Newspaper Page Text
PEDESAL
POLITICAL..
p'io;n the Washington Ofobc.
Mr. Berrien to Mr. Blair.
Washington, 10th July, 1831.
Siu:—In an article undcf the Editorial head, m
jour paper of tiiis morning, which Iras rotation t<j a
eo’itroversy between the editor ol the Telegraph,
ivid yourself, I observe the following remark:—
’‘‘At tins point-we sliould haw dropped the con
^jfoversy, but vre have understood, that it is rejwirt- j dns does not satisfy, we must refer the parties malt
ed lo give countenance to the contradicted state- > in g the charge, to the witness called by them,
ment Of the Telegraph, that Mr. Berrien has rel! Remarks—We give the whole ot this article that
no warrant for the denial we made as to him. V\ e - war, were in opposition to the rights of my mown, nor less, than that he considers the public Treasure
take the liberty therefore of quoting from the letter and therefore, you my subjects are required not to as general property* and to be expended for gen-
of Col. Johnson which we have, las express decla- (.pay duties to pay off the debts which a republican. eral purposes, and not for the benefit of pri-
ratioa that the President did not make the exaction, majority government contracted, and finally, you vate individuals. The first proposition alludes to
of the members of his cabinet charged by the Tele- are hereby requiied to use every means in your surplus money in the hands of the people, and the
graph. The Col. savf, * power, whether convention, separation, war and second to surplus money already in the public Trea-
' “He” (General Jackson)* “never authorized me i all‘its calamities, £0 as to divide the Union, and es- sury—or (well added. Sirs, but it will not heal the
to require social intercorse, fyc, Spc, Hr, always dis- toblish mv power and dominion. difficulty) to be deposited therein by drawing it, not
Given at my Palace, in the Province of South .from the people, but by drawing it from the mines,
Carolina, on the 4th day of Jnly, A. D. 1831. which are public property.”—this is the whole sub-
$ NULLIFICATION. ~
j claimed it. I told the parties so.” These are the
words of the Col. to the word, point and letter. It
dlls'express declaration, that the President did not gtess-, to associate with the family ol another mem-
•uiake the exaction of the members of his Cabinet, the cabinet, as the condition on which he
charged by the Telegraph. The Col. says—“He ; would retain them in the cabinet.”
(General Jackson) never authorised me to require ! Now the statement in the Telegraph was as iol-
social intercourse, &c. &c. He ahvays ’disclaimed lows:
it; 1 told tlie parties so.” These* a re the words of l H *h e Globe denvt.iat Mr. Ingham, Govcrn-
theGol. to the word, point, and letter. It* this < or Branch, and Mr. Berrien, were dismissed be-
does not satisfy, we must refer the parties making C:luse &ey refused to compel their families to as-
-tlie charge, to* the witness called by them.” , soc,:,to with tliat of Major Eaton:
" The reference thus made to me, renders it no' “ " dt the Globe deny that, in January, 1830, a
cessarv, that I should submit the following observa- j member of Congress waited upon these gentlemen,
tlons to the public, and I have accordingly to ask; a,1(I informed them that it was the President s de-
4hat vou wall rive them a place in your paper. j termination to remove them from office, unlesstliey
I have not authorised the report of which you ;-coniornu : to his wishes in this respect:”
speak, and I would have told you so, without lies- I 1 he Globe asserts that we charged the President
■Hation, if you had intimated its existence to me. with requiring certain members of the late cabinet
That such a course would have been more confor-
*uiable to the views of Co!. Johnson, I infer from
ffie foliow ing consideration.
I have a letter from that gentleman, in which, af-
tgr stating his object, and motives, in seeking the
•interview, which with the approbation of the Pres
ident, he held with Messrs. Branch Ingham and
myself, he proceeds to remark that he has not him
self seen the necessity, or propriety, of any allusion
'll newspapers, to this interview—and adds, that
J.
to associate, Sec. It will he seen that our query ex
pressly refers to their families.
This, although not an immaterial error, is no
ted only to show the disposition to avoid the true
issue.
It will be seen that the Globe undertakes to rep
resent Col. Johnson as a witness called by ns.—
Now the intelligent reader will see that tlie facts
are within the knowledgeofCol. Johnson, themern-
of ■Congress making tlie communication, and of
FEDERAL UNION.
