« ForrigeFortsett »
draft resolutions expressive of the sense of this meeting—whereupon C. L. Ward, Asa Dimock jr. William Foster, Henry Drinker, and Earle Wheeler, were appointed this committee—who, after consultation, reported, substantially, the following preambie and resolutions :
No rule of action of the democratic republi. can party is better founded, or more generally acknowledged, than a submission, on the part of ‘’s ovembers, to the choice of the majority when fi and legitimately ascertained through the medium of their regular conventions, and ac. cor ing to the "sages of the party—and in no State in the Union has this principle be a more universally and unreservedly adopted than amongst the democracy of Pennsylvania. It is this which has enabled them in every political contest to hold the proud and “even tenor of
their way”—alike unmoved by the assaults of
Before the Baltimore Convention assembled, we were told that the only true way to obtaina Pennsylvania candidate for the Vice Presidency, was to send delegates to that convention, Delegates were sent; and so accommodating were our FRIENDs, that they permitted a half dozen self-chosen gentlemen to give thirty votes for a Vice President. Mark the result! Not a single vote for a Pennsylvania candidate. From the outset of this scheme of a Baltimore Convention, we said it was a mere piece of management, and we were convinced that delegates were only summoned to record a predetermined candidate. Every step of its progress down to its final conclusion, has proved the justice of our original impression.—15.
THE VICE PRESIDENT. It is a remarkable fact, that although Mr.
enemies from without, or the voice of faction Calhoun is no “andidate for office, having wo
from within—until they have earned for thé
State the high and dignificq appellation of “key-stone of the federal arch.”
In view of this principle, as well as others: equally paramount— |
Resolved, That although a majority of the members of this meeting were decidedly in favor of sending delegates to the Baltimore convention—yet, as the State convention, of the 5th of March last has declared against that measure, we cordially acquiesce in the decision, and disapprove of any proceedings for getting up another electoral ticket in the State of Pennsylvania.
The flag of Pennsylvania and her candidates still floats at the head of our columns, and there it shall remain, until, in the language of our candidate for the Vice Presidency, the “same authority that placed it there” shall order it to be struck. Pennsylvania, incr rights, her canolidates, and her principles, are the glorious rallying words of our independent democracy.— .1merican Sentincl.
who represented Pennsylvania in the Baltimore Convention we are not informed by the proceedings o last evening. , That they were self constituted, is certain; meetings for this purpose not being held in more than six counges of the State. As might be expected from occasion..! machines of this kind, they had not the spirit even to vote for the candidate of the State at the first ballot. It was expedient that the New York candidate should have a show of strength at the commencement of the balloting, and to effect this object the half dozen who mis-represented Pennsylvania, cast for him her thirty votes, and passed the undoubted candidate of her hundred thousand democratic voters contemptuously by. Judge Wilkins is, however, in the hands of a party, which, unsolicited on his part, placed him in nomination, and Pledged themselves to his sup
ort. His confidence is justly reposed, and will be honorably windicated.—1b.
huntarily retired, from a conviction, that, entertaining the principle which he does, in reference to the Constitution and the policy of the country, he can render but little service to the country in its present condition; yet he is more fiercely attacked than any other public man! Why is this But one reason can be assigned : Those who assault him, know and feel the strength of his moral and political power. They know that the eyes of those who love their country, and who are anxious to see it restored to its former political condition, are turned to: wards him. Thus feeling, no effort is spared to weaken and destroy him. Charges the most false, known to be such by those who make them, and disbelieved by the very partisans of power here, are daily made against him. Among other things, he is accused of coalition with Mr. Clay, when it is known, that there are no two public men on the stage of action, whose opinions and principles, on almost every ...; subject, are so diametrically opposed. Asproof, —if proof can be necessary in so clear a casewe might refer to the votes of their friends, which are more rarely found in combination, than those of any parties in the two Houses of Congress ; far less so than those of the friends of Gen. Jackson and Mr. Clay, although they are rival candidates for the Presidency, and Versonally and politically opposed. -—r—
internal improvement and pensions, never has a session gone beyond the present; the friends of Mr. Clay and Gen. Jackson acting, in refer. ence to both, in strict harmony; and we have no doubt that General Jackson will approve whatever bills may be sent to him, however extravagant; and this notwithstanding his Maysville ve.o. In a word, we conceive them both to be on the side of the tac receivers, and equally opposed to the tar paying section of the Union. Thus thinking, we can give our support to neither; but, however correct and independent this course may be, it exposes us to great difficulty and misconstruction of motive. So absorbing is the Presidential question, that it leaves for neutrals nothing; and although there are hundreds and thousands who cordially agree with us in our general views; yet they permit themselves to be enlisted on one or the other side, and will scarcely tolerate any remak which goes to bear upon either of the candidates, though extorted from us by a high and sacred regard to truth and duty. In spite of this difficulty, however, we are determined to persevere, be the consequence what it may. We firmly believe that the country is approaching a great crisis, when the issue must be hosrty or d spotism; and thus thinking, we, for one, are determined to pursue that course which our best judgment dictates, and which will leave nothing hereafter for self-reproach. This determination, no charge of coalition- no misconstruction of our motives -no denunciation, from any quarter, shal, vary.
