iit have been his indispensihle duty to
have reyaorps him? and had he not, would he
not have'fiten universally and justly held respon
sibff?”
The conclusion is irresistible, that the Pre ß i
dent has the right of removal; that he has ‘he
right of super*using, and wherever there is an im
portant difference of opinion between him and
his Secretary, on any important matter which
that Secretary has to perform in the discharge of
his official duties, it is not only the right, but it
is the duty of the President to remove him. and
if he does not he Will be held responsible for the
act of the Secretary. There cannot, therefore,
be any “ usurpation ” in the President in remov
ing Mr. Duane from office for the difference in
opinion, between them, and for the purpose of
putting in office another person who agreed with
him in opinion, in relation to the removal of the
deposites,—and therefore no violation of “the
Constitution,” no subversion of “the sacred in
stitutions of our fathers,” no “vital question”
involving “every thing dear to us as freemen.”
Our next subject of enquiry will be, has the
Secretary of the Treasury the right of removing
(its deposHes frombe Bank of the United Slates?
By the charter a the Batik, the deposite of the
moneys of the Unitd Slates, “in places iri which
the said Bank am branches thereof may be es
tablished, shall bt made in the said Bank or
branches thereof, liiless the Secretary of the
Treasury shall at uy time otherwise order and
direct; in winch cas, (he Secretary of the Treas
ury shall i turned iatiy lay before Congress, if in
session audit not immediately alter the com
mencement of th< next, session, the reasons oi
such order and diretion.”
The words of tljs clause are full and compre
hensive and extendto all cases and to ail causes
for which in the opnion of the Secretary of the
Treasury, they ought to be removed. I know it
is contended by the opponents of the removal,
that the onl) causes which will justify the Secre
tary in the- removal of the depo°rtes, are their
want of B a(ety and a reful or neglect to pay the
drafts or transfer the money of the United States
upon the order of ihe Secretary of the Treasury.
1 can see no authority in the rules of law a
criticism which can authoria- such a construc
tion—a construction which tinier a general pow
er, would c uifine the acti >n b the Agent to one
or two particular ca-e B . It it were intended,
that the right of removal, Mould be exercised
only iu ttci-c t wis cases, then v would have been
perfectly easy to have specified them and a **pe
cification of them, w.uld rx vitermini have ex
cluded all other ß , and w,*uld hveb it the money
at the disposal of the Bulk of lie United Halt's
even if the Bank had hecane aod acted ten
f’tnes more corruptly than it ;.* done. But I
have treated fully* on this subject m my speed*
and will not again go over it.— The conclusion 1
thn came to 1 yet fully bilieve to he correct,
and have never ■en any answer to the reasons
which 1 then advanced in siuport *>l that opini-ou
If then I am correct in ‘hat opinion, the Sec
retary had the right to rrmove at any time an<(
for any reasons which he night deem sntfi’in t,
the public moneys, from tie Bank ot the Unite.!
States, fan awaie that two objections have
ben. raised to the exercise <1 this right, not pro
perly belonging to it notarising from the law;
hut depending on extraneous matters—A- :
wish to examine this subject ro ail vt* bearing j
I will consider louse objections: and they are,
Ist. That the President ha? actually rein >ied •
them, and (hat (hey have not been removed by j
the Secretary of tin* ‘t'rcasury.
2d. I hat as Cougrrs? would have convened **.
two months, he oughtto ba.e waited until t.on i
gress did convent , aid that his removal before, j
without (lie action o’ Congrc-*, *v,.s oi.utrary to .
