Newspaper Page Text
ring itself by attacking places o inconsidera
ble.
Assuming, then, that a navy is indispensable
to our defence, and that one less than that
supposed would be in a great measure useless
we are naturally led to lWi into the sources
of our naval power preparatory to the consid
eration of the question, how they will be af
fected by imposing on commerce the addition
al burden this bill would make necessary.
Two elements are necessary to naval pow
er—-sailors and money. A navy is an expen
sive lorce and is only formidable when man
ned with reguarly bred sailors. In our case,
both of these depend on commerce. Com
merce is indispensable to form a commercial
marine, and that to form a naval marine ;
while commerce is with us, if this bill should
pass, the only source of revenue. A flourisn
ishing commerce is, then, in every respect,
the basis of our naval power, and to cripple j
commerce is to cripple that power to para!- :
izo the right arm of our defence. But the
imposition of onerous duties on commerce is
the most certain way to cripple it. Hence
th;s detestable and mischievous measure,
which surrenders the only other source of
revenue, and throws the whole burden of sup
porting the Government exclusively on com
ni3!ce, aims a deadly blow at the vitals of our
power.
The fatal effect of high duties on com
merce is no longer a matter of speculation.— (
The country lias passed recently through two
periods—one of protective tariffs and high
duties, and the other of a reduction of duties
and we have the effects of each in our official
tables, both as regards our tonnage anl com
merce. They speak a language not to be
mi-taken, and far strongerthau any one could
anticipate who has not looked into the the ta
bles, or made himself well acquainted with
the powerful operation of low djlies in ex
tending navigation and commerce. As much
as I had anticipated from their effects, the re
duction of the duties—the lightening of the
burdens of commerce —have greatly exceeded
mv most sanguine expectation.
I shall begin with the tonnage, as more im
mediately connected with naval power ; and,
in order to relative effects of high duties and
low oil navigation, I shall compare the period
from 1824, when the first great increase, of
protective duties took place, to 1830, inclu
sive, when the first, reduction of duties com
menced. During these seven years, which
include the operation of the two protective
tariffs of 1824 and 1828, —that is, the reign of
the high protective tariff system, our foreign
tonage fell off from 631),972 Lons to 573,475,
equal to 81,473 ; our coasting tonnage from
719,190 to 615,310, equal to 103,889 tons
making the falling off in both equal to 105-
370 tons. Yes ;to that extent (103,870) did
our coasting tonnage decline ; the increase of
which, it was confidently predicted by the
protective party, would make up for every
possible loss in our foreign tonnage from their
miserable quack system. Instead of that, the
falling off in the coasting trade is even great
er than in the foreign, proving clearly that
feigh duties are not less injurious to the home
than to foreign trade.
I pass now to the period (I will not say of
free trade—it is far short of that) of reduc
tion of high protective duties ; and now mark
tne contrast between the two. I begin vviih
the year 1831, the first after the reduction
was made on a few articles (principally coffee
and tea,) and will take in the entire period
down to the last returns —that of 1810—ma
king a period of ten years* This period in
cludes the great reduction under the compro
mise act, which is not yet completed, and *
which in its further progress, would add great- j
ly to the increase if permitted to go through ,
undisturbed. The tonnage in the foreign |
trade increased during that period from 5/0-
475 tons to 899,764, equal to 323,283 tons
not much less than two thirds of the whole .
amonnt at the commencement of the period;
and the coasting for the same period increased
from 615,310 to 1,280 999, equal to 665,699
tons—more than double ; and this, too, when,
according to the high tar iff doctrine, our coas
ting trade ought to have fallen off, instead of
increasing, (in consequeuce of the reduction
of the duties :) and thus ir.contestibly proving
that low duties are not less favorable to our
domestic than to our foreign trade. The ag
gregate tonnage for the period has increased
from 1,191,776 to 2,180,763 —nearly doubled.
Such as so favorable to low duties in refer
ence to tonnage is the result of the compari
son between the two periods.
The comparison in reference to commerce
will prove not less so. In making the com
parison, I shall confine myself to the export
trade, not because it gives results more favor
able, —for the reverse is the fact, —but be
cause the heavy loans contracted by the
States during the latter period (between 1830
and 1851) gave a factitious increase to the
imports, which would make the comparison
appear more favorable than it ought in reality
ao be. Their effects were different on the
exports. They tended to decrease rather than
increase their amount. Os the exports, I
shall select domestic articles only, because
they only are atTected by the rate of the du
ties, as the duties on the foreign articles,
paid or secured by bond on their importation,
are returned on reshipment. With these ex
planatory remarks I shall now proceed to the
compaison.
The amount in value of domestic articles
exported for 1825 was $36,944,71.), and to
the year 1830 $59,462,029; making a tailing
off, under the high tariff system, during that
period, of $7,482,718. Divide the period into
two equal parts, of three years each, and it
will be found that the falling off in the ag
gregate of the latter part, compared to the
former, is $13,090,255; showing an avera
geannual decrease of $4,903,413 during the
latter part, compared with the former.
