About Georgia courier. (Augusta, Ga.) 1826-1837 | View Entire Issue (April 28, 1834)
2 THE COURIER. BY J. G. M’ WHO RTE R. ——2—l-M—l ' J ' JL- L I - wTfd MS —This Paper is published ovary MONDAY WEDNESDAY and FRIDAY Afternoon, at $6 per an Mm nnrable in advance. COUNTRY PAPER—Published every FRID AY afternoon nt $3 per annum,i n advance, or $4 al Clio expiration of Subscriptions received for less time than six months. rr ADVERTISEMENTS, not exceeding a square will be iaiertcdlhe first time at 75 cts. per square aud 37 1-2 far aveh continuance. ~ Advertisements of one square, published Weekly, at Io oents for the first insertion, aud 50 cents, or each con rorsen* mfvertisinir bv the year will be charged 30 dollars including subscription and will be entitled to one square When® persons have standing advertisements of several squares, special contracts may be made. KT Ni deductions will be made in future from these aHadvertisements must have the number of rnserlsone marked on them; otherwise they will be inserted til) for. bid,and charged accordingly. .... • H ERIFFS, CLERKS, and other public officers, wnl hai e 25 per cent, deducted in their favor- MR. PETIGRU’S ARGUMENT. ( Concluded.) In looking to the Ordinance of 1833, vv© find ihat°allegiancd to the State is ex pressly declared to be inconsistent with allegiance to the United States. The obedience due to the Constitution of the United States is declared to be a subor dinate duty, subject to the regulation of the Legislature, so that a citizen may ac tually incur punishment as a criminal for ■cling in obedience to the Constitution of the United States—and to crown the whole, ample provision is made, by an unlimited power of punishing offences a gainst allegiance for opening those de tested sources of oppression, the laws a gainst treason, and reenacting here the bloody tragedies of Scroggs and Jeffries. It is not wonderful that a new Oath speaking a language unknown to our con stitution, should excite inquiry. Men ■re not to be blamed for asking what it is they ate required to swear to. But where shall they search for the meaning of allegiance as used in th's Oath? Not in the common law, nor in the constitu tion but in the ordinance of 1833—and there they will find allegiance explained in a sense which renders it the symbol of a party —a sense in which it never was defined before, and which nothing but the necessity of having a conventional 'erm to designale certain peculiar views of the constitution could ever have suggested. Allegiance which is absolute without be ing perpetual is a perfect anomtly. . Yet the ordinance while it makes al.egiance to the State paramount to all other obli gations, confines its existence to actual residence: for I know not what else can be made of the words‘so long as they continue citizens thereof, unless they mean that allegiance begins whenever ■bv citizen of the United States enters Carolina, and ends when he crosses the line. And what can be made of those words that speak of ‘obedience to any power to whom a contorul over the citi zens of this State has been or may be de legated,’unless they mean that the laws of the United States are binding, until the State interposes and sets them aside!— Jo one word, allegiance as used in the ordinance is only another word for the right to nullify, nnA that such is the real intent and meaning of it, no one having ■ regard for his reputation out of his own set or party should venture to deny much less can any one who values his character take this Oath, unless his mi.id be clearly satisfied of the creed which it is intended to enforce. The ordinance having thus established ■ party tost, and authorized the Legisla ture to carry it into effect by suitable oaths, the next Legislature passed an Act to or ganize the Militia of this State; the 10 h •ection of which provides that every of ficer hereafter elected, before entering en the d-ties of his office shall take a certain Oath. Abd in order to deter mine upon the validity of that oath, it is necessary to consider tho subject in re ference to the State constitution as well as to tho Ordinance. But the constitu. tution has fixed the oath of o'Fco, and the Legislature have no right under the constitution to Legislate on the subject. Their authority then must be derived from the ordinance or the Oath is void. The supporters of tho Bill are placed in this dilemma; that if the Oath is passed in pursuance of tho ordinance it is un constitutional. It is indifferent to us, which alternative is adopted, for either way the Oath is bad: but the objection to the Oath as being contrary to tho con stitution's so palpable —from the expt ess provision that a ceriain oath shall be tak en by all officers as a constitutional qual ification, the infetence that no additional Oath, can be imposed foe the same pur pvse,isso manifest, that I shall leave this part of the case without further com ment —and proceed to consider whether this Oath can be maintained upon the or dinance. And wo contend that it can not. 1, When an act may work