‘\he conciliating and pacific Louis the ■
* 18 th awl delivered the world from a
conqueror, who, knowing no other glory
than that of war, ruined France in order
to carry desolation to the nation* that
he wished to subdue. **;?’ > i j
The war which the aggression of Bo- -
naparte has provoked is not only justifi
ed by the obligation that every sovereign
is under to support his guarantees and
confederations, but also by the sacred
duties that the institution of sovereign
ties imposes upon *hem.
War is a pernicious evjl ; no govern
ment ought to undertake it but to re
deem the people from calamities greater
? than those of war itself. This is the
case, Spaniards, in which we are* Bo
naparte, after his aggression against
France and her legitimate sovereign, 8c
having violated the treaty that he acced
ed to, maintains tjiat he has injured rto
person* that he has recovered his legiti
mate rights, that the sovereigns cannot
call them ‘.n question, and that he wishes
to live at peace yith all* It is not peace
that the invader wishes ; he only wish
es to see himself freed from foreign in
quietudes, in order to-employ the armed
part of the French nation against the
greater and more sound, but disarmed
portion of it. To ward off all kinds of
attack, he wishes the powers to believe
that he is going to labor for the peace
and prosperity of Europe ; as if she
could have forgotten that since he took
the reins ol government terrible wars
have been constantly renewed and the
springs of public prosperity have been
exhausted in ail the countries submitted
to his Influence ; or as if Europe could*
full into the absurdity of imagining that
Bonaparte is capable of divesting him
self of his invariably observed maxims*
Spain does hot want to learn lessons of
any one, she has them sufficiently in
structive in her fatal errors* She has
been afflicted by Bonaparte with two
kinds of war; he waged it until the year
1808 against her dignity, her treasures,
her fleets and her armies, rendering
them subservient to his designs, this was
called by this exterminating ally, amity.
And in order that no person should rely
on his pledges of gratitude, he practised
the same year at Bayonne the machina
tions wtll known to the public ; after
wards to the end of supporting the most
atrocious deed of perfidy and violence,
he spread desolation aqd havoc over the
provinces of this nation and treated her
as a freehold, which as owner he may
dispose in favor of whom he pleases,
subject to the conditions of his will.
Bonaparte has not belied himself; he
signalises his new era by sacrificing to
his vanity the lawful and idolised sove
reign of France, and the liberty of that
nation, putting himself at the head of
a faction interested in continuing the
miseries of humanity.—Bonaparte from
the capital of prancejtells all the nations,
do not believe me, you have treated in
former pacifications for yous most pre
cious interests and your rtiost sacred ob
ligations to procure the tranquility of
our people r but you have been disap*
pointed. Bonaparte from the seat of
the French throne ; tells the sovereigns,
you acknowledged formerly nvy usurp
ed rights against your own*convictions
and permitted me to sit among you,
and the. result was no other than to feed
my vanity and ambition. Bonaparte* in .
fine, says to the world* all these courte
sies have been despised by a faithless and
lawless man, who finds no medium be
tween Jiis extermination 8c the .wretch**
edness ot the human race. ‘ J
In such circumstances no one can hes
itate m forming his resolutions Eu
rope has taken the most safe* advan
tageous and honorable cause. Distrust
among the powers having disappeared,
theiV interests are already associated by
the common danger. Prussia, will not
view with indifference the fate of Prus
sia, Russia not permit that the
southern part of Europe should be dis
tributed in . hereditaments ; to nourish
crowned slaves. England will persist
that the rash Bonaparte shall not again
appear on the stage of Sovereigns, who
dared to give laws to the seas when; all
the ships of France were chained in her
ports ; and finally, Sovereigns well per
suaded that generosity is not a correc
tive for mmds of a c-rtain temper* will
lend an ear but to the dictates of jus
tice and the public safety, which are
Supreme laws of government.
i This is, Spaniards* a war ordained by ;
the law. It is innocent and perfectly
just, b<;cause'll isxaiculated for the good
ol the people, security of Sovereigns,
called by Providence and by “the funda
mental laws to govern them. It is also
prudent, because the means taken and
continued to be taken by the combined
powers in order to reconquer the peace.
of Europe,-arc comfortable to the-gravi
ty and importance of the enterpcize ;
and above all is necessary, because na
tions, like individuals, cannot neglect
the saw of preservation of self defence
against the disturber of the tranquility
of the world.