The result will be found very different on
turning to the period from 1830, when the
reduction of the duties commenced, to 1840,
during the whole of which the reduction has
been going on. The value of domestic ex
ports tor 1831 was $61,277,057, and lor 18 U)
$113,895,634, making a difference of $52,-
6;8,577, equal to eighty-three per cent, (o
mitting fractions) for the ten years. If the
period be divided into two equal parts, of five
years each, the increase of the latter, com
pared to the former, will be found to be
$ 139,089,37 1 , making an average annual in
crease for the latter period (from 1835 to
1340) of $27,817,651. This rapid increase
began with the great reduction under the
compromise act of 1833. The very next year
after it passed, the domestic exports rose from
$81,034,162 to $101,189,082 —just like the
recoil which takes place when the weight is
removed from the spring.
But my friends from the manufacturing
States will doubtless say that this vast in
crease of exports from re uction of duties
was confined to the gieat agricultural staples,
and the effects were the reverse as to the ex
port of domestic manufactures. With their
rtion of protection, they cannot be prepared
believe that low duties are favorable to
‘Hi. I a*ik them to give me their attention,
v aile I show how greaily their error is- So
far from not partaking of this mighty iiupu’se
from the reduction, they fe’t it more power
fully than other articles of domestic exports,
as I shall now proceed to show from the ta
bles.
The exports of domestic manufactures du
ring the period from 18-4 to 1832, inclusive—
tliai is, the period of the high protective du
ties under the tariffs of 1324 and 1823 fell
from $.>,72?),797 to $5,050,(333, making a
decline of $d78,133 during that period. The
decline was progressive, and nearly uniform,
70111 year to year, through the whole period.—
in 18 33 the compromise act was passed, which
•educed the duties at nearly halfi and has
since made very considerable progressive re
unet ion. The exports of domestic manufac
tures suJJo.ily, as if by migic, sprung, for
ward, and have been rapidly and uniformly in
creasing ever’ since ; having risen, in the
eight years from 1832 to 1840, from $5,050,-
633, to $12.108,538, —a third more than
double in that short period, and that immedi
ately following a great decline in the prece
ding period, of eight years under high duties.
Such were the blighting effects of high du
ties on the tonnage and the commerce of the
country, and such the invigorating effects oj
their reduction. There can be no mistake.—
The documents from which the statements
are taken are among the public records, and
opeii to the inspection of all. The results
are based on the operations of a series of
years, showing them to be the consequence ot
fixed and steady cqpses, and not accidental
circumstances ; while the immediate and pro
gressive decrease and increase of tonnage,
both coastwise and foreign, and of exports,
incuding manufactured as well as other arti
cles, with the laying on of high duties, and
! the commencement and progress of their re
duel ion, point out, beyond all controversy,
high duties to be the cause of one, and reduc
tion —low duties—that of the other.
it will be vain for the advocates of high du
ties to seek lor a different explanation of the
cause of these striking and convincing facts
in the history of the two periods. The first
of these, from 1824 to 1832, is the very peri
od when the late Bank of the United S.at.es
j was in the fullest and most successful opera
i tion ; —when exchanges, according to their
own showing, were the lowest and most
steady, and the currency the most umf rin and
sound; and yet with all these favorable cir
cmns awes, which they estimate so highly,
and with no hostile, cause operating from
abroad, our tonnftge and commerce, in every
branch on which the duties could operate, fell
off: oil the contrary, during the latter period,
when all the hostile causes which they are in
‘.he habit of daily denouncing on this floor, and
of whose disastrous consequences we have
heard so many eloquent lamentations ; —yes,
in spile of tampering with the currency and
the removal of the deposites ; in spite of the
disordered state of the whole machinery of
commerce ; the deranged state of the curren
cy, both at home and abroad ; in spite of the
exchanges, and of what we are constantly
told of the agony of the country ; —both have
increased, rapidly increased, —increased be
yond all former example ! Such is the over
powering effect of removing weights from
the springs of industry, and striking off’
shackles from the free exchange of products,
as to overcome all adverse causes.
Let me add, Mr. President, that of this
highly prosperous period to industry, (howev
er disastrous to those who have over-specula
ted, or invested their funds in rotten and
swindling institutions,) the most, prosperous of
the whole, as the tables show, is that during
the operation of the sub-treasury.—a period
when some progress was made towards the
restoration of the currency of t he Constitution.
In spite of the many difficulties and embar
rassments of that trying period, the progres
sive reduction of the duties, and the gradual
introduction of a sounder currency, gave so
vigorous a spring to our industry as to over
come them all; showing clearly, if the coun
try was blessed with the lull and steady oper
ation of the two, under favorable circumstan
ces, that it enjoy a degree of prosperty ex
ceeding what even the friends of that measure
anticipated.
Having now shown that the navy is the right
arm of our defence; that it depends on com
merce for its resources, botli as to inen and to
means ; and that high duties destroy the
growth of our commerce, including navigation
and tonnage; I have, I trust, satisfactorily es
tablished the position which I laid down—that
this measure, which would place the entire
burden of supporting the Government on com
merce, would parakze the right arm of our
power. Veto it down, and leave commerce
as free as possible ; and it will furnish ample
resources, skilful and gallant sailors, and an
overflowing treasury, to repe 1 danger far from
our shores, and maintaining our rights and dig
nity in our external relations. With the aid
of the revenue from land, ami proper econo
my, we might soon have ample means to en
large our navy to that of a third of the British,
with duties far below the limits of twenty per
cent prescribed by the compromise act. The
annual appropriation, or cost of the British
navy, is about $30,000,000. Ours, with the
addition of the appropriation for the home
squadron made this session, is (say) $3,000,-
000 ; requiring only the addition of four mil
lions to make it equal to a third of that of Great
Britain, provided that we can build, equip, man,
and maintain ours as cheaply as she can hers.