THE WAN BUREN CONVENTION.
There is one ircumstan e connected with this assemblage, which must strike the most thoughtless—t published no address. We give the resolulion adopted on the motion of Mr. Acher:
tiesolved, That it be recommended to the delegates in this Convention, in pla e of a General Address, to make such a report or address to their constituents as they may unink proper.
A circumstance like this, we venture to say, has never before occurred in any Convention assembled for a similar purpose. The reasons for the omission of an address cannot be mistaken; and speaka volume as to the real character and objet of the Convention. It consisted of men professing every description of principle, and every diversity of politial views—of those for and against the tarift—for and against the bank —for and against internal improvement—for and against the pension system—for and against the American system—for and against a stri t construction of the constitution—for and against a surplus revenue—for and against every measure which can affect the public interest. Had an address been drawn up, it would have been curious to witness how it would have been re. Sewed by this mixed multitude of all political languages and tongues. Had it contained a recommendation of the tariff, Virginia and the south would have moved to strike it out, in or.
system. Had it, on the contrary, denounced the tariff, New York and the bther middle States would have moved to strike it out, and insert a panegyric; and, in the same manner, in relation to every other measure—the bank, internal improvement, pensions, and surplus revenue, consolidation and all. To avoid this perplexity, the Convention briefly resolved that the delegates of each State should present a separate address to their respective States, by which means each might tell a separate tale, and give an account of the objects and character of the Convention as diversified as the materials of which it was composed. This, no doubt, was a most sagacious course; and, in fulfilment of it, their favorite will doubtless be held up, in the various States, as may best suit the faithful; as a friend, and as the enemy, of the tariff, as a friend, and as the enemy, of the bank; as the frieno, and as the enemy, of pensions; as the friend, and as the enemy, of internal improvement; as the friend, and as the enemy, of a strict construction of the constitution; as the friend, and as the enemy, of consolidation! It may be asked, what cohesive principle could possibly hold this heterogeneous mass together? We answer, one, and but one. And we defy the arguments of man to point out any other. Money, office, contracts, jobs, the spoi's of vict, y—to perpetuate power in tee hand o those who hold it—to keep up the control of Kendall, Lewis, Eaton, and their associates, and, through them, to obtain office—to participate in the jobs and contracts of the government—to speculate on Indian reservations—to obtain missions, judgships, and high places in the political synagogues. This, and this only, has had the magi, influence to bring together this mixed multitude. We know that there are many individuals, not in the counsel of the initiated, that have been so unfortunate as to have their names connected with this body, of which they will be hereafter convinced and ashamed. They have been taught to believe that, bad as Mr. Van Buren is, he is not so bad as Mr. Sergeant; and that the only means of defeating the latter was to take up the former. We believe both of these assumptions to be erroneous. We know not a political objection to Mr. Sergeant, which is not equally applicable to Mr. Van Buren. They were both opposed to the re-election of Mr. Madison, in 1812; they were both in favor of a high tariff, and both against the south on the Missouri question. In fact, we consider them both on the aristocratic side—on the side of the tax-receivers against the tax-payers; and we are confirmed in this, as we daily witness the &onfidential friends of Mr. Van Buren voting with the party of which Mr. Sergeant is so pró. minent a member. Nor do we consider the . other assumption less erroneous, that the nomination of Mr. Van Buren was necessary to defeat the election of Mr. Sergeant. We believe the very reverse is true; and that he had no prospect of success but through the nomination whi h, it is pretended, was made to defeat him.
derto insert a denunciation of the protective
The real object of the nomination is easily
understood. The government has degenerated into a mere money machine, and acts without reference to principle or sound policy. Gen.
