Newspaper Page Text
lion. Mr. Meriwether’s Letter.
To the Editor of the Gcor. Constitutionalist.
I addressed you sane time since, reques
ting the correction of certain facts, connec
ted with my vote on the revenue bill ; for
the publication of my letter, accept my
thanks. 1 did not Write you so much with
the desire of figuring in the columns of a
newspaper, as with the hope that when you
had been convinced of an error towards a
political opponent, you would have had the
magnanimity to acknowledge it. In this I
have heeti deceived by you, ami I am now
left to no other conclusion, then that your
misrepresentations are the result of inten
tion, rather than .accident, and your editori
al in reply to my letter contains evidence
ofthe fact. Notwithstanding you had bold
ly charged that a Whig House of Repre
sentatives hud imposed a duty of 20 per cent
upon sugar, molasses and salt, yet when
your statement, is broadly contradicted and
denied, and the proof demanded, instead of
furnishing that proof and sustaining the
truth of your statements, you have inglori
ously shrunk from the contest and attemp
ted to cover your retreat, by a pitiful and
: hameful equivocation. In reply to me,
you ask, “what did we assert ? that a whig
i louse of Representatives passed a bill lay
ing a tax of 20 per cent, on Molasses, Su
gar and Salt.” This is what you admit
you said. You boast that you make no
statement without authority and then pro
ceed with that authority. You say “by the
new tariff it is provided that a duty of 20
per cent, ad valorem shall be collected on
articles now admitted duty free, or which
are chargeable with a less duty than 20 per
cent ad valorem except the articles enu
merated in the Bill.” You then ask “are
the articles of coffee, tea, sugar, molasses
and salt among those excepted ?” You an
swer “No,” and concluded by saying “then
the articles of coffee, sugar, tea, molasses,
and salt are subject to duty ?” Now to
what duty do you allude ? No one who
reads your article can understand you as
meaning any other, than that of 20 per cent
which you say a Whig House of Repre
sentatives has laid—and ninety-nine men
out of every hundred, will understand you
as intending to convey the idea, that be
cause sugar, salt, and molasses are not a
mong the excepted articles, and that a duty
is imposed on all such articles as pay a less
duty than 20 per cent that therefore they
did pay that less duty, and now have been
increased to twenty per cent. But follow
ing you a little farther you escape from this
position and say, “then the question arises
is a specific duty on molasses of 5 cents per
gallon, &c. more or less than an ad valorem
duty of 20 per cent ? if less, then the new
tariff increases the duty to 20 per cent, ad
valorem ; if more, the people will have to
pay the same duty they now pay on these
articles? Can Mr. Merewethercontrovert
our statement ? Now, Mr. Guieu, you did
say, that the whigs had put a duty of 20
per cent, on these articles—that was equiv
alent to saying that the former duty was
less than 20 percent. I denied the truth of
your statement, and to sutain that statement
how have you acted ? Why, Sir, without
offering any proof, or even attempting any,
you only reply, by telling us, that if such a
thing is so another is so, and if another is so
then such an one is not so.
Sir, the issue is, whether a duty has been
laid upon these articles of 20 per cent.—
According to your own statement, it is ne
cessary that you should show that this spe
cific duty n<sw is a less duty than 20 per
cent, ad valorem. You have failed to do
so, and you know very well, and that 1
know it likewise, that you cannot prove
any such fact.
But, Mr. Guieu, you knew very well at
the time you made the charge, that it was
destitute of even the semblance of truth,
and I will prove that you had such knowl
edge ; and 1 will do so in the very face of
your bold declaration that “wc have in our
power to support the grounds we assume in
regard to the new tariff,” and challenge
you to produce your proof, now or at any
other time. In the first place you make
the following admission : “we know the su
gar, brown, was subject to a specific duty of
cents per lb. and white to a duty of 3 1 3
cents per pound ; and that molasses was
subject to a specific duty of 5 cents per gal
lon, and salt was subject to a duty of 10
cents per bushel.” With a knowledge of
these existing duties, you knew further that
the specific duty on sugar, was an ad valo
rem duty of from 30 to 40 per cent.—that
the specific duty on molasses was an ad
\-elorem duty of 30 per cent, and that the
duty on salt, was one of 30 per cent. You
knew that every one exceeded an ad valo
rem duty of 20 per cent, and according to
your own statements, those articles were
‘■xcluded.