That we can, with proper management, can
scarcely be doubted, when we reflect that our
navigation, which involves almost all the ele
ments of expense that a navy does, success
fully competes with hers over the world. Nor
are we deficient in men—gallant and hardy
sailors—to man a navy on a large scale as is
suggested. Already our tonnage is two thirds
of that of Great Britain, and will in a short
time approach an equality with hers, if our
commerce Could be fairly treated, l eave,
then, in tho Treasury, the funds proposed to
be withdrawn by this detestable bill; apply
it to the navy and defences of the country ;
and even at its present amount, with small
additional aid from the impost, it will give the
means of raising it, with the existing, appro
priation, to the point suggested ; and with the
steady increase of the fund from the increased
sales of lands, keeping pace with the increase
of commerce under a system of light and e
qual duties, we may, with proper economy in
the collection and disbursements of the reve
nue, raise our navy steadily, without feeling
the burden, to half the size of the British—or
more, if more be needed for defence and the
maintenance of our rights. Beyond that, we
ought never to aim.
1 have (said Mr. C.) concluded what I pro
posed to say. I have passed over ninny and
weighty objections to this measure which I
could not bring within the scojie of my re
marks, without exhausting the patience of the
body, .'.’id now, Senators, in conclusion, let
me entreat you, in the name of all that is good
and patriotic—in the name of your common
country and the immortal fathers of our Revo
lution and founders of our Government—to
reject this dangerous bill. 1 implore you to
pause and ponder before you give your final
vote fora measure which, if it should pass and
become a permanent law, would do more to
defeat the ends for which tins Government
was instituted, and to subvert the Constitu
tion and destroy the liberty of the country,
than any which has ever been proposed.
For the Times.
Mr Editor-I solicit a place in your paper for
a few remarks. The time for our suffrage is
near at hand, and our love of country and
freedom most justly demands of us a dispas
sionate and impartial exercise of our judgment
in the selection of men to Legislate, as will
atlopt such measures as will secure our pros
perity and dignity as a state, both at home
and abroad. Men who are untrammelled by
party spirit, men who always have, and will
at all times, frown indignantly at the mere in
timation of humbugging a citi en, in order to
e!ici„ his favor at the poiis.
A slight glance at the course pursued by
the party now in power, give convincing proof
of the evils which must necessarily tend such
corruptions—-they declaimed against the late
administration, as wanting economy, lavishing
the peoples money on favorites, and a disposi
tion to oppress the poor, and caused their pres
ses to teem with appeals to the yeoman and
mechanic. Have they made good their plight
ed faith J No 1 not ia a single instance. Re
trenchment and reform was their cry. The
mechanic was promised immediate relief,
plenty of work, and high wages ; but when
their object was effected, their promises were
useless, their philanthropy quickly chilled.—
Have they either done or attempted to carry
out such measures? No? About the hrst step
was to lavish away $25,000 of the people's
money in the way of favoritism; and then
again pluck from the revenue of the govern
ment, the proceeds arising from the public
lands, which is virtually an underhanded as
sumption of the State’s debts—and to supply
its place and keep good the Revenue, impose
a high Tariff on the necessaries of life, and
call it economy. From what party in the
county “of Muscogee, do these wonderful
guardians of the public good, receive appro
bation. Is it not that party who rally under
the name of Whig. Men, who when accused
the last year, of being in favor of a Tariff and
the assumption of the State debts by the gov
ernment, denied it most peremptorily ; but
now the scale has changed, and the people
humbugged. Democrats away to ti e polls on
the day of election, and there express through
the ballot box, by giving your suffrage to the
Democratic Ticket, your determination to
avert if possible, the political evils that are
lowering over our heads. A Mechanic.
THETI M E S .
The union of ihc states and the sovereignty of ihe states
COLUMBUS, SISP TIMBER 30, 1841,
DEMOCRATIC r l ICK E T
FOR GOVERNOR,
Charles j. McDonald.
For Senate,
Col. A. McDOUGALD,
Representatives,
Maj. JOHN 11. HOWARD,
Hon. W. T. COLQUITT,
Hon. MARK A. COOPER,
Col. JOHN H. WATSON.
Randolph County.
Senate,
Gen. B. GRAVES.
Representatives.
Col. A. M. HUGHES,
Col. S. A. SMITH.
Stewart County.
Senate,
NEIL ROBINSON.
Representatives.
JOTLN D. PITTS,
D. G. ROGERS,
JAMES M. MITCHELL.
Fur Sheriff,
M. M. FLEMING.
Report of Deaths in the City of Columbus,
for the week ending September 28 :
Cholera Morbus—l male.
Mania Potu—l male.
Fever—l child.
W. S. CHIPLEY,
Piesklent Board ofHealth.
The Occurrences of Yesterday.—For
the first time, on yesterday, were seen signs
of the approaching election. The Cily was
thronged with country people, and speeches
and barbacues were the order ol the day,
giving significant indications that an impor
tant event was at hand.
We regret that our engagements debarred
us from witnessing the displays; and especially
from listening to the remaiks of one of the
late honorable members of the Legislature
from this county, who did us the honor to
make special reference to us. We expected
a notice of some sort from the same gentle
man, some two weeks since, as he remarked
he was on his way to a barbacue to answer
some of our objections to his course in the last
Legislature. Contrary to our usual cus'om,
we made an effort to he present, although
several miles in tiie country, to discover where
in we had done the gentleman injustice, and
if satisfied of error, to repair the unintentiou
ed injury. The gentleman said nothing which
we understood to refer to our comments on
his course. He did say, however, that if noth
ing were done by the last Legislature to relieve
the people, he was not censurable, because he had
made no promises to that effect.