MILTiEDGEVILLE, AUGUST 4, 1831.
stance of the Journal’s laborious argument. And
verily, here is logic for you!—the gold in the nimes
is money in the Treasury!—with an “or”!!—the
Journal, a few days since, said something about
quibbling—a pointed allusion to a con in urn charge
against our profession. Governor Gilmer too, the
the Journal knows, is a lawyer—and the profession
is well acquainted with what is called a legal fiction.
But, verily, gentlemen, here is a gubernatorial fic
tion, that out-!awsall law, viz: That the “money”
“in the mines,” is presumed by a fiction, to be in the
'Treasury—and because it is presumed, by Mr. Gil
mer and the Journal, to be “in the Treasury”—
land, bv another slight presumption, (we suppose)
to be transferred thence, by the provisions of the
''•generalproperty,” and as such ought to he placed
in the treasury—why do you afterwards say, me
“proceeds become general property,” by “reserva
tion j”’ B' they are already “general property-”
how can they “become” more so, by “reservation
Is this another of your gubernatorial fictions, hy
which, tlie gold mines, by tlie art of hocus j ecus,
are to jump, by a leap,-plump into the treasury*
without digging, washing, “coining,'’ &c. Apro
pos—of coining, you say below, when the gold is
coined, it becomes money &.c.—D.o you mean to
say that Georgia can coin this gold lor herself, and
put “it into the treasury?” We only ask, to shew
the absurdity of presuming tlie gold mines “bodia-
cioushj” in the treasury.—this idea of the wines
“becoming general property” by ‘ reservation,” is
like one above, about “drawing scmeV “surplus mon
ey, from tkepcople. It may all be very profound
argument for the editors of the Journal—but real
ly to us, it appears to be very profound, mislified
nonsense—you say “if these mints were private
property, there would be, hot only a contiadicliou
in the two propositions, but there would be a posi
tion assumed by the Governor, as erroneous as it-
would be unwarrantable.” This is very plain.- .
OCTOBER ELECTION.
FOR GOVERNOR,
WILSON LUMPKIN*
any should consider it necessary, tlira tlie great Messrs. Ingham, Branch, and Berrien-, the persons
object should be to state the conversation correctly,
Ipr which purpose, his views were made known in
that letter, in order that any misunderstanding
might he corrected. Acquiescing in the propriety
this suggestion, I immediately communicated to
Lo!. Johnson, a statement of the conversation re-
Vo red to, as it was very distinctly impressed upon
«ny memory-—and sufficient time l»u not yet elaps
ed, l believe, to authorize me to expect an answer
in the regular course of the mail. However this
may he, 1 have not. received any. Independently
’therefore of my reluctance to appear before the
frublic, in relation to any matters connected with
the dissolution of the late cabinet, a reluctance
Which could only be yielded to my own strong con
viction of the propriety of such a measure, I have
ti:-night that the understanding implied in the cor-
tfespondeuce, to which llia/e referred, would be
violated, hy publishing a statement of what passed
hie interview in question, until it could be accom
panied bv the remarks of Col. Johnson, on tnat
which I had transmitted to him. A departure
from this understanding, by that gentleman dim-
self. would of course relieve me from its oblig
Be 1 from the tenor of your editorial article, 1
th the act of publishing the extract from
ter, is not authorized by him. I adhere the-i
tit present, to the determination, which I had
od; and assuming thaivorr object as p 1 ’
nalists, is to present nothing to your read
.is not true, and not to withhold from i
which is so, I take the liberty of si
■Well to tiie editor of tlie Telegraph, as
Sfce propriety of abstaining from any partial and im- j |° r '-he accuracy ot our
perfect statements ofth* conversation whihoc- - r ; . fl ■ correspondence
niurred at the interview in question* Ti e dclusio i ' !r : -*laior Eaton, anuaiso,
Broduced by such statements, must be s
•iforrected : b'R until the correction is intrch
ojSbctis to mislead the public mind, on a su
awakening interest to the American people.
I am, very respectliilly,
Sir, vour oi'r ser^’t
JOHN MACPIiERSON B EH 111
To Francis P. Blair, Esq. I
Editor of ihe Globe. )
Mr.