the power given by ttiut section. W;tb regard )
to the tiist I am wiling to admit T at the IV-sj- ; ,
dent removed Mr. Dslne from office b cause he {
differed in opinion who him on thi- que-lion, and t
that he appointed Mr. f ii.ey, becaii-*e he * greed ;
iwth him in opinion. This ias far as ouzhi to |
be asked of tr.*- frointhe (act and history of thi* i
transact! m. But whit <i >** ihi* prove? That the j
Presid nt comp* IDd vlr. Taney to order the re j
dev ai? By no- menus. It is well known, ‘*ha* long i
before Mr, Taney wr* appointed, it w is h;- opil* j
ion that, the deposite* ought to be removed,*
which opinion be retoced <o writinz aud handed j
it to the President, .vhen called on a* one ot hi- j
Constitutional adci'eis. Vv v* he, when appoint- j
ed Secretary ot (hr Treasury, to change ttoit o j
pinion or to refu-e to do what tie thought oozht ;
to be done, became the president entertained j
that opinion, and wi- ed him to a* l in accordance j
with it? Placed m the situation m which he was, j
he was reduced to tie alternative ot doing what
he thought ongfh to be done and of acting con- j
f rinabiv to (tie wishes ot the President, or. if re- j
fnsiiig to do what he Ih night ought to be done,
because the President thought so an - wished if;
from a IVar of bring charged with a slavish sub
mission to the will of the President. It tie had
refused to remove them under such circumstan
ceß, lie would have had rondi less independence,
than he is now charged with, by the advocates ot
the Bank. Whether the reasons for the removal
be sufficient, l wdl not now examine. lam sat
i-lied they were, and hare given the reasons for
; ih.it opinion fully, iu my speech. Iu addition to
vvh'at I 8 filers said, 1 will only request you to read
the documents ap/iended to the report of the
Committee of MMvsand means, to satisfy your
mind, that a! no t every Secretary of the Treasu
ry has maim vined the right to exercise the power
<,f removal for other causes than those admitted
hy ti e friend! and advocates of the Bank to be
sufficient; and that Mr. Crawford, who became
Secretary of the Treasury in 1817. about the
: tim*- tin,* Loik went into operation, maintained
i this r.gh, and exercised if; and that too, without
any objoc’ion being made by the Bank. Noton
j ly so, but h° within Id the deposites from the U
j nited States Bank not because it was iiusafe, and
he placed some of them iu the local bank®, be
’ came runs were made up m them, to keep them
i fro/n stopping payment. When you consider
this state of fact ß , an i that Ntnian Edwards made
e string of charges against Mr. Crawford, and a
( mong them, a charge of depositing the public
j money in th* State Bank* without assigning his
| reasons to Congress, but did not charge the pla
cing the money in them, a* an ofiVuce; and far
ther, that Mr. Crawford was folly justified by a
eonamittee of Congress, and by Congress itself,
for depositing the money in tho.-e bank. B , and was
e xettsed for not giving his reason?, upon his dec
laration, that it was unintentionally and inadver
tently omitted, and from no design to keep Con
gress ignorant of the fact, yoi will be constrained
to admit there was no “ usurpation ” of power
by the Secretary in removing the deposites. All
that can be said against him, is, that he and all
(he previous Secretaries have been mistaken as
to the reasons which would authorise their in
terference.
But “although Mr. Taney, was of opinion that
the deposites ought to he removed, this makes no
differenee, for he would not have Teen appointed,
if he had not entiTtained that opinion; or if en
tertaining the opinion he had refused to order
their removal, he would have b en removed
therefore the.act of removal i* irot his, nor the
reasons for their removal.” Wnile I admit, that
if Mr. Taney bad not been of that opinion, he
would not have been appointed; on being of that
opinion f*e had refused to order their removal,
he would have been removed from office, yet. 1
must conttnd, the conclusion does not follow.
The President has no right to compel a Secretary
of the Treasury to do such an act cohtrary to
his opinion, and to report reasons for that opinion
which are not hi?, and which he does n* t believe
to be sound and sufficient; but he has the right to
remove him from office for a difference of opiuion;
and when that difference i important and re
gards an important matter belonging to the du
ties of his office*; it the duty of the President,
both to himself and the country to remove him.
In this I am justified by the practice for forty
year®, and by the opinion of Air. Calhoun on this
very subject. The opiniou. then, was Vlr. Ta
ney’s and the reasons were bis, and the act was
done in the exercise of that discretion confided to
him by law; altho’ the President entirely concur
red with him in that opinion and not only ap
proved but recommended the measure.