We regret extremely the lossol temper on
the part of the gentleman. He must certain
ly have ominous forebodings that his party
and its principles are in a desperate condi
tion. We beg him to keep cool. He will
make nothing, in the long run, by such exhi
bitions.
The gentleman boasted,*we understand, of
his former connection with a Free Press —and
of the perfect freedom, from ail extraneous
influences, with'which he wielded his pen.
We are not aware that we are in ad fife rent
situation; and if the gentHnan will ask for
the information, we presume we can readily
satisfy him that our position, as to the perfect
control of this pi ess, is quite as enviable as that
of the gentleman at any time during the pe
riod of his connection with a public news
paper—so far as independence of thought or
action is concerned.
YVe have made no personal allusions to the:
gentleman, nor shall we—We feel quite ab e ;
- . . |
to contend wi h him, where principles are
concerned, or doctrines are to be maintained.
He lias chosen, however, to exhibit himself
on a different theatre —one where we shall
not follow him.
CAPPING THE CLIMAX !
Has the Enquirer seen, in a communication
in the Georgia Argus, of yesterday, the fa-1
lowing statement extracted from one of its
numbers of December last, after the Presides
tial election had terminated l Is there no mis- 1
take about the genuineness of the article ?
Can it be possible that the Enquirer had the
temerity to assail us with so much fury, be
cause we stated that we thought the Hon. Mr.
Alford represented the matter too strongly,
when he 6aid his constituents seut him to
Congress to make a Bank ? Well, well. Col.,
Holt recommended to the suffrages of the
people, as late as the 23d of December last-,
because he was anti-bank, “ a doctrine long
maintained by the State Rights Party of Geor-
S** . I
Col. Holt must certainly have recollected
this notice of him by the Enquirer ; and when
he saw the perilous situation in which we
were placed by coming in contact with that
print, why did he not say to us, “ look at the
Enquirer of 23d of December, 1840 :
From the Columbus Enquirer, 23d Dec. 1840.
Col. Holt and the Bank.—-Observing
that some of the Van Buren presses are at
tempting to misrepresent the views of Col.
Holt, in relation to the Bank question, we
have taken occasion to inform oursejve- as to
the truth of the matter.
**Col. Holt, holds the doctrine ichickius long
been maintained ly the State Rights party of
Georgia, on the question of the constitutional
ity of a Bank. He believes that no such grant
of power exists in the constitution ; and could
not vote for such an institution under the pres
entprocisions of that instrument
The compromise act- —The Augusta Con
stitutionalist is contending that, under the
Compromise Act, the home valuation is es
tablished, by which more onerous burdens are
imposed. If the .Editor of that paper will re
fer to a speech of Mr. Clay, delivered some
time last year at Taylorsville, Hanover coun
ty, Virginia, he will find his interpretation of
the law sustained by that gentleman, who
ought, if any one, to understand its terms.
We hare not seen the speech since its de
livery, no: have we it now to refer to ; but if
we do not err very much, Mr. Clay said, on
that occision, that he had no disposition to
disturb ‘he Compromise Act, that it was not
unfavortble to the manufacturing interest,
that, according to the valuation established by
the Bil, the 20 per cent, duty was, in reality,
a dutyof 25 percent, or upwards.
Tie Taxes.—ls it be the fact as stated,
that a large proportion of the taxes assessed
will lot be collected, because the law impo
sing them is unconstitutional, why did the
Legislature pass it, especially as the percen
tage allowed to Receivers will, we learn,
require a large appropriation from the next
Legislature 1 It has been stated to us that
the Receivers are entitled, under the law, to
a sum not much less than $30,000 for making
the Returns on Change Bills. Now how can
the Legislature, acting in good faith, refuse to
pay these Officers for services which it com
pelled them to perform ? Is it the prerogative
of the officer to determine whether a law re
quiring him to perform certain acts, is consti
tutional or not, must be observed by him, or
disregarded .< And if not, how can the Le
gislature, with any propriety, refuse to com
pensate him ? Who is to blame then for sub
jecting the State to so onerous a burden, but
the majority in the last Legislature ?
The Enquirer of yesterday still insists, with
unexampled hardihood, that the Land Bill
became a law, with the amendment of Mr.
Berrien—and then quotes two Nurllieni pa
pers to show that, by this amendment, tariff
men were deceived. YVe ask the Enquirer
for what reason it thus misrepresents the facts
of the case? Does the Enquirer justify itself
by pretending that the amendment of Mr.
Clay, which did prevail , is in substance identi
cal with that of Mr. Lerrien? If.so, why did
the House expunge at once the amendment
of the latter, and subsequently adopt that of
Mr. Clay? For the. reason that it is different
in terms, and contemplates altogether a dif
ferent result. Look at the article from Ihe
N. Y. Herald, in this paper, which lully re
veals the design and effect of the amendment
of Mr. Clav.
