Newspaper Page Text
#\ver of Congress. Whilst, how-!
etcr, I hare entertained this opin-j
ion, it has never been iny wish to
see the power in question exercised
with an oppressive inequality upon
any portion of our citizens, or for
the advantage of one section of the
Union at the expense of another.
On the contrary, 1 have at all times
believed it to be the sacred duty of
those who are entrusted with the
administration of the Federal Gov
ernment to direct its operations in
the manner best calculated to dis
tribute, as equally as possible, its
burdens and blessings amongst the
several States and the people. My
views upon this subject were several
years ago spread before the people
of this State, and have since been
widely diffused through the medium
of the public press. My object at
that time was to invite the attention
of my immediate constituents to a
dispassionate consideration of the
subject in its various bearings, being
well assured that such an investiga
tion would bring them to a standard
which, from its moderation and jus
tice, would furnish the best guaran
tee for the true interests of all. If,
as has been supposed, those views
have contributed in any degree to
produce a state of feting so much to
be desired, I have reason to be grati
fied with the result.
“The approaching, and, if the
policy of the present Executive is
allowed to prevail, the certain and
speedy extinguishment of the na
tional debt has presented an oppor
tunity for a more equitable adjust
ment of the tariff, winch has been
already embraced by the adoption of
a conciliatory measure, the spirit of
which will, I doubt not, continue to
be cherished by all wh are not de
sirous of advancing their private in
terests at the sacrifice of those of the
public, and who place a just value
upon the peace and harmony of the
Union.
“Tlie protective system and its
proper adjustment became a sub
ject of frequent and necessary con
sideration, whilst I formed a part of
the Cabinet; and the manner in
which the President proposed to
carry into effect the policy in rela
tion to imposts, recommended in his
previous messages, has since been
avowed with that frankness which
belongs to his character. To this
end, he recommend “a modification
of the tariff, which should produce a
reduction ofthe revenue to the wants
of the Government, and an adjust-
ment of the duty upon imports, with
a view to equal justice in relation to
all your national interests, and to the
counteraction of foreign policy, so
far as it may be injurious to those
interests.”
In these sentiments I fully con
cur; and I have been thus explicit
in the statement of them, that there
inay be no room for misapprehen
sion as to my own views npon the
subject. A sincere and faithful ap
plication of these principles to our
legislation, unwarped by private in
terest or political design—a rcstric
t ion of the wants of the Government
to a simple and econimical adminis
tration of its affairs —the only ad
ministration which isconsistent with
the purity and stability of the Re
publican system —a preference in
encouragement given to such tnanu
facturcs as are essential to the na
tional defence, and its extension to
others in proportion as they arc a
dapted to our country, and of which
the raw material is produced by our
selves, with a proper respect for the
rule which demands that all taxes
should be imposed in proportion to
the ability and condtion of the con
tributors, would, I am convinced,
give ultimate satisfaction to a vast
majority of the people of the United
States, and arrest that spirit of dis
content which is now unhappily so
prevalent, and which threatens such
extensive injury to the institutions
of our country.”
You next asked me, whether I
would sanction any bill granting ap
propriations of the public money,
l’or the purposes of internal improve
ment, hy means of canals, railroads,
&c.
My views upon the subject of In
ternal Improvements by the Feder
al Government were given at the
same time and upon the same ap
plication. They are as follows:
“Internal Improvements are so
diversified in their nature, and the
possible agency of the Federal Gov-
ernment in their construction so va
riable in its character and degree,
as to render it not a little difficult
to lay down any precise rule that
will embrace the whole subject.
The broadest and best defined divis
ion is that which distinguishes be
tween the direct construction of|
works of Internal Improvement by !
the General Government, and pe-j
cuniary assistance given by it to :
such as are undertaken by others.
In the former are included the
right to make and establish roads
and canals within the States, and 1
the assumption of as much jurisdic
tion over the territory they may oc
cupy, as is necessary to their pres
ervation and use, The latter is re
stricted to simple grants of money,!
in aid of such works when made uu-j
dor State authority.
“The Federal Government docsj
not, in my opinion, possess tiiepow-j
c*r first specified; nor can it derive i
if from the assent of I lie fSralc in
! which such works are to be construc
!ted. The money power, as it is
called, is not so free from difficulty.
Various rules have from time to
time been suggested by those who
properly appreciate the importance
of precision and certainty in the
operations of the Federal power;
hut they have been so frequently
infringed upon by the apparently
unavoidable action of the Govern
ment, that a final and satisfactory
settlement ofthe question has been
prevented. The wide difference
between a definition of the power in
question upon paper, and its prac
tical application to the operations
of Government, has been sensibly
felt by all who have been entrusted
with the management of public af
fairs. The whols subject was re
viewed in the President’s MaysviHe
message. Sincerely believing that
the best interests of the whole coun
try, the quiet, not to say the stabili
ty, of the Union, and the preser
vation of that moral force which
perhaps, as much as any other,
holds it together, imperiously re
quired that the destructive course
of legislation upon that subject then
prevalent, should, iu some proper
and constitutional way be arrested, 1
throughout gave to the measure, of
which that document was an expo
sition, my active, zealous, and anx
ious support.
“The opinions declared by the
President in the MaysviHe, and his
succeeding annual message, as 1
understand them, areas follows: Ist.
That Congress does not possess the
power to make and establish a road
or canal within a State, with a right
of jurisdiction to the extent I have
stated; anJ that if it is the wish of
the people that the construction of
such works should be undertaken
by the Federal Government, a pre
vious amendment of the Constitu
tion conferring that power, and de
fining and restricting its exercise,
with reference to the sovereignty of
the States, is indispcnsible. 2d.
