Newspaper Page Text
THIi TIMES.
■: •• * ‘
‘sj
The union of ihestatcs arui thesoverrugntyof die states
COLUMBUS, AUGUST 19, 1841
FOR GOVERNOR,
ciiarles j. McDonald.
Report of Deaths in tho City of Colum
bus, for the week ending the 16th inst.
I—Teething - - - chiM
]—Fever - • Adult
It may be proper to observe that the case
of fever occurred in tne person ol ja gentle
man from Florida, where fever is now, and
has been for some time past, prevailing in
some of its most aggravated forms. No fe
vers. except of the lightest form, have origin
ated in the city during the pr cscnt season—
none have proved fatal.
WILLIAM S. CIIIPI.EY,
President of the Board of Heatih.
THE ENQUIRER AND THE ‘IIMES.
The ebullitions of temper which recently
have been exhibited towards us by the En
quirer, with its display of passion in a manner
distinguished neither by good breeding nor
wit, may very properly suggest the inquiry
what conduct on the part of the Times, what
pretexts, authorize this violation of the laws of
decorum, this lamentable prostitution of the
eminent intellectual powers with which the
Editors of the Enquirer arc endowed. With
the facts before us, separated from extraneous
matter —from the circumstances by which
they are surrounded—vve do not fear to in
vestigate the all-important causes which have
aroused the indignation of the Enquirer ; and
we invite it to accompany us in the explanation
and elucidation of those facts.
By reference to our files we perceive that*
on the 4th of March last, in regard to the re
mark of the Enquirer that “Mr. Granger, the
Post Master General, is well known as the
candidate for Vice President on the ticket
with General Harrison in 1830,” we asked
the Enquirer to “be kind enough to state what
that ticket was called —and whether Mr-
Granger was not placed on it. to conciliate a
double interest ? Why make this enquiry it
may be asked ? For the reason that, as the
Enquirer had alluded to the Presidential elec
tion of 1830, and the position Mr. Granger oc
cupied, or the part he bore in it—by way of
distinction or commendation as we inferred,
we wished to remind the Enquirer of the his
tory of that contest, and particularly of the
view then taken by the party to which the En
quirer is attached—and indeed by the whole
South—of the peculiar political tenets of Mr-
Granger, and of their extremely offensive
character.
Was there any thing wrong in this—any
invasion of professional courtesy ?
In the same paper, in reference to the re
mark of the Enquirer that “ some of the early
political positions of Mr. Webster had never
met its approbation”—we asked if the En
quirer meant “to say that. Mr. Webster had
changed or repudiated any of bis Jormer polit
ical opinions.” We inferred from the ancient
ard long-standing host ility of the whole South
to the political doctrines of Mr. Webster—and
from the peculiar phraseology employed by
the Enquirer in speaking of him—as well as
from its present support of him—that his for
mer political positions had been changed. If
this were the case, we desired to know the
book and page where this change of opin
ion could be found—especially as we had sup
posed and understood that consistency of po
litical opinion and action were two things in
which Mr Webster expressed peculiar delight
and satisfaction.
Was there any thing unprofessional in this;
any desire evinced to have “ a regular built
war” with the Enquirer !
In the same paper again, in allusion to a re
mark of the Enquirer that “our political inst i
tutions are, for the next four years, safe from
the covert attacks of Federalists and Consoli
dationists in disguise”—we could not repress
the comment, in view of the elevated positions
in the Government of Messrs. Webster and
Badger—two of the most steadfast and distin
guished Federalists this Union ever held —
that the Enquirer would seem to intimate that
the disguise is to be removed, and that the at
tack will not hereafter be covert." 1 It this
were not the intention oi the Enquirer, it cer
tainly would have subjected it to no trouble
to correct our misapprehension. Os what
other interpretation, however, was the remark
in the Enquirer susceptible ? Or did it de
sign it merely as an observation to fill up so
ranch space, without much attention to the
meaning it conveyed ? We found it, how
ever, in print ; and was there any .thing un
professional in directing public attention to it!
In connection with this subject, and before
we lose sight of it, may wo be permitted
very respectfully to ask the Enquirer if it
noted the reply of Mr. Clay to the observa
tion of Mr. Calhoun that he would not vote
for the Loan Bill, until he had something of a
showing that the wants of the Government
demanded the money? Mr. Clay said that
he had heard before ol a refusal to vote sup
plies, and that too, in a critical emergency—
that, during the last war, such things were
done ; and that he considered it moral if not
actual treason. Well, for whom was tins re
mark intended ? To whom did it apply with
awful force ! It is pretty well understood,
we believe, that Mr. Clay and Mr. Tyler are
not exactly hand and glove with each other,
and that Mr. Webster adheres to the latter.
This being the case, who doubts the applica
tion of the remark, and that, in due time , it
will be brought to bear upon the intended
victim in all its force — the Enquirer lending a
helping hand! Let Mr. Clay and Mr. Web
ster once come in competit ion with each other, I
and see how the men and presses friendly to
the former will assail Mr. Webster, and assail
him successfully, for his treasonable course
during the war, and the Enquirer, we venture
the prediction, will not be the hindmost in b.t
terness of invective. As an additional evi
dence of the vials of wrath which are prepar
ing for Mr. Webster by Mr. Clay and his
friends, we observe that the Albany Evening
Journal, the Organ of tlie State Atbnhrstra
tion, and of leading Whigs in New York, in
deprecating some of the acts, or some of the
omissions to act, of the Admiuistraiion at
Washington—seems to apprehend that the
latter may get, or has got.en, into a Hartford
Convention Rut. Who is intended to be
knocked down by this broadside ? Can the
Enquirer tell! But to resume our narrative.