two ways, the ono by an interest, and the other by an authority, and the act is indifferent, the law will refer it to the interest and n°t to the authority—Hobart 159 —the case of Commendatns —Clere’s case 6 Co. 17 Maundrell, 10 Ves. 257—Turner vs. Bradford 3 Ruf. 354. The rale is that if the power is not referred to, the subject must be clearly identified, or it will not pass by the power. But it does not clearly appear in this case ihat the Legislature intended to pursue the ordirr ance. The word allegiance is the only thing that can lead to a supposition that they had in view such an oath as the or dinance contemplates. Bnt the nature of allegiance to tho State is a controverted question, and it is on the face of <he act ambiguous whether the Legisl.it ure ' meant a partial or a paramount allegiance. The rules which prevail in relation to the execution of private powers, are in tended for the safety of the citizen, for tho sake of certainty and to prevent the danger of arbitrary judgment. How much more strongly do all those reasons lead to the conclusion that the act in this case tfoould be referred to th o Constitutional inherent right of the Legislature, and not to an extraneous and adventitious powet? If it is necessary that men should be se cure in their estates, and that the rule of properly should be certain, how much more imporiant that their rights and pri vileges should not be guessed aud con jectured away? Respect for the Legisla ture should forbid us to suppose that they meant the words of this Oath in a party sense; for though Test Oaths have been the fruits of the worst of times, yet to im pose a test, and to establish the principle of disfranchisement in this underhand and clandestine manner, would be a new and unexampled instance of political proflig. acv. But here it may be said that the Act must be referred to the power contained in the ordinance, because it can take es feet in no other way. In answer to this objection it is sufficient to refer to the opinion of his Hou. Judge Bay—he sup ports the Oath on the authority of the Legislature under the constitution; and there is no reason to attribute to the member* of the Legislature a higher de gree of legal acumen. Is it not a thous and times better that an Act should be declared unconstitutional, than that the courts should place upon it a construc tion and give it a moaning which the Leg islature did not intend? (Judge Harper. On this part of the case I would throw out for your conside ration that the words of the constitution are affirmative not negative—Sheriffs have been required to take an Oath to execute the Act against Gambling, and the constitutionality of such an oath lias never been drawn in question.) When an instrument contains the com plete sense of the parties, there is no difference between adding to it and taking away. AU interpo’ations are equally forbidden,whether the words of the instru. mem be positive or negative. In fact negative words are unnecessary when the positive expressions are clear. An estate for life, is the same whether the words ‘and no longer,’ be added or not. The constitution say Slier iffs,shall hold their offices 4 years —the Legislature could not extend the term to six. The Oaths alluded to may perhaps be considered as incident to the duties of the office—du ties whish must be discharged after the party is clothed with the office, and for the neglect of which he may be punished. But if such oaths be considered asa qual ification, and put on the same footing as the constitutional oath, they cannot be. supported. A contrary construction would make the constitution nugatory and authorize a latitude in relation to it, which the law does not allow even in or dinary writings. So much does the law favour certaintv in the construction of compacts that independent of the Statute of frauds, no addition can bo made by parol to that which is in writing. We are obliged to compare great things with small, but the analogy is direct and obvi ous for the application of the same prin ciple to the constitution which is ■ deed of the most solemn nature, and which must regulate the whole subject—or all its provisions may be eluded. But perhaps it may be contended that if the Legislature have power under the ordiance to impose an Oath of absolute allegiance, they may execute the power, by enacting an Oath of qualified allegi ance. In ail reasonings, ambiguity of language is a fruitful source of error — and the object of all discussions which aim at truth is to strip off the veil of equi vocal words, and to arrive at correct de. fini'.ions of things. There are different meanings attached to the word“allegiance to the State,” but qualified allegiance is one thing, and absolute allegiance is ano ther thing. And the ordinance does not authoiize the Legislature to impese an Oath of qualified allegiance, for it denies that the allegiance of the citizen is, or of right can be qualified. We acknowledge a qualified allegiance to the State, but tho ordinance does not call for an Oath, af firming such