Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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^