In the same paper—lth of March—we di
rected public attention to some most extraor
dinary statements of the Columbus Enquirer
respecting Mr. Granger, then just appointed
Post Master General. What were these
statements! The Enquirer, in justification of
the selection of Mr. Granger for an important
station, most until ushingly remarked tiius—
“die fact is, if there had ever existed against
Mr. Granger the least suspicion of even a lean
ing towards that abominable heresy, (aboli
tion) he would be far from holding any place
in the new Administration. lie has not only
denied the charge, and hurled it back with
scorn, but has always condemned with great j
severity the wretched designs of these people,” j
(the'abolitionists.) Who, with the slightest j
knowledge of the opinions of public men, could I
venture such a declaration! And if present-1
j
ed to the public eye—so directly at variance ;
with what had been the public impression on j
the subject—omitting altogether the facts ap- j
pertaining to it—how could it escape the at
tention, or fail to elicit the surprise of the
most casual observer! Mr. Granger had nev
er been suspected of even a leaning towards
abolition! ! ! Why, even conceding that pub
lic opinion and public reports had been,to a
great extent, incorrect respecting the views
of this gentleman on abolition, the above re
mark of the Enquirer was wholly unauthor
ised, and in direct opposition to the notorious
facts of the case.* Well—what did we do?
What offence did we commit in this particu-*!
lar instance ? We chided the Enquirer, to be i
sure. We . fated that the “terms” employed
by it did not “tally with the fads of the case,”
and that, in using them, the Enquirer was
“running counter to various of its own state
ments, in times past, respecting the peculiar
opinions of Mr. Granger on the subject of
slavery.’J What farther did we say? And
how far vve were justified in the use of the
expressions, we leave it to the public to de
termine in view of the most incorrect repre
sentations respecting a particular matter, ever
inserted in a public journal—evincing a de
termination to adhere to its party right or
wrong. We said that the Enquirer “true to
its party instincts as the needle to the pole,”
“distended its elastic throat, Anaconda-like
&.swallowed any Minister whom the President
elect bid it receive, be he Abolitionist, Fed
eralist or not. Like the obsequious French
man, tell him to go to h —ll—to h—ll he goes.”
S’rong, very strong language we admit, but
yet sanctioned, we think, by the circumstances
of the case. llow could other than surprise
and astonishment be felt and expressed at a
declaration so directly contravening every
known fact connected with the opinions of Mr.
Granger on the subject of abolition—and what
other inference was deducible from the use of
it, than that the Enquirer was resolved to ad
here, in any event, regardless of mental in
dependence, to the fortunes of its party!
On examination it appears also, that in the
succeeding week, in the Times of the 11th
March, the Columbus Enquirer was again
mentioned. And what was then said ? The
Enquirer of the preceding day having ob
served the most deathlike silence respecting
our article of the week previous, to which we
have just alluded, we simply observed that
vve “certainly expected the Columbus En
quirer to say something on the subject, espe
cially as it had lauded Mr. Granger in the
most unmeasured terms,” that it furnished
“no evidence to sustain its statements respec
ting Mr. Granger, but it had very prudently
refrained from reiterating those statements.”
Were not these precisely the facts as they
transpired, and were there any indications of
“a regular-built war,” by a simple assertion
of the truth !
Farther examination shows that “no banters
were thrown out” nor any “ declaration of
war” threatened or made, until the 27th of
May. On that day we published an extract
from the Boston Evening Gazette, a literary
and neutral paper, whose Editor said he could
from personal inspection and observation, pro
nounce the whole of Ogle’s celebrated speech
about the President’s Mansion and its appur
tenances, to be the sheerest fabrication from
beginning to end. Our remark, in which the
Enquirer was introduced, was in the words
and figures following, to-vvit: “vve are certain
the remarks of the Gazette will be readily re
cognized as just by every high minded and
honorable man of whatever party, not excep
ting the Editors of the Columbus Enquirer
who, if we mistake not, gars Ogle’s speech a
place in their columns.” What is here to be
found invading the sanctuary of the Enquirer’s
honor , or detracting, in the slightest degree,
from its very elevated sense of propriety, and
what is due to professional courtesy ?
Tracing this very important controversy to
a later period, vve find that, on the 10th of
June, vve had the presumption again to intro
duce the Enquirer into our columns, unac
companied, however, so far as vve can discov
er, by any indications on our part of a hostile
character. The Enquirer had published a
vindication of Mr. Webster from the charge
of Federalism, or rather of opposition to the
! war of 1812, a paper prepared for the New
! York Express, and then in course of rapid
j publication in all the Whig Journals. The
i Enquirer sent it forth to its readers without one
I word of comment, a significant indication we
I thought of the conviction of the Enquirer that,
I on that particular head, the Secretary of State
i was, to say the least, somewhat vulnerable.—
j If our conjectures were correct, how did it
j comport with that purity and honor which the;
Enquirer never hesitates to appropriate to it’ j
self, to even indirectly convey to its readers;
erroneous impressions of men or things ? In
order, however, to elicit the real opinion of
the Enquirer respecting the merits of the pa
per in question, vve had the audacity to make,
on the aforesaid lOtli of June, the subjoined
remarks, and if any brimstone be concealed
in them, we cannot penetrate the mine.