Mr. Tyler and his late Cabinet.—We
recommend the special attention of the reader
to the communication in another part of this
paper, touching thefrecent disruption ol'the
II arrison Cabinet, and the efforts of some of
its members to impeach the integrity and
consistency of the President. The article is
written by a gentleman amply able to dissect
and analyse the txihject—and the distinction
taken by him respecting Bills of Exchange,
and the evident meaning of Mr. Tyler when
speaking of them, is one that seems to have
escaped the attention of others whose com
ments on this point have met our eve—but
will nevertheless, we think, be considered the
correct and proper distinction, and the one
intended by the President.
The communication, a'so, detects other in
consistencies amfperversions in the published
statements of Messrs. Ewing and Bell—and
! we hope the writer will furnish the Public
| with additional contributions from his pen on
i this subject.
One point, particularly, in which the accu
sers of Mr. Tyler seem to think they have
j involved him in contradiction and doub'e
! dealing, is his alleged assent to establish
agencies in the States, without their assent,
i with power,; merely to deal in exchanges,
I drawn in one State and payable in another —
or between Ihe United Slates and any foieign
State or Nation. What exchange did he
mean? To discount a Bill drawn on time,
and payable as staled? Or simply to allow
the agency in Georgia to furnish any individ
ual desiring it with current funds in New
| York, bv that individual paying the amount
jto the Georgia Agency, wilh a proper per
cent for the trouble of transacting the busi
ness. What does a dealer in exchange un
derstand you to mean when you apply to him
to sell you exchange? That you wish a Bill
on New York, on time, discounted by him?
By no means. That is a branch ol legiti
mate and regular binking operations. He
understands you to mean nothing more nor
less than what is stated above.
Now we ask did not both ol the Bills pre
sented to Mr. Tyler contemplate the discount
ing of B.lls of Exchange ? And had not Mr.
Tyler, from first to last, set his face agains l
discounting, in any shape or form? Can the
inference be resisted that, on this point, it was
designed to entrap him, and establish a Bank
of discounts, in the form of Exchange ?
THE WHI(TuU.nIj KESSiuiN A I'AUDRESS.
At the close of the late extra session of
Congress, and before the exasperation grow
ing out of the second veto of President Tyler
had subsided, a meeting of the Whig mem
bers was called to deliberate on the new state
of things which had arisen, and to adopt the
most efficient steps “to head ” “Captain ly
ler.” We have not room this week for the
address entire. Its material points, however,
ire stated in the conclusion of this article.
The meeting was held on the 11th of Sep
tember, instant. Messrs. Dixon and Morrow
presided—the former a Senator from Rhode
Island, and the latter a Representative from
Ohio. Mr. Mangum, one of the Whig Sena
tors from North i.arolina, moved the appoint
ment of a committee, to be composed of mem
bers of both Houses, to draft a suitable address
to the Whig party throughout the country,
apprising it of the predicament in which that
party fiids itself by the action of the Execu
tive, ard suggesting an outli”'’ of its luture
movements. Mr. Berrien, o. irgia, was at
the heal of the Committee, although the ad
dress is said to have been vvritien by Mr. Ken
nedy, a Whig member of Congress from Bal
timore city.
A Washington letter writer states that per
fect unanimity did not exist in the meeting—
that Gov. Morrow, of Ohio, one of the Chair
men, and others, disapproved both of the mat
ter and manner of the address, as calculated
to produce serious divisions in the ranks of the
Whig party, and lead to its speedy overthrow.
The New York Journal of Commerce states
in reference to the meeting that, when the
vote was taken on the adoption of the address,
not more than 20 or 30 members remained in
the room, the remainder, who had been present,
having dodged the question. So that, although
it is stated the address “ was unanimously
adopted,” this unanimity was confined to a
fragment—a meie atom of the Whig Repre
sentatives in Congress.
There are four points in the address, which
embrace all in it worthy of special notice, and
they may be thus designated—The insignifi
cance of Mr. Tyler, politically, at the time of
his nomination for the Vice Presidency—his
disapproval of the Bank Bills, originating not
in conscientious scruples as to the Constitu
tional power of Congress on the subject, but
the result purely of corrupt views and unho'y
aspirations—his voluntary and complete with
drawal from the Whig party—and the neces
sary abandonment of him by that parly. These
constitute the essence of the address.
o,i the first head—after enumerating the
heavy loss to the Nation, and more especially
to the Whig party, by the death of General
Harrison—the Committee remark :
In this our calamity, we hoped to find con
solation in the character and principles of him
whom the Constitution bad designated to fill
the office of the departed chief. It is true,
that towards that individual, even at the mo
ment of his selection for the Vice Presidency,
no very earnest public attention had been di
rected ; and it is equally true that but passing
regard was bestowed upon tire current of Ins
previous life and opinions. We only knew him
as one professing to be a member of the Whig
party, and as staking to identify himself with
those great leaders of that, party whose opin
ions and principles were deeply engraved in
the most conspicuous acts of our political his
tory, and were read and understood by every
citizen in ihe land. In this connection, where
he had sought to be prominent, we discerned
what we conceived, and what doubtless be
meant, to be a pledge of faithful adherence
to the cardinal doctrines for which we strug
gled, and with which the hopes of the coun
try were indissolubly bound up,
The disapproval by Mr. Tyler of the Bank
Bills is thus treated.
We are constrained to say that we find no
ground to justify us in tiie conviction that the
veto ol the President has been interposed on
this question solely upon conscientious an I
well-considered opinions of constitutional
scruple as to his duty in the case presented.
