Newspaper Page Text
From the 11'aihiwton Globe.
THE RIGHT OF PETITION.
We give some few extiacts from a minority report of the Hon. 1
John Whipple, agaitit the report of the majority of a committee of
the Rhe.ic Island L"pislatme, assailing the resolutions of Mr. Athr*r
t««, which m innininril the present Congress from the thraldom of
Abolition petitions and incessant incendiary discussion and agitation.
We regret «e cannot nuke room in the present pressure, for the whole
this admirable production.
The efforts ol the abolitionists have been unwearied and entiling to
♦rente an excitement upon the right oi petition, and, under cover
of this subsisii.i’ dispute, to enlist the wise aud discreet yeomau
ry °f Rhode Island under the Abolition banner, knowing full well
that a hostility to the South upon the subject of the popular right to
petition, will soon extend to hostility upon nil other subjects. These
abolitionists are before us and among us. They arc organized through
ent the Northern States into compact an I disciplined societies, with
immense sums of money at their command, and they force their pa
pers, and lecturing am) salaried preachers into every town, and into
numerous families, and it is principally from them that we are pre
sented with arguments upon this great and exciting question of con
•titntional law, while the framers and supporteis of (lit! resolutions, ca
pable, it is presumed, of shedding quite as much light on the sirbject,
■re not before us, nor are they called upon to aid us with their views
•nd reasons. It is. therefore, in the opinion of the undersigned, sub
stantial y an ex parte proceeding; a proceeding, too, under undue
■nd improper excitement, and upon a subject in which wc ate mere
ly volunteers.
With these preliminary remarks, the undersigned will proceed to
give his reasons for declining all action upon the subject.
By the Ist article of the amend ment of the Constitution, it is de- i
dared “ 1 hat Congress shall make no law respecting an establish
ment of religion, or prohibiting the freedom of speech or the press, or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition Govern
ment for ■ redress of grievances ”
By the 4th section of the Ist article of the Constitution, it is provi
ded “ that each House may determine the r iles of its proceedings.”
At the settlement of this country, ami for a period long anterior,.»he
people of England possessed the constitutional right to petition Par
liament for the redress of all grievances, whether of an individual or
a public nature. The right had nt times been limited as to the num
ber of signers, it having been found in turbulent times that large bo
dies of the people assembled under the pretence of petitioning Par
liament, but in reality for other and dangerous purposes. By a stat
ute passed in the reign of Charles H. it w is therefore enacted that no
petition should be signed by more than twenty. This statute, howev
er, was repealed, or went into disuse lontr before the adoption of the
American Constitution. And it was a settled right in the people of
both countries, to assemble in any numbers and petition fora redress
of grievances. Th« Constitution docs not grant, hut recognizes the
right, and prohibits its violation by any law passed by Congress. It i
no where defines the right, but such as it was, transmitted from our I
English ancestors, so should it remain inviolate.
In order effectually to sucure it from invasion, the Constitution
provides that Congress shall pass no law abridi'?" It. It does not sav
that it shall not be affected by a resolution of either House. Its pro
hibition is against any law of Congress, and it is well known that
there is a wide difference between a law of Congress and a resolution
of either House. It is hardly necessary to state that a law of Con
gress requires the assent of both Houses,"and the assent of the Presi
dent also. . And that when it has become a law, it operates upon the
whole people of the U. States,—a resolution ofeither House operates
only within the walls of the House. A law of Congress is permanent,
and remains in force until repealed by the power that enacted it. A
rewlusion of the House expires with tho existing or present session of
the llouw.
A.' the Constitution clearly interded that this favorite and popular
right of petitioning (as important in the view of the framers of that in
strument as the liberty of speech or the press) should not be violated
by Congress, or by any other power in the country, why, it mav be
asked, did it not provide that Congress should pass no law, nor that
either House should pass any resolution abridging tho freedom of
speech, of the piess, or the right of petition? Was this omission by
mistake, or was it by design ?
It will be remembered that the provision securing these invaluable
rights, was not inserted in tho original constitution itself, but is con
tained in the amendments. I;should nl«o be observed that by the ori
ginal constitution express power was given to each House “to deter
mine the rules of its proceedings.” This power is granted in the
broadest and amplest terms. The extent of it is beyond the reach of
doubt. It is a power to determine the rules of all its proceedings.
It is also equally beyond a doubt that any vote of the House upon a
petition, is a part of its proceedings. The moment the petition is
read, or its contents made known, the moment any action of the House
upon the petition is asked, that action is a proceeding of tho House,
tube regulated solely and exclusively by the House. Its proceedings
upon such petition are entered upon the journals of the House, as are
all its other proceedings.
Previous then, to the amendments to the constitution, each House
possessed the undoubted power to pass any resolution in relation to
rtt own proceedings upon any petition or other business before it. It
possessed the undoubted power to pass resolutions similar to those of
the 12th December, 1838. No man who values his reputation for sa
gacity and common fairness will question this power, under the origi
nal constitution. No man will question that the persons who penned
the amendments knew the full and broad extent of this power of the
House, and no men felt a deeper solicitude to guard and protect the
popular powers of the press, the freedom of speech, and the right to
petition. Why did not the amendments repeal so much of the power
of each House to determine the rules of its proceedings as was incon
sistent with the freedom of speech, of the press, or the right to peti
tion? Why merely protect these rights from invasion by a law of
congress, and leave them at the mercy of either House ?