“The vindication in question (Mr. Web
ster’eXwill be found in the Whig paper of this
city, of the 26th of May, ult., unaccompanied,
however, by a single editorial comment. Was
this omission intentional or accidental ? If
the latter, we hope the editors of that print will
and sscct the vindication, and show wherein it •
exculpates Mr. Webster from even one of the
charges of Federalism, which have been so
constantly urged agaiiyt him, and never until
recently denied. We ask this much of the !
Enquirer in no invidious spirit. We have ex
amined the vindication, without prejudice or
partiality, and it strikes us as &me and impo
tent to the last degree.”
Where is the treason against the Enquirer j
in this article ? Is it disrespectful in its tone,
or does it say any thing unreasonable ? Are !
there any “banters thrown out,” or any evi- j
dences of “a regular built war!”
To progress in the inquiry, the 17th of June
arrives, and finds the Columbus Enquirer oc- j
cupyinga conspicuous position in our columns, j
What led to this act of transgression by us—
this continued interference with its vested
rights ? The Enquirer had, on the 16th of
June, in an article respecting the Hanks, tak
en a somewhat singular view oftheir condition
i and conduct—indeed it was difficult to de
i (ermine from the phraseology of the article
! whether the Enquirer really had any opinion
j respecting the Banks, and the course they
| were pursuing. We stated tire succeeding
j day that vve were not certainAhat vve coinpre
j bended the meaning of tire Enquirer; and
! proceeded to interpret what vve considered its
| true beating, in which interpretation nine
| tenths of the community joined. We said
that the Enquirer ought to keep on its own
side, and not invade our premises—that it was
hardly fair to be both Bank and Anti-Bank,
thus monopolizing what belonged to itself, and
what properly and justly belonged to others.
We also submitted some queries to En
quirer touching true and outward morality,
which were general in their character, and in
no-wise invaded personal fe; lings or individu
al rights. Was there any thing unprofession
ial in this? Did this course on our part indt
’ cate a determination to have “a regular built
[war?”
On the 24th cf June, vve referred to the
publication in the Enquirer of the previous
day, of the letters of Messrs. Bolts and Stu
art, members cf Congress from Virginia, sane,
tioning the reception of Abolition memorials,
as the best means of quieting the anti-slavery
excitement. These letters, like the defence
of Mr. Webster, were unaccompanied by any
editorial comments. The idea at once sug
gest itself why give currency to such views*
unless the Enquirer was inclined to sustain
them, and wished to feel the public pulse be
fore it committed itself? We, therefore, ask
ed the Enquirer, at once and very respectful
ly, if it seconded the views of those gentle
men, as we wished to reason the matter with
it in order that truth might be elicited, and a
correct decision made. We were so confi
dent that the plan proposed by Messrs. Bolts
and Stuart would so utterly fail to accomplish
the proposed object, and would result in the
very thing which the abolitionists so ardently
desired, as the successful commencement of
their nefarious designs, the establishment of
the right of petition, that we were extremely
solicitous to run the proposition out ; observe
its progress; and ascertain where and in what
it would end. Was there any thing incorrect
in this, any violation of professional courtesy?
In the discussion which hadoccurred between
the Enquirer and ourself respecting the opin
ions of Mr. Granger, to which vve have re
ferred, the Enquirer mentioned as evidence of
the orthodoxy of Mr. Granger on the subject
of slavery that he and Gen. Glascock, of this
State, had voted for the same resolution ap
pertaining to that subject. We thought the
difference of views of these gentlemen, in vo
ting for that resolution, was very percepti
ble, and vve so stated. The Enquirer could
not, or pretended not to see how two gentle .
men could vote for the same resolution, and
not entertain similar views respecting the
subject-matter of such resolution. A case in
point, however, transpired soon afterwards*
jn which the Enquirer was obliged to admit
the ground assumed by us in the instance of
Messrs. Granger and Glascock, or compromU
one of its political friends. Mr. Adams and
Mr. Alford, at the beginning of the present
extra session, had both voted against the same
resolution] respecting the reception of Aboli
tion memorials, the former for the reason that
he wished the question of reception to be then
settled for the right —and the latter that it
might be as quickly settled against, the right
Where was the violation of professional cour
tesy in this instance !
To enumerate the remaining instance of
want of professional courtesy, for which only
vve have room to-day—on the 15th of July, in
an article respecting the Chattahoochee R.
R. & Banking Company, vve submitted to our
readers the comments of two Journals of this
City, respecting that Institution, observing of
the Enquirer article that it was “as indecisive
and unintelligible as the Bank exhibii itself,
equally balancing between its hopes and its
fears—up one side and down the other.” If
vve had room we would publish to-day the ar
ticle in question, to show that it is precisely
what vve stated it to be, wholly without point
or meaning, conveying no distinct idea of the
actual situation of the Bank, nor of the condi
tion in which its creditors were placed. Well,
where was the sin in this ? What rule of
professional courtesy was here violated ? Or
what evidences are afforded of our intention
to wage “a regular-built war ?”