An imitation of his belief that the
right to make appropriations in aid
of such Internal Improvements as
are of a national character, has
been so generally acted upon, and
so long acquiesced in by the Feder
al and State Governments, and the
constituents of each, as to justify its
exercise, but that it is nevertheless
highly expedient that even such
appropriations should, with the ex
ception of such as relate to light
houses, beacons, buoys, public piers,
and other improvements in the har
bors and navigable streams of the
U. States, for the security and fa
cility of our foreign commerce, be
deferred at least until our national
debt is paid. 3d. That if it is the
wish of tlie people that the agency
of the Federal Government should
be restricted to the appropriation of
money, and extended in that form
in aid of such undertakings, when
carried on by State authority, then
the occasion , the manner , and the ex
tent oj the appropriation, should he
made the subject oj Constitutional
regulation.
“In these views I concurred; and
I likewise participated in the diffi
culties which were encountered,
and expressed by the President, in
adopting the principle which con
cedes to the Federal Government
the light to make appropriations in
aid of works which might he regard
ed as of a national character—diffi-;
cultics which arose as well from the’
danger of considering meie usage !
the foundation of the best rule that i
bad ever been adopted, or that could
in the absence of positive constitu
tional provision, be established.
The reasons on which these objec
tions were founded are so fully sta
ted in the document referred to,
and have been so extensively pro
mulgated, that it is unnecessary
for me to repeat them here. Sub
sequent reflection and experience
have confirmed my apprehension of
the injurious consequences which j
would probatily flow from the con-!
tinuation of appropriations for Inter
nal Improvements; with no belter
rule tor the government of Congress
than that of which I have spoken;
and 1 do not hesitate to express it as
my opinion, that the general and true
interests of the country would be best
consulted by withholding them, with
the exceptions which I have already
refill ed 10, until some constitutional
regulation upon Ihe subject has been
• made.
“In this avowal I am certainly
! not influenced by feelings of indif
ference, much less of hostility, to
j internal improvements. As such,
they can have no enemies.— 1 have
never omitted to give them all the
proper aid in my power, for which,
{by the way, I claim no particular j
• merit, as I do not believe there is
Jan honest and sane man in the coun
try who does not wish to see them
prosper; but their construction, and j
the manner in which, and the means !
jby which they are to be effected,!
are quite different questions. Ra-j
| flier than again expose our legisla
tion to all the corrupting influences;
of those scrambles and combinations
in Congress which have been here
tofore witnessed, and the other af- j
{fairs of the country to the injurious
j ('fleets unavoidably resulting from ‘
‘them, it would, in my opinion, be’
indefinitely preferable to leave
works of flic character spoken of.
and not embraced; in tlie exception
which has been pointed out, for the
present, to the supports upon which
they have reposed with so much suc
cess for the last tvvoyears, viz: State
efforts and private enterprise. If
the great body of the people become
convinced that the progress of these
works should be accelerated Ikv the
Federal arm, they will not refuse to
come to some proper constitutional
arrangement upon the subject.
The supposition that an equitable
rule, which pays a proper respect to
the interests and condition of the
different States could fail to receive
ultimately the constitutional sanc
tion, would be doing injustice totiie
intelligence of the country. By
such a settlement of the question,
our political system, iu addition to
the other advantages derived from
it, would, in relation to this subject
at least, ho relieved from those dan
gerous shocks which spring from
diversities of opinion upon constitu
tional points of deep interest; and,
in the meantime, the resources of
the country would be best husband
ed by being left in the hands of those
by whose labor they are produced.”
To this exposition of iny opinions
upon the general subject, were add
ed some additional observations, in
my letter to Mr. Williams, already
referred to. They wer chiefly ap
plicable to “the improvements of
our harbors and the removal of par
tial and temporary obstructions in
our navigable rivers, for the facility
of our foreign commerce,” and the
best means of checking the tenden
cy to abuses which such appropria
tions often produced. To the prby
ciples laid down in thts two publica
tions referred to, I still adhere, and
it has been my endeavor to carry
them into full and fair effect in the
administration of the Government,
since l have been at its head. If
they have been departed from, in
respect to any works commenced
under my administration, I am not
advised of it.
In conclusion, you ask me,
“whether I approve of Mr. Poin
sett’s scheme for the organization
of militia?”
My knowledge of Military affairs,
is very limited; but I will neverthe
less give you such views as I have
been able to take ofthe subject of
your inquiry.
The Constitution of the U. States
authorizes Congress to provide for
organizing, arming and disciplin
ing tlie militia, and for governing
them when in the service of the U.
States; reserving to the States the
appointment of officers, and the au
thority to train the militia, accord
ing to the mode cf discipline pre
scribed by Congress. In execution
of this grant of power, Congress,
during the Administration of Gen.
Washington, and upon his recom
mendation, passed a law for the or
ganization of the militia of the U.
States. By this act, it is provided,
first, that every free white citizen
ofthe United States, resident there
in, between the ages of fifteen and
forty-five, (with some enumerated
exemptions,) is to be enrolled and
divided by the several States into
companies, battalions, regiments,
brigades and divisions, upon prin
ciples therein established, and in
like manner officered by them, ac
cording to the rules prescribed by
Congress for determining their
number and respective rank. 2d,
That the militia thus enrolled, shall
be armed at their own expense.
3d, That they shall he disciplined
according to the rules approved and
established by Congress, on the
twenty-ninth of March, 1779; and
4th, That the rules for the govei n
ment of the Militia when called in
to thc service of the United States,
(tlie manner and occasions of doing
which being pointed out by law,)
shall be the same rules and articles
of war, as are provided for the gov
ernment of tlie troops ofthe United
States.