By the original constitution, the House possessed the undoubted
power to pass a resolution in the very words of the resolution of De
cember, 1838 : “ That every petition, memorial, resolution, proposi
tion or pa pet, touching or relating in any way to slavery, or to anv ex
tent whatever to slavery, as aforesrid, or tho abolition thereof, shall,
<>n the presentation thereof, without any further action thereon, be
1 »iJ on the table without being debated, granted, or referred.” This
I o ver too, was granted to the House in express terms- It was there
fore a well known power. The convention of the S ates which pro
posed the amendments, was jealous of the powers conferred by the
original constitution, and the object of the amendments was to
guard against their abuse. The members of that convention were
among the ablest of the times, and intimately acquainted with the
constitution, and with the established usages of legislative bodies •
an I did simple reason for protecting the right of petition from a law
of congress, nnu .*?°? protecting it from the power of the House to re
gulate its own proceeuiuj s i was, that the tight itself, as it had existed
lor ages, as it had been pigctisC'* upon in England and in this country,
■was a light which could be InVaJpd oj a law of congress, because a
law of congress would operate upon inJ. :v ' ( l u: ‘ la : an< ' individual ac
tion out of doors, by making it penal to write C. r si g n " a P e,ilio . n -
They well knew that no resolution of either House, in rci a ‘ : ° n to
own proceedings, could, by any possibility, operate upon the right tb
I petition. b
it must be observed, that the right to petition has never been de
fined by any statute or written law in England or in this country. Its
kxhie aod iuiportancc'has never been called in question, still the ex-
• iwr.l oFlhe right at the time of adopting the constitution,* and even
,wi: to me present period, has never been defined except by legisla
<n»'os»sngc. W hen the framers of the amendments to the constitution
recognized ‘‘’the right to petition,” they necessarily intended the
..'tghl that had been practised upon in the English and American Le
rislalwres. I ractice being the basis, is also the limit and extent of
the right. In England, and in all the legislative bodies in this coun
try, this right to petition had been constantly exercised, and at the
same time the power of each House to determine the rules of its pro
ceedings has also been exercised in many cases to a much greater ex
tent, and tor less cogent reasons than exist in the case under consid
eration.
\Vhat, then, is the right to petition, as established by the practice
of 500 years, and limited and defined by that practice ? It is a
right to do certain individual acts, not in conjunction with the House
• •or tribunal appealed to, bet wholly independent of that tribunal. It
•is’a constitutional, and consequently a legal right, like the right to
-icin a court ofjtisticc. They are alike remedial tights, and equal
ly-eaured in the eye of the Constitution;
H he undersigned fays pre at stress upon his definition of the right to
petitien, that, like the right 10 sue, it is a right in the individual to do
certain individual acts, unaided and uncontrolled l>y the tribunal to
which his petition is addressed, and that it docs not, and cannot inter
s -re with the power of that tribunal to regulate its rules of proceedings.
The power of the House to regulate its own action upon tl.e petition,
never can interfere with the equally sacred right of tho petitioner to re
gulate his own individual action, if any court should prevent a plain
tiff from purchasing and serving a writ and entering his action in court,
le judges would be person dly responsible in damages for such an in
terference. ft is a legal right, for the violation of which the individual
is cnti-led to his legal remedy. If this or any other House of Represen
tatives should prevent a petitioner from doing any individual act embraced
it» “ the right to petition,” each member so inter feting would be person
ally liable to damages, for that too is a legal right, for the violation of
which the individual would bo entitled to his appropriate legal remedy.
I’hese individual arts consist in a right in any number of men peaceably
t • assemble, to deliberate upon their grievances, to draw a petition in
.. eir own language and sentiments, and to present the petition and read
it. or make its contents known, to tho House appealed tq. All these are
rets of ItiJ individuals, or such individual agents as they may employ.—
i'he House does not partii.’oati* in these acts. From the first to the Inst
it exercises no control ovet the 'tldividiial action of the petitioner. From
to first to the last there is no joint act of the House and the petitioner.
\H that the petitioner can do, he does rihinv. He is the solo arbiter of
own conduct. On the other h ind pH th?t the House can do it doos
•y itself. It is the sole arbiter of its own conduct, but its right to act
.lacs no) commence until tho pcli inner has perform 'd all the individual
sets embraced io “the right to petition.” Ho must put the petition in
P rsscssion of the Homo, make it a part of the business of the House,
rd invoke the action of tho florjso upon it, before tho power of the
• oiiuf over it attaches. V» licit that power attaches, all power ot the iu-
' I'titul c(oi«c ( , lltl ,| no exorcise of tho power of thn House can interfere
i t i" right to periiron, because tho whole right to petition must be
ersH'M , an I nujovod to iu full extout, before the petition btfcpnieu a
proceeding of the House.
' party can never be interrupted in the exercise of n right, if from its
■ y nature, u must Ire fully exercised before j[ comes to tho possession
the trit.mini appealed to.
•'' Ilin-1 *•<• born.* in mind rb«i rho right in {Mtqriyn is q mra'f rjgbt Io
ask, not a right to demand, and every right to ask necessarily implies a
duty in the House to hear; but a right to ask nnd be heard, nccessaiily
implies a right to refuse, and to refuse in any mode or form the House
may dictate. Both the power to ask and the power to refuse may bo
abused, but an abuse of power is a political, not a legal injury. It la tin
abuse, and a fraudulent abuse, ot the power to petition, to obtain the
names ot hundreds of children tindfer ten years ol ago, nnd to let Jhem
pass as persons whose opinions are entitled to weight. Ihe undersigned
has het n informed that this has been done by the managers of tho Abo
tion petitions now before this Hous''. 1’ >•* 8,1 abuse ol the power, hut
still the petitioners possess the power. It is a political evil, not a legal
injury. So the House may abuse its just and necessary’ powers; but
that, too, is a political evil; and the remedy is by the ballot box, and not
by no action nt law. Will any lawyer contend that if my constitutional
right to petition is violated, I have not a remedy al Inw against nny one
who aids in its violation ? But will nny one contend that these petition
ers before t'oiigicss possess any legal remedy against the House or the
members who «-oted for the resolutions of December 12th ? And why
will he not? Because it doesnot violate the right to petition, or to do any
individual act embraced in that right. If there is atty abuse of the pow
ers of the House in those resolutions, the remedy is a political remedy,
because the evil is political.
A law of Congress which controls the action of the individual out of
doors, would have interfered with the right to petition, and therefore nil
such laws were prohibited. But n resolution of cither House, acts not
upon the proceedings or acts of the individual, hut upon its own pro
ceedings in the’House, after the individual has enjoyed his right, and
therefore tho framers of the amendments to the Constitution saw that a
power in the House to determine its own proceedings, never could inter
fere with the power of the individual to determine his proceedings. Un
til the present excitement, the undersigned believes that no such extend
ed right to petition was ever contended for. It is not only a right to pe
tition, but n light, as now construed, to dictate to the House what dispo
sition tho House should make of the petition. After hearing it, the
House must net. and as it mutt control its own action.it may reluscevcn
to receive the petition, as appears by the following precedents:
On the 9th April, 1694, a petition was tendered to the House, relating
to the bill for granting to their Majesties several duties upon the tonnage
of ships; aud the question being put, that the petition be received, it pass
ed in the negative.