allegiance, but for an Oath to put down the supposition of such a thing. It is no less than absurd to say that the power to do a particular thing, may bo well executed, dot only by doing a different thing but by doing the very reverse. There is no distinction of more or less between things of different na. tures —and in the constitution of private powers, an authority to do a particular Act could never be exectued, by doing something else. A license to sell gun powder would be no licenso for Saltpe tre, nor a contract for any drug bo com. plied with by the delivery of one of the simples of which it is compounded. The Oath administe ,, ed by the Legislature might even be less objectionable than on ein the terms of the ordinance Bui (his could only show that it is not tho same Oath. If the Oath in the Military Bill is not a Test Oath it amounts to the same thing as the Oath prescribed by the constitution, to protect and defend the constitution of this State and of the U. States, and it ts just as far from reason to call it the Oath of the constitution as the Oath of the ordinance. But in fact this Oath is doubly objec tionable, for tho very causa that it is am biguous. Is it to be.endured that a man shall be called on to swear to au ambigu ous declaration? Among all the abuses of power, a cettain pre-eminence is due to the singular wickedness and enormity of the wretch who caused the laws to be promulgated in such away as to be pur posely unitelligible. And if there was no other objection against the Oath which our present rulers have prescribed to be taken by honorable men, under pain of disfranchisement, tho ambiguity and equivocation which lurk *.a its meaning, are sufficient to entitle it to th© condem nation of all mankind. In these circumstances, the duty of the Court is plain. The free and generous principles of the law, which the court is sworn to administer, favor Liberty. The warrant which deprives the humblest citi een of his liberty must be clear—much less can be endured that such at weeping disfranchisement should be sustained by e doubtful interpretation—and as the Legislature have not thought fit to refer to the Ordinance, the Court will take the law as they find it, and if it does not con. form to the constitution, declare it null and void. Should we be so unfortunate however, as not to be supposted by the Gourt in ihe proceeding grounds, we contend that even if this act be passed in pursuance of the power given by the Ordinance, it is not an execution of that power—inas much as the Legislature could only carry the proposed change into effect by an al teration of the consiitu-tion. It will be less necessary to dilate upon this head because we have the contempo raneous exposition of tho Legislature in our favor. It is uoneccessary for us to contend that the convention could not al ter the constitution. It is sufficient for our purpose that the) have not in fact done so—and all that it is necessary for us to prove is, that they could not dele gate their authority over the constitution (if they have it) to ihe Legislature. A member of the Legislature cannot act by deputy—neither can the whole Legisla ture. The reason is obvious, the trust which is reposed in them is a personal confidence. And the reason which pre* vails in every cace, applies in the high est degree to the convention collective ly, which was invested with the most im portant trust. These remarks are in strict conformity with the opinions of Judge Nott in the case of Pinckney vs. ihe City Council.* It is repugnant to reason that the convention should dele gate its supremacy over the constitution to a body like the Legislature which is subordinate to the constitution: If they had abolished the 4th Article of the con stitution, and left it to the Legislature to act without restriction, the objection might not apply—but they left it to the Legislature to alter the constitution or not in their discretion, which is against first principles. Again, the power of the convention itself was lim ted to one year —and everv tyro knows, that whatever is done under a power, is referred by the Jaw to the principal, or to the instrument containing the power. But the Military Bill was passed after the expiration of the year, which proves to demonstration that the Act of December 1833, could not derive its authority from the convention. 