On the contrary, too many proofs have been
forced upon our observation to leave us free
from the apprehension that the President lias
permitted himself to be beguiled into an opin
ion that, by this exhibition of his prerogative,
he might be able to divert the policy of his
Administration into a channel which should
lead to new political combinations, and ac
complish results which must overthrow the
present division of party m the country, and
finally produce a state of things which “those
who elected him, at least, have never contem
plated. We have seen, from an early period
of the session, that the Whig party did not
enjoy the confidence of the President. With
mortification we have observed that his asso
ciations more sedulously aimed at a free coin
tnunion with those who have bee i busy
to prostrate our purposes rather than those
whose principles seemed to be most iden
tified with the power by which tie was
elected. We have reason to believe that
tie has permitted himself to be approach
ed, counselled, and influenced by those who
have manifested least interest in the success
of Whig measures. What were represented
to be his opinions and designs have been free
ly, and even insolent y pu forth in cert; ii pm.
tions, and those not the most reputable, ol
the public press, in a manner that ought to be
deemed offensive to his honor, as it certainly
was to the reelings ol those who were be
lieved to be ins inends. In the earnest en
deavor manifested bv the members of the
Whig party in congress to ascertain specifi
cally the President’s notions in reierence to
the details of such a bill relating to a Fiscal
Agent as would be likely to meet bis appro
bation, the frequent changes of his opinion
and the singular want of consistency in his
views have baffled his best friends, and ren
dered the hope of adjustment with him impos
sible.
On the third head—the withdrawal of the
President from the Whig party—the Commit
tee thus discourse:
“ We are constrained to say, that the Pre
sident, by the course he has adopted in re
spect to the application of the veto power to
two successive Bank charters, each of which
there was just reason to believe would meet,
his approbation ; by his withdrawal of confi
dence from his real friends in Congress and
from the members of h s Cabinet; by his be
stowal of it upon others notwithstanding their
notorious opposition to leading measures of
his Administration, has voluntarily separated
himself from those by whose exertions and
suffrages he was elevated *o that office through
which he reached his present exalted station.
The existence of this unnatural relation is as
extraordinary to us as the annunciation of it is
painful and mortifying.”
And lastly, the Committee thus repudiate
Mr. Tyler, and prescribe the course of the
Whig party
“Those who brought the President into
power can be no longer , in any manner or de
gree, justly held responsible or blamed for the
administration of the Executive branch of the
Government: and that the President and his
advisers should be exclusively hereafter deemed
accountable . But, as by the joint acts of Provi
dence and the People he is constitutionally
invested with the powers of Chief Magistrate,
whilst he remains in office he should be treat
ed with perfect respect by all. And it will be
the duty of the Whigs, in and out of Congress,
to give to his official acts and measures fair
and full consideration, approving them and
co-operating in their support where they can,
and differing from and opposing any of them
only from a high sense of public duty.”
The case of McLeod. —On Monday last,
the 27th inst. the trial of McLeod was to have
commenced at Utica, in the State of New
York.
In no event, we imagine, will this case pro
duce any serious misunderstanding, much less
ruptue, between Great Britain and the U.
States. The following from the New York
Journal of Commerce, and from the N York
correspondent of the Augusta Constitutional
ist, indicate pret’y clearly that, in case of his
conviction, the pardoning power will be ex
ercised by Gov. Seward.
The New Y’ork Journal of Commerce of
Friday, remarks as follows;
“Me I j. —We are happy to have reason
to say that whatever may be the result of
McLeod’s trial. Gov. Seward will treat the
matter as the peace of two great nations de
mands.”
“ The McLeod affair I think now quite out
of dinger, if ever it was in. The news from
England is quite pac.fic, and besides our Gov
ernor Seward who chances ex erfjicio, to hold
destiny in his hands, declares as 1 have reason
to believe, that on the termination of the tria \
which ever way the jury may decide, that he
will immediately have him transported beyond
the boundaries of the U. S.”
THE VETO POWER
-Ihe following is one of the measures to
which the Whig Address, referred to in ano
ther part of this paper, asks the concurrence
and support of the Whig party.
! A reduction of the Executive power, by a
! further limitation ol the Veto, so as to secure
I obedience to the public will, as that shall be
expressed by the immediate Representatives
of the People and the Sta‘es, with no other
control than that which is indispensable to avert
hasty unconstitutional legislation . ”
We do not understand that the most stren
uous advocate of the Veto feature in the Con
stitution, desires for it any other or greater
‘control than that which is indispensable to
invert hasty or unconstitutional legislation.”
We certainly shall never advocate its exercise
except on the happening of one or the other ot
: these contingencies —and this was, doubtless,
! the application of the power designed by the
; framers of the Constitution. The proposition
| of the Committee, it appears to us, ii.voices a
! contradiction ; or, as a whole, is nugatory—
•one part rebutting the other. Although ad
’ vocating its exercise so far as “to avert hasty
or unconstitutional legislation,” the committee
: nevertheless desire that the power may bo
(restricted “so as to secure obedience to tho
! public will, as that'shall be expressed by the
1 immediate Representatives of the People and
! t lie States.” No one desires, so far as we can
| discover, that obedience to the public will, as
, indicated by the immediate Representatives
I >f the People, should not be yielded. To this
! doctrine all parties assent, as in conformity
j with the genius and spirit of our Institutions
But to obviate possible defects, and to arres 1
! possible evils, which will occasionally spring
i from the deliberations of large bodies, in mo
ments of excitement, and at periods unsuited
, for calm reflection, there ought to he some
(check, it is universally admitted, interposed
i by a third party, who is lemoved from the un
’ fortunate influences which originated the un
i wise legislation, and yet accountable to the
! people for the honest exercise of the vast pow
ier confided for the most important purposes, j
I I'o this the Committee assent, as they approve
of the power so far as “to avert hasty or un- ;
constitutional legislation.”