The provision of the act of 1792,
which obliges every citizen duly en
rolled, to be ‘constantly provided
| with arms, accoutrements and am
munition, was re-enacted duringthc
Administration of Mr. Jefferson;
and so much of that act as establish
ed the discipline and regulations ofi
Baron Steuben was subsequently re- |
pealed, and the system of discipline {
and exercises of the Regular Army j
was adopted for the Militia. These
additional provisions, with occasion
al acts respecting the appointment
ts the officers by the States, and
changing the regulations concern
ing the pay and subsistence of the
Militia when in tiie actual service
of the 1 . States; and the prepara
tion and distribution of a system cf
tactics, constitute every material
part of the legislation of Congress
upon the subject of the Militia since
the establishment of the Govern
ment.
The organization of the militia thus es
i tablished has been in force nearly fifty years.
{ lt varies in many essential particulars from
‘that recommended by General Washington,
‘and ha* been regarded ever since its adoption
! as defective in an eminent degree, as well by
! ibe successive Presidents of the United States,
| as by all other persons, whose habits of life
land opportunities of personal observation
| have fitted them to form sound opinions upon
j the subject. Its improvement was therefore
jan object of unceasing and anxious solicitude
ion the part ot General Washington, and al
'most every success ve President commenced
his career with calling the attention of Con.
gross to tiie subject, and closed it with ex-{
prossiotis of regn t that these recnmnienda-1
lions had proved unavailing. Gen, Cass.’
when Secretary of \V*/, elated in rffjpigi*
report, that this subject bad Been presented!
for consideration no less than thirty one times
in official Executive communications, “com
mencing with the inaugural address of Pres
ident \S ashington.
The principal objections to the present
system app ar to arise from the great and
unnecessary extent ot the enrolment of the
militia held to actual service, and who are
required to muster and do duty a certain
| number of days/in the year, and from the
want Oi adequate means or inducements to se
cure a proper instruction; by reason of which
tuis heavy tax is not only rendered in a great
degree useless, but is also unreasonablv%ur
densome.
i hy hie federal Constitution, Congress has
tue power to provide li>r calling tortti the
militia tu execute the laws of “the Union,
suppress insurrection and repel invasion.
I iie nnlitia force provided for these purposes
bv existing laws, and which, to render it
effective, is compelled to be at all times pro
vided with arms, accoutrements and ammu
nition, and to be mustered and drilled at staled
periods, and kept always ready for service,
comprises, with limited and enumerated ex
emptions, the whole ol the able-bodied male
white population of the United Slates, be
tween the ages of 18 and 45. When it is
considered that the number of these accord
‘nt? lo official returns exceed a million and a
na.f oj men, and probably at this period,
amounts to two millions, tlie immense and
consequently oppressive excess of the exist
ing preparatory enrolment, beyond the pos
sible wants of the country, must be apparent
to ail. How far the existing organization
and laws passed by tue States in pursuance
thereof have proved successful in accomplish
ing the great object in view, viz: the instruc
t'on and improvement of citizen soldiers in
military tactics, you are able to judge for
yourselves. The results were a short time
smoe summoned up by the officer before al
luded to, in these emphatic words: ‘lt is vain
io expect, that the whole adult population of
1“/ country can, or will furnish themselves
with the articles required by law; or that
their collection, for any number of days they
can affoid to devote to this object, and under
the usual circumstances of such assemblages,
can produce any beneficial effects to them
selves or their country. Already, iu a uum
her ol the States, the system has sunk under
tlie weight of public opinion, and the practi
cal question now is, whether we shall remain
in tact , defenceless, or resort to a large stand
ing raili ary force in lime of peace, that just
dread of all free Governments, or adopt an
efficient plan, which will prepare for the pub
lic defence the greatest loiceat the least cost,
J
..v WJt, witdlCbl lUitC dl lliC Ittibl GUblj
and without danger.’
To remedy the evils of the present system,
it lias been repeatedly proposed to reorgan
ize the militia, in such manner as to reduce
the number of men, who shall be fated and
always ready to perform the service contern-
by the Constitution, say fiom the num
ber ol two millions to two hundred thousand,
and to pay the latter a reasonable compensa
tion out of the National Treasury, in order
1 1 remunerate them for the increased burthen
thus imposed upon them. Several plans, to
effect this purpose, have, from time to time,
beeu submitted to Congress, by successive
Secretaries of War, commencing with Gen.
Knox’s, in 1790, and ending with that of Mr.
Poinsett’s, in 1840. That Mr. Poinsett’s is,
in several respects, preferable to those which
have preceded it, and is calculated to effect a
more equitable disposition of the whole mili
tary Force of'the country than any heretofore
presented, appears to have been the opinion
ot tiie Committees of both houses of Con
gress. i lie grounds of this preference are
fully s<? f Birth in the able reports made by
their respective chairmen, at the last session,
which have been published, and extensively
circulated, and are staled as follows:
Ist. It extends the pay, for the period oc
cupied in training, to privates as well as to
commissioned and non-commissioned officers,
to whom it was limited in ihe plans of others.
2d. It introduces the principle of rotation,
by which the period during which the citi
zens are engaged in training is diminished,
and the instruction they receive more direct
iy imparted lo the mass, and the burthens as
well as benefits, more equally distributed
among the people. 3d. hi excluding from
enrolment all between 18 and 20 years of age,
being the period of life in which young men
are employed in finishing their education,
learning a trade or studying the profession by
which they hope to obtain a livelihood. In
these preferences, I concur. In all other res
pects the different plans are understood to be
substantially tlie same. They are so with
regard to the authority of the officers over
the privates, and the rules for the govern
ment of all when called out for drill. They
all propose, that the rules should be those
established for the government of the army.