On the 28th April, 1698, a petition was offered to the House against
the bill for laying a duty upon inland.pit-coal, and the question being pq’
that the petition ho received, it passed in the negative. ‘
Similar votes also passed on the 29th and 30th Juu», 169° Upon duties
relating to Scotch linens nnd w hale fins import*;!. ’
()n the sth February, 1703, a petition from inc maltster, being offered
against the bill for continuing the duty ot; malt, and the question being
put. that the petition be brought up, lt p asße <J in the negative.
On the 21st of December, l<b6. Resolved, That this House-will re
ceive no petition for any sum of money, relating to public service, but
what is recommended from the Crown.
On the 11 th of June, 1/ 13, this is declared to be a standing order of
the House.
On the ~9th of March, 1/0/, Resolved, That the House will not pro
ceed upon any petition, motion, or bili, for granting any money, or for
releasing or compounding nny money owing to the Crown, but in a com
mittee of the whole House, and this is declared to be a standing order.
On the Bth March, 1732, a petition being offered against a bill de
pending, for securing the trade of tho sugar colonies, it was refused to
be brought up. /\ motion was then made that a committee be appointed
to search for precedents in relation to the receiving or not receiving pe
titions against the imposing of duties; aud the question being put, it
passed in the-negative.
It will be remembered that these resolutions passed within a few years
after the famous Declaration of rights in 1668, in which the right to peti
tion is recognised as the undoubted right of every subject.
Very recently, a petition or remonstrance of the citizens of York,
Pennsylvania, approving the act of the President in removing the dgpo
sites. was presented to the Senate of the United States ; nnd haviu* been
read, Mr. Clay objected to its receplien, and on the qtieslion, ShalP it be
received ? it was determined in the negative—yeas 20, nays 24.
“On motion of Mr. Preston, tho yens and nays being desired by one
fifth of the members, those who voted in the affirmative were,
Benton, Brown, Forsyth, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Kane, King of
Alabama, King of Georgia, Lyon, McKean, Mangum, Morris, Rob
inson, Sbeplcy, Tallmadge, Tipton, White, Wilkins, Wright—2o.
Those who voted in the negative, are
Bibb, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Ewing, Frelinghuysen,Kent,
Leigh, Moore, Naudain, Poindex'er, Porter, Prentiss, Preston,
Robbins, Sillshee, Southard, Sprague, Swift, Tomlinson, Waggaman,
Webster—24.
It was formerly a common practice of this House, to hear objec-
f-jm creditors to even the reception of petitions for the insolv
ent acts, and their reception was often refused. Neither the English
Commons, nor tho Senate of the United States, nor this House of
Representatives, ever deemed that the right to petition extende I ne
cessarily to even the reception of the petition. The petitions were
read, and if the House were against any action upon them, they re
fused to receive them. It may bo prudent to examine our own prac
tice, before wc condemn the much less doubtful practice of the na
tional House of Representatives.
The undersigned then contends, that there must be a point where
tho right of petition ends, and the power of the House commences;
that the Constitution could not intend that the one right should con
flict with the other; that, by an express grant, it has conferred the
sole power upon tho House the moment the petition becomes a part
of the yroccedings of the House ; that this proceeding is a legislative
proceeding, in which no one can participate but members of the
House, duly elected by the people, and representing the whole peo
ple; that even a resolution of the House or a law of Congress, giv
ing to the petitioner any voice in the proceedings of the House, would
be unconstitutional and void, because all the power is delegated to
the members, and they possess no power to delegate any poition of
it to other individuals; that this power in a petitioner to demand anv
other action of the House, than bearing his petition, is not embraced
in “the right of petition” because that is a right to individual action,
and not a right to control legislative action ; that the extent of this
right, not being defined in the Constitution, but wholly by usage, must
be ascertained by usage ; and that the usage of everv legislative bo
dy in the civilized world is against the right as now asserted.
The resolutions of the 12th December, as the undersigned under
stands them, simply amount to this: that as the House had determin
ed not to legislate upon the subject of slavery during the present ses
sion, all papers referring to that subject, and all that should hereafter
I be presented, should be lead and received and laid upon the table.
They do not deny to any present or future petitioner the right to
have his petition read and received, but declare that they do not mean
to act on that petition during the present session.
No views which the undersigned has been able to take, with the as
sistance of some of bis legal ftienth, have raised a doubt in his or
their minds as to the constitutionality of those resolutions. On the
contrary, there are many circumstances known to all of us, which
render some general action or disposition of the subject indispensably
necessary.
These, or other petititions of a similar character, have been before
: Congress for many years. It is not pretended that any facts exist
; with which the members are not acquainted. The prayers of these
j petitions have been bedied session after session, for upon petitions
| for a public law a neglect to bring in a bill is a denial of the prayer.
I he petitioners arc dissatisfied with these repeated decisions upon
the subject, and arc determined not to.acquiesce, but to pour in upon
the House such a flood of new petitions as will influence by their
numbers where they have failed to convince by their arguments. In
I com justice, parties are not allowed a hearing upon a question
of lawC' ce so.*“ ,nn 'y settled by the same court. Is a House of Rep
resentatives obli"v Ito batc an< l , eler *° committees one or two hun
dred thousand petitions at ion > u P ,,n a s,,b j ect tl,at » hc . v
have over and over again decided f (
The undersigned cannot bind himself to tin? . 1 ’. ,s < l l,cs, [ on
of the right to petition proceeds wholly from abolition hT.'ng, and is
used as an instrument to attain Abolition objects. It is an a^'J’ n, P ,
to add political heat to Abolition fury.