But you had more knowledge than these
facts afforded —there was a document prin
ted by the House of Representatives, No.
31, showing first what articles paid a duty
and what per cent., second what articles
were duty free—and third, what particular
articles are taxed under this bill—and
fourth, that sugar, salt, molasses and cotton
bagging are not included among those upon
which the present bill imposes a duty. It
was prepared at the Treasury Department,
and is therefore authentic. I sent you this
document, and I see from your reply to my
letter, that you used its parts and its lan
guage largely. But there is still further
evidence against you. In your article you
refer to the speech of Mr. Fillmore made
on this revenue bill, as authority to sustain
some of your statements. Now, Sir, in that
speech of Mr. Fillmore calls the attention
of the House to what articles arc taxed by
this Bill, At p.agfi 11, he says, “I now call
the attention of the committee to so much
of tables Nos. 1,2, 3, and 4, in House Doc
ument, No. 34, of this session, as is neces
sary to show the articles upon which the
proposed bill will operate.'’ Then,on page
12,13, and 14 follow these tables, specify
ing the articles taxed and among them nei
ther sugar, salt, molasses nor bagging are
embraced.
jT/>rr> then c ’r. i- the evidence shewing
that you knew that the proposed bill would
not operate upon them, at the time you sta
ted to your readers that it did.
Finding that you are wanting in facts
to sustain you in your charge against
the ‘Whig House’ and the Georgia del
egation—you have raised another ground
of complaint. You say, “the Georgia del
egation had it in their power to relieve the
people ofthe soutli from the duty they now
pay on salt, sugar and molasses”—and fur
ther “it is because the members of the Geor
gia delegation had that power, that they
have been censured by us, and by the peo
ple of the South.”
It is amusing to witness with what facili
ty you shift your positions—when you first
assailed the Georgia delegation, the cause
of complaint was that they had voted for a
duty of 20 per cent, on sugar, salt, and mo
lasses ; when the facts show that they gave
no such vote, you now say, that you cen
sured them, because they had it in their
power to take the duty oif front those arti
cles, and did not do so !
Now, sir, I do not believe that you feel
any such censure for the Georgia delega
tion—l do not believe it,because you South
ern Van Burenitcs, stood shoulder to shoul
der with us, upon that question. Why
have you not censured them ?
Now, sir, had we voted as you say we
ought, you would have been the first to cen
sure us. You know that under the com
promise act, the duty on these articles is
gradually to be reduced until 30th June,
1842, when it comes down to 20 per cent.
Had we voted as you say, we would conse
quently have violated that act. Last year
you told the people, if the whigs were elec
ted they would violate that act —Now you
censure us because we did not do it. Your
inconsistency renders you truly ridiculous.
But, sir, your article shows that you
were writing at random, and without refer
ence to the facts, when you made charges
as to the conduct of the Georgia delegation.
You say that they “had the power to ex
elude the articles of’sugar, salt, and molas
ses among those admitted duty free.” You
then go on to prove your statement, & say
that the vote upon the amendment, to ex
empt these were for it, “57 only, & against
it 112.” Georgia has 9 members ; if you
add that number to 57, it makes 66. ’Bo
that had the Gcogia delegation voted as
you wished, the vote would have been 66
to 103. Now Mr. Guieu, I will be much
obliged to you to tell me, by what rule in
arithmetic it is, you have learned that 66
are more than 103 ?
You have likewise discovered, that the
new revenue law, imposes an additional
duty on cotton bagging !—not directly, but
under the description of “bleached and un
bleached linens.” This position is so ri
diculous that 1 cannot believe you do more
than fill an empty space by alluding to it,
but I will notice it as you have mentioned
it. But 1 will ask you to answer me one
question. Hitherto “unbleached and blea
ched linens,” were admitted duty free—
cotton-bagging paid a very high duty. If
then cotton-bagging is now to pay a duty
under the name of unbleached linens,
please tell me, why it was not hitherto ad
mitted duty free under the same name?