But secondly, it has been urged that the re
moval wa? made during the recess, and therefore,
wa* an abuse of a power confided to him—that he
ought to have waited till Congress ecu veiled, and
for a resolution afftfiensiDg him to do ao—aud tis
failing to waR vyai evidence that the President
wished to prevent the action ol Congress, or to
trammel that action by requiring two thirds to
restore the depo-iis without his sanction. H 1
believed the reason* were insufficient, 1 might en
tertain this idea and permit it to influence my
opinion, contrary to what my judgement now ap
prove*. Believing however, that the reasons are
sufficient for J eir removal, l cannot entertun
the opinion that the motive* and reasons for the
act were different from tho*e expressed, or even
if they were, that 1 should condemn an act which
l believe to be proper, because I believed the per
son who did it, acted from other motives, i
could condemn the motives which l believed to
he improper, while I approved the act which hud
been dictated by those improper motives, if the
act were correct in itself and proper to be done.
Many persons, however, who h ive made this
objection, are mt aware of the terms of the law.
They suopore the law only contemplated the re
moval by the Secretary during the recess of Con
gress; and that the removal mu ß t be made by or
der of Congress, if it be made while in session
This is a mi-take, and several have expressed
their astonishment and acknowledged their mis
take, when their attention lias been Called to the
term* of that clause ot ihe charter. I hut pa.t
read® thus —“Unless Ihe Secretary ol'the Treasu
ry shall at any time otherwise order and direct;
in which ca ß r the Secretary of the Treasury shall
imm> dial- ly lay before Congress, if in session ,
aud if not immediately after the commencement
of the n*-xt se ß ?ion, the reasons of such or
der and directions.” By the very ti rms of the
c'verler it was and iltleuded by
Cong'ess that this right or power of removal was
to be * x* robed i*y the Secretary of the Treasu
ry, either during the recess or sesaion ofCon
*re?*- and wo* to be exerci ed by him without
waiting It the action of nzress by law or reso-
‘The advantages v. hch >t has been al
leged the Free,dent .-ought to obtain, by having
them removed during the rece 8 **, was as easily
..ft.* ab! during the ?esion a? in tfie recess. I
do not mean to contend that Congress could not 1
pass a resolution requiring the Secretory to re-’
move them; ami that by the term® cf the char
!>-<•, Congress had deprived itself cf that control
of Use public money. ‘1 his, however, is con
tended fur both by the majority and minority of
th* Committee ot b *ys and .Mean*. Ihe fir ß *,,
alleging that the Secretary may remove lor any
cause fie deems proper, leaving to Congress to
p n st!pon (her sufficiency. The Intfer alleging
that tie can on’y remove for want of s M fey
<*r a refo*al tu p*y or transfer the funds when 1
directed Ly the Secretary of the Treasury. My
opinion is. th it wtnle Congress hare by the char- j
ter ‘iven to ‘he Secretary the right and power of!
removal for cause*, he d-rm good, reserving to .
it*, if toe right of pronouncing on their sofficien- •
ry, it has not deprived itself of the power of en-1
tertainiog and ua ß * uy a resolution directing their
r* 8 nova! The Secretary of the ‘Treasury and oil’
other officers of Government, (net excepting j
the President,) are agon's of the Government, t
i i.l ,r<; hound to obey and carry into effect all ‘
constitutional laws py B ®ed by Congress: and be-;
fig „gr*!it- when Congress directs any one ol .