Until these moral troops are disbanded, until the morning and eve
ning blast of their hostile trumpet ceases to sound in the Southern
ear with its din of dreadful preparation, until this moral war, to call
it by its gentlest name, waged by those who truly believe that they
are doing their duty to their God to put down slavery even at the
expense of the Union and quiet of this before peaceful country;
until then, not evena hope exists of the emancipation of the slaves of
the South with the consent of their masters. Every accession of
strength to these societies is binding the chain still stronger upon the
unhappy African. Every legislative resolution loosens our bond of
Union, and hastens the period of war and bloodshed. Every step in
this infuriate and dangerous course, prove that even in Rhode Island
the manian power of religious bigotry was caged and chained, and not
annihilated, as we had fondly believed. Loose it from its long con
finement, give it the power of numbers and wealth, and coax it into
action by legislative sympathy, and you fasten upon the north a
slavery of mind as dark and benighted, as that which palsied this
Christian world in the days of the Inquisition and the Crusades.—
Give it scope, and it will wield its fierce and gigantic power with a
blindness to all worldly consequences, and an insensibility to all hu
man suffering* For the last thousand years it has been imprisoned
as many innocent victims tortured and lacerated as much human flesh,
and spilt ten times as much blood, as slavery has done.
tor one, the undersigned cannot ally himself to such a spirit, nor
to any party, political or moral, that aids in letting it loose upon us.
He protests against any action upon the subject of slavery by the
Rhode Island Legislature. He is worldly minded enough still to be
lieve that the Union, our unrivalled Constitution, and the peace and
repose of this great American family, arc worthy of preservation.—
Il they must fall bcfilre the spreading power of religious bigotry, if
a social and servile war must drench in blood this fairest heritatc of
man, let it not be hurried on by the legislators of the descendants of
Roger Williams.
Respectfully submitted by
' JOHN WHIPPLE.
True remark—Guo of the truest remarks of theday, and which
should not pass unnoticed, because seldom itis, that truth finds its way
through the columns of the Federal press, especially if its propagation
has a tendency to militate against the success of its favorite schemes of
political aggrandizement, was recently put forth by Charles Hammond,
"ire of the leading managers of the Federal party in this State. It is
this—“tho Aiiolitio.xists in Cincinnati, and rise where, are generally
Whigs.” The truth of this remark we have long been aware of. and
have, from lime to time, endeavored to impress it upon the minds of our
readers. But it has as often been denied, both pnlrlicly attd privately,
by the members of the Federal party. It now comes from a source,
atrd in a spirit of frankness, that places further denial out of the ques
tion : mid w.-s ::ro quite sure, that every man in his own sphere of ob
servation, upon reflection, if be be guided by a mind not wholly warped
by prejudice, will yield to the truth and justice of tho remark. Aboli
tionists aro generally Whigs, find them when and where you will. Let
this important fact bo reflected upon and horn in remembrance.—.Vor
srmllt (ft.) Experiment, ( ' j
When the bill, giving to the President additional powers for the
protection of the country, was under consideration in the U. S. Senate,
the Washington letter writers represent Daniel Webster to have made
a flaming war speech—that its effect was electric—that one spon
taneous burst of applause resounded from tho crowded auditory in the
gallery, at the patriotic enunciation. It now appears, by a letter
which he lias written to 1). B. Ogden, of New York, a brother chip in
blue-dye federalism with him. that the letter writers misrepresented
him, and that bis speech, afterall, wasnot much of a war speech. He,
in short, backs out front bis rejnarks as represented by the reporters
and letter writers, and says li^said, or meant to say,-nnd that strong
ly, quite the reverse ot what they have attributed to him. His organ,
die Boston Atlas, is quite in a rage about it, and effects great disap
pointment that the “god-like” should kick over, by his letter, all
that lind been attributed to him of “blood and thunder,” by the
wiseacres at Washington. The Atlas says, as the “whole story is
a hoax,” “the letter writers and the newspapers ought forthwith to
coircct tho rumor, which they have thus wantonly set afloat to de
ceive the community.” Right, Mr. Atlas, right! " Keep your public
opinion manufacturers straight. Mr. Webster no doubt was misrep
resented-- -for, certainly, the man who could oppose the last war
refuse to vote supplies to the army in its utmost need—-and who, at
a Liter period, when there were prospects of difficulty with France,
cot'ld say he would not vote a penny for the protection of the country’
“though tho enemy were battering down the walls of the capitol,”
could not now be supposed to have so far deviated from bis former
course, as to change entirely the uniform character of his vote, though
a case presented itself of the strongest nature and the most perfect
justice, calling loudly upon all to sacrifice minor differences of opin
ion, and rally unitedly around the flag of their country’s honor. Let
the letter writers and newspapers stand corrected. The I'biform
course of Mr. Webster is rot now to be abandoned, “for ji,,)". n 1
trivial causes.” No, he has worn his fedcro) j lcnurs t ‘
well, to desert them at this late ne.rio<J of his life
We are in duty oGbnd to announce to our friends, that tho Geor
gia _»rgus, published at Columbus, Ga. is no longer an opposition
print. The Editor has declared for Mr. Van Buren, & thus placed
it entirely out of our power to act in concert with him in the approach
ing Presidential contest.
We respect the ability of the Editor, and estimate his worth as a
man, —but, he has deliberately taken sides against us and we have
no alternative but to proclaim the separation. In our next we shall
give some reasons why Mr. Van Buren should not be supported bv
the South. At present we have neither time nor space for further
remarks.— [Georgia Journal.
Why, really we cannot perceive that there is any great necessity
on the part of the Journal for making that awful and solemn disclo
sure ; at least it is rather late in the day for them to do it as a new
discovery, as we expressed about the same views more than a month
ago. So far as the matter of seperation is concerned, if the Journal
considers an adhcrance on our part to the principles which we and it
have in common always advocated, a separation it be so-—we have no
objection. We established this paper upon our own responsibility,
and for the purpose of expressing our own views and opinions upon
all such matters and things as we should think proger to discuss.