The existing law applies those rules to the
militia, when called into the service of the
United Slates and has done so lor many
years past. Mr. Poinsett’s plan does hot add
a single penally or new provision. There
certainly exists to some extent a prejudice in
the public mind against the application ofthe
same rigor in the discipline of citizen soldiers,
who are only called out for short periods of
service, as that which is applied by all nations
to those, who make arms a profession. It
will be for Congress to decide, aided by the
opinions of experienced military men, whether
the discipline of the militia, when called into
into the service of the United States, will
admit of any relaxation. No one appears
yet to have thought so. The rule by which
Congress should be governed, in rnv opinion,
t ~ e> * v i 5
is to confer as much authority as is necessary
to subordination and improvement, and to
adopt the regulations as far as practicable to
the character of the force, and the feelings
and habits of our people. The different
plans also are alike in requiring the militia to
arm itself. It is true, Mr. Poinsett content
plates the establishment of Depots of arms
and ammunition at tiie expense of the Federal
: Government, near the places where the mili
tia are to muster for training; but, like.all his
predecessors, he proposes to leave in force
the present law, which makes it the duty of
j every enrolled citizen to be constantly provi
ded with arms, accoutrements and ammuni
tion at his own expense. ‘Phis law, it will
be remembered, was passed under the ad
ministration of Gen. Washington, and was
re enacted under that of Mr. Jefferson.—
Regarded as an indication of the principles
of our Government, which confides the pro
tection of tiie liberties of the country and the
maintenance of public order to the hands of
the free citizens of the Republic, it was hon
orable to our legislation, and stands in beau
tiful contrast with the institutions of other
countries by which the people, so far fr*m
being compelled to have arms, are denied the
right to possess them, and deprived of their
use. But the utter inefficiency of this pro
vision of the law to induce the people to arm
themselves properly has been fully demon
strated. It is vain to expect, says Governor
Cass in the report before cited, ‘that the
whole adult male population of the country
can, or will, furnish themselves with the arti
cles required by law.’ Wherever a military
pride is excited, as is the case with volunteer
associations, the law is obeyed; but it cannot,
it appears to me, be carried into execution
with the mass of tiie militia without a more
rigorous exercise of authority on the part of
the Government than is consistent with the
spirit of our institutions. Mr. Poinsett’s plan
proposed to establish depots of arms in the
several States at the public expense, to be j
used when training, or in actual service by,
the militia selected for duty, and as it was!
(not r mtemphud to muster the rest of the!
’militia for discipline, it will in my judgment’
|tie ueji worthy oj serious consideration,
whether a repeal of the provision of the law
uhicli requires lire militni to arm themselves
at their own expense, leaving it to their op
tion to be so provided or not; and the distri
bution of arms to the full extent that mav be
necessary to supply the militia when called
into active service, ought not to constitute a
part ot any plan for the reorganization of the
militia, by which a portion of them are to be
instructed at the expense of the rest. The
inc.mation ol my own mind would be deci
de!. Iv in favor of such a course. The light,
in which the existing law requiring all who
are enro led, to arm themselves is regarded,
may be gathered from the fact, that men of
good standing and supposed intelligence in
the country, have either been so ignorant of
its existence tliemselves, or have counted so
largely on the ignorance of their feliow
citizens, as to charge Mr. Poinsett with an
attempt to originate the measure, when, in
truth, lie only transferred it to his plan from
the Statute book, where it had stood for for
ty-seven years.
Lat in mv opinion, the difficulties which
beset this subject lie deeper than this. You
have seen that the Committees of Congress
ha ve reported against a reorganization of the
nnlitia upon the principle of classification, and
that they have been virtually sustained in
their objections by their respective houses,
x ou have seen also, that plans embracing the
same principle have been recommended in
vain lor the last half century by Washington,
Jefierson, Madison, Monroe and Jackson:
men, who have always commanded the res
pect ot Congress, and whose measures sel
dom fiiiled to receive its support. This may
be in part accounted for by the just repug
nance of the American people to a standing
military force, which unavoidably extends
ilseli to large and protracted encampments
even of the militia. But the principal diffi
culty has undoubtedly arisen out of the pro
visions of the Federal Constitution, relating
to this subject. By that instrument the pow
er to train the militia is reserved to the States.
I o reduce the number to be relied upon for
active service by classification might easily
be done, because the right to organize is
given to Congress by the Constitution; but
!be desired efficiency would not be secured,
unless that number were better trained, and
to that end it is requisite that they should be
kept together fin- longer periods of time than
is novy practised. To do this without mani
fest injustice, provision must be made for
their payment. Nor is it believed, that they
would in general be properly instructed and
disciplined, unless they are called out and
received into the service of the United States.
!! this can be constitutionally done, the pav-
ements may he made out of the National
I reasury. But the Constitution aulhorizes
(he Federal Government to call the Militia
into service in only three enumerated cases,
viz: to execute the laivs of the Union , sup
press insurrection, and repel ijivasion. Not
only is the authority to assemble them for
training not granted to Congress, but it is
expressly reserved to the States. If. there
fore, the right to call out, or receive the Mili
tia into the service of the United States for
such a purpose be assumed by the General
Government, it can only he under the au
thority to provide for disciplining the Miiitia;
a construction which, to say the least of it,
is extremely doubtful; for, the same sentence
of the Constitution which reserves to the
States respectively the authority of training
the Pvlilitia, directs also, that it should be done
according to the discipline prescribed by
Congiess; thus excluding as it would seem by
necessary inference, the idea, that its authors
used the two terms in the same sense.