What then is the meaning of the commit- 1
tee ! That the public will, in all cases, as j
indicated by the immediate Representatives
of the People, shall be observed ! ‘1 h:s
would make the people, in every contingency,
the direct interpreters of the Constitution.
This, however, is not Ihe view taken by the
Committee, because they expressly except
“hasty or unconstitutional legislation,” which,
it is admitted, may proceed from a minute ob
servance of the public will. Now, as it is con
ceded that the immediate Representatives of
the People, in strictly adhering to the public j
will, tnny legislate hastily and unconstitution- i
ally, neither Representative nor People ought .
to be entrusted with the Veto power,as its very |
object is to arrest their improprieties. It must,;
therefore, ba confided to other hands. To
whom shall it be entrusted } To one man, or
to a body of ffieii ! And in exercising the ;
power, whose opinions or judgment control—
;he individual or individuals enjoying the pro- j
rogative or some other and fourth party t li
the President be entrusted with ihe power, is i
lie to pronounce upon the propriety or consti- j
tutionality of the law submitted to him—or is j
be to follow the directions of another head— 1
and whose head shall it be ? One wiser—
more amenable to a just responsibility for the
proper exercise of the prerogative —or better
disposed to promote the public good ! How
can such a head be constituted, if the quali
ties which form it cannot be found in the Chief
Magistrate, elected by the whole people, un
dergoing in the canvass the most rigid scruti- i
ny as to all matters and things appertaining to j
the proper administration of the duties of the ;
Government] .
Jt is apparent from the preceding imperfect
suggestions that “hasty or unconstitutional
legislation” may proceed from the immediate
Representatives of the People—acting some
times, perhaps, in conformity with the public
will. It is granted by the committee that such
legislation ought to be arrested. Objection is
made, however, to the power of arrest being
placed in the hands of one man. Let our
banner be, “the will of the Nation uacontrol
led oy the will of one man.” Have the com
mittee reflected bow often the will of the Na
tion can be—probably has been—defeated by
the will of one man—and this man elected by,
and responsible to a mere fragment of the
public will! Look at the organization of the
Senate, lias it not an equal voice with the
other Branch in the passage of laws ] Can
it not resist the adoption of ahy law, and nul
lify it as effectually as the Veto of the Execu
tive 1 Arkansas, Rhode Island and Delaware
have an equal voice with New’ Y’ork, Penn- j
syivania and Virginia. A Senator from one j
of these inconsiderable States may prevent 1
the passage of a law—may defeat the pub'ic
will. In this instance, is not the will of “one j
man” exhibited in a more odious light than in
the case of the Executive—one vested with
power by a mere majority of the Representa’ j
tives of the people of an inconsiderable State
—a mere fragment of the people of the Union |
—the other holding authority by the voice of |
the majority of the whole people of the United
States, and whose tenure of Office is shorter
than that of the Senator ? Is not the Senate
an admirable feature in our system of Gov
ernment —one of its conservative principles—
protecting the weak against the strong 1 And
who has ever thought of the modification,
much less of the destruction of the wholesome
restraint with which it is entrusted 1 The
power conceded to the President is designed
to effect the same great end—‘o save the coun
tryjfrom the evils and dangers of rash impul
ses which may, at unpropitous seasons, mis
lead the public mind.
We could extend this reasoning to an in
definite length, and show the impropriety, in
deed absolute danger, of curtailing this pre
rogative of the Executive—but our limits for
bid. We shall, however, resume the subject,;
and refer to that rashness and improper feeling
on the part of our opponents, which, the mo- i
ment they are thwarted in the attainment of j
a cherished object, seek to accomplish it bv \
prostrating one of the barriers designed to
preserve and perpetuate our admirable form
of Government —to obviate the evils of hasty
and improvident legislation—and particularly
to guard the rights of the minority against the
encroachments of the majority.
THE VETO FuVvßit.
Wo find the subjoined pertinent remarks cf
Judge Story respecting the veto power, in a
late number of the Augusta Constitutionalist
The Veto Power.—Judge Story, in his
Commentary on the Constitution, held the
following language on the veto power of the
President:
“ The truth is, as lias been already hinted,
that the real danger is, that tiie Executive will
use the power too rarely. lie will do it only
( on extraordinary occasions, when a just regard
1 to the public safety, or public interest, or a
! constitutional obligation, or a necessity of
! maintaining the appropriate rights and prero-
I gatives of his office, compel him to the step,
j and then it will be a solemn appeal to the
! people themselves from their o.wn representa
tives. Even within these narrow limits, the
j power is highly valuable ; and it will silently
operate as a preventive check, by discouva-
Igmg attempts to over awe, or to control the
t Executive. Indeed, one of the giea’est bene
fits of such a power is, that its influence is felt,
1 not so much in its actual exercise, as in its
I silent and secret energy as a preventive.”