3. But we contend, in the third place, that in this particular the Convention ex ceeded the powers delegated to them by the people. The act which called the Convention was passed in the forms ol the Constitution. The convention was therefore a constitutional body, and it is preposterous to speak of constitutional power as'unlimited. As long as the dis tribution of power between the three De. partments of Government exist, there can be in fact no such thing as absolute power. The only way in which a con vention can become absolute is by usur pation—-their power would then be un limited in the same degree in which it is unlawful. But whatever they might have done, they did not iq fact, seize all pow er into their own hands; and having met and deliberated under the authority of the act which called them together, it is 100 late now to deny that they were limi ted by its provissions. But this question may be settled with perfect certainty. It this court should decide, that the Con vention exceed their power, can any one doubt that the ordinance becomes imme diately a dead letter. Yet if the c nven tion was not unlimited, it is impossible to to deny that tha duty of defining allegi ance, and devising Test Oaths, formed no part of the subject committed to theii charge. Indeed tho matter of the pre sent d ispute is so alien from ihe purpose of their proceedings that it is not refer ed to even in the title of the ordinance in which it is found. Lastly. Tho ordinance of March, 18 33, in tins particular al least, is repug* naut to the Coustitu.ion of the United States. The constitution, and (he laws of the UmtedStates made iu pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of tho land. The allegiance of the Citizen iu the only sense in which the word can be tolerated in a republic, is due to the law. What idea a man may have of a law higher that the supreme lav I know not. Like the no tion of the Stoics concerning Fate, it is perfectly incomprehensible. But again. Tieason against the United States consists in levying war against them, or adhering to their enemies. But in the language of tha law, treason and the violation rs allegiance are converti ble terms. Every indictment for Trea son concludes contra legian oe suoe debi tam. I H H 58 Fos. 183. Unless a contradiction in terms as di rect as an issue in fact, be required, no stronger or more palpable example of repugnance to the Constitution can be imagined, than the ordinance affords, which declares that no allegiance is due to the United States. I shall merely call the attention of the Court to the de cisions in the cases of Janseo, Williams, and the Charming Betsy, which I shah do by briefly referring to Kent’s Com mentaries vol. 2 page 42. In fact the Ordinance is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but in direct collision with it. I have no inclination, nor strength to pursue the argument.ln 1788,Mr,Madis onwarnedtbe people of the inconsistency committed iu the old articles of confeder ation‘of endeavoring to accomplish itupos sibililies,to reconcile a purtialSovereignty in the Union, with complete Sovereignty in the States; to “subvert a mathematical axiom by taking away a part and let ing tho whole remain.” But the blind ness that could overlook a mathematical truth is nothing in comparison with the hallucination that goes back n 1833 to the Articles of the Confed©.’ .(ion for the • 1 Tread. 49. The IV. article was evidently design** ed as a barrier against all Tests. It was by the constitution of 1790 that they were first removed. Even the constitu tion of 1778 left the dissabilities of Jews and Catholics in full force. The Oath of office in the constitution is entirely misplaced if it sets no bounds to the le gislative power—which is clearly the end and aim of all constitutional instruments. But if the Legislature *can annex new qualifications aud new Oaths to the con ditions of office, this article of the consti tution is without meaning or utility. The constitution requires every officer to be sworn to support the constitution of the State and the United States, the Act adds that he must be further sworn to bear the true allegiance to the State. The last provision is neither more nor less than an amendment of the former, and if both be equally obligatory the difference be tween an Act and a constitution in point of authority is idle and delusive. The remarks of Mr. Leigh, on a similar oc casion are equally distinguished by truth and eloquence. ‘•Of the doubt as to the constitutional ity of this law (the Vitginia act requiring an Oath against duelling from allofficersj the more he pondeied, on it, the deeper impression it had made on his mind. Our constitution Act 14, provided that cur tain officers shall have fixed and adequate salaries and together withall others hold ing lucrative offices, aud all Ministers of the Gospel of every denomination, be incapable of being elected members of either house of the Privy Council.” Now these being the only constitutional qali fications, the strong implication was that there should bo no other. And there would be n<> doubting it, but for another provision of the coastitution, “that dele gates and Senators shall be chosen of such men as actually reside in, and are free holdet s <>f the county, duly qualified ac cording to la’O. As to which, Mr L remarked that these very words were plainly meant to fix a qualification; oth erwise the whole passage had as well been omitted and the subject left entirely to Legislative discretion, whence the phrase duly qualified according to law must refer to some preexistent or coeval, not future laws, But il the words of tire constitution were doubtful,its spir it could not bo mistaken. If the Legis lature might add one