The evidence which you have relied
upon to support this charge, is a speech
made by Mr. Wise, and the excuse you
make for relying upon his testimony is, that
he is a whig member of Congress. It is
not suprising that you make such wide
mistakes in your facts ?
The extent of his spcecli which yoil
have made is this: “the cotton-bagging of
Kentucky had already a protection of 31
per cent, and the new tariff gave it an ad
ditional duty of 171 percent.” You knew
Mr. Guieu, that this statement was not true
and in your next sentence show it to be so,
and yet notwithstanding you sieze upon the
error, and attempt to deceive others by it.
\ ou go on and say, “the present duty on
cotton-bagging is 3J, cents the square yard
and the cotton-bagging of Kentucky is to
be protected by an additional tax of 171 per
cent.” You certainly think that you are
writing for a people who have not intelli
gence enough to discern the difference be
tween a duty of 3 } per cent, and a duty of
3| cents tlie square yard. Mr. Wise
speaks of a duty of 3 j per cent, which is an
ad valorem duty, and you contradict him
and speak of a duty of 3J cents the square
yard, which is specific duty. Mr. Wise
speaks of an ad valorem duty throughout,
and you speak of a mixture of both. Now,
sir, if you intend to make Mr. Wise a wit
ness, I insist that you let him speak for him
self, and that we take what he says for him
self, and not what you say for him.
Let us take Mr. Wise’s statement, and
your own, and see how far you differ. The
cost of cotton-bagging, such as is used in
Georgia and South Carolina, in New York
exclusive of duty and insurance, is 10 cents
the yard. Mr. Wise says that it is to pay
20 per cent. duty. This would make a du
ty of 2 cents the yard, which when added to
the cost abroad, makes 12 cents the yard.
Now you say that it is to pay a duty of 31
cents the square yard, which is 4 cents the
running yard ; that added to 10 cents make
14 cents. But you say that it pays a duty
of 17} per cent, besides ; this would in
crease the duty’ near two cents more, which
would make the cost of the article near 10
cents, say 15 cents 7 mills. You and Mr.
Wise then differ as to the amount of duty’
which the law demands of 3 7-10 cents.
But Mr. Guieu, you are attempting to
make a fraudulent use of this statement.—
You say, that the present duty is 3.J cents
the square yard. You have further said,
that the duty was to be levied under this bill
was to be placed only on those articles pay
ing a less duty than 20 per cent, ad valo
rem. The duty of 3J cents on the square
yard, is an ad valorem duty of 35 per cent,
so that the bill does not embrace the article
of bagging at all—particularly such as is
used in Georgia and South Carolina —and
you know that fact. And yet y r ou are en
deavoring to make the people of Georgia
believe that their delegation in Congress
voted for a duty on cotton-bagging, when
you knruv they had done no such thing.—
Yon have not only misrepresented the Geor
gia delegation, but you arc endeavouring
to create a false impression as to Mr. Wise’s
sentiments. He spoke of a present ad val
oremduty of3j percent. You have turned
that into a specific duty of 3J cents the
square yard. You take from him his own
words and ideas, and dress him up in your
own. He spoke of a duty of 20 per cent,
only ; your interpretation of his remarks
makes him say, upon reducing the specific
duty to an ad valorem one, that cotton-bag
ging will pay a duty of 52J per cent.—
Your sagacity told you that it would not do
to let Mr. Wise’s remarks go forth to the
world as you copied them, for they show a
reduction of 15 percent, in the duty ofbag
sxing—instead of an increase, and here you
have attempted to mystify the subject, by
blending togethertwo kinds of duty, think
ing that the public has not enough intelli
gence to know the difference between an ad
valorem duty and a specific duty. This
was the policy of your party last year in
the election of Gen. Harrison, to deceive
the people as to facts, and you seem to be at
your old tricks. You have evidence in
your possession at the time you made vour
statement, contradicting the very fact you
stated, and you knew that bagging was not
among the articles taxed at all, by the
whigs.