Jackson is the nominal head, while Mr. Van Buren is the real head of the party, which has given it this direction, and whose object is the spoils of victory. This party is under the ef. fectual control of Kendall, Lewis, & Co., who are charged with the conscience of Gen. Jackson, and who control the affiliated presses through their organ and by their correspondence from this place. They well know that no other prominent man in the Union is corrupt enough to perpetuate power in the hands of those who now hold it, but Mr. Wan Buren; and hence it was determined, molens toIems, to make him Vice President. Hence the Van Buren Convention was called—hence the nomination was made.
PRoni Th F. PETERSBU log INTELLIGENCEtt. “MR. SECRETARY McLANE'S SCHEME. “Gen. Green declaims, brother Niles raves against Mr. McLane's scheme for a modification of the tariff. But while hostility from the extremes of Nullification and Ultra-Protection were to be anticipated, and we will add, not a great deal to be deprecated; it is pleasing to observe the ready approbation with which it has been received by the moderate men—embracing the great mass of the nation—of all parties. It is true that the Treasury plan does not concede all that the friends of Free Trade desire—but was that really expected by any one “Rome was not built in a day”—and it occupied many days to demolish the walls of Babylon. The “American System,” like a huge Colossus, bestriding the land and deeply entrenched in the olicy of the Government, is not to be overwn by a trip, but must be approached by sap and mine, and cautiously divested of its monstrous proportions. If a noisome excrescence, like an exhalation of the night, rises on the body politic, would you hazard the national cristence by attempting to eradicate it with a single cut of the knife? In Mr. McLane's scheme the Administration pledges the influence of the Executive to endeavor to reduce the tariff to the revenue point—not all at once, but wradually,– This is the utmost it could do—and for so much, under existing circumstan, es; it is entitled to the hearty applause of all politicians not blindcd by personal interest, nor bewidered in the mazes of a passionate and reckless opposition.” It is time that sober reason shootd take the place of party slaug. It is time that the public
ear should be disabused, and that intelligent.
men should take some little trouble to inquire for themselves into the truth of important statements. The report of a Secretary of the Treasury should not be taken for truth, because it is the repot of a Secretary ; and error is no less error, because it is in sush report ; and it is no less the la's of the press to detect, and to point out the errors of an official document, than those of party editors. But we will dispose first of an error, (should we call it an error ' ') of the extract before us.
The Intelligencer says —“In Mr. McLane's scheme the Administration pledges the influence of the Executive to endeavor to reduce the tariff to the revenue point—not all at once, but gradually.” What are we to think of the errors of the papers devoted to Mr. Clay, when we find such a statement in a press professing to be devoted to southern interests? Will the editors of the Intelligencer point to that feature of the scheme which proposes a gradual reduction to the revenue point? One objection to Mr. McLane’s bill is, that it proposes duties far beyond the revenue point, and jumps at once to its conclusion. He proposes a system giving at least ten millions beyond the revenue point, and instead of a gradual reduction, he fixes a permanent scheme of duties. But we ask pardon. The bill proposesaper. manent scheme of revenue, and the system of the Administration is a gadual INCREASE of the expenditures. Perhaps our worthy totemporary means to say, that the scheme pledges the administration to graduate the expenditure by the receipts, and not that the duties should be reduced to the just expenditure of the Government. So much for an error, which, if accidental, cannot be too soon corrected. As to what is said about Mr. Niles and the editor of this paper, we will reply by an illustration. We do not concur with Mr. Niles, and those political philanthropists, who labor to promote the prosperity of one section of the Union at the expense of the other. We do not acknowled any right in the Government to enact laws for the purpose of compelling one class of our citi. zens to labor for the benefit of another classWe believe that the products of agriculture are as much the products of American industry, as the products of our factories—and that Con gress have no right to levy heavy taxes on ag. riculture, for the protection of manufactures. Entertaining these opinions, the next question to be disposed of is, what is the effect of high duties upon agriculture? Cotton, rice, and tobacco, constitute threefifths of our exports. No one will assert that a hogshead of tobacco raised in Maryland is not as much the product of American industry as a bale of coarse cottons manufactured in Rhode Island. The Rhode Island manufacturer is an American citizen; so is the Maryland planter. Now, let us see how Mr. McLane's bill will operate upon the products of their industry, respectively. One manufactures coarse cottons, and the other raises tobacco: the object of each is to exchange the products of his labor for the necessaries of life. The manufacturer cannot live on coarse cottons, nor can the planter live on tobacco, Say that the manufacturer has produce, one hun bales of coarse cottons; that the planter has produced one hundred hogsheads of tobacco–and that the value of each is the same. With what propriety can the manufacturer ask of Congress to pass a law whic shall compel the planter to exchange his tobacco at a loss of forty hogsheads from every hundred, whilst it cnables him to gain forty dollars on the