Mr. Poinsett seems to have been more
sensibly impressed with this obstacle than his
predecessors, and endeavors to overcome it
by placing his chief reliance on volunteers,
and where drafis are necessary, he proposes
that they should be made by the States (hem
selves. But can tlie constitutional objection
be thus avoided? Can Congress appropriate
money for objects to which their authority
, does not extend?
A proposition was made several years since
to meet the objection fully by amending the
Constitution and giving Congress power to
provide for training the militia concurrently
with the States, and to subject them to the
rules and regulations to which they are by
law subjected when in the military service of
the United States; and to provide for teach
ing in the primary schools and seminaries of
learning throughout the Union the system of
discipline prescribed for the militia. This
proposition does not appear to have found
favor either with Congress or with the peo
ple. It is but lately that my attention has
been particularly drawn to this subject; and,
as there is no doubt that the great men to
whom I have alluded contemplated an organ
ization of the militia, and provisions for its
better instruction, embracing substantially the
principles contained in Mr. Poinsett’s plan, it
becomes me, in the face of so much apparent
authority, to hesitate before I pronounce defi
nitely upon its constitutionality. I shall, I ant
confident, ip the opinion of all candid minds,
best perform tny duty by refraining to do so,
until it becomes necessary to act officially in
the matter. In the mean time, I will content
.mvself with saying, that the inclination of mv
mir and is, tint the desired measure cannot be
safely accomplished, in the farm proposed,
under the Federal Constitution, as it stands.
Ha ving thus given you the best opinions
that I have been able to form of the impor
tant subjects to which you have called my
attention, you will I hope allow me to notice
briefly one or two collateral considerations:
Mr. Poinsett’s uncontroveried account of
the origin and progress of his plan is before
you. He shows, that it grew out of a request
made of him by the Committee on the Mili
tia of the House of Representatives, at the
close of the session before the last, in contem
plation of a possible collision between this
country and Great Britain, and that it was
matured and drawn forth under a call made
upon him by the House at the last session.—
Some surprise has been expressed and doubts
appear even to be entertained of the correct
ness of his declaration, that the plan was not
seen by me, or submitted to my consideration,
before it was communicated to Congress.
Those who take this view of the subject, en
tireiy overlook the fact, that such is almost
invariably the case no all similar occasions;
and that in replying to calls made upon them
by either branch of the Legislature, the
heads of Departments act for Congress, and
not for the President; except onty on occa
sions where his acts are brought in question.
The impracticability of pursuing a different
course, if even it were otherwise desirable,
will be appreciated, when it is considered how
very numerous these calls have recently been,
amounting as thev have done to 220 at a sin
gle session, independently of those made tm
the President himself, and of letters fiom com
mittees, requiring great research, and the
preparation of voluminous documents. Un
fair as these animadversions are thus shown
to be, this has not been even the worst aspect
in which they have been presented. We
been compelled to see, not I should think,
without shame and mortification on the part
of every ingenuous mind, whatever may be
his political preferences, the names of respecta
ble citizens subscribed to statements, that I
had in my annua! message expressed my ap
probation of a plan, which, not only never
had been submitted to me, but was not even
matured until more than three months after
the message was sent to Congress, and an at
tempt tn prove the unfounded assumption by
the publication of a gaihled extract from that
document, with its true meaning falsified by
the suppression ofa material part. Nor was
llie avowed object of these extraordinary pro
©csdinjs Less iciaarkibie than ’he acts them
selves, being nothing less than an attempt to
fix upon me the design oj establishing a Stand
ing .Liny of two hundred thousand men , for po
litical -and personal purposes. If I had been
charged with the design of establishing a
mong you, ai the public expense, a menagerie
of two hundred thousand wild beasts, it would
not have surprised me more, nor would it, in
my judgment, have been one jot more pre
posterous.
I am, fortunately,gentlemen, not over-sen
sitive to attacks of this character, and have,
withal, an abiding confidence in the intelli
gence of the people, which renders them proof
against all such attempts to deceive them.—
If I understand my own feelings, ray chief re
grel in witnessing such degrading exhibitions,
arises from a consideration of the opinion,
which foreigners, who have not the same
reasons to respect our political institutions that
we have, are likely to form of the character !
of our people, when they see that conspicuous j
men among us can promise themselves any
advantages, from attempts to delude their
fellow-citizens, by means of such monstrous
absurdities. This regret, is, however, I con
fess, materially diminished, by the conviction,
that, the people will in the sequal, as they have
heretofore done, convince those who attempt I
in this manner to operate upon their credulity,
of the folly of seeking to accomplish, in this
country, political objects by such discreditable
means. I have the honor to be, gentlemen,
very respectfully, Your obedient servant,
. M. VAN BUREN.
To Messrs. John B. Cary, Y. G. Hudgins,
Thomas Jones, and G. A. Cary, of Eliza
beth City County, Virginia.
EXTRACT
From the Speech of Jtfr. H'atcrson, of Ten
nessee.