Yv r e shall, in our next, bring up the account
with the Enquirer to the present date, and see
what other improprieties have been commit
ted—what other violations of courtesy have
been perpetrated—what other declarations of
“a regular built war” are extant—and talk
somewhat of that peculiar honor and justice
which distinguish the columns of the En
quirer.
I'lie Enquirer of last week observed ‘ the
weapon vve fight with is truth.”
In the same paper, are published the follow
ing remarks of the Philadelphia U. S. Gazette
respecting the opinions of Mr. Everett, (re
cently nominated to the Senate as Minister to
England, on the subject of abolition :
“ As nothing but Mr. Everett’s views on
the subject of slavery is assailed, we wonder
that the editor dui not pause to inquire what
those views were. At present it would ap
pear that because he is a Massachusetts
man, he is altogether an abolitionist. If no
New England man is to be considered free
from the charge until so proved in a court of
law, we marvel that President Tyler, a south
ern man and slaveholder, should have made
the nomination, But without knowing what
are Mr. Everett’s views on the subject of sla
very now, we recollect, when be was a mem
ber of Congress, that he gave some opinions
which were considered any tiling but fa vora
hie to the general views of abolitionists ; and .
if vve mistake not. a portion of one of hb
speeches was extensively quoted at the Soulh
as an argument, strengthened even by scrip-!
tural exposition, if not in favor of slavery, at
least in tavor oftbe slaveholder. —U. S. Ga-|
zette.
We desire to ask the Enquirer one or two
questions, and very simple ones. Was not
j Mr. Everett, subsequent to his service in
Congress, a candidate for Governor of Mas
isechusetts? In the progress of that canvass,
j did not the anti-slavery society of that State,
aik the views of Mr. Everett on the slavery
question ? In his answer, did not Mr. E,
; repudiate the opinions on this subject previous
i!y advanced by him in Congress, and referred
! to by the U. S. Gazette, and openly avow
anti-slavery doctrines to an alarming extent ’
1 Docs not the Enauirer know, or lias it not
! heard, that the nomination of Mr. Everett is
! suspended its the Senate in eonseq ence of his
objectionable abolition opinions—and that his
r. jection, for this cause, is by no means improb
able ? And yet the Enquirer although palm
ing upon its readers the above statement with
out contradiction, or even explanation, fights
with the weapons of truth 111!
THE BANKS OF COLUMBUS.
The Argus and the Enquirer have both
condemned the legal proceedings adopted
respecting the Banks of this ei:y. In this pa
per will be found a communication, which,
after reciting the act lor the resumption of
specie payments, passed by the last Legisla
ture, embraces also tlie order of the Executive
to the Solicitor General ol the Chattahoochee
Circuit, to institute legal proceedings, which
order, it will be perceived, contemplates the
immediate appointment “of Receivers to take
charge of the assets.
Without pretending to discuss the legal
questions involved —or that we understand
them fully—vve submit the following state
ment of facts which has beet*’ handed to us by
a gentleman fully acquaints* 1 with them 1
“It will be seen from the Legislative act and
toe Executive order, that it was designed that
tlie counsel employed by the State, immedi
ately on the institution of proceedings against
the Banks, should make application to the
presiding Judge (and it*absent, to a Judge of
the adjoining circuit,) for the appointment of
a Receiver to take charge of the assets of the
Bank for the benefit of the creditors thereof.
The Argus and Enquirer will not attempt to
shew any legal reason against the course of
either counsel moving, or Judge granting the
order, but look to tlie consequences and effect
of Us operation. That the Executive order is
in pursuance of the law, to any rational mind
seems clear; and that the Judges are bound
upon application to so administer it is equally
clear. And that this course was intended by
the Legislature we are informed that a pro
minent Representative from this county has
so stated.
As to the “clique ” spoken of by the En
quirer, who desire to put down the Banks
right or wrong, the remark cannot be made
to apply to the action had against them, as t
in one instance the name of the Receiver ap
pointed was suggested by the President of the
Bank itself; and in the case of the other Re
ceiver to have been appointed, the President
ofthe Bank joined in a written request with the
State’s Counsel asking the appointment of a
certain individual to be made by any Judge
to whom the same should be presented.—
Hence there could no “ speculation ” grow out
of any of these appointments prejudicial to
the banks.”
THE REVENUE BILL.
If it would noi be an invasion of profession
al courtesy, we should like to have the opinion
of the Columbus Enquirer respecting Ihe
revenue or lariff bill which has just passed
the House of Representatives, and has been
reported in the Senate, with some immaterial
amendments, by Mr. Clay'—whether it ap
proves of the tax on tea and coffee, and like
wise on sugar, molasses and salt, in prefer
ence to the imposition of duties on articles of
far less importance and general use, which
are exempted from the operations of the law
—and* what it thinks of the statements (in
another part of this paper) of the correspond
ent of the Richmond Whig, that the Whigs
in caucus determined to exempt tea and cof
fee from duty; but were prevented (with a
majority of forty) from accomplishing this
praiseworthy design by an inconsiderable mi
nority of Democrats —every one of whom voted
agaiitst the bill ?
The New Tariff.— We have transferred
to our columns all the matter relating to this
oppressive law which has met our eye’ We
hope our readers will peruse it attentively as
it discloses some of the operations of this law
—and especially to what extent it excludes ne
cessaries from taxation.
From the Columbus Enquirer of yesterday.