Wear Sir:
Ehiir to Mr. Berrien.
Washington,, July 19, 1831.
! have this moment received your
latter to wmCii i will give immediate publicity.
- i n ot suppose that you had authorized the re
port, which imposed on me the necessity^ of giving
an extract from Col. Johnson’s letter. Under such
ap impression, I would not have called upon you to
disavow it. The report, I knew, was false, and
\yas merely circulated to keep in coun
charge made against the President u
to whom it was made. Tlie first point in this mat
ter is, did Col. Johnson make tlie communication
as stated? After that is determined, the inquiry of,
whether he was authorized to do so, arises. Now,
Mr. Ingham, Mr. Branch, and Mr. Berrien, being
the persons to whom the communication was made,
are the only persons who can give their under
standing of it. 'The Giobe proteases to give an
extract from a letter of Colonel Johnson’s as fol
lows;
“He (Gen. Jackson) never authorized me to re
quire social intercourse, &c. &c. He always dis
claimed it. I told the parties so.”
This extract admits that Col. Johnson lmd a con
versation with “the parties” on the sub ject of a so
cial intercourse.” It admits that Col. Johnson act
ed m the name of General Jackson, by asserting,
“Ac always disclaimed it —(What?) but it does not _
give us what he did say. Is it intended to raise a
quibble on the meaning of the term “social inter
course?” Is it intended to make a distinction be-
i\uzei\ familiar intercourse and invitation to “large
and general parties?” But it may be that the ar
ticle in the Globe is intended as a reply to our in
fo & r I b rogatory of yesterday. We repeat the interro-
i_ I gatory in another shape. Is the Globe authorized by
t n, y , j Col. Johnson, to publish the extract from his letter
form— ; as * denial of our query?
; r jo u - i T> '' reader will at once see, that residing here in
\vr*i C h i ashington, ujion the scene of these transactions,
. • p ; mucr. of them leave come to our knowledge through
•-u-.--n.is I rhar :iels of which we cannot avail ourselves in a
to youi-self,' n ' vespaper. We are responsible to our readers
, n _! for the accuracy of our statements. We have
between Judge Berrien
of a correspondence be
en Col. Johnson and Messrs. Ingham, Branch,
Berrien, in which the truth in relation to this
a..: :er is embodied. Although we have not seen
iii? correspondence, we feel warranted in saying
that, if Col. Johnson autlioriz.es a denial of our
statement, that denial will c-o.il forth, from the
gentlemen to whom he made the communication
u question, a statement of their understanding of
t.
Ir will he seen that the publication in the Globe
is r.ot an authorized denial; and the public* will see
the propriety of an authorized statement from Col.
Johnson without equivoke. We a'-k the Globe, if
the statement copied above, is a denial; and, if so,
is it authorized by Cob Johnson? This is n -t a
matter to be decided upon the mere statement of
the Giobe, or upon a garbled extract from a letter,
not written for publication. If the statement of the
Globe is authorized by Col. Johnson, publish his
letter, giving tlie authority, or affirm the authori
ty
GEORGIA LEGISLATURE.
Candidates to represent Baldwin county.
FOR THE SENATE,
JAMES. C. WATSON.
FOR THE HOUSE,
EZEKIEL E. PARK,
WILLIAM W. CARNES.