Since you have changed your ground of
censure upon the Georgia delegation, and
in the new one you assume been guilty of a
misstatement I have exposed, 1 might with
propriety leave you in the midst of your er
rors, but I have some desire to know where
you stand on the subject of this revenue
measure.
The bill which has passed the House,
conforms strictly to the compromise act.—
The northern protective tariff men assailed
it most violently. Mr. Adams said that
die question was between a protective tariff
and the compromise tariff*, and he called
the north to rally and put down that com
promise—others joined him. One-half of
the Massachusetts delegation opposed the
bill for this reason. Among them, the on
ly member from the State which you have.
Several of your political friends from
Pensylvania took the same ground ; one of
them said, that he would listen to no com
promise which did not include protection.—
Another said, that he would tell his consti
tuents, that they had nothing to hope from
the whigs ; that they had abandoned protec
tion and had united with southern men to
carry out the compromise. The whole
battle was fought on the principle of com
promise or protection. And although there
were two southern democrats, who I heard
say, that they had no objection to the prin
ciples ofthe bill, yet they united with north
ern tariff men to defeat the bill, who op
posed it because it conformed to the com
promise act.
Now, sir, what I desire to know of you is,
whetheryou are for or against the comprom
ise act ? Do you intend to take your stand
with the south und the whigs for it, or with
the north against it ? We have a right to
know where you intend to stand. If you
are with the south on this question, why do
you censure the Georgia delegation, for not
exempting sugar, salt and bagging, (when
you knew they did not have the power to
do so.) from taxation, when you knew ac
cording to the terms of that act, they were
to pay a duty until the 30th June, 1842,
and then come down to 20 per cent, ad val
orem. If you are with the south, why do
you censure us for voting for a duty on tea
and coffee, when the compromise act pro
vides that they shall be taxed if revenue is
wanting, instead of taxing those articles
which have been protected? But your par
ty have taken their stand by the side of the
protective tariff men of the north, and if you
are against the compromise act, you will
not regret their position. This whole ques
tion is embraced in a nut shell. The com
promise act provided if there should be a
deficiency of revenue, it should be made up
from duties on articles duty free and paying
a less duty than 20 per cent, and that arti
cles which had been protected and paying
more than 20 per cent, should bear no more
duty, bnt come down to 20 per cent, and a
bandon protection. Well, sir, more reven
ue was wanting. Mr. Woodbury reported
to congress a deficiency of $5,000,000, a
year, and did not include at that a debt of
$16,000,000. Thequestion was how shall
this be raised? the whig party said carry
i out the compromise—the protective tariff
men said put the additional revenue on the
protected articles, and continue protection.
All the tariff newspapers at the north are
assailing this bill—you publish extracts
from them, and attack it upon the same
grounds which they do.
But, sir, you attack us for omitting to
take the duty off of sugar, salt, & molasses,
notwithstanding you knew it would be in
violation of the compromise act. Now, sir,
these articles have been paying these du
ties for nine years ; during that time your
party have had the majority in both Hous-
es of Congress—have had the President, and
most of the time have had the Georgia del
egation. Not one of your party ever open
ed his mouth in favor of removing these du
ties, and you, sir, never uttered a complaint
against them for their silence. Why is it
then, that after nine years silence and ac
quiescence in these duties, you have never
complained until they are about to be re
duced one-third, and until the whig party
have come into power?—But your party
have not only acquiesced in these taxes,
but they have permitted a law to govern us
which taxed sugar, and yet made sweet
meats duty free—which taxed calicos, ging
hams, coarse cambrics and muslins 25 per
cent., while silk dresses were duty free ;
which taxed cotton vests, coarse wollen
gloves, cotton shirts, cotton stockings, cot
ton buttons, and straw bonnets 23 per cent,
while silk vests, silk gloves and stockings,
silk shirts, buttons, and bonnets, fine da
mask linen, damask, crapes, lawn veils &
crape shawls, were admitted duty free.—
And when the whigs have proposed to tax
these articles which are consumed by the
rich almost exclusively, rather than to in
crease the duty on the coarse article s , vour
political friends in Congress,- rise up as
one man, and vote against the bill —and you
sir, censure us, for voting for it.