Without saying one word in favor of a Na
tional Bank during the whole campaign, (tlie
Enquirer) now endorses the statement em
braced in the preamble, introduced into the
list Le Llature, by the Hon. Senator from
Talbot, that the issue was Bank or no Bank.
—'Himes.
We have neither endorsed that statement,
nor does the.p'eamb'e set to.tli that the issue
was “ bank or no bank.” Try again.
From the Columbus Times of July 29*h.
In a subsequent part ol the same article the
preamble of Mr. Smead is quoted, and a por
tion of it reads thus —
In the great political contest through which
we have r j ist passed, the important question
at issue before the people, was Bank, or Sub-
Treasury. This issue was forced upon them
| by the advocates of the Sub Treasury la>v, and
\ being compellt and to choose between the two. they
: have, by their voice at the ballot box, decided
in favor of the first, and against the latter.
Ho this preamble what says the Enquirer?
“This alone (tlie preamble) is sufficient to
settle all cavil as to the issue made before the
people in the last campaign.'’
Will the Enquirer be pleased to state the
difference between the teims, in a political
sense, “ the important question and “ the
issue”? Did not the Honorable Senator
from Talbot, consider them, in this instance,
identical—from his use of them in the Pre
amble, in the same connection? “ The im
portant question at issue before the people
was Bunk, or Sub-Treasurv.” “This is
sue,” &c.
But the Enquirer did not endorse the state
ment in the Preamble. “This alone (says
tlie Enquirer,) is sufficient to settle all cavil as
to the issue made before the people in the
last campaign,”
Is the Enquirer afflicted with a temporary
derangement of intellect?
tV ABIIINGrTON—CONGRESS. t
As late as the 12th inst. (last Thursday) j
nothing was known respecting the action of
the Executive on the Bank Bill. The Sub-
Treasury had been repealed by Congress and
the President had approved the Bill. The
correspondent of the Charleston Courier, un
der date of the 12ih inst. entertains no doubt
of the disapproval of the President to the
Bank BH, in which event he apprehends
certainly the resignation of Mr. Crittenden’
j the Attorney General, and the probable retire
ment of Mr. Clay from the Senate. The
1 latter, we shoulJ suppose to be, altogether
: improhabie.
The Distribution Bill in the Senate —and
the Bankrupt Bill in the House, were in an
uncertain condition.
Do not the friends of the Columbus En
quirer feel peculiar pride in the ability with
which the Enquirer manages important politi
cal subjects to which we have called its at
tention—and the dexterity with which it dis
poses of prominent questions on which we
have very respectfully invited discussion ! If
they do not, they must certainly be grossly in
sensible to the extraordinary merits of their
organ.
From the Ouimnbus Enquirer ot yesterday.
w e cannot imagine, however,for a moment,
that the Banks now in operation, will pursue
so suicidal a course, and be guilty of such
egregious folly as to deliver up their assets to
any receiver who may be appointed by Judge
King, until after a trial lias been had, and
judgment of forfeiture has been entered lip
against them, which we hardly regard as a
possible contingency.
Are the Banks wholly irresponsible 1 The
Enquirer, in the first instance, deprecates the
appointment of Receivers before the charters
are forfeited by judgment of court —and, in
the second place, regards the forfeiture of the
charters for a suspension of specie payments,
as an impossible contingency. Without now
questioning either of the positions of the En
quirer, we beg to know what remedy can be
effectual against the Banks for a violation of
their privileges 7 Are they above and beyond
a Ji law, wholly above the reach of the peo
ple 7
TUG bankrupt bill.
This bill as it passed the Senate, and as ij
will, probably, pass tnS House of Representa
tives, if it pass at all, may be found in a con
densed form on the first page of this paper.
This synopsis is taken from the Baltimore
American, by which paper it has keen pre
pared at considerable trouble, and with a view
to present accurately all the material features
of the bill. Mr. Henderson, of Mississippi,
is the framer of the Law.
THE CENTRAL BANK.
We have copied into to-day’s poper, from
the Federal Union of last week, much matter
connected with this Institution. We are hap
py to perceive that the debt due to the Phoe
nix Bank—about which so much has been
said, and that has, doubtless, given rise to ag
gravated misrepresentations—has been hon
ciwbly and satisfactorily discharged.
THE COURT HOUSE.’
Is it a fact that the Inferior Court and the
City Council have accepted this building from
the persons who contracted to complete it,
when the roof is so admirably constructed as
to permit the water to run into every room of
the second story whenever a heavy rain fails 7
MORE OF THE TARIFF BILL.
The following letter from the lion. Mr.
Proffit, a Whig member of Congress from
Indiana—and the comments of the New York
Times and (lie correspondent of the Richmond
Whig—both Whig Journals—exhibit to some
extent the defective and oppressive character
of the new revenue bill. These, it will be
noticed, are Whig authorities, and among the
most orthodox of that school—and if they are
so well convinced of the odious operation of
one of their own enactments as to attempt its
defence in advance—it must surely be bad
enough.
The tax on tea and coffee (says the corres
pondent of the Whig,) “ was particularly ob
jectionable to the Whigs.” Why then tax
them 7 The Whigs have a majority in Con
gress, and the control of its legislation—and
could they not extricate themselves from the
“awkward predicament” into which, it is
pretended, ail insignificant minority placed
them 7 Tea and coffee could not be exemp
ted because thereby, sugar, molasses and salt
would have been also excluded, as the wicked
Democrats had so perplexed the majority.