MR. LUMPKIN.—Clark Party! Beware!—
We have it from unquestionable authority, that an
i Charter, into the vaults of the Central Bank—it j Any ordinary boy can‘comprehend it. Who has
cannot be touched—no chance for lottcrying it!!— j disputed it—and what has it to do with the dis
kless us, what virtue there is in that magic simile— | cussion: However you begin now to touch bqt-
“Mines are like the accumulation of money in the ! torn—you have said something, that not only u
Treasury!!” Oh, Midas! Midas!! The wonder-work- ! “freshman,” but even you, can understand. Again;
ing powers of thy magic-wand are totally eclips- ! you assert, that, “tlie proposition of Governor Oil
ed, by these “modern” editors, and this “modern” j nier is correct, because the nuncs are public prop-
Governor of Georgia!! Verily, here is a Central j erty.” This is bold assertion, in which you suc-
Bank for you, swallowing, by one fictitious bite, a j ceed much better than in argument—but r< member
large portion of the bowels of the Cherokee Ter- | —tis* an assertion, inconsistent with one made
ritorv!! Oh Fulton! Fulton! why dinnd ye come ; above—that “Preserved”—(ofcourse not before)—
bock agen, an’ pit anither wing’til tlie tither eend j “tlie proceeds become general property.”—So much
o’the Stat Hoose? Sure, Sawney, y’ll be wantin’ 1 for your review of our criticism, and defence of the
mzen, manuni! Poor Birch is oot o’vour way—'unfortunate paragraph. We certainly agree with
Scottsbo’ is still there, and tha powney too—an’ I you fully—that “a boy just entering the freshmans
gould, folk, will keep off the bogles. class would construe it m the manner you have ’done”
But to be more serious—Because Governor Gil- | but. we should never have believed that a learned
arrangement is on foot between Urn place and mer |ms asmm|cd th( . ftct that « n iine« are Kke the
Charleston, S. C. 1»injure Mr. Lumpkin a election : acei , mdation of thc ™ op i e ’ s money in the Trmm-
tliat a member o the frmip party, not a hundred ry”-ih e Journal carries oot tlie flimsy liction, un-
mks tom Milledgevule, who represents himself to ^ wMch the Gov . er „,, r ha( j taken refuge, and
p of the Vmm parly in Georgia, and whose name „ r< , 3ume8 the mhes t0 in Treasury. It
has been 'communicated to us-is m correspond- ^ j aa jf ,)iey were there-but winds up,
ence wim a gentleman of the Union party in ,i ik ? thestorvof thefarmer.thelawyer, and the oi-
Charleston, lor the purpose of proving that Mr.; not with with an •W-“or to be de-
Lumptxin is a JS ulkfiei. x ov,, tins Troup man is p 0s n e y (herein.” W e can hardly maintain eur gra
nd attached to the Lnionpai iy ol Georgia. _ He . while we expose such feeble attempts at de-
has gone all lengths with 1 roup and, his doctnnes. j f en * dino . a desperate cause—but tlie Journal goes
He approves ol the very worst parts of Troup s let- j on q 1U g—uj n q, e fj rs t proposition, the Governor is
ter to the Nullifiers.—As our information is too di- (oppase j to drawing the “surplus money” in the
en tlie government is not in
entlemen, we have admitted
~ ...... .vow w. ..uo proposition throughout—It is the
Georgia, and that, through the intervention ot one 1 r
j very ground-work, as you well know, of our ar
gument—and we have shewn that it necessarily
of our bitterest enemies here. But we are not sur- 1 (iii i
prised that that enemy should pass himself oft a-1 a jj uc i es | {) that money which would be drawn from
broad, as attached to the Lruon party, or a parti-; t j ie p e0 pi e Py “public sale” of the lands. Because
cular friend of the Union, while lie goes the whole lhft m , Vf > rnmo f t is .L„ nt in nppil » nt -
length with Troup and his destructive heresies.
Mr. Lumpkin is not a JYvUifier—nor a disunion-
ist. We know this, so far as one man can know
the sentiments of another. We are authorised to
say so: and we challenge tlie secret plotter to his
proof*.
:ct oi
ltenance the
until it could
Work siime prejudice against him in the public
l^iad. I did not suppose that you were an accessa
ry in this business, and, therefore, would not in-
%\t you by an application which could only be
.founded on such an inference.
**• The course l have taken with regard to Col.
Johnson’s letter, grew out of circumstances which !
Till justify me to him, although he did not author , -
Ize liie to publish his kilter. My sole object was, at) founded on the principle, that the major.-
once, to clear the skirts of the President of a charge :
vy'hicn you arc well aware ought not to be attached '
! cr»nv.i, although I have ne,cr relumnicbed my »ve
fit John3on ’
( lllUno ' v between yourself’ 011 eartl1 — 110 republic being able to stand befori
V> icga . shall certaini abstain> as 1 j rny might, and power, and dominion. I have mil
From the Columbia [8. P.j Fi c e Press and Hive.
PROCLAMATION.
King Nullification—To all his most loyal subjects,
sends, Greeting:
Whereas, the United Slates of America, have
for more than lifty-five years, usurped a part of my
i dominions, and estabhslied therein a republican gov-
ty ought to govern; which is contrary to the di
vine right of kings, and in violation of the rights
of the minority, and the sovereign rights of my
aaid Col. Johnson, I
jjbve hitherto abstained, fiom making “any partial
or imperfect statements.”