You have commented at length upon my
remark, that Mr. Woodbury recommended
a duty upon coffee, tea, Arc. and deny that
he ever made such a recommendation. At
page 12 of last report, Mr. W. says in
speaking of a change in the tariff, “ho has
therefore examined the subject, & is ready
to present the results at any moment when
either House shall express a wish to that
effect. But lie refrains from submitting them
without a special request, &c.” lu pur
suance of this imitation the Senate called
on him, for his plan ; on 18th January 18-
41, lie forwarded it. You say that he pro
posed to tax luxuries only ; but, sir, yotr
ought to have told the whole truth in this
matter, and have likewise said, that lie cal
led tea and coffee luxuries, and proposed to
tax them.
But he proposed two plans ; one was to
tax all free articles 15 percent. This he
said was objectionable and proposed to
make a selection of certain articles and tax
them 20 per cent. The articles which lie
selected, were “ silks, silk and worsted I
stuffs, linens, bleached and unbleached, j
ticklonburgs, shirtings, bolting cloths, wool
under 8 cents per lb., crude salt petre, an
imals not for breed, furs, coffee, tea and cop-
per.” lie advised to be left free among
other articles, those of cocoa, almonds, pru
nes, figs, raisins, mace, nutmegs, cinna
mon, cloves, pimento, cassia, ginger, cam
plior, silk from India, thread lace, and wines
selling from four to tweve dollars a gallon
were to pay a contemptible duty of from
1 1-2 cents to 712 cents per gallon. But
the whigs thought if tea, coffee, and coarse
blankets had to pay a duty to support the
government, there was no justice in Air.
Woodbury’s recommendation, to allow
wines, spices, preserved fruits and J)'read
lace go free, or with small duti’ v~as the
wines paid ; they therefore taxed Miiem.—
Among the articles which Mr. W. recom
mended to be taxed was blankets costing
less than 75 cents. You say that the whigs
have imposed an additional burden on the
south in this duty. Let us see what it a
mounts to. In 1840, the value of these
blankets imported amounted to $239,757-
the additional duty which is to be paid is
$35,963. This would make a duty of 2
mills to any citizen of the United States, or
of one cent to every negro. And the num
ber of blankets would be one to every 12
negroes! But, sir. do you know the size
of these blankets, and do you think that
southern farmers buy them for their negroes!
I think not. They are allowed by law to
be 38 inches wide, and 58 inches long.—
With these facts before you, I think you
will conclude, that the south is not so great
ly oppressed as you make out. But, sir,
it was a part of the compromise act, that
coarse blankets should be taxed, whenever
coarse wool was taxed ; which the North a
lone consumed ; now that article hns been
taxed, and yielded a revenue of $135,000.
You say that you fear that wo are to have
a protective tariff. If it should come, it
will be done by the votes of your political
friends. They have already united with
the northern tariff men, to defeat the com
promise act, and I fear too will carryout a
protective tariff if they can.
In conclusion let me say again, that the
increased revenue required, arises from the
decrease in the revenue, and from the debt
contracted bv Air. Van Burcn, the annual
interest on which, is $1,100,000.
Your obedient servant,
JAS. A- MERIWETHER.
THE BANKRUPT LAW.
There are some sincere, right-minded
men opponents of a Bankrupt Law, who ap
prehended evils from its passage by Con
gress. We rejoice to believe that every
day is diminishing their number, and that,
one year will dissipate all remaining fears.
It is a great though common mistake to
suppose that this bill is imperfect, or leni
ent to fraudulent debtors. On the contra
ry, it will prove the hardest net for such
that they ever got into. It is worth, to cre
ditors, all the imprisonment for debt and
other devices of that pattern that have been
known since the days of Roman barbarism.