I hold in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a pam
phlet containing the proceedings of the late
Harrisburg Convention, together with the
names of the delegates from the several
States, who nominated Gen. Harrison a can
didate for the Presidency. In looking over
this pamphlet, the inquiry suggested itself it)
my mind, who were these delegates? What
are their professions? What are their prin
ciples? V\ ere they delegates “fresh from the
people,s”jtor were they the representatives of
moneyed corporations, or mere town politi
cians and street brawlers?—Although I knew
the task would he an arduous one, and the
performence of it might call down upon my
head the vengeance of the opposition yet, I set
about it, and have collected a mass of inlbr
mation on all these points, which I will lake
this opportunity of laying before the House
and the country. I would here state that I
have derived my information, not from one,
nor two, but at least fifty members of Con
gress from every portion of the Union, and,
have full confidence myself, that it is strictly
correct, so far as it goes. If, however, I
should make any statement which is not sub
stantially true, in regard to a single delegate
in that Convention, I wish to be corrected
as I proceed. I would do no man intentional
injustice, neither will I deal in abuse. I will
simp'y give such tacts as I have been able to
obtain, and in doing which, it will he clearly
shown, whether Gen. Ha rrison is the “people’s
candidate” or not —whether he is the candi
date of those who live in “log cabins” and
drink “hard cider..” I will also note those
who were for John (|. Adams for the Presiden
cy. I wish to show the gentleman from Massa
chusetts how many old friends he had in Har
risburg Convention, and at the same time to
let my colleague see with whom he and the
Whigs of Tennessee are co operating. It
may be that my colleague has changed his
opinions of his present political associates
since 1827, when lie charged Mr. Adams
and Mr. Clay, in a letter to his constituents,
with coming into power under “circumstances
affording all the evidences of a coalition, for .
vud upon the basis of mutual benefits to be
received and conferred ,” when he alleged that
doctrines were held by that Administration
“subversive of the first piinciplcs of free Go
vernment.” At .any rate he seems to be in
strange company. But to the convention:
PRESIDENT.
Janies Barbour of Virginia, Lawyer, was Mr.
Adam’s Secretary at War; also Minister to England
under the same Administration.
VICE PRESIDENT.
Thomas Metcaif, of Kentucky. He was a repre
sentative to Congress in 1825, and voted for J.Q.
Adams.
Elisha M. Huntingdon, of Indiana, lawyer, and
was for .T. Q. Adams.
Peter R. Livingston, of New York, a retired law
yer, and was for J. Q. Adams.
Jacob Burnet, of t >hio, lawyer, is an avowed Fedcr
list, and wore the black cockade in 1798. But let him
speak for himself:
Cincinnati, A To*, 1837.
Deak Sib: Though 1 am not disposed to say much
or indeed any thing of myself, further than is necessa
ry in stating the {transactions in which 1 participated,
yet l am unwilling to conceal the fact, that I was, and
ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, A FEDERALIST.
Educated in that school, I retain and CHERISH
THE NAME, as descriptive of the purest Republi
can patriots the country has ever produced.
JACOB BURNET.
To J. DEi,AFrtcr.D, jr.
I would add, that Judge Burnet was one
of Gen. Harrison’s chief spokesmen in the
Convention. So well were the delegatess
pleased with his speech, in which he pro
nounced Gen. Harrison a Jeffersonian Re
publican, that by a vole of the Convention, it
was appended to their proceedings. It has
also been published in pamphlet form in this
ci'y, and extensively circulated throughout
the country. Verily, it appears a little odd
to Lear “black cockade, Federalists” eulogis-:
ing men for their “Jeffersonian Republi
canism.”
John Andrew Schultz of Pennsylvania, was elect
ed Governor of that State by the Democratic party,
but soon evinced symptoms ofapostacy, and ultimately
leaped over into the Federal ranks, where be has been
a valiant soldier for near ten years.
James Wilson of New Hampshire, lawyer, anti-war
Federalist, Abolitionist, and was for John Quincy Ad
ams. When a candidate for Governor of that State,
in 1838, be advocated the most ultra abolition doc
trines. “Congress has power,” said lie, in reply to
the interrogators of the Abolitionists, “to abolish
slavery in the District of Columbia and in the Territo
ries, and the slave trade there and between the States.
lam of opinion Congrex* ought, without delay, to (x
----exeixe the power that body has over the subject.”
Isaac C. Bates, of Massachusetts, lawyer, bank di
rector, agent for Massachusetts e’airos, member of
the State council, an old Federalist, and was for J.
Q. Adams.
John S. Peters, of Connection', physician, and a
stockholder in banks. He was once a Jackson man,
but deserted about the time of the panic, which was
gotten up by the Opposition, in consequence of the re
moval of the deposites from the Bank United
States.
David Hazaid of Delaware, merchant, director ofa
bank, and was for J. Q. Adams.
George Howard of Maryland, formerly Governor,
and was for J. Q. Adams.
Ephraim Marsh of New Jersey, proprietor and
keeper ofa hotel at a fashionable watering place, and
was for J. Q. Adame.
John Owen, of North Carolina, planter.
SECRETARIES.
Charles B. Penrose of Pennsylvania, lawyer. He
made a two days’ speech, in the Legislature of that
State, in 1834, against the Bank of the United States,
and such was his decided opposition to that institu
tion ar.d the Whig party, th t he was re-elected in
1835 or C. But lo! to the astonishment of every body,
he immediately tumbled over into the Fedwraf ranks,
and to cap the climax of his apostaev, voted for the
rechartr r of the bank, and by his influence carried the
measure over the heads of the Democracy. Ho is al
so notorious on account of the part which lie took in
the memorable “buckshot war” at Harrisburg in 1838,
and will never be forgotten for the heroic exploit,
whilst Speaker of the Senate at that time, of becom
ing frightened at his own imagination and jumping out
ot the back window.
Sylvanus R. Lvman of Maine, merchant. lie is
now a member of the Legislature, and voted for a re
solution ins'ructing the Representatives in Congress,
from that Stale, to rescind the resolution refusing to
receive or act upon Abolition petitions.