I am, Sir. your obedient servant,
F. P. :
BLAIR.
From the United States Telegraph.
EQUIVOCATION.
Tfie Globe of this morning says:
PROOF OF A NEGATIVE !!
The Editor of the Telegraph charged the Presi
dent with requiring certain members of his late cab-
’^>.et through a member of Congress,* to associate
^vith ih<* lamilv ol another member ol tiie caoinet,
as the condition on wliich he would retain them in
We denied the charge so far as the President was
concerned.
It was repeated. .
We again denied it, and further Corned tliat the
Member of Congress supposed to be rekred to, had
ever borne such a message.
It. was again repeated.
Hav
Hided to
4iat tlie
»U>ry peremptorily, and called for prooj. Had we
got a right then, ‘if the Telegraph still i
its affirmation
ified alt the great republics that have heretofore es-
taWished themselves within my mighty empire.
Where are the republics of Rome, Greece, Holland
and France? They are no more! They have all fal
len before my mighty power! And, how can the re
public of the United States expect to stand before
my might?
I have
Represe
MR. GILMER’S MESSAGE.—Did not the
editors of the Georgia Journal, a few days ago, de
clare tliat they despised personalities? Did they not
affect to lie the most fair-dealing, decorous, and
courteous of editors? What! tlie dignified columns
of the Georgia Journal descend to any thing but
the dissemination of information among its rea
ders!!—-Gentlemen, do these stilted professions com
port with your sarcasms, edged with the following
personalities—“modern and modest Aristarchuses”
—“pitiful mode of criticism”—“hoy, just entering
the Freshman class”—“known perversion of the
plainest ainl simplest language”—“pervert, facts,
misrepresent words, and misstate positions”—“sa
pient editors” and the like?—Have you commenced
vour “apprenticeship?” or only taken up your old
trade?—We only ask for information—and to know
of you, .whether these lofty professions, and this
consistent practice, do not present something very
much like the “Monkey System?”
From your resort lo such means of defence, you
convince us, and all Candid readers, that you feel
the weakness of your cause, and the imbecility of
your own attempts to sustain it.
The last Georgia Journal gives a labored, but
lame defence of that paragraph of Mr. Gilmer’s
Message, which we had criticised in a former num
ber. It reminds us of Bnnvan’s hero in the “Slough
of Despond.” It makes “darkness visible”—“con
fusion, worse confounded.” The Governor’s logic
was bad enough; but what shall we say of the Jour
nal's?—Let us see.
Thc Governor’s first proposition is, that the “sur
plus money in the possession of the people, can be
more usefully expended by them, in improving the
lands & otherwise adding to the riches of the coun
try, than i*' drawn from them to be placed in tlie
public Treasury.”—To shew what the Governor
here means, the Journal says—“Tiie public trea
sure is made up ol’ money drawn from ihe people.
But how drawn? Chiefly in the shape of taxes.”—
Will the Journal pretend that the Governor here
alluded to “taxes?” Tlie disposition of the land by
lottery is the subject on which he
Journal, in its anxiety to defend
government is “not in need” of the money,
that would be expended in the purchase, by the
people, of the public lands, therefore the lottery is
preferable to the sale. Now we ask you to explain
this palpable contradiction. Will you have the
kindness to inform us and the people, if the govern
ment “is notin need” of the surplus money,” which
may be drawn from the people, by salt of the lands—
by taxation—or by any other process—Why, why,
professor would have done so.
The gold mines belong to the people—the people-
will have them—and shouid another act be passed
oh the subject, we leel very confluent, that Gover
nor Gilmer will not have if in his power to veto it.
THE RECORDER.—We feel great reluctance
in putting a fallen enemy to the sword. We com.-
miserate the Recorder. A regard ibr truth, how
ever, is superior to any pi ivate tee hug. And how
ever the bowels cf our mercy may yearn over tlie
distressed condition of our antagonist, public con
siderations, our own character, and the truth must
prevail over individual sympathies.