And again,—
“ The truth is, that the legislative power is
| tho great and overruling power in every free
government. It has been remarked with
i equal force and sagacity, that the legislative
power is every where extending tiie sphere
1 of its activity, and drawing all power to its
1 impetuous vortex. The founders of our re
public, wise as they were, under the influence
and dread oflhe royal prerogative, which was
| pressing upon them, never for a moment seem
i to have turned their eyes from -he immediate
| danger 10 liberty from that source, combined
as it was with an LeriJiiary authority and an
j hereditary peerage to support it. They seem
I never to have recollected the danger from
| legislative usurpation, which by ultimately
| assembling ail power in the same hands, must
lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by
executive usurpations, i'he representatives
of the people will watch with jealousy every
encroachment of the Executive magistrate,
lor it trenches upon their own authority. But
who shall watch tiie encroachments of the
Representatives themselves ? Will tney be
i as jealous of ihe exercise of power by thein
j selves, as by others ! A legislative body is
■ not ordinarily apt to mistrust iis own powers,
an I far less tiie temperate exercise of those
! powere. There is a strong propensity in pub
lic bod.es to accumulate power in thetr own
hands—to widen the extent ol their own influ
ence, and to absorb within their own circle the
means and ihe motives of patronage.”
Mr Clay, in a letter of very recent da'o
addressed to some Whigs in Baltimore, em
ploys the following language regarding thi<
prerogative of the Executive, recently discov
ered to be so very alarming.
“Shall we be discouraged because one man
presumes to set up his individual will against
the will of the nation / On ihe contrary let
us superadd to ihe previous duties which we
lie ‘ der to )ir country, that of plucking from
the Constitution tins sign of arbitrary power/
this odious but obsolete vestige of Royal pre
rogative.- Let us, by a suitable amendment
;o that instriunen,- declare that llie Veto—-
that parent and fruitful source of till our public
ills—-shall itself be overruled by majorities in
tho two Houses of Congress. They would
persuade us that, it is harmless,- because its
office is preventive or conservative ! As if a
nation might not be as much injured by the
arrest of ihe enactment of good laws as by tho
promulgation ol bad ones ! ”
la a moment ot excitement—and of exas
peration at the defeat of the Bunk Bid—and
probably without suitable reflection—leading
wings, &> whig Journals, are condemn rrg this
; prerogative ol the Executive as an odious
1 power; and are committing themselves to art
! amendment of tlo it.-
If, as was int imated by us two weeks since, the
people have m every instance—-and at peri
ods not remote from its exercise-—approved of
the use of this power by the Head of the Na
tion—at is certainly worthy of serious consid
eration whether, instead of being in tiie lan -
guage of Mr. Clay an “odious but obsolete
vestige of Royal prerogative,” it is not in the
better matured and more unimpassioned lan
guage of Judge Story a “’highly valuable
power”—operating “as a preventive check,-
by discouraging attempts to overawe,*or to
control the Executive.”
i; At any rate, before condemning it, or pledg
ing opposition 10 it, the Country,- and particu
larly the South, might to view both sides of
the question, and examine well the whole
ground. In one instance—to mention 116
other—that of the Maysville Road Bill—it
met the warm approval of the South—by con
fining the action of Congress, on the subject
of Internal Improvements by the General
Government, within Constitutional limits—
and by arresting a system of lawless and ex
travagant expenditure, uniformly and univer
i sally condemned by the w hole South, and by
| S ate Rights men throughout the Union, as
both unconsiituti >na! and nr st iniquitous.
It was mentioned to us, but the other day,
that a Whig member of Congress from Geor
gia, in conversation with some of his political
| friends, inculcated moderation and good feel
mg towards Mr. ly.er, as upon him, at this
particular moment and in reference to an im
portant matter, the South had to rely for
exemption front the operation of an unconsti
j tutional law. Tite whole Tariff law, said he,
will be brought before Congress at its next
! session, and there are reasons to believe that
i the Irgh Tariff*men are in the ascendancy in
i that body, and our reliance is upon the Presi
dent—lie will suffer no Revenue Bill unjust
and oppressive in its character to became a
law. The opinion entertained of Mr. Trier,
by the gentleman alluded to, may not be'alto
gether accurate as he has suffered an ex
tremely defective Revenue Bill to receive his
sanction—but yet if Congress is constituted
as is supposed, • the only reliance is on the
President to arrest its improper action onth:s t
as well as on other subjects: and from the
firmness evinced by him ort the Bank question,
there is certainly ground to authorize the be
lief that a manifestly unconstitutional law
will receive its quietus in his hands.
We repeat—in reference to this veto power
there are two sides to the question ; and re
versing somewhat the language of Mr. Clay,
we ask “ if a Nation might not be as much
(yea more,) injured ” “by the promulgation
of bad laws,” “as by the (occasional) arrest
of the enactment of good ones.”
Fur ibe Time*.
Important Discovery.— The Editors of
the Enquirer have made a discovery, for which
I think they are clearly entitled to a medal.
They have discovered that a man will be ben
efited by taking a dollar from, provided you
give him 90 cents back again. In other words,
that we are benefitted by the late Revenue
bill, because Georgia will get §llOB 000 from
the General Government, after having had
8118—or 120,000 taken from her—>r to be
more plain, we get back the same n o njy we
paid, deducting the expense of cot ectum,
which is said to be some S <>r 10 per cent.
This is worse than the man who found eleven
bushels of wheat, and pot the same e eteu
bushels hack, and the s'raw to boot. In our
case we leave the straw and a *> i- ■el of the
wheat. A Tax lai lg.