Well—suppose they had been exempted like
wise! Would any injury have accrued to
the people : Are not these latter articles
necessaries, and of as general use as tea and
coffee 7 Why not suffer them to pass free, if
the bill could only be adopted in that shape—
and levy contributions on railroad iron—jew
elry statuary —and various articles admitted
duty free by the provisions of this bill 7
The article from the Richmond Whig is
worthy of notice, and is really one of the cool
est pieces of impudence in the way of excuse
for an unrighteous act, that we recollect to
have seen in many a day. The Whigs were
desirous, and attempted to exclude tea and
coffee from the operation of the law, but were
unable to do so in consequence of the trickery
and smartness ot the Democrats ! A perusal
of the letter of Mr. Proffit will show precisely
how much the Democrats have had to do in
adopting the extraordinary course of proceed
ing referred to in the letter —and whicn led
to the passage of the revenue bill, with all its
manifest imperfections, as acknowledged by
the Whigs themselves.
From the National Intel 1 fencer.
House of Repkesestatives, Aug. 1,1841.
Messrs. Gales & Seaton i 1 ask a small
space in your columns to explain a vote given
by me on the passage of the bill “relative to
duties and drawbac ks,” and which vote is lia
ble to misrepresentation. 1 voted tor the
passage of the bill mere]}’ to have an opportu
nity to move a reconsideration and on that
motion to express my dissent trom many of its
provisions, having been cut off from saying a
word or offering an amendment in the House
bv the operation of the previous question. 1
was disappointed even in that, auother gen
tleman obtaining the floor, moving a reconsid
eration, and again calling the previous ques
tion. I was in favor of imposing duties on the
luxuries, but not on the necessaries of life.
The bill was hurried through the House with
haste unprecedented in the annals of Ameri
can legislation, and by a tyrannical exercise o.
power grossly violative of the oft-asserted
principles of the Whig party. Not a sing.e
amendment of importance was allowed to be
voted on by yeas and nays, and thus individual
responsibility was avoided. I thought that, it
the majority were favorable to all the provi
sions of the bill, the minority ought to have
been permitted to say a few words on Import
iant amendments, or allowed the still more
humble privilege of recording their votes. I
will not trespass on your columns by giving l
in detail my objections to the bill, or by des
canting on the dangerous consequences of
such hasty and inconsiderate action. Neither
j will I express my abhorrence of the introduc
ition of this system of “Mexican legislation”
i in a country boasting of its scrupulous regard
; for equity and justice. These are matters for
discussion before the people.
GEORGE R. PROFFIT.
From the New York Times, August 9.
The tax on Tea and Coffee. —The
Madisonian says : the Revenue bill passed the
House by a majority ot 15. It was not free j
from objections. But as it was deemed indis-,
pensable for the purpose of revenue to meet!
the wants of the Government, it was thought j
advisable to adopt it although the prepondera-;
ling good was not unmixed with evil. A cor- I
respondent of the Richmond Whig explains]
in the following letter, very fairly, we believe,
lire manner in which tea and coffee were sub
jected to duty;
“There is one feature in which the bill was
particularly objectionable to most of the whigs,
viz: the tax on tea and coffee. The whig
] members held a caucus on this subject at
I which a large majority determined that tea
and cofiee should be exempt from taxation.
Accordingly, when the bill was under consid
eration in the Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Lawrence of Pa , a prominent Whig member,
moved to amend the bill by adding-tea and
coffee to the list oi’ free articles. Before the
question could be taken on tlie propos ton,
Air. Clifford, of Maine, a leading Locofoco and
a ready parliamentary tactician, (having been
Speaker of one branch of the Legislature of
Maine,) immediately moved to amend the a
rnendinant of Mr. Lawrence by adding to tea
and cofiee, “sugar, molasses and salt.” The
whole Locofoco party then united with Air.
C. in voting for the amendment to the ameiid
i merit, and in conjunction with such of the
ultra anti-tariff Whigs as wished tea and cof
fee to be taxed, carried the amendment.
“The Whigs were thus placed in a very
awkward predicament, from which they, in J
vain, attempted to extricate themselves.—;
Winthrop, of Boston, called for a division of!
the question on the amendment as amended j
so as to presentthe question separately, but
the chair very promptly decided that the vote
of the committee having joined them together
the chair could not put them asunder. The
Whig party were thus compelled either to
vote tor tiie entire proposition or to vote the
whole down. Under these circumstances
they could not hesitate to reject it entirely.
And thus it comes to pass that by a dexterous
mancevre of the Locos, tea and coffee are to
be taxed ! And yet with these facts staring
them in the face, I should not be surprised if
the Locos had the hardihood to attempt, to
raise an outcry against the Whigs for taxing
articles which entered into the consumption
of the poor ! 1 hope you will keep these facts
prominently before the public, and let the peo
ple .see the measures which are to be resorted
to, to make political capital.”
For tiie Times.
Mr. Editor: Permit us to suggest the fol
lowing names as suitable persons ip represent
ihe county of Muscogee in the next General
Assembly :
For Senator,
Col. ALEXANDER McDOUGALD.
For Representatives,
Hon. WALTER T. COLQUITT,
Col. JOHN H. HOWARD,
THOMAS LIVINGSTON, and
JOHN L. HARP, Esqs.
MANY VOTERS.
For the Times.