In very decorous, very courteous, and very good-
humored language, the Recorder says, that we “re
sort to downright political lying.” We are not ia
the habit of retorting such genteei expressions—bulS
as this is the Recorder’s plea, we join issue with
him; and proceed to establish our side of the ques
tion.
In an article, headed, “our patient,” of July 21st,
we remarked—“if he (the Recorder,) once adopt
ed the sentiment, that “John Quincy Adams” was,
“under providence, the rock of salvation to our Re
public,” we must expect him to slash away at u.«,
without mercy and without remorse. And we ci
ted our readers to the Recorder of the 4th January.
1825. Now, we did commit a small error in the
gentlemen, why should you and the Governor seek , date—not designed at the time. This small unin-
to take from them the gold mines? You say, be- ; tentional error, however, has enabled us to catch
cause it is “public” and “general” property. Does j the Recorder—we will not use his own language-*-
not this reason destroy your very profound argu- j in a pitiful evasion—to say the least of it. Forget-
ment, by proving entirely too much for you? Are j ful perhaps of all that he said, and adopted from
not all those lands “public”—“general” property, j othem, against Gen’l. Jackson, oi anxious to oblit-
as well those lots •which contain, as those wliich do j erate it from ins own memory, or what is most pru-
not contain gold? You are compelled to answer,
yes—Do you not see then, where this argument
leads you, and leaves you? Let us put your argu
ment into the shape of a syllogism. Thus—“Pub
lic and general property” ought to be placed in the
Treasury—the gold mines are “public and general
bable, to throw us in the wrong, the Recorder says,
“expressions are attributed to the Recorder, which
it never used, viz; T hat “John Quincy Adams”
was, “under providence, the rock of salvation io ouv
Republic—and out paper of the 4th January,
1325 is referred to as having used this language.
property—therefore, the. gold mines ought to be But such an expression of ours is not to he found
lit tl»A Ctrl- tKprp linr Wp noli ntf*3n_
“placed in the Treasury”—Now carry out the syl
logism to the true extent and meaning of your ar
gmnent—It will stand thus—“Public and general
there, nor “any where else.” We call the atteiir
tion of our readers particularly to the date referred
to; and to the very cautioud', though very evasive
property ought to be “placed in the Treasury—Alllanguage of the “Senior.” He says “expressions,
those lands are “public and general” property—
therefore, all those lands ought to be “placed in the
Treasury”—Can your system of logic, avoid this
inevitable conclusion? Ovrs cannot—nor can any
other that we have met with—except that, by which
logicians say, we can prove, that a “man is a goose.
If therefore, your argument prove any thing, it
proves that the government must send over for “all
the horses in the Waxhaws,” to haul the Cherokee
lands into the Treasury—or, as Governor Gilmer
recommends, of the mines, in another document,
the lands ought all to be rented out, aiid the “pro
ceeds” brought into the Treasury. If your argu
ment be true, and there is no contradiction in the
Governor’s two propositions, he must be opposed
altogether to the lottery system—and you, if you
are attributed to the Recorder, which it never used.”
This we say is untrue—taking it in the letter, and
still more so, taking it in the spirit. We said, “if
the Recorder adopted this sentiment,' &.c. We
proceed to prove tnat he did “adopt the “sentiment”
that “John Quincy Adams” was, “underprovidence,
the rock of salvation to our Republic,”—That he
adopted it from a paper, eifgaged at that time, in
the same struggle with himseiij to-wit: To shew
that John Quincy Adams was more fit for the Pre
sidency than General Jackson. We shall not stop
to dispute the philological question, whether adopt
ing the sentiments of others in their oun woras, in
not virtually using them ourselves. We shali pi ovt>
our position from the great similarity in language,
and identity in sentiment between tlie Recorder
are sincere in your arguments, must be willing to j and the writer he quotes—and from iiis own exp. es.-
sustain him in a total opposition to theyichole lottery sions, in which lie “conscientiously believes” ihnir
system. If our argument be true, there is palpable ) Adams was a “choice of evils”—that Adams and
absurdity and contradiction in his propositions. You i Jackson were both “evils-,” but that Adams was tl*>
mav hang the Governor oh either horn you may lesser “evil,” of the “tiro.”