Heretofore we have pursued that course, and hereafter, as long as we
have any cciim ction with the press, we intend to pursue it. We
suppose from the solemnity with which the annunciation is made by
•he Journal, that it supposes it is pronouncing upon us the sentence
of death, or at least of excommunication. If it entertains such an
opinion it is mistaken. Our paper was not brought into existence
upon the favor of that or any other public journal. So far as we
know, it has gathered no strength from any of them, and we do not
expect that it will die by their hands. We expected that in taking
our course wc should bring down upon us the wrath of some of our
fiiends, but we have been accustomed to advocate what we thought
was right and oppose the wrong, whether others thought with us or
not: we intend to continue to do so.
The Journal says we have deliberately taken sides against him,
How have we done it! Does the Journal advocate the election of
Mr. Clay? If so let it come out and say so. If it does, then we have
taken sides against them. If it shall advocate the election of some
other man for the purpose of indirectly aiding Mr. Clay’s election,
then, too, have we deliberately taken sides against it. We shall hear
and attend to their reasons why the South should not support Van
Buren , but we would very much prefer good reasons why the South
should support some other person. We shall copy that argument and
comment upon it. If the Journal can prove that we are wrong, our
readers shall have an opportunity of knowing it.— Georgia Argus.
From the Georgia Argus, April 25.
If the Journal means simply that the Editor of the Argus has de
liberately taken sides against the Editor of tho Journal, it is a mat
ter of but little importance, it may be true or not, according to the
side that paper may take, for so far as we know, it has as yet taken
none ; but if it mean that the Editor is the State Rights party qnd
that we have taken sides against that, we apprehennd that lie will find
himself somewhat mistaken. We shall support Van Buren; who will the
Journal support? It says it will not support Clay; who then will it sup
port? Mr. Calhoun or Gen. Hayne? Towhatend? With the hope that
either of them will be able to beat both Clay and Van Buren ? The
Journal will not say that it entertains the slightest hope of such
a result. Then for what purpose will the third man?
Not to aid in the election of Van Buren of course. Now if it be
true that the Journal entertains no hope of defeating both the present
candidates, and if it will not support a third man with the view of
aiding in Van Buren’s election, it follows either that it acts without a
motive or an object.
If the Journal shall choose to support Clay, we have only to say,
the farther apart we are the better. If the Journal set itself up as
the party, or the mouth-piece of the parly, and intends by saying
that we have taken sides against them, to convey the idea that we
have taken sides against the party, we should be glad to know where
it got its authority for so doing. The State Rights party has not
given it we know; and we know that it docs not derive it from the
principles of the party. Will the Journal condescend to do us the
favor to point out to us what State Rights doctrine we have abandon
ed in supporting Van Buren in preference to Clay or any other man,
when the .support of that man can, to say the best of it, only aid in
Clay’s election ?
The Journal says, “We feel in duty bound to announce to our
friends, that the Georgia Argus, published at Columbus, Ga. is no
longer an opposition print.” Do the politics of the Journal consist
merely in opposition to those in power, right or wrong? merely in
climbing into power, no matter under what principles? Does the
Journal hold that this constitutes State Rights doctrine ? If so, then
indeed arc we far apart; and if these have long been his opinions,
there was no need of proclaiming a separation, for there never ex
isted any union between us.
If the Journal, by announcing that the “Georgia Argus, published
at Columbus, is no longer an opposition print,” meant that it was no
longer an advocate of Stare Rights doctrines and principles, we should
gladly be informed who constituted that Editor a judge for the whole
party ? Does the fact that a man shall purchase and conduct a pa
per, which has in times past advocated State Rights doctrines, neces
sarily constitute him a judge of such potency as to authorise him to
think and decide, not only for all who may happen to be renders of
that paper, but for the whole party. If the Editor intended by that
article to charge us with a departure from the correct political faith,
why did he not publish our article, make his charges agaiust us, and
give his readers a chance of forming a judgment for themselves? In
speaking of this very article he admits our ability, and surely if we
are wrong, he ought to have shown it; his mere.say so, solemn and
I impressive though it be, may not satisfy every body.
Did ii.C Jct’rnal feel that in the publication of that article he was
pronouncing agaiuj! I|S the sentence of ex-communication? If so,
who constituted him the poiu.’cal !”|h priest of the State Rights par
ty, with power and authority to make his judgement the rule of faith
for the whole party, and to put up and put aow.l at b ’ s pleasure?—
If it were possible for the Journal to conceive of tho uitC.r scorn and
derision in which we hold the spirit of dictation and proscription
which wo think is manifest in that article, if he could know how wo
would beard and defy it though ifwere backed by a power a thous
and times as great as he rnSj’ even believe lie can wield, humble
though we be, he would surely have sought Ont some more pliant sub
ject upon whom to have made the first experiment cf the strength of
Itis new-born powers. But it sometimes happens that the humble
station of an opponent renders any show of independence a<: enor
mous crime, and aggravates what might be tolerable in those we con
ceive to lie our equals and praiseworthy in our superiors, into an un
pardonable sin, which deserves and ought to call forth our fiercest
wrath and strongest indignation. All the honor and the wealth that
the King could heap upon Human availed him nothing so long as he
saw Mordecia, the Jew, who bowed not to him nor did his reverence
to him, sitting at the King’s gate.
We now say* to the Journal, as.we have before sail, we believe the
establishment of a National Bank of any sori would be the greatest
evil that could be inflicted upon this country; we believe that the es
tablishment of that Bank would as certainly follow the election of
Mr. Clay as that day follows night; therefore whatever we can do to
prevent Mr. Clay’s election shall be done. We believe there is no
chance to defeat him but to elect Van Buren. We believe that there
area few who have been ranked as State Rights men in Georgia, who
arc anxious for Clay’s success, and have been steadily at work to en
deaver to carry the State Rights party to his support. We believed,
and now believe, that ours is the only State Rights press in Georgia,
which had not been too far committed by their efforts and machina
tions, to be able to take the stand we have taken without seeming
inconsistency. We have taken that stand because we felt and still
feel that it is right; we feel that we have the ability to maintain it.
We have no sort of objection to any attempt on the part of the Jour
nal to prove to any body by argument that we aro wrong, but when
ever it undertakes to decide for the whole State Rights party, and
prescribe who shall and who shall not bo considered of the par
ty, we shall take upon ourselves to consider it arrogant and pre
sumptuous and treat it accordingly.