them to do a particular act, it does not deprive j
Congress, by law, from directing that act to be j
i done hy another Agent. 1 do not mean, of j
: coursp, to include cases where private rizhts have i
j become vested. But this is not one of these cases, j
! The Secretary of the Tre i*ury is but an agent
!(a the government; 1i)i 8 duty is confided to him
a 8 such, and may he taken away from him and
| confided to another But I have no doubt, if
; Congress had pa? B e*l a resolution directing the
removal of the deposites contrary to the opinion
of the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Prtsi
rh nt had but the right of removing him from of
fine, the Bank and if® friends would have con
tended that the power of removal was confided
to the Secretary of the ‘Treasury—that it must be
exercised solely upon his discretion, and that the
resolution of Congress m violation of vested
rights, and the plighted faith of the nation. The
conclusion then is inevitable, that the Secretary
of the Treasury had the right ol removal, both flu
ring the recess and the sitting of Congress, “at a
ny tune,” and that it was centemplated thi? right
should he exercised by him while Congress was
sitting, for he is to lay ti is reasons vmmidiately
bifore Congress if in session,” that no advantage
wa? gamed over Congress by removing them du
rmg the recess—and therefore we cannot believe
such was the inducement to this course of con
duct either on the part of the Secretary or Presi
dent. Not only so, if such hail been the induce
ment, and 1 was sensible of it, while I would vote
for a resolution condemning the motive, l would
have been constrained to say, the Secretary had
the right, that his reasons for the exercise of that
right were sufficient, and that they cught not to
be removed. There was, therefore, by this con
duct of the Secretary of the Treasury, no in
fringement of the “Constitution”—no violation of
“the sacred institutions of our fathers”—no ‘"ra
vishing” of the public deposites from the Bank—
no “vital question” involving “every tiling that
is dear to us as freemen,” —a difference upon
which will authorise the discarding of all “remem
brance of formei attachment”—all “long cher
ished feelings of respect and friendship”—all
close linked connexions on other subject? of deep
importance, and all apprehensions for the safety
and unity of a party.”
(The reason * for the opinions on (LL subject
which 1 have entertained and expressed, have
j been submitted in candour, without feeling tem
i perately and considerately, in the full and confi
dent expectation, that they will be so considered
and met, and I will conclude this long letter in
the words of the poet,
“Si quid novisti ca.nd.idus imparli,
Si non. uiere his mecum .”
and subscribe myself respectfully,
your friend,
SEABORN JONES.
rXV2 Y7IARS C3.3DIT:
AT 6 PER CENT!!
SALE, two good mules and anew two
horse Waggon. Apply at this Office.
April 19. 14—ts
Runaway Negroes.
THE following named Negroes, belonging to
the Stnte of Georgia and attached to the Eastern
Division of the Public Haods, having been adver
tised for sale, were, at the time of said sale, absent
from their companion?, viz: /
TOM. (Jackson,) he i? supposed to be lurlr"’?!
about in the neighborhood of Colonel Cafe's j
plantation near Louisville—MYLES, wt>° as a
wife at Mrs Mattock’s, a few miles aK’ re Dub-1
lin, near the Oconee river, aud who ** believed j
to be harbored by some white person—!
BEAVER, LARRY, 3AM and tflßß, who were’
purchased in or about Savannah, af) d are no:
doubt lurking about that city. — \ eu dollars’ re- ;
ward each will be paid for *>eir apprehension *
and delivery to any jailer *’ ant *
reasonable expense? and tor time
employed, if delivered *° (he jailer of Baldwin
county. WM. C . LYMAN,
-Sgeru State of Georgia.
MflledgevrP' s ’ 1834 14—ffit.
of Wtb&OXi
AND
Free Trade Advocate.
•The friends of the Union are our friend?, audita
enemies our enemies.
iff. S
Jb :/&lL
_
“ The UNION of ALL the States, for the pre,
.ervation of the Sovereignty aud Independence
of EACH.”— Troop. _
If iLri, Sl I>(;EVILLE t
APB lit 36,183*.
HARD R UJ^ —
If ever anv parly was fairly run aground, sucL
.i? the condition of the State Rights party, sc
culled.
Despairing of success in the open field ot argu*
merit, some of the most desperate, are resorting
to broad and groundless assertion to prop up a
. sinking cause. .
’ fme time, Governor Lumpkin is accused ol
invading the Treasury and squandering the public*
funds to oamper his own favorites—at another, he
i U charged with seizing the elective frauchise, and
, usurping the right? of the people iu the choice of
\ their public officers.
I These-chargt are put down, by a pdain and
* incontrovertible statement of facts, and out pops
the most wonderful discovery that the Governor
has actually paid Messrs. Cuthbert, and Kenan
1 onethons’ind dollars each, (or dtfendiug the rights
{of (be State against Judge Hoopers Indian
Injunctions. We ask them for the proof.