qualification, they might add many; multiply disabilities without end; disqualify whole districts or classes of men by personal or local des cription, make an academical degree, er even a previous service io one of its own bodies a necessary qualification and thus convert the government intoao oligarchy. —ls this tremendous power existed at all, it was boundless and untrammelled as-the winds,anddissjpated at unce all our fond notions of a written Constitution, late the glory of American politics. The Test Laws particularly, were ihe first weapons, young oppression would learn to handle; weapons the more odious.since tlm’ barbed and poisoned,neither strength nor courage was requisite to wield O-em. Should we rely on public virtue to keep us from the use and extension of this sys tem of Tests? In no age nor clime, nor Nation, had ever virtue wholly swayed the human bosom and actions; man was universally liable to be transported with passion, blinded with folly, coriupted with vice, and yet more with power; madden ed with faction, fired with the lust of do mination: let us not flatter ourselves. We were not exempt from the common lot; and altho* the wise exposition of the Bill of Rights by the act to establish religious freedom, might for a lime secure us from a Religious Test, a political one, was certainly a possible, aud not very remote event. Sir, I am possessed with a S'range delusion, if this very law in question does not appoint a Political Test. Such are the BEGINNINGS. The end of all these things is death. A free Constitu tion cannot co-exist with this dangerous and parricidal power in the hands of the ordinary legislature. I recur therefore to the fundamental principle of the Re volution, which I take to ba obsta princi piis, and directly submit the Constitutio- ality of this Law, to the judgement of the Court. The following Message from the Pres ident of the United States to the Senate, was received and read in (hat body, at tbo opening of sitting on 22d. To the Senate of the l/nitcd States'. Having reason to believe that certain passages contained in my Message and Protest, transmitted to the Senate on the 17th instant, may be misunderstood, 1 think it proper to state that it was not my intention to deny, in the said Message, the power and right of tho Legislative Department to provide by law for the custody, safe keeping, and disposition ol the public money and property of the U nitod States. Although I am well satisfied that such a consiruction is not warranted by anv thing contained in that Message, yet a ware, from experience, that detached pas sages of an argumentative document, when disconnected from their context, considered without reference t» previous limitations, and the particular positions they were intended to refute or to estab lish, may be made to bear a construction varying altogether from the sentiments really entertained and intended to be ex pressed; and deeply solicitous t iat my views on this point should not,either now or hereafter, be misapprehended, I have deemed it due to the gravity of the sub ject,to the g.eat interests it involves, and to the Senate, as well as to myself,to em brace the earliest opportunity to make this communication. I admit, without reserve,as I have be fore done,the constitutional power of the Legislature to provide by law th© place or places in which the public money or other property is to be deposited, and to make such regulations concerning its custody, removal, or disposition, es they may think proper to enact. Nor do I claim for the Executive any right to the t possession or disposition of the public t property or treasure, or any authority to < interfere with the same,except when such possession, disposition, or authority, is given to him by law; nor do I claim the right in any manner to supervise or inter fere with the person entrusted with such property or treasure, unless he be an of ficer whose appointment, under the Con stituion and laws, is devolved upon the Piesident alone, or in conjunction with the Senate, and for whose conduct he is constitutionally responsible. As the Message and Protest referred to may appear on the Journal of the Sen ate, and remain among the recorded do cuments of the nation, I am unwilling that opinions should be imputed to me, even through misconstruction, which are not contained in it; and more particularly am I solicitous that I may not be sup posed to claim for myself, er my succes sors, any power or authority not clearly granted, by the Constitution and laws, to request that this communication may be considered a part of that Message, and that it may be entered therewith on the Journals of the Senate. April 21, 1834. ANDREW JACKSON. This Message gave rise at once to an animated (though incidental) debate; and the whole day was consumed, in a decus sion growing out of the original Message and this amendment to it. aw® w a a % MONDAY. APRIL. 