By tho Logansport Herald, extra, ol April 6th, we have news of
tho decease of General John Tipton, late a Senator of tuo United
States from the State of Indiana. At the moment of apparent good
health, he was attacked, on the night of the 4th inst., with what is
called an appoplexy of the lungs, of which he expired on the after
noon of the following day.
General Tipton was a native of Tennessee, aged about fifty-five,
and had during his life rendered valuable service in different public
stations.— Charleston Cnn. r t
From the IFetumpka Argus and Sentitwl.
THE WETUMPKA TRADING COMPANY.
We have heard of Dr. Dyott’s plan of Banking, of the Wild Cat
system of raising the wind, aad many similar systems of shinplaster
ing in our sister Slate of Mississippi; but their distance rendered us
individually safe from loss. It is, theiefore, with a feeling of the
’’J.'’*) l’°'F nil| it regret, that we revert to the conduct of the Managers
i of “ 1 ho Wetumpka Trading Company.” The systematic adroitness
by which they have swindled this community out of about 125,000
to 150,000 dollars, puts Dr. Dyolt and bis Wild Cat associates at
defiance.
Below are the proceedings of the largest congregation of our citi
zens ever held in the city, upon the subject of the situation of tho
company s affairs. The committee have not yet handed us their
advertisement; but the proceedings of tho meeting will show the
feeling of the public mind on the subject. The exoneration of the com
mittee at a previous meeting for their report is correct, for the
swindling process was not, at that time, put fully afloat by the Dir
ectors ; but, since then, they have managed to pocket the cash then
on band, and the proceeds of the cotton, with every vestige of such
property as could bo converted into cash. Such has been their man
ner of winding up, while the president, the only one in whom any
confidence latterly could be placed, was left here as a scape goat,
for the others to have time to make the most of their means. He
too, has now decamped, and left the often promised winding up, to
be dene without his help.
I here is nothing of any Consequence, we understand, left behind
I tom, to poany .fjigtli iq fnc redemption of their paper. The real
Estate in trust will meet but a small portion of it, at sales tinder the
trustees hammer in|thesemoneylesstimes,|and those to whom they had
loaned their paper have, one and all, by this time, bought enough
of their Notes, at a few cents in the dollar, to discharge them, when
due.
We understandr that a Wetumpkian, a bolde of about SIOOO of
their Notes, crossed the path of John E. Champlin, a week or two
since, in New Orleans, and by the aid of the I.aw secured his amount
from a well filled Pocket Book in possession of Champlin, who we
understand has gone to Texas. The other members of this honest
fraternity, Lyon and Smith, are no doubt following to share the
booty’. We hope that the community every where will be made
sufficiently acquainted with their persons, and their nefarious conduct,
to keep them in future in the eye of the public, as a set of swindlers.
PUBLIC MEETING.
At a large and respectable meeting of the citizens of the City of
Wetumka, convened on the 10th inst at the American Hotel, to take
into consideration the conduct and management of the Wetumpka
Trading Company—
On motion of J. N. Lightner, His Honor Alwin A. McWhorter,
Mayor of the City, was called to the Chair, and W. A. McClung
appointed Secretary.
On motion of J. F. Beecher, Esq.,
Resolved, That a committee of Five be appointed by the .Chair to
draft a correct advertisement of the individuals immediately connected
with the management of said Institution, setting forth the manner
in which they have acted toward this community-—naming them,
and giving the neccessary description of their person and appearance,
that they may not again be enabled to perpetrate their foul deeds
upon any of the good people of the Union.
Resolved, That the different Journals of the United States, to
gether with those of Texas, be requested to publish the proceedings
of said committee, in behalf of Honesty.
The Chair then appointed Col. S. P. Storrs, W. W. Mason, Esq.,
Col. John Houghton, Abel Hagery, and J. D. Williams, a Com
mittee to draft and publish said advertisement.
The meeting then adjourned.
ALWIN A. McWHORTER, Cha’n.
W. A. McClung, Se’cy.
The Moris Multicaulis Mania.—Of late years the United
States has been visited with an annual curse. We had the two chol
eras—the great fire—the land speculations—the warehouse buildings
—and the suspension of specie payments;—But these are nothing,
compared with the inarqpth evil which assails us in the present day
in the likeness of the monster that forms our caption. What brought
it about, heaven only knows—or rather the devil only knows, for we
cannot believe that heaven has anything to do with it; but at all
events it pervades the nation like a plague, and will we fear, soon
leave much wailing and gnashing of teeth behind it—Ask the farmers
what they are doing all over the country, and they will tell you almost
to a man that they are planting the Moris Multicaulis—and if you
desire to know why they do not pay due attention to their wheat
crops, they will answer you that in their anxiety to prepare food for
silk worms, they had no time to think of such an unimportant affair
as growing food for human beings. Os course this hideous mania
will soon come to an end, but, the calamities that are sure to emanate
from it may be of long standing—and the first of these, wc regret to
anticipate, will be a scarcity in the wheat crop, a Small loaf and a
large price to pay for it—ln short, mulberry-trees and silk worms
will drive everything else out of the market; but even the very
specul itors in the article will derive but little benefit from this, as the
price of silk will be reduced to such a trifle, as scarcely to pay for
the board and lodgings of the worms: while mulberry trees will have
become such a nuisance that they must be sold for fire wood at fifty
cents a cord, and considered dear enough at that same. In the mean
time the worms will continue to grow, and thrive, and become impu
dent: and probably to get lazy, and refuse to spin silk, preferring
perhaps to turn their attention to something in the bug-biting line so
that in the end it would not surprise us to learn that Government had
offered a large reward for the best receipe for killing silk worms.