What next.
Why “blood and thunder”—lt is now said, he
has armed the people of Murray county against
* Judge Hooper—that he has actually sent arms to*
; that county to be used in overawing hi? Judgeship
* in executing the laws, and all such stuff,
j Who believes it?
But “drowning men catch at straws.V
STATE RIGHTS.
Th manner in which this term has been
bnned and perverted for the last two or threa
years, is almost enough to excite a general dis
respect for its value and importance.
State Rights, as maintained in the eventful cri*
sis of’93, ’99, and 1800, had a definite and in
i telligible signification, and meant neither mona
nor less thau an inflexible adherence to the priu-
I ciples of the constitution.
| The respective powers ofthe federal and Statfl
governments, were not then estimated according
ito the unholy aspirations of ambitious and de
signing demagogues, but wefe measured by th®
! pure standard of the constitution.
| But ‘*the times have changed, and men have
j changed with them.” New lights have sprung up,
i and new principles are sought to be engrafted up
ion the old fashioned, unsophisticated doctrine of
State Rights.
The party which now claims this imposing
name, has manifestly departed from its original
! principles, and are seeking to establish, in it®
! stead, the ‘‘damnable heresy” of John C, Cal
; boun—the ineiitahle tendency of which, will be #
! the prostration of the constitution; the destruction
jof the general government, and a final dissolu
| tion of our giorious Union into its original ele
i ments.
i It is well known, that Mr. Calhoun has heeo
j uniformly opposed to the doctrine of Ste.te Rights,
ias maintained by the Jefferson school—that he
j gave an early and energetic support to a protect*
ing tariff—that he has gone heart and hand with
thp consolidation's in favor of Internal Im
provements by the general government, and that
he is now, one of the leading champions of th®
United States Bank.
Are these measures constitutional, or are they
not unconstitutional, and in open hostility to th®
genuine State Rights principles upon which Mr.
Jefferson was elected, and upon which he acted
during his continuance in office?
They are all unconstitutional, and wholly re\
pugnant to the idea of State Rights; and yet Mr*
Calhoun is the chief of the State Rights
his principles—his measures—his patriotism—hia
talents—bi every thing— are every fAmg, with
that party—(with here and there an exception.)
Mr Calhoun joins Mr. Clay to compromise a
way the rights of the people, in fastening upon
them a most odiou® and onerous tariff, and we
hear no more fuss about oppression, ‘‘forty bales
in the hundred,” and all that sort of thing. The
tariff will answer pretty well, as long as iVTc. Cal
houn is satisfied—and Mr. Clay, so long de
dounced by this same party, as the tfcther of the
tariff system, war rapidly coro’ fl ? into favor*
Mr, Webster too, is not half o obnoxious to
them since he has leagued in **th Clay and Cal
houn to pull down GeD” Jackson; and Mr*
Leigh, oh! pretty Mr. f-*igh. is the 6net orator,
the greatest is to he the Present,
may be—and so *£©*■• Bestjami?? W’atkiss
Leigh, whoa f** year* ago, declared, that men
who lived hr the sweat of their brow, were no
better thar*^'^ B * Bf) d ought not to be allowed
to vote-"this same Mr. Leigh, i now the idol of
the Rights party, and strongly spoken of aa
tbr* candidate for the Presidency.
John Quincy Adams i not in such bad odour
himself—he is fire and faggot for the Bank and a
gainst the President; and we should not wonder
to hear him called a passable State Rights man,
before long.
To sum up the whole matter. State Right*’ as
now practiced, amount to nothing more nor less
than hostility to Gen. Jack*on, and friendship for
John C. Calhoun; as a few illustrations will plain
ly shew.
Ist The State Rights party have placed Gen*
Newnan opon their Congressional ticket, not be*
cause they respected his talents or principles*
moral or political; but on account of his hostility
to Gen. Jackson and his support of V?r,€%lb6on.
2ndly >lr. Wilde violates a great fundamental
principle of State Rights in supporting the Bank—
makes a long speech irj its favor* and against tfc^