Charles Pain* of Vermont, manufacturer, and the
son of Elijah Paine, who was apointed District Judge
of Vermont by the elder Adams. lie was Dr J.Q.
Adams.
George W. Ralph, lawyer, and was for J. Q.
Adams.
I iviil now, Mr. Speaker, take up the States
represented in the Harrisburg Convention in ‘
geographical order.
MAINE.
John Neal, lawyer, and fojJ. Q. Adaro*.
Samuel Bradley, another H< !;*> to tl* Harris.
▼ , * *•
buig Convention, is a !;.v,\-r, ~ , ,
for J. vs. Adams.
tiiisha A. Alien, lawyer. He i, a r cni | it . r of
Legislature of that S ate, and recently ion 1
struct their represen.atives in Congress to j. ;y “
Cost Johnson’s resolution against the reception c-” ”
inion petitions.
I George Pendleton, merchant, abolitionist „
for J. a. Adams. ’ Uv ' J
Richard 11. Vose, lawyer, abolitionist and w f r
J. a. Adams.
Zina Hyde, merchant, abolitionis’ and ivi ‘,r t
a. Adams.
NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Godfrey Stephens, merchant, and was fur T n
Adams.
‘ Solomon M'Niel, speculator, and was for J o
I Adams.
i James Wilson, lawyer, abolitionist; ;.nd wa? r, _ ,
Q,. f Adams.
Joel Eastman, law er. abolin 1 irt. n dt featrd c; 1 -
diuate for congiess, and was for John (i. Aaams
MASSACHUSETTS.
Pe’eg Sprague, a lawyer, was for John Q.. Adams
and formerly a senator in congress from Maine, lie’
came to Boston, it is shrewdly suspected because I
j was too aristocratic for democratic Maine,
j Samuel Hoar, lawyer, federalist of the bluest sort
1 bank-director, abolitionist, aid was for J. Q,. Ad; mi ’
?‘Artemas Lee, manufacturer, abolitionist Lai .'.-di
rector, and was for John Q. Adams.
John Howard, cashier of the Springfield bank and
was for John Q,. Adams.
Harrison Gray Oiis Colby, lawyer, bank-director
and was for John Q. Adams,
j Benjamin K. Hough, speculator, and was for John
Q.. Adams. His lather is president of a bank.
George Ashman, lawyer, bank-director, was for J.
Q. Adams, and would like to be in congress.
Barker Burnell, cashier of the Manufacturers ml
Mechanics’ Bank, Nantucket, and an aspirant for
Mr. Reed’s seat in congress. He was tor John Q .
Adams.
Henry Shaw, lawyer, director in the Agricultural
Bank, Pittsfield, has a strong hankering to be in con
gress, and was for John Q, Adams.
Nathaniel AI. Davis, lawyer, bank-director, and
was for J. Q,. Adams.
Charles Hudson, clergyman, director of Weston
Railroad, member of the State Council, bitter federal
ist, and was for John Q.. Adams.
Warren I.dVering, lawyer, bank commissioner and
was for John Q.. Ad mis.’
James H. Outran, lawyer, president of the Meri
mack Bank at Hav< rhill, member of the Slate C < men
and as for John Q. Adams.
Richard Haugktun, editor of the Boston Atlas, and
it is said was not a delegate to the llunshoe- Con
vention, but went a Icndtr to Peleg Sprague. As ins
name is found howeevr, among the lisfof dele-aks
for Massachusetts, it is sufficient to say that he'is an
abolition a-.ologist, (as is almost every'other dele-ate
from that State,) and was for John Q,. Adams. °
RHODE ISLAND.
George G. King, lawyer, bank commissioner, bark
stockholder, and was foi John (i. Adams, hi 133;)
lie made a speech in the legislature of Rhode Kami
against Mr. Atherton’s anu-abolition resolutions’ ...
dopted by the 1 louse of Representatives in Con -r )
and in favor of iho abolition cause generally. °
James F. Simmons, president ol a bank in th- c dv
of Prov idence, is a large stockholder in 1 anks and n
old federalist. He was for John Q. Adams’ and'is
now a warm ado irer of that veteran of federal doc
trines, except when he kicks out of the tracts, an I
then he curses him. Mi. Hmmons is a leadiru- po.'iti
cian in Rhode Is and, and an aspirant for a si a7 m the
senate of the United States. A little l ei.ti than i
year ago, he made a speech against Atherton’s reso
lutions, m which he aimed to conciliate the abolition
ists.
William Anthony, manufacturer, bank-direct r and
was for John Q,. Adams.
Byron Dmian, manufacturer, a slock! older in son -
ml banks, was a quasi Jackson man until Jack, ~,n v <■-
toed the Bank, lie is now the whig candidate for
lieutenant governor of Rhode Island.
CONNECTICUT.
Charles Davis, editor ot a tedeial newspaper in the
city of Hartford.
William W. Boardman, lawyer, and bank-stock
holder.
Charles H. Pludps, bank-director and stockholder
and was for John ti. Adams.
Charles Ilawlv, lawyer, bank-attorney and stock
holder, and was for John (.i. Adams.
Joseph S. G.adding. Manufacturer, pres’deut of .! o
Jewell County Bank, and was for John U. Adams.
E . Champion Bacon, lawyer, son of the president of
bank, and was for John Q. Adams.
VERMONT.
William Henry, bank-stoeklmlder, cashier of a
batik, and for John Q,. Adams.
A. B. W. Teirley, abolitionist, and was for John
Q,. Adams.