28. t 834 U* Several persons have reported frost this morning. It will be seen by the shoit message of the President, which we copy to-day, that he dis claims any such meaning as has been put on parts of his former one. So that the pursuit is again at check. The opposition would fain make out the insanity of the old man; for cer tainly nothing short of absolute folly could claim for him despotic control over the public purse in the manner he is charged to have claim, ed it. ‘‘Give the Devil his due,” say we. Yes* say the opposition, we do give the Devil his due. The President has sent a very long Message to the Senate protesting against the late vote of that body, touching the ccnstitutionaiity and ex pediency of the removal of the deposit*!, in the manner in which it was done. We despair of being able soon to present it to our readers. It mar, however, be necessary, in order to enable them to understand it. It created great excite ment io the Senate, and the reading was nearly finished before Mr. Poindexter moved that it be not received, although, as Mr. Leigh admitted, there was nothing in the least indecorous or dis respectful in its language. We shall not be sur prised if the Senate refuse its admission to its journal. In the House of Representatives, too, Mr. Wise, of Virginia, moved in opposition to some of the positions of the message, and the ’House suspended the rule to receive bis reseiu tions. They follow. Resolved., That the custody and con trol of the moneys of the U. S. not ap. preprinted by law, are by the Constitu tion, placed under the order and direc tion of the Congress of the U. States. Resolved, That no change of the Con stitution of the U S. is necessary to au thorize tho Congress of the United Slates to entrust the custodv of the public money, not appropriated by law, when, ever or howsoever obtained, to ofher a geticy than that of the Executive depart ment. and that the custody of the pub lic money must not be, necessarily, un der the Cousiitutiutt, entrusted to the Ex ecutive department. Resolved, That Congress can take out of the hands »f the Executive department the custody of the public property or mo ney, without an assumption of Executive power, or a subversion of the first princi. pies of tho Constitution, by the repeal and enactment of such laws as may be neces sary to that ©ud. Mr. Peyton, of Tennessee, gave notice that when M. Wise’s resolutions were called up, he would move the following as a substitute : Resolved, That the President of the United States, in tho late executive pro ceedings in relation to the Public Reven ue, has not “assumed upon him self authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and Laws,” but that he has acted in conformity to both. Resolved, That the Senate of the U. Stater, in a late resolution passed by that body, in the words following, to wit.- “ Resolved, That the President, in the late Executive ‘proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon him* self authority and power not conferred by the Consti ution and laws, but io der ogation of bulb,” have,by that resolution, not with a view to legislative action, but as a solemn censure upon the Presi dent, infringed upon the rightful and le gitimate powers and prerogatives of the House of Representatives. Resolved, That Congress have the power, by law, to select the places of depositing the public money and provid ing for its safe keeping. These proceedings produced great excitement jn both bodies. Their result cannot be foreseen. Our country, we faar, is destined to be deeply agitated. Every occasion is seized for the pur pose. Nothing is allowed to pass, that can add to the perturbation. In this temper some of the Senators seamed almost to contend,that the Pre sident had no right to send them a message at sir. Os the character oflhe message, or its doctrines, we shall not speak, till we have faund leisure to read it. We shall only add, that the Senate should allow the Executive to be as regardful of its rights as the Senate is of what belongs to that body. In the late proceedings of the Senate, the House too might find some ground of jeal ousy, as involving its right of impeachment, and contend, that the Senate had both impeached and tried, and sentenced the President. On this point, the Senate would stand in a worse predic ament than a juror who had expressed an opin ion in a case of criminal jurisdiction. The judge bas pronounced sentence before trial. The»e who condemn the President so loudly for his late message to the Senate, will do well to consider, that he had no other course to vin dicate his character, so roughly censured by those whom the constitution makes judges, not accusers. The Senate did not send their resolu tions to the House, plainly we suppose, because it was known the House would not approve them, and because, if that body had approved them, they must, by the constitution, have been submitted to the President, who would then have had the opportunity of vindicating his motives, in the form of a regular veto message.