The talent and experience of the very first
legislators and most experienced lawyers in
the land have been tasked for the last three
years to render it as perfect and impervious
to knavery as possible. It was reported o
riginally by Mr. Webster, who is believed
to know something of laws and legislation.
It was managed last year by Mr. Critten
den, present Attorney-General of the Uni
ted States ; who has no superior as a ju
rist ; and was this year introduced by Mr.
Henderson, of Mississippi; anew man in
our National Councils, but one of the very
soundest und most practical statesmen in
the country. It was then referred to the
Judiciary Committee, at file head of which
stands Mr. Berrien, Gen. Jackson’s Attor
ney-General, a lawyer and legislator of
thirty years’ standing, whose ability or in
tegrity in either capacity was never ques
tioned. It has since run the gauntlet of a
mendment and discussion, being reported to
the House by Hon. Daniel B. Barnard, an
eminent lawyer, scholar and statesman, of
great independence of character, and con
stitutionally hostile to all hazardous inno
vation. In the Senate, it encountered an
opposition headed by Calhoun, Wright,
Prentiss and Buchanan, tnen of great power
and sub;le intellect, and who would have
found flav/s had any existed. We have
every reason to believe, therefore, that the
bill is nearly perfect, at least so far as se
curity against frauds is regarded ; but if
not, Congress will certainly amend it at its
next session, before it goes into operation
on the Ist of February next.
We are confident that the apprehensions
of injury to the creditor interest will prove
unfounded. Undoubtedly there will be in
stances of fraud under this law, but not a
tenth what there lias been in the absence of
it. Practically, for the last ten years, hon
est men have paid their debts when they
could, and rogues when they chose. There
has, virtually', been no compulsory process
at all. A man thinks best to fail ; the first
his creditors hoars of it, his ‘ confidential’
debts have absorbed all his assets, and they
get nothing. Perhaps he sends word that
they can have twenty or thirty per cent, if
they will take it in full, otherwise they got
nothing; and he is pretty certain to be as
bad as his word. The whole business of
insolv, ncy has been a rogue’s lottery from
bejnnninjf to end. It cannot be made worse;
it must, it will bo made better by the Gen
eral Bankrupt Law. The infamous ‘con
fidential’system will be broken up. The
compromise iniquity goes with it. And
while honest bankrupts will find the law a
sure protection and creditors an efficient
weapon, the knave will find it considerably
harder than compromising or going to Tex
as. AVe firmly believe that had this law
been in force since 1837, it would have
saved Fifty Millions of Dollars to the cred
itors of tliis City, and added twice as much
to the wealth ofthe Country from the earn
ings of men crippled and paralyzed by
Bankruptcy. Well may the countenances
of millions brighten and their hearts feel a
thrill of long absent gladness at the Gener
al Bankrupt Law !— N. Y. Tribune.
From the Boston Atlas.
THE VETO POWER.
AVe must confess that we are among those
who see in the recent use of this most dan
gerous and anti-republican power by the
Executive, more to be apprehended for the
future than the mere loss of a favorite mea
sure. The Bank Bill which has been re
jected by one man, hud oeen passed by both
Houses of Congress with a majority of near
ly half a hundred in the popular branch.
If ever a House of Representatives can be
supposed truly and directly to represent the
views and wishes of the people ofthe Uni
ted States, it is the present one. By a vote
of nearly two- thirds, the organ of the people
passed a prominent measure. But the will
of one man has proved too mighty for the
people and their agents. Can any’ thing
be imagined more utterly opposed to all
true democratic principle—more intolera
ble or more entirely inconsistent w ith any
thing like free institutions, and the real ex
ercise by the people of their rights, than a
povier so monstrous—a strength so fearful
ly despotic and tyrannous ?
We; have no wish to impute to President
Tylet any other than the best motives in
using a power so enormous, that, by the
constitution, lias been entrusted to his hands.
We believe he acted conscientiously, and
according to the best of his judgmeut. We
feel constrained to say, however, that let his
objections to the measure have been what
they might, he would have better merited
the applause of all real friends to our re
publican institutions, had he forborne to use
a power so deadly to their existence.