The necessity of war does not arise
from the principle alone ; you have an
other motive more imperious, Spaniards*
for combatting the author who formed
the impious plan of ruining the work
o! the Messiah and of destroying in three
orTour years what he called in bis in
structions to Cavelioni, the edifice of
deceit and prejudices. It is Bonaparte,
who not content to be the source of cal
amities* wishes that they should be born
without hope of a better fate, without
the aid of the tender kind and compas
sionate Catholic Religion. Such dog
mas as condemn the right of fbrce, the
only one that Napoleon acknowledges
are not pleassing to him ; dogmas Which
inculcate justice and equity, cannot suit
the usurper of’thrones, cannot be fitting
to him in short who maintains that the
names of just, equitable and virtuous
belong exclusively to conquer? rs.
Justice, Spaniards, prudence, the laW
of self-defence* and religion, ordain this
war ; to redeem France and her throne
from the yoke of oppression under which
they groan and to conquer the tranquil
ity and reposy for the World. The
counsels of ambition have not had the
feast influence in so upright a decision.
France shall not be dismembered in her
military posts or provinces.
Her limits Shall be sacredly respected;
and in order that tfee auxiliary armies
-may not set their feet within them,
France wants no other impulse than to
reflect on the outrage inflicted on her
national dignity in making her an object
of the sport and mockery of factions ;
that a nation begins to be a slave as soon
as she loses the dynasty established by
her fundamental laws ; and that to see
witlteareless indifference, the change of
a king, the .father of hiS.people, for a
monster who feeds on human blood, is
the basest ©^degradations.
I am sensible of the authority that is
in me to declare and make war. lam
sure that my subjects will repose m the
confidence that a king* who founds His
fidelity on that of his people, cannot un
dertake a wag without the regret of see
ing himself under the necessity of de
fending them. But I have wished to
call to my assistance the force of con
viction ; in order to> merit the reputati
on of just, in the opinion of nations, to
strengthen the valor of my troop's, Stim
ulate the generosity of the wealthy, sup
port the resignation of all in the priva
tions of this calamity, and in order that
being sanctified : all may hope for the
war assistance, of the disposer of victo
ries. . . • r4 [;
In my Royal Palace of Madrid, the
2d of May, eighteen hundred 8c -fifteen.
fSignedJ # - FERDINAND.
Countersi(ped, Pedro Cev&llos.
————
TO THE PUBLIC.
The measures pursued by a party in
the State of Georgia on the alleviating’
system, having excited the curiosity #f
many to enquire info the tendency of
the course pursued by then! on that po
licy, some notice will be taken of the
consequences attendant on the establish
ment of the authority contended for by
the Judiciary on that subject. When a
principle is xonfended for by some and
condemned by the most correct
method of attaining to the knowledge of
Us merits is to mvestigahe it; Which
will be attempted in as short and com
prehensive a m&mer as the capacity of
the author will admit.
First, in the prosecution of this im
portant enquiry it is advisable'to com
mence at the source from whence the
policy seems to have taken its existence
in this state. The first of my knowledge
of it was manifested in the Governor’s
rejecting the alleviating act of 1313, re
passed by the Legislature in Ift 14.
That the Governor was in the exercise
of a constitutional right will no t l/e de
nied* nor do I deem the principle dan
gerous which authorises his revision of
all. laws by the Legislature ; for
in the* event of his rejection of a bill two
thirds of the legislature may pass a law
notwithstanding his dissent. Here the
constitution has guarded against the go
vernor's nullifying; a law at discretion,
and to prevent his abuse of power to the
injury of our interest—The constitution
requires the return of a bill in five days
otherwise it shall be a law.