* As the the matter was managed, the President must have either submitted silently to infringement of Executive rights and aspersions on his motives and character, or have taken the course he has selected. We copy below the conclusion of his Protest: •‘The resolutionofthe Senate contains an imputation upon my private as well as upon my public character; and as it must stand forever on their journals, I cannot close this substitute fur that defence which I have not been allowed to present in the ordinary form, without remarking, that I have lived in vain, if it be necessary to enter into a formal vindication of my character and purposes from such an inu putation. In vain do I bear upon my person, enduring memorials ol that con test in which American liberty was pur chased—in vain have I since periled pro perty, fame and life, in defence of the rights and priveliges so dearly bought —in vain am I now, without a personal aspiration or the hope of individual ad vantage, encountering responsibilities and dangers, from which, by mere inac tivity in relation to a single point, I might have been exempt —it any serious doubt can be entertained as to the purity of my purposes and motives. If J had been ambition, I should have sought an alli ance with that powerful institution, which even now aspires to no divided empire. If I had been venal, I should have sold myself to its designs—had I preferred personal comfort and official ease to the performance of my arduous duty,l should have ceased to molest it. In the histo ry of conquerers and usurpers, never, i» the site of youth, nor in the vigor of man hood, could I find an attraction to lure me from the path of duty; and nov,l shall scarcely find an inducement to commence their career of ambition, when gray hairs and a decay ing frame, instead us inviting to toil and battle, call me to the eooteai plation of other worlds.wbere conquerors cease to be honored, and usurpers expiate their crimes. The only ambition I can feel, is to acquit myself Io Him to whom I must soon render an account of my stewardship, to serve my fellow-men, and live respected and honored in the history of my country. No; the ambition which leads me on, is an anxious desire and a fixed determination, to return to the peo ple, unimpaired, the sacred trust they have confided to my charge—to heal tha wounds ot the constitution and preserve it from further violation; to persuade my countrymen, so far as I may, that it is nut in a splendid Government, supported by powerful monopolies and aristocratical establishments, that they will find happi ness, or their liberties protection; but in a plain system, void of pomp—protecting all, and granting favors to none—dispens** ing its blessings like the dews of Heaven, unseen and unfelt, save in tho freshness and beauty they contribute to produce. It is'such a Government that the genius of our People requires—ytch an sue only under which our States may remain for ages to come, united, prospercus, and free. If the Almtgli’y Being wno hag hitherto sustained and protected me, will but vouchsafe to make my feeble powers instrumental to such a result, 1 shall an ticipale with pleasure the place to be as signed me in the history of my country, and die contented with the belief, that I have contributed, in some small degree, to increase the value and prolong the dur ation, of American Liberty. To the end that the resolution of the Senate may not be hereafter drawn into precedent, with the authority of silent ac quiscence on the part of the Executive- Department; and to the end, also, that my motivesand views io the Executive proceedings denounced in that resolution,, may be known to my fellow-citizens, to the world, and to all posterity, I respect fully request that this Message and- Pro test may be entered at length on the jour nals of tho Senate. ANDREW JACKSON.. FRO ANJ)yFRAN4TEk The ship Zephyr, Cap; Pore, frorm Portsmouth, and the packet ship Nor" mandy, Capt, Bell, From Havre, arri. ved at Net*-York, on Tuesday the 14th inst. We have received by these con veyances, (says the Enquirer) Londoq,* dates of thp iQth and Paris and Havre.of? the 15jIi. March.. They qontaip po in* telligeoce of importance., Lonpi'N, March 18.—Goods go off briskly v and, prices are stubborn. 4318 bags Mauritius sugar sold by auction, at, an advance of 6d per cwt. The Com-, pany’s tea sale is going on, without citement, and at prices rather lower than, the last sale. Fish Oil is in steady de* mand>. Linceed Oil has been sold at £26 per ton for shipment to New York* • The prices of Wool is a little checkered. Havre, March 15.—The Havre Price. Current of the March, says, io re. gard to the Cotton market, that the sup ply in the preceding week had only been 585 bales from New-Orleans; the sales amounted to 3500 bales. On Monday and Tuesday of that week, business had been active, and on these two days, the sales amounted to 3200 bales; but then the demand stopped at once, in conse quence of the failure of a banking house, at Rouen, and the sales during the re._ mainder of the week did not exceed 400 bales, but prices remained the same. The sales of Cotton from March Bth to 13th, inclusive, were 325 bales Louis, ■anna at 112 50 to
