Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.