The aforesaid act was passed by the
Legislature and transmitted to the Exe
cutive for his revision, and'returned by
him to the Legislature with his .dissent,
which law was afterwards repassed tm
der a constitutional provision by two
thirds of the Legislature* Hero I con
tend that tfieconstitutional consideration
of an act (The operation of which is lo
cated to the state according to all the
authorised powers and principles of this
government ) ends. But the Judiciary
having assumed the authority of framing
a convention of themselves for the pur
pose bf taking into’ consideration the
constitutionality of the act aforesaid,
and in convention have decided against
its constitutionality, which decision has
caused great disquietude in the state* and
has also formed a great political question
which has occupied the attention of a
large portion of the citizens of the state,
by whom the principle thus contended
for by the Judiciary have been reproba
ted & pronounced to be*atWar With their
most vital interest, and has utterly disa
vowed both the power Und principle as it :
respects the Judiciary, and h*ve publish
ed their determinatioh hot to acknow
ledge or consider as republicans, nor
entitled to public confidence, those who
have introduced the detestable principle.
‘et with astonishment, disgust*and de
testation do we view in the presentments
of the f>md Jury of Clark county, at
March , erm erf the Superior Court,
1815. the contribution of their aid to the
establishment of the enormous authori
ty in question* which renders it indis
pensably necessary to enter iftto the in
vestigation cf the disastrous consequen
ces attendant on the adoption of the
principle. By attending to the purport
of the presentments it will be foj*nd, that
in asserting the Governor's right to the
rejection of a law, which is not denied,
they appear to be very tenacious of the
provisions of the constitution, in parti
cular that which authorises the gover
nor to reject a bill, and recognise it as a
wise and wholesome restraint over the
legislature who is* was, and always will
be but too prone to illimitable dominion.
Great danger seems to be apprehended
from the proneness of a legislative coun
cil to acts of enormity, but none appears
to be apprehended r rom an individual.
But the inconsistency of the Grand Jury
more conspicuously appears in that part
of theth presentments which advocates
the authority contended for by the Judi
ciary which would expunge from the
constitution the most sacred of all its
provision., that which interests the law
rejected by tne Governor with two
thirds of the legislature, for in the e
vent of the Judges pronouncing the law
thus passed by a cohstitutiona: majority
of the legislature void, it destroys its
force and effect, and of course the pro
vision under which dt was passed. For’
there is no return of it to the legisla-’
cure again, arid admitting there was by
fixing the authority in question, the court
could repeat its decision and so finally
present its operation : the queauon is
respectfully submitted to the public—
Whether this is not further evidence of
the existence of the detestable policy a
mongst us* that the reins of government
are safer in the hands of the few than’ of
the many.- We are told by the Jury
u that they would deplore the* exigency
that would humble the Judiciary at the
feet of either of the other departments
of government*'—the truth’ of this as
sertion will be acknowledged as it Would
be unreasonable to suppose for a mo
ment, that a man would strive to crown
another and at the same time consent to
see him humbled. The establishment
of the abhorrent principle -in question
would virtually croWn the Judiciary, de
base the legislature and executive, and
disorganize our whole political system, ■
and for the following reasons : It would
crown the Judiciary by placing the
reins of government solely m their
hands—it would debase the legislature
and executive by prostrating them at
the feet of the judiciary—for it will not
be denied but that it will be placing
them at least at their feet to put their
acts under their feet. It would disor
ganize the system by displacing the
constitutional powers of government, . &
it would also destroy ail uniformity of
decision in Our courts of for it
is well known that celebrated attornies
and able statesmen haVe differed in opi
nion on the constitutionality of the alle
viating system. If two thus differing in
opinion presided as judges, the one dis
regard the act and authorise proceed
ings, the other obey the act arid refuse
it, which is by no means unlikely much
less impossible, I ask where W any uni
formity of decision in such acourse of
proceeding l It is easy to see what will
be the disastrous consequences attendant
on the adoption of such disorganizing
measures, and whether the motives of
those who justify or advocate such base
principles be corrupt or pure it matters
I not* the consequences are the same—
i ‘ ** •’ ’ ? •• * * •*’ W: ’ ; 4
and honor; dignity, mtriotism atnFeveryj
thing sacred to tUe r &eltggs of
calls aloud in the most pathetic language
to every earnest lover of his liberty to e«
vince his indignation the principle—
and its advocates to concede the autho*
rity contended for will virtually change
the administration. This is a represen
tive government, tour representatives a
lone can give force and effect to our
laws. But admit the authority contend
ed for, now what is the true state of our.