The unlimited power of the President to
veto a measure which lias received the
sanction of Congress, except by a majority
that may seldom be hoped for, is a feature
of deformity in the constitution that demands
immediate attention, and should be restrict
ed if not abolished. It is anti-republican ;
despotic and iniquitous in its operation. It
enables one man to set at naught tlie will
of the people ; to deride, if so disposed, their
cries for relief, and places it in his power
to render Congress a virtual cj'pher. We
cannot believe that it was ever intended or
expected by the founders of our institutions,
that this veto power should be so freely em
ployed as it has been of late. And we can
not and will not withhold the expression of
our deep regret that so monstrous an abuse;
one so utterly opposed to Whig professions
and Whig principles ; should have been so
soon sanctioned by a President who owes
his elevation to the votes of upwards of a
million of Whigs. We cannot agree with
those who regard the alternative of allowing
a measure to pass by withholding his sig
nature, as unmanly or unworthy a true re
publican. We cannot so regard it. We
hold such a deference to the will of the
people as would be afforded by such an act
of concession, the best evidence that could
be given of the President’s real regard for
popular rights. On this point Henry Clay
is right, and his views are the true demo
cratic views. It is preposterous for those
who assail the Kentucky statesman for his
deference to the people’s wishes and rights,
to pretend any longer to be democrats.—
They are the avowed advocates of the rank
est despotism and the worst assumption of’
power that any country can present. We
speak of no particular exercise of the pow
er, but of the principle of the power itself.
The Locos ask us, with an assurance and
a confidence that seem to fear no answer,
would you have a President sign a measure
he holds to be unconstitutional ? By no
means. But we would not have the Presi
dent assume powers never intended to be
conveyed by the constitution. We would
like to know what clause in the constitu
tion makes the President the supreme judge
and sole interpreter of the constitution and
its bearing upon any measure ? What has
made the opinion of one man so much su
perior to that of Congress, that he is justifi
ed in nullify ing their acts, which his own
arbitrary notions and prejudices will not
sanction ? For what purpose, we would
ask, was the United States Court instituted
as a tribunal wherein to test the constitu
tionality of any measure, if the power was
to be made nugatory by the anticipation of
the President ? We must confess ourselves
utterly at a loss how President Tyler can
reconcile with his professed views of strict
construction of the constitution, the employ
ment of a power clearly unconstitutional,
inasmuch as it utterly nullifies and destroys
an express provision of the constitution,
whereby the Supreme Court of the United
States, and not the President, are made the
judges of the constitutionality of the meas
ure.
Again we arc asked by the Tories—these
professed Democrats, but open advocates of
despotism ; would you have the President
permit, by withholding a bill, a measure to
become a law which he deems unconstitu
tional ? We hesitate not to answer this in
terrogatory most promptly and decidedly in
the affirmatively. The United States
Court, and not the President, is the tribunal
where we would have the constitutionality
of a doubtful measure tested. It is institu
ted for that purpose. It is constituted of
the best judges in such eases, ami we would
not have one man, who may or who may
not he well informed in such matters ; who
may be warped hv prejudice ; by narrow
views and education ; usurp the rights and
powers guaranteed by the Constitutiofi
to an impartial, well-informed and learivi
bench of Judges. With the constitutional
ity or unconstitutionality of a measure a
President has nothing to do. If he thinks
a measure not in accordance with the con
stitution, let him permit it to become a law,
and then let the tribunal established by the
constitution for that purpose decide wheth
er his views are right or wrong. Let him
not assume a power that belongs not to him,
nor set up his views, which may be right
or may not be, as infallible and supreme.
It is on this account more than on any
other that the recent veto is to bo regretted.
It has added anew sanction to the use of a
power ever to be avoided, if possible, and
that, too, by the choice of a party which
have ever avowed its opposition to its use.
For the loss of the Bank Bill, of itself, wo
have but little regret to express. It was in
a form of very questionable expediency,
but we can imagine no favorable light in
which we can view the manner of its loss.