prefer to see him g&red with-—either, that he is W’e have said that we made an error in the dato
guilty ol this demonstrated “absurdity and inccnsis- we mean the date of reference. We should have
refute our argument, puts a still
(if possible) into his Excellency’s mouth. Had the i do not say tliat the Governor is either—we do not
subject of taxation been even alluded to? It had i believe that he is either. But if your defence has
minority, and oppose the majority principle* and the
insisted on j laws of die Union, and to teach a disrespect for the
vo insist on our part that it should ; revelation of fio: Bible, and the laws of the Sal>-
•jointed out as the witness conusant of the whole
matter, and communicating between the President
and the members of the cabinet* It was certainly
tjie business of the party making the charge, t»o
<Sidi out the facts from Col. Johnson, to establish
his affirmative positions. Instead of doing this, the
Editor of the Telegraph requires us to prove that
tis charge was noi true.
At this point we should have dropped the contro-
Ybersy, but we have understood that it is reported,
to give countenance to tlie contradicted statement
tlie Telegraph, that Mr. Berrten has received a
tf»- from Co!. Johnsps, which t^at we hgid
not. Immediately preceding the first proposition, i placed him where such thing might be said of him
quoted above, his Excellency had said—“The iotte- 1 where lies the blame—in our criticism—in his own
ry system, which has been hitherto adopted, is be- message—or in your defence? We ask you one more
lieved to have been better calculated to produce 'question, arising naturally out of this branch of the
these ends (the increase o. industry, population, i argument. You speak, (as we shall presently shew*)
and wealth) than the disposition by “public sale”— j of the “proceeds” of the mines. The question is*
then follows the proposition, that the people’s “sur- If the proceeds of the mines are to be come at bv
e given notice in the Senate and House of! plus-money” can be more useful in their own hands, 1 hard labor and at great expense—and the proceeds
■relatives of tlie U. States, that I have the j “than if drawn from them”—How? By taxes? No— of the lands, not containing gold, can only become
' 1 at by similar hard labor ami great expense—why
not work mil the arable lands (as well as the mines,)
and “place” the “proceeds” of them, in the Treasu-
dread forebodings of an over-charged Treasury, ry? Can you answer it?
from public sale ot the lands. Hence he concludes, j To prevent your oft-repeated and unjustifiable
that the lands ought not to be sold. But when be ; charge of garbled statements and perverted facts,
arrives at the gold mines, the statesman trembles j we give your own w r ords, which clearly establish*
at the awful prospect of “idleness—frauds innumer- J (in addition to What we have already quoted from
able—and prodigality from riches suddenly obtain- I you) the conclusions we have arrived at above.
ed.” No “improper expenditures,” from a bloated ! These are your Words—“Now, with regard to the
Treasury, now alarm his over-excited imagination; j mines, which belong to the people, collectively, he
hut the golden harvests offthe Central Bank wave, j (the Governor) is of opinion, tliat, as they are gen-
in all their bright and yellow luxuriance, before his j eral property, they should be managed for the gen-
delighted fancy.—In plain English—the Governor, j eralgood,insteadofbeingdistributedamongthe peo-
in- one proy»osition, thinks a full Treasury a public pie-. He is opposed to the distribution of them, among
evil—in the other proposition, he thinks a full Trea- , the people by lottery. If reserved by the Slate, as
sury a public blessing. In one proposition, the pub- i the State lias the power to make such a reservation,
he lands ought not to be reserved, because the Gov- ; the proceeds of course become general property, and
eminent, by its ordinary powers, can raise a suffi- j should be expended for general purposes.” These
cient sum for the public service—In the other pro- i are your own words and arguments—and we defy
position, the gold mines ought to be reserved, though you to give any fairer—nay, plausible construction,
the Government can command funds enough, by (different from that we have placed upon them,
the ordinary resources—It would make poor men j Permit us further, to say, with due deference to
“suddenly rich,” “idle” and prodigal.” If the j your superior sagacity, that your propositions are
Journal had Candour enough to acknowledge this, i as absupd and inconsistent, as the Governor’s, per-
thev would be compelled, by their own understand- j haps more palpably so. How could they be oth-
ing, to say, there is a most palpable contradiction; erwise in so bad a cause. But, prudent editors,
minority, and subversive of tlie rights of my crown,
and do nullify the republican majority system which
is here established. I nullify the Declaration of In
dependence and the Constitution of the United
States, as far as they are contrary to tlie minority
principle, which I do hereby establish. I do hereby
command all my faithful subjects by every means
in their power, whether hy duplicity, craft and se
cret devices, or by more open warfare, to oppose
and resist the majority principle, and the laws of
the United States, as far as they are contrary to
the American people suffered previous to 1776, were
nothing when compared to their present oppression,
and as far as the feelings of the people will bear, to
speak of the wrongs they sufter, and to support the
rights of tlie minority and the dignity of my crown.