case ? For it cant\ot be denied that if the
Judiciary- can nullify one law, they can
our whole code both civil and criminal,
1 and thus effectually deprive us of the sa
lutary effects of one law passed by our
representatives, rendering them mertly
nominal and place them in the situation
of a parliament to a king Now I ask
any man of common sense and candor if
this would not be a radical Change of the
Administration ? Ido not contend that
such Would be the course pursued by
t% Judiciary in the event of granting
the authority ; but is the principle ei
ther safe or honorable ? 1 answer it is
hot,<rior is he a “Consistent republican
that is reconciled to it, and much less so
to contend far it. There is one part ofi
the presentments which atrthsihg onM
the part of tfce Jury, but if true it excites 1
solemn on the part of the.
Judiciary, for in justification of the con
duct of the Judges on the alleviating!
System, they say that w if Inordinate amJ
bition o> a thirst for an increase ofpow-!
er had swayed their mindi they cannot at
least, be accused tof readily and eagerly
seizing an opportunity to promote their
end» for they have for seven years slum
bered oyer the occasioh calculated to en
sure their purpose.*’ Here 1 understand !
them as contending that the Judges
were influenced by a sensllf of indexible
duty in and the inflexibi
lity of this duly Can only be derived by
inference from their oath, for there isy
not one word in the constitution of the
United States, hbr of this state, that
countenances much less supports theit
decision If the solemnity tof their oath
at length coerced them into their duty
with the acknowledgement on the part
of the Jtiry of £ seven yeaia nap, or
’ slumber, before they possessed probity
enovfgh to Comply with it, I ask the
jury from whence they derive
their belief, that the stand'which 1
the judges have made against the allevi
ating system was founded in an honest
endeavor to preserve uninjured the great j
rights and duties connected, with their
satored trust / for if those assertions be j
true, they are guilty of an’ awful breach
of tfust as well as unparalleled neglect
tof duty. These would be the strongest
arguments ifi favgr of the removal of
the Judges that 1 have .yet heard, were
It true, but I deny it t their decision is
not a duty at all and therefore they have
not lived in the neglect of it. The in
consistency of the Jury on this occasion
Oato only be imputed td the spirit of fan
aticism by which they must liave been
instigated, in justification of (he Judges,
until their zeal overrun their knowledge,*
and thus subjected them to the incon
sistency of converting their designed
praise ihtto a palpable ridicule. But
those ingenious gent emen may attempt!
to evade the farce of this argument, in
some degree to apologise for the neg-<
leet of duty in the Judges, by resorting
’ to the expediency of the law in question,;
if so, I .shall contend another nap was
importantly necessary $ for it is ac
knowledged on all handfcthat analleyia-;
ting act was more indispensible at the
moment the Judges’ decided against its
than it was during its existence ; the
Judges therefore are not excusable
•for the omission of duty on grounds oi
expediency. It is remarked that out
opponents are never known to excite a
principle of watchfulness over their pub*i
lie officers, but to the contrary were ex-j
horted to be actuated by a generous ?pi
nt of unmasked confidence and a zealous
sense of affectionate congratulation—j
That is, plate unlimited*'confidence m
them and dont keep such a watchful eye
over them, and thus endeavor to divert
the attention of the people off their
guard by recommending to them to
enjoy themselves in a high glee of joy*
dr congratulation* which in some degree
operate comparable to intoxication, and
thus render them the easier subjects of
imposition, and whilst in this frame oi
they could effect their
mischievious projects; but watchful
ness is advisable; it is recommended* In
the most important cases we should ne«
s ver be off our guard ; there are mischie
vious designing men in all governments
and such may get into office and put# otj
be the means of putting a yoke on our
necks which we nor our fathers wen
* able to bear. We have but too vtwH