Joking apart, this moris multicaulis speculation is a bad business and
will no doubt beggar thousands, and injure the whole county, while
some will be benefited by it but a few usurious bloodsuckers,
who arc now making fortunes by nourishing the insanity of the far
mers with hyperbolical hopes of future aggrandizement. And by the
way, a few of these reptiles have got up a paper in Philadelphia to
aid their villainy, and call it “ The Silk Worm.” And well the
name befits the undertaking, for it is a lowly creeping thing which en
deavors to cover its victims with the slime of its false promises, that
it may the better crawl into their affections and their pockets. What
.a contemptible, boneless, creeping, bloodless thing, the editor must
be! Only think of it, the editor of a worm ! But worm though he
be, persons afflicted with the silk epidemic, had better look out for
him, or they may learn, when it is too late, that they have been nurs
ing a snake, as well as a worm, in their bosoms.
N. Y. Sunday Packet.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEW-YORK.
The following communication was received from the Presi
dent of the United States:
Washington, March 29,1839.
To the House of Assembly of the State of New-York:
It affords me great satisfaction to acknowledge the receipt of
sundry resolutions ofyour honorable body expiessingits appro
bation of the course pursued by the Federal Executive, and of
the action of Congress, in relation to the controversy between
the State of Maine and her Brittanic Majesty’s Province of
New-Brunswick ; announcing, also, the determination ofyour
State to second the efforts of the Government in preserving pa
cific relations with Great Britain, and to hold herself in readi
ness, if necessary, to aid in resisting encroachments upon the
territory of any portion ol the Union.
For the expression of those sentiments, and for the entire
unanimity w ith which it was made, I tender my respectful and
grateful acknowledgements.
The Assembly of New-York may rest assured that to effect
an amicable adjustment of the controversy in question no ef
forts on my part will be omitted that are consistent with reason
and justice, and with that sacred respect for the character of
the country, which bfiutl paramount to all other considerations,
can never be disregarded. SitGujd these efforts prove unsuc
cessful, a result I cannot allow myself to Federal
Government will rely with confidence on the proffered CO-opCf*
ation of t otir great State ; a confidence alike justified by the
proceedings which have been communicated to me in your be
half, and by the known fidelity of the citizens of New-York to
the honorand interests of our common country.
With great respect,
Your obedient serv’t,
M. VAN BUREN.
Baltimore, April 23.
Death of General Samur! Smith.— lt becomes our painftil duty to
record the death ofono of our most aged and public spirited citizens,
General Samuel Smith, late Mayor of Baltimore, with the history of
which he has been identified almost from the time of its earliest foun
dation, As a soldier of the Revolution, the subject of this notice was
connected with some of the most prominent events of our struggle for
freedom; whilst as a merchant and citizen he has alwuys sustained the
highest consideration, To his enterprise our city has been indebted as
much perhaps as lothat of any other individual for its rapid commer
cial advancement, and although the later years of his life were chequered
by vicissitudes well calculated to shake the sternest firmness, he met
them with fortitude, and ho maintained to the end the hold which former
timss had given him on the affections of his fellow-townsmen. The cir
cumstances attending his death were somewhat peculiar. Having re
turned homo yesterday from a morning ride, the General had thrown
himselfon a sofa for repose, and was found dead by a servant who en
tered the apartment a short time afterwards. Full ofyears, and ofhonors,
General Smith has thus departed in peace, leaving behind l im a latge
community to regret the 10.-s of one who had been so long and advan
tageously connected with thoir most important interests. General Smith
was in his eighty-seventh year,
A GOOD ’UN.—The law for the city of New-York regula
ting voting, allows a man to deposite his vote in the ward in
which he resides, though he tnay have moved into it only the
day before, and to such an extent did the whigs at the lale.elec
tion carry on the system of colonizing Irom the strong wards to
the doubtful ones, that they “bit their own nose off.” So ma
ny were sent out from the 4th ward, which they considered per
fectly safe, that thedemocrats succeeded there by a majority of
22 \ (Conn.) Sun. i
STATE RIGHTS and VRITED STATES RIGHTS.
of
THE TRUE ISSUE.
Shall ours he a GOVERNMENT OF THE RANKS, or a GOV
MEKT OP THE PEOPLE? Shall we have a CONSTI
TUTIONAL TREASURY, or an UNCONSTITUTIONAL NA
TIONAL RANK? Shall we have a CONSTITUTIONAL CUR
°fUOLa silver or one of IRREDEEMABLE PA
' Shall we live under the despotism of a MONIED ARI STOC
RACY, or under the safeguards of a FREE CONSTITUTION ?
[Washington Chronic!#.
TUESDAY MORNING. APRIL 30.
GLARING INCONSISTENCY.
The force of public opinion has brought the Recorder into rather an
odd position.
The Presidential question is an “ ugly customer” to some of the
“ wool dyed” Whigs, w hose deep rooted hatred to the present Adminis
tration is equivalent to principle and every thing else ; but there is
another, and greatly the larger class, who, while they adhere to party
regulations under ordinary circumstances, will never allow themselvaa
for party purposes, to be placed in opposition to their own principles.
Tho Whig parly of Georgia, claiming to be the exclusive guardians
and protectors of .State Rights, that is to say, the leaders, are placed at
present, in rather an awkward predicament. There are not, and will
not be more than two candidates for the Presidency, Martin Van Buren
and Henry Clay; and although the Recorder has urged the policy of
bringing forward a third name, every mau in the Union of sound and
discriminating mind, is fully satisfied that the nomination of any other
individual, or individuals, cannot in the least affect the issue of the con
test ; and moreover, if a third candidate is brought out under Whig
auspices, it will be understood as a Whig manouvre to carry the elec
tion into the Bouse, for the benefit of Mr. Clay, and will be indignantly
frowned down, at least, in the South. And yet the Recorder, in one
breath, denounces, (rathei faintly to be sure,) Mr. Clay and his princi
ples, and in the next, recommends General Scott, or some body else, to
the Whig party.
Well! the Recorder has declared against Mr. Clay, iu favor of a third
candidate and all that, but they will not express the belief, that there is
the most distant prospect of electing such third candidate, and then,
we ask, for what purpose would (hey run him ? That we will presently
shew. That print Las already exhibited, with a pretty considerable
flourish, a statement of the late Congressional elections, with their con
jectures upon tho result of those yet pending, which brings them to th*
conclusion, that there will be in the next Congress, a very large majori
ty opposed to the present Administration, and which, if their calcula
tions are verified, would secure the election of Mr. Clay in the House.