Mr. Ed tor: There has been so much said
in relation to the law of the last session under
which Judge King made the appontment of
Receivers lor our banks, 1 send you a correct
copy of the act, together with the Executive
order, hoping you will publish it and then let
the people judge lor themselves.
Justice.
AN ACT ‘o compel the several Banks of iln.s State
to redeem th< tr liabilities in spece, and to provide
for the forfei uro of the charter or charters of such
as refuse.
Sect. 1. Be it enacted, That on the first day
of January, 1841, his Excellency the Govern
or shall issue his proclamation requiring the
several banks of this Slate, their branches or
agencies which have heretofore tailed to re
deem their liabilities in gold and silver, and
ail other banks in this State, shailon the first
day of February, 1841, pay to any person or
persons (banks and brokers excepted) in spe
cie, every bill, note, draft, check, receipt or
money on deposit, except in cases where such
deposits are by terms of existing contracts j
payable otherwise than in specie, issued or]
received, or which may hereafter he issued
or received by them respectively upon de-.
maud or presentation. And in case any oil
said banks, branches or agencies shall then
or thereafter tailor refuse to comply with and
perform ibe requirement aforesaid promptly, ;
then his Excellency the Governor, on due j
proof thereof, is hereby authorized and re-]
quired to cause judicial proceedings to be in
stituted forthwith against such defaulting!
bank, in the Superior Court of the county]
where the same is located, to the end that the j
charter of such bank may he declared as for- j
leited and annulled— and that the assets of the j
same be immediately placed into the hands of\
a receiver under adequate security far the ben- ]
efit of the creditors thereof. Provided the I
defaulting bank shall not, within five days 1
afier such demand and refusal to redeem its]
bill or hills produce satisfactory evidence to j
his Excellency the Governor, that there was;
an indebtedness then due to sad bank by the)
person or persons demanding sp cie, and]
equal to the amount then demanded.
Copy of the Executive order.
It is ordered that John H. Watson, F.srj.,
Solicitor General of the Chattahoochee Cir
cuit, institute Judicial proceedings forthwith
in the Superior Court of the county of Mus
cogee, against'the said The Bank of Colum
bus, being the county in which the same is
located, to the end i’hat the charter of the
said Bank of Columbus be declared as forfeit
ed and annulled, and that the said John 11.
Watson, E-q. proceed to have a Receiver
appointed under the act of the last General
Assembly, intake charge of the assets of said
corporation.
A similar order has been given relative to
the Planters and Mechanics Bank, and the
Chattahoochee Rail Road and Banking Com
pany.
For the f tines.
Mr. Editor: What I told you a week or
two since has come to pass. 1 said to you,
as you may recollect, that if you expected to
;et the Editors of the Enquirer into argument,
you would tail, as they were not going to run
such risk. I said when you cornered them
they would make some dirty personal attack,
bv way of drawing attention off from their
discomfiture. Verily mv words have come
true. What a pitiful subterfuge to resort to
the amount of lax you paid, as an argument
for or against the principle involved—whether
the tax law was oppressive and unjust or not.
Pursue the course you have commenced, ex
posing the constant misrepresentations of the
Enquirer, and its miserable quibbling, and
you will see ultimately who will be the gainer
in public estimation—and if the Enquirer
wants a personal war perhaps you can he fur
nished with a fact or two which may be used
to some purpose in a war of that sort. L.
Punning. —A person named Owen Moore
once left his tradesman somewhat unceremo
niously, on which occasion a wag wrote —
“Owen Moore has run away.
Owin’ wore than he can pay.”
CENTRAL CIRCUIT CONVENTTCtf.
Agreeably to notice previously given, *
Democratic Convention was held at
Georgia, on the sth inst. John R . *O
- was appointed Pres.dent of the Con
vention, which was addressed by the Hon.
Hiram Warner, of Meriwether ; Gen. H c h
A Haralson, of Troup; and William I*
Pryor, Esq. of Harris. A committee was
appointed to prepare a Report and Resolu
tions, which, after consultation, submitted
the following
REPORT.
Whereas a crisis has arrived in the affairs’
of the people of Georgia, when it Becomes
i necessary for them not only to proclaim their
i principles but to carry them into practice—
I when misrepresentation and duplicity i* the
! order of the day —when politicians by their
; professions of friendship for the interests ot
the people acquire power, and rei use to grant
! iothem such relief as their immediate neces
sities require, but tell them boldly that they
would not relieve them if they could, and in
crease their burdens by way of taxation it
is time to rally at the ballot box, and maintain
their rights and privileges as freemen. *1 he
contest is now between the wealth cf* a pam
pered aristocracy, on the one hand, and an
oppressed people on the other.
He it therefore Resolved, That the recom
mendation ol’ Gov. McDonald to the last Leg
islature, for the relief of the people of Geor
g.a, entitles him to their gratitude and sup-
I port on the first Monday in October next —
j and that he will use all honorable means to
effect his re-election, lor the reason that he
has shown himself the lriend ol the people—
not. in profession only, but in practice,
i Resolved. That we have entire confidence
Hi the Central Bank of Georgia, and lecmn
i mend it to be placed upon a looting with the
I other Banks in the State, in regard to its is
! sues, and that we look upon those who seek
hts destruction, as enemies to the best inter-
est of tiie people ot this State.
Resolved, That we view the acts of the
Whig part y now in power, both in the State
and General Government, as calculated to>
i oppress the people with increased burdens and.