I have always had some faithful subjects in the
United States, and especially at this time, in the
province ot’South Carolina—-persevere mv friends,
and you shall be promoted. I have dignities at my
command, and those who are faithful shall eniov
them. The seats of Princes, Earls, Peers, Dukes,
and Nobles, and high appointments, have I to be-
sfow. The revolutionary war, as well as the late
Bu f we neither desire nor expect them to do thus—
tlie plainest intellects of our readers can compre
hend it.
The Journal proceeds thus—“What does he (the
Governor) mean in the second proposition? That
“mines are like the accumulation of tlie people’s
money in the public Treasury—ihe government
should use them for general and not for individual
advqatage,” What does he meaa? Nothing more,
like prudent attorneys, should avoid volunteering
in desperate cases. It is apt to injure their reputa
tion—you argue all along, upon the proposition
that the mines belong to the people generally, and
are therefore general property—which is true.—
But above, you say, if resented by the State, “the
proceeds become general property,” and should be
used for general purposes—meaning, should be
placed itt the treasury. Now,, if they are alf-cady
quotation.
“We discover,” said die Recorder, “indications of tut
approaching controversy between the friends of Mr. Au>
ams and Gen’l. Jackson, which, before the dth of next
month, when the Piesidcntial question goes to die House
of Representatives, will be likely to disturb pie cahr> p
Uiat is said now to exist in the metropolis of die Union.
A writer in the National Journal spooks of Gen’l. Jack-
son’s adherents as a “thoughtless, enlkusiastic, and nodg
throng icho aliemattiy deafen our ears with the shouts of ex
pected victory, and appal ciur hdarts with the threats of ttn-
geance—who, unmindful of the fundamental principles if
our government, end either ignorant or reckless if tk»
many disastrous lessons taught us by the history of a«s
cient Republics, seek to raise lo the helm of State a JVLildaT.it
Chieftain, whose high fame is pur tly occidental, whose popu-,
larity is more the result of the feelings than of judgment, an«b
who has shtnen himself in more than one instance, totally res,
gardless of the solemn immunities and sanctions of the low ”
And again, (addressing liimself to the editor) the writer
says, “after what you here admitted into your paper, in few*
of the Hero of OrleansI cannot fear that any prudential
consideration will restrain you from giving the seme current
cy to whatever I may have to say either against Him or, iN
favor of John Quincy Adams, whom under Provi
dence, I REGARD AS THE ROCK OF SALVATION TO OCR.
Republic. \ou knew me to be wholly disinterested in that
great national question, y >u know that 1 am not in a situation,
to leant the favor of eiiuer of the candidates. I say either,
because I believe that the question will be entirely confined,
in ike House of Representatives, to two, namely, ic Mr. Att
ains and Gen. Jackson} it is of these two, therefore, only that
I shall speak, and I promise to you that I shall speak in thr
plain, familiar and universally intelligible languag e of a free
man. If I shall say some harsh things, they may be forgiven,
when it is found that I say nothing but the tnuh. Should
the friends of Gen. Jackson complain., let them remember
that they have cast the first stone. ”
Every intelligent reader will here see, that the
Recorder was commenting on what the writer in
the National Journal had said: We have put the*
words and sentiments wliich he quotes in italics.
What is not in italics, the Recorder said itself. This
therefore, becomes tlie editorial “sentiment” of the-
Recorder, by adoption-. As the Recorder did not
copy this lor tlie purpose of refuting it—he must
have done it through approbation of the sentiments;
he must have “adopted it.
W e ask the reader,.did not the Recorder “adopt”
these “sentiments?” Did be not appear to be pleas
ed with him? If he did not adopt them, as h e com-
awnted to the** why 4uUe Mt oennere, tr at M