With this prospect of a powerful auti-Van Buren majority, the Recor
der is determined to manufacture a third candidate; and suppose they
succeed, and he runs as well as Judge White did?—Should get twenty
five votes, defeat an election by the people, and what would be the con
sequence ? Why, if their estimates of the party complexion of tho next
Congress are cotrect, the election of Mr. Clay would be rendered abso
lutely certain. What sort of political consistency call you this? It ia
just the consistency which results from suffering passion to run away
with principle.
Will the people—the men who love principle for its own sake, look
calmly at this question? We believe they will; and not only so, but
that they will act wisely nnd firmly.
The time has come, when no shuffling in the ranks will be tolerated,
and when men must take their positions—openly —decidedly, and une
quivocally. It won’t do to tell the people that Mr. Clay’s principle*
are adverse to the South—that ho is this, that, and the other, whileynu
exult at the success of his friends. You calculate too largely upon the
gullibility of the people, if you expect to bamboozle them with such lo
gic. If you are opposed to Mr. Clay upon principle, you cannot re
joice at the success of his friends, because upon their success, doe* bi*
alone depend. You have already expressed the hope, that the Whig*
will succeed in Virginia, in the coming election, when you know, and
every body knows, that if yottr hopes are realized, Mr. Clay ia as cer
tain of that State, as if the votes were now in the ballot box ; and you
say it won’t do to elect Mr. Clay, because his principles are so advene
to State Rights.
We are not to be understood ns inviting tho Recorder to the supportof I
Mr. Van Buren, but as giving them a gentle admonition upon the course I
they are taking on the Presidential question, and to recommend to a print I
which has so long enjoyed an elevated rank among its cotemporaries, to I
maintain its independence, and to take sides boldly and manfully aocord- I
ing to its own judgment, in a contest where the position of a neutraj I
will be tho least unenviable of all. Go for Clay, or against him.— ls ■
you wish a third candidate, hoist his name, and take the field in his be- I
half. Be for some one, and against some.—That is the law of politics. fl
If the Whigs succeed in a sufficient number of States to control the I
Presidential election, Henry Clay will he the President, and the Recorder 8'
knows it; and yet, with all its professed opposition to his prinoiples.it ■’
still anticipates with emotions of tire liveliest pleasure, the triumph of ■
his friends. This course cannot be approbated by candid and reflecting 8
men of any party, and must lead the Recorder into a dilemma, from 8
which it will be difficult to escape.
In the present state of party feeling, it is about as natural for a whig, 8
(as the term is now understood in reference to political divisions,) to vote 8j
for Mr. Clay, as for tho “sparks to fly upwards,” and about as’uataral, 8
that a genuine State Rights man should vote against him ; and so it will 8
be found when tho trial comes; and we hold this truth to be equally self- 8
evident, that no true friend of State Rights, will, by word or deed, be ■
found either aiding or abetting Mr. Clay, or his friends, but will, on the 8
contrary, exert themselves to diminish the influence of both.
The time is not distant when all hands must stand square up to this 8
question. Mr. Clay will shortly bo nominated by a Whig Convention, I
and the campaign will fairly open between him and Mr. Van Buren. I
After that, no flinching or dodging is expected, and then we shall see I
who’s who.
INFAMOUS.
On the 16th instant, we published a communication, announcing the I
death of James McCown Tilford, Esqr., of Lanier, Macon county, Ga. I
which came in a letter signed Patterson B. Hines, who requested it» I
publication, post-marked, “ Lanier, Ga. March 9th,” and the postage I
paid, and Is as follows:
“Thomas Haynes, Esqr; Dear Sir—For the information of friends I
residing in different parts of the State, you will please publish the fol- I
lowing obituary notice as soon as practicable in your very valuable pa- I
per. PATTERSON B. HINES.”
Although having no personal acquaintance with Mr. Hines, we could I
not suspect the slightest intention to play off a hoax, at the expense of I
Mr. Tilford, aud therefore gave it a_ place in our paper, upon the very I
reasonable presumption that it was tho act of a friend of Mr. T.’s, but |
to out* greal astonishment, we received this morning a letter from Mr-
Tilford, dated on the 20th i.i:‘- which we copy below, informing us that
the annunciation of his death was the work ol sum? individual uuknowa
to him, and of whom ho speaks in terms of just reprobaiiori t i* nt l *•
which we add the expression of our deepest indignation.
Wc have enclosed Hines's letter to Mr. Tilfoid. in the fiopp thlH !)•
may be able to detect the imposter.
“ Lanier, Macon Co. April 20th, 1839.
Col. Haynes:
Dear Sir— Being in perfect health, as I am, you cannot well ima
gine my surprize, when I saw my death announced in the “Standard
of Union” published on the 16th inst. From what source the com.
munication came to your hands, or by what feelings it was generated
I know not with certainty, nor do 1 care, only so far as it may affect
the feelings of my parents, and other relatives at a distance. I con
sequently wish its falsity to be corrected forthwith in whatever man
ner your own prudence may dictate. And I would furthermore
say of the writer, whoever he may be, that with all liis affected com
pliments upon my character in announcing my death, that I believe
him to be either a knave or a fool, (and perhaps both ;) who, from &
consciousness of his own utter worthlessness, could never hope to
attain even the humble stand, which I have been fortunate enough
to occupy either as a political or professional character.
Respectfully your friend,
J. McCOWN TILFORD.”
We are gratified to perceive by the following editorial extract from
the Commercial Register of the 9th instant, published at Mobile*
that tho Charleston Insurance and Trust Company of this city, pays
its losses with a promptitude highly honorable to its credit and char
acter. — Charleston Courier.
“ Promptness.— Punctuality is the life of trade, and the best guar
anty of a sound credit in business. On the 31st tilt, the Charleston
Insurance and Trust Company lost SIO,OOO by the fire on Conti-st*
Mr. Thos. Lcsesne, the agent in this city, was placed in funds to pay
the loss on tho Bth inst. The Capital of this Company is One Mill
ion of Dollars, all paid in ; and its punctuality makes it a most agree-,
able friend in time, of need,”