Samuel U. Holly, lawyer, abolitionist, lives in
.Vlr. Slink’s district, and is one cl his ri, lu hand mu.
He was for John Q,. Adams.
Willi am B. Briggs, lawyer and abolition iectur r.
He was lor John (■£, Adams, a po.-umasti r uuo r 1 i
administration, an , was tinned out under the aotun .s
tratiuii of General Jackson.
If’ W YORK.
Chandler Starr, merchant, bank commissioner, at: t
was (or J. Q,. Adams.
John A. King, lawyer, son of Rufus King, and va ;
appointed Charge d’Alianes to England by"), (j . /, ,|-
ams. He is the same man who lately imiodu. cd a
reso ulion into the Legislature of New Yoi k. dei.i.iu < -
ing a resolution adopted by tlii House, in n- no,
abolition petitions, togi tin r v. ith the Democratic
reseniauves from that Btato who voted for it.
I tt 1 :y tSeldon, lawyer, and batik director,
J udalt Hammond, lawyer, and speculator in real c -
ta'e in the city of New it'ork.
Janies A. Hamilton, a retired lawyer, aristocrat,
and the son of Alexander Hamilton,
Robert O. Wolmore, merchant, bank director, aid
was for J. Q. Adams.
Hudson M‘Farlan.l, manufacturer, director of a
bank, abolitionist, and was for J Q. Adams.
Henry Ross, lawyer, and noted be the last man to
drink hard eider, until the Champagne was exhausted.
Eliphas Fay, school teacher, and was for J. Q. Ad
ams.
Elisha Jenkins, a gentleman of pleasure, and was
for J. Q. Adams.
Amos Briggs, manufacturer, and was for J. Q.
Adams.
Solomon Van Rensellaer. He belongs to the Al
bany aristocracy, and was lately removed from the
Post Office in that city. He is an and i Federalist, and
was for J. Q. Adams.
Henry Hamihon, lawyer, canal commissioner, and
was for J. Q. Adams.
J. Knickerbocker, lawyer, President of tlie “Water
ford Bank, shaver, a blue light Federalist, and was
for J. Q. Adams.
Bernardjßlair, lawyer, and was for J. Q. Adams.
Sylvester Gilbert, merchant, and was for John Q.
Adams.
David Petrie, merchant, and was for J. Q. Adams.
C. P. Kirkland, lawyer, a defeated candidate for
Congress, and was for j. Q. Adams.
A. Z.|M‘Catty, lawyer, a Federalist of the oM
school and was for J. Q. Adams.
D. D. Spencer, edtior, bookseller, and was for J.
Q. Adams.
John Russel, physician, and wa for J. Q. Adam ;.
Vincent Whitney, a gentleman of pleasure. l:e
got office, and then returm and to his
first love.
James Dunn, lawyer, editor, and was for John Q.
Adams.
Amos P. Granger, lawyer.
J. D. Ledyard, a gentleman of lei ure, and was for
J. Q. Adams.
George H. Wood, lawyer, aristocrat, and was for J.
Q. Adams.
Gary V. Backet, lawyer and was for J. Q. Adams.
Henry W. Taylor, lawyer, aboliUonist, aristocrat,
and was for J. Q. Adams.
John N. Dox, lawyer.
Phineas L. Tracy, lawyer, abolitionist, and was for
J. Q. Adams.
Allen Ayrauth, president of a bank, a shaver, and
would take the‘pound of flesh’ from the tenant of a
‘log cabin,’ in the twinkling of an eye, or as soon as
any named tnan.
Chauncy Tucker, lawyer, and was for John Q.
Adams.
Robert Smith, owner of an extensive stone cutting
establishment tn the city of New York.
Davis F. Allen, director of the city bank of Buffalo,
and assisted in gutting it. The bank is blown sl.v
high, arid he with it.
Henry P. Voorhces, a retired merchant, and was
for J.Q. Adams.
rr.NNfYI.VAM i.
Moses J. Clark, one of Thaddeus Stevens’ canal
commissioners under the administration of Rrtncr, and
was for J. Q,. Adams.
Joseph Lawrence, a defeated candidate for Congress.
My friend Leet laid him out as cold as a wagon tire.
Jonathan Roberts, once a Senator tn Congress, a
bitter, broken-down politician, and was far John Q.
Adams,
E. C. Reigart, lawyer, abolitionist, and was for J.
Q. Adams.
John Swift, lawyer, and Mayor of Philadelphia.
Alexander Quinton, tavern keeper, a regular built
Federalist, end has always been opposed to Republi
can men and measures.
Collin RI. Dread, merchant, and was for John Q.
Adams.
James Calhoun, merchant, and was for John Q.
Adams.
George Chambers, lawyer, abolitionist, and was for
J. Q. Adarns.
John Adams Fisher, lawyer, and was for John Q.
Adams.
YVrn. R. Morris, lawyer, abolitionist, ar.d was (or
J. Q, Adams.
John Dickey,merchant, and, like his friend I’t.ntosa,
voted in the Pennsylvania Legislature for the re-char
ter of the Bank ot the United States, in violate nos
pledges made to his constituents, and the principles
which he professed w hen elected.
David Lpt ch, president of Leech’s Transport alien
Company on the Pennsylvania canal, and was forj.
Q. Adarns.
Edward Darlington, lawyer, abolition’ ‘. r-d was
for J. Q. Adams.
Samuel M. Barclay, lawyer, abo’ite ‘ and wes
I for J.Q. Adams.
E. T. M’Dowell, lawyer, is for urt.v negro
I suffrage, and was for J. Q* Adams.
• JamesMotrill lawyer, abolition!;', ar. ■ J.
Q. Adam*.