In the language of one, now more than
ever deplored, the lamented Harrison, “the
negative upon acts ofthe Legislative by the
Executive authority, is an incongruity in
our system.” Wo trust we may never
have to record a repetition of its employ
ment.
A SIMPLE RULE FOR CALCULA
TING GEORGIA INTEREST.
The principal sum in dollars, is the in
terest in cents, for a month and a halfor for
ty-five days. Thus, the interest of SBSO
for a month and a half is $8 50. It will
be immediately seen that this rule furnish
es an easy method of finding the interest of
any sum for the smaller fractions of a year
or month, by working entirely on the prin
pal thus :
To get the interest for three months, dou
ble the principal.
For one month, take two-thirds of the
principal.
For nine days, take a fifth of it. For five
days, take a ninth of it. For fourteen days,
take a ninth and a fifth of it. For eighteen
days, double the fifth of it, &c. The rule
supposes the year to consist of 12 months of
thirty days each, and so do Rowlett’s Ta
bles, and so do most of our operations in
practice. It is not therefore strictly cor
rect; but its results are near enough the
truth for all practical purposes.
The reason of the rule is obvious. If in
stead of multiplying by eight, and taking
half the product to get the interest for six
months or half a year, we multiply by the
half of eight or four, wc get the same result
at a single operation. So if we multiply
by two, it will give the interest for the half
of six or three months ; and if we multiply
by one, it will give the interest tor a month
and a halfor forty-five days. Practice in
combining multipliers, will enable the ope
rator to calculate interest with astonishing
despatch; thus to get the interest for eigh
teen months, combine eight and four and
multiply by twelve. For nine months,
combine four (for six) and two (for three)
and multiply by six. For seven and a half
months combine four and one, and multiply
by five, &c. —Augusta paper.
THE STEAM SHIP PRESIDENT.
The Philadelphia National Gazette con
tains a letter dated St. Thomas, W. I. (co
pied from the St. Thomas Times,) which
assumes to give intelligence relating to the
loss of the ill-fated steam-ship President.—
We put no faith in the report, although wo
give it publicity. The letter is dated :
“On an Iceberg, March 17th, 1841. To
whomsoever these presents shall come,
these arc addressed, not in tho hope of ob
taining aid, but to apprise our friends of our
awful and inevitable fate. We unhappy
passengers and company of tho President
steamer, had rough weather from the hour
of our departure from New-York. On the
night of the 14th instant, it blew a hurri
cane, with hail and snow, and the lookout
was unable to see a cable’s length from the
ship. At about half past 7 P. M., being
then under closc-reefed topsails, the ship
encountered an island of ice, and so rapidly
did she fill, that wc had barely time to es
cape to the ice before she went down.
Many of the passengers barely saved
their garments, among whom was the un
fortunate Morris, who being in delicate
health, died on the second day, of cold and
hunger. This is the only case of mortality
as yet, but as the ice is breaking up fast,
we none of us expect to survive more than
two or three days longer, unless it should
please the Lord, extraordinary to have mer
cy. We have no fault to find with any one.
The ship was strong and well found, the
captain and crew skilful, prudent and cour
ageous. I should have mentioned before,
that our boats, with the exception of the
long-boat, were all washed away the day
preceding the disaster, and the long-boat
was stove by the concussion. Even had
this not been the case, no boat could not
have lived in such a sea. Our hearts arc
dead within us.
Capt. Roberts, and the Rev. Mr. Cook
man, are the only ones that endeavor to
keep up the courage of the rest. I fear that
the tone in which we join this gentleman in
prayer, indicates more the courage of des
pair than any other feeling. Nevertheless,
God’s will, not our’s be done. Yesterday
we were so fortunate as to pick up the car
case of a small shark, which was dashed
against our floating prison, by the violence
of the waves. This, and a few bottles ot
wine, have been our only sustenance. My
hand freezes, and I can write no longer. ‘
The above bears every mark of a hoax*,
and was doubtless got up by some unprinci
pled rascal, who ought to be banished to an
ice-berg for the balance of his lifo