! taxations, and that we will use every honor a
- pie exertion to restore the Government into
i the hands of democracy.
Resolved. That as the people of the Cow
eta Circuit were the first to raise the standard
of Relief, they will be the last to abandon it r
and call upon every real Log Cabin man in
; lire country to rally to its support.
Resolved, That we have entire confidence
in the people to redress their own grievances
and when the bona fide tenants of the real
Log Cabins in Georgia take the business of
relief into their own hands, the result will not
! be doubtful.
The foregoing report was read and unani
mously adopted.
On Motion of Col. Boggess of Carroll,
Resolved; That the thanks of the Conven
tion be tendered to Judge Warner, Gen, Har
ralson ad W. B. Pryor, Eq. f r the alfieand
patriotic addresses nolivereu by them to this
meeting.
On niotton of Maj. Long of Coweta,-
Resolved, That a committee of three he‘
appointed to wait on those gentleman who ad
dressed the meeting, and request of them
copy of their speeches delivered this day for
publication.
The committee named are, A'. J. Long,
Wm. A. Spear and Thomas M.Gnlfin, Esqra.
On motion of Col. Stell of Fayette,
Resolved, That the proceedings of the
meeting be signed by the President and Sec
retaries and published in the Southern Tran
script, and all other papers in the State
friendly to the Convention be requested tun
publish the same.
On motion of Maj. Thomasson of Heard,
Resolved, That the thanks of the Conven
tion be tendered to the President and Secre-
tary for the faithful discharge of their duty.
A motion being made and carried to ad
journ, the President rose and returned hi*
thanks to the Convention and citizens gener
ally, tor the order and decorum so strictly ob
served by them on the present occasion, and
after ex! orting them in a very warm and feel
ing manner to kindness and brotherly affec
tion toward one another, he adjourned the.
Convention without a day.
JOHN RAY. President.
Wm. A. Speak,
T. M. Gkiffin,
BY REQUEST.
Fiom the Southern Recorder, Aug, TO.
We cannot but express the it'most aston
ishment at the announcement below, which
we t ike from the Columbus Argus. ‘The
appointment of Receivers authorized to take
possession of that which has not yet been
decided by the courts to he subject to be taken
possession of, and which, judging from the
late decisions on the same points, by the
courts of South Carolina, Alabama, and
Pennsylvania, never will be decided liable to
such custody, presents a case which passes
all that we have ever beard in the way of
legal procedure. The law is plain in its ver
biage, evidently directing the immediate ap
pointment of Jleceivers, to follow the decision
of the lyrieiture of charter decared by the
judgment of the courts, when by that act
there would be legally no coiporation in ex
istence, or officers created under it, and in
volving in it imperiously as a necessary duty
the legal appointment of Receivers of the
property, or assignees to take charge ot it for
the bent fit of its creditors and all concerned-
But the Legislature, in directing the Govern
or, upon the suspension of bar ks, to test in ihe
courts of law their charters, never dreamed”
of deciding the matter first, and going to trial
afterwards. We cannot imagine how the
Judge could have issued such a process, and
become the inflictor of the penalty, before he
had tried the case. It must have been done
without reflection and without ihe usualcon--
sideration given to such ordeis.
The hanks we presume, will resist in every
way, the intrusion of Receivers so appointed i
as they would any other unauthorized intru
ders upon their rights under the protection of.
the constitution and laws of the State. The
Judge has unquesiiona My no a uihnrity to give
to others, the right at present to invade the
property of the banks, nor will such Receiv
ers he shielded from most serious legal conse
quences, under sanction of sucli unauthorized
power,should they attempt under it to invade
the rights of property in this case in accor
dance with such a process.
A VALUABLE
Chattahoochee River Plantation for sale, with*
Crist and Saw Mill attached.
AVERY desirable plantation, containing fifteen -
hundred and fifty acres—lying on the Chatta
hoochee River, in the county of’ btewart, 15 miles
f oiri Lumpkin, Id from Florence, and 21 from Co
lumbus, is offered for sale. On it, are 500 acres of.
cleared land, well fenced, and in a high state of culti
vauon. The greater part of the uncleared land is
oak and hickory, the remainder pine. The Hitcha
ehee Cre-k, a never failing stream —passes through
the plantation, and on it, has been recently erected a.
substantial Grist and Saw Mill, now m successful
operation. There is on the place an excellent gin •>
house,with screw and running gear complete. The r
landin'’ belonging to the plantation is one of the best.
o ,i the river, and a wood yard.established at it. to sup- -
r,!v s earn boats, can be rendered extremely profitable*,
idiia hi®'i pine ridge, one mile and a half from tile’
river, are a small, but comfortable dwelling house and
cabins sufficient to accommodate sixty negroes.—
This plantation has been settled eight years, and it is
said bv those who have resided on the place, that
a single case offever has otiginaled on it during fliat
period.
The Chattahoochee River Plantations are highly
valued, and justly considered among, tlye best in the
South. A bargain is now offered —aad anv ode de-'”
sirotis of purchasing, will do well to examine this place,
as a like opportunity may not again soon offer—and a*’
in the event of its suiting, the terms cannot fail to be
satisfactory. Richard Ivl. Pitts resides on the plan
tation, and will furnish all the information desired, -
respecting it. DANIEL McDO¥GAyj.
Cohtmbus. June 17 sq rf 1
• • ■ \