value of every hundred dollars worth of his cottons? Would such a law be equal justice? Now, letus examine Mr. McLane's scheme. He proposes to retain the minimums and high duties upon cottons; and we have heard no one estimate the average at less than fifty per cent., but admit, for the sake of argument, that it will not exceed fifty. What will be the operation of this duty? The Maryland planter, wishing to exchange his tobacco for the necessaries of life, finds himself compelled to send it abroad himself, or to sell to a merchant who does. It is exchanged, in the foreign market, for the very articles which he wishes to buy—we will say, for the sake of argument, that it is exchanged for one hundred bales of coarse cottons. These bales, thus purchased with the Maryland tobacco, are as much the proceeds of dmerican industry as the one hundred bales manufactured in Rhode Island; because, although they were made by a foreigner, they will have been purchased by an American planter, in exchange for histobacco. Yet, under Mr. McLane's scheme, the Rhode Island manufacturer is permitted to send his one hundred bales of coarse cottons to Baltimore, to sell the whole, and to put the whole of his sales in his own pockets; but, if the Maryland planter attempts to bring in his hundred bales, he is met by a custom-house of. ficer, who tells him, “you must leave fifty bales at the custom-house, for the privilege of bring. ing in the other fifty.” What is the consequence? Will the planter be able to sell his fifty bales for as much as the manufacturer has sold his hundred? Every one must see, that the object of requiring him to relinquish fifty bales at the custom-house, is not to benefit him. If he sells the remaining fifty at the same price for which he would have sold the one hundred, there is a clear loss of fifty per cent to o: who purchased of him. But his are not the only cottons sold in the market. The Rhode Island manufacturer has also sold one hundred bales; and, having no duty to pay, he has sold them at the same rate, per bale, a which the planter has sold his fifty bales, and ne has had the advantage of the increase price on one hundred bales; whereas, the planter was compelled to put the whole amount of the duty which he was required to pay, on his fifty remaining bales. Cannot every one see that the operation of such a scheme is to diminish the value of the o of his industry one half, whilst it doulesthat of the manufacturer? We will state the case in figures. Say, that the value of the tobacco is one hundred dollars per hogshead. The value of his crop would be: 100 hogsheads of tobacco, at $100 each, - - - - - - $10,000 If he could import coarse cottons from the foReign market, free of duty, the one hundred bales manufactured in Rhode Island would sell, in Baltimore, for no more than he could get for histobacco. (For the sake of round numbers, we will throw out of the calculation the expens* of shipment, &c. which adds to the profit of the manufacturer.) The manufacturer's re
tuns would then he as follows, viz.:
100 bales of coarse cottons, at $100 each, - - - - - - $10,000
But how stands the annount now? The tobacco being sent abroad is exchanged for 100 bales of cottom; which being imported, the planter is required to give his bonds for $5,000 for permission to sell them in Baltimore; and his account then stands thus: 100 bales cotton, bought at $100 each $10,000 Deduct duties paid, being 5,000
Leaving the sum of - - $5,000 As the price of his 100 hogsheads of tobacco! How is he to make himself whole? His tobacco was worth $10,000, he has exchanged it for goods which in the foreign market were worth $10,000; he has been compelled to pay $5,000 for permission to bring those goods to his own door. How then is he to obtain the value of histobacco” He must sell; and to do this, he must state his account as follows: 100 bales of goods, first cost, - $10,000 Duties paid Government - 5,000
+ —w Cost in Baltimore, charges not included, $15,000 Is it not clear that this operation has increas. ed the price of goods for which the tobacco was exchanged at the rate of fifty per cent., and that there is a clear loss to those who consumed these goods goods, of five thousand dollars? Butlet us see what is the effect upon the manufacturer: . His 100 bales, without a duty, are worth $10,000. But his goods are of the same value of those imported by the planter, who is compelled to add $5,000 duty, paid at the custom house, to the price. Will not the manufacturer also add $5,000 to the price of his cottons? It is that he may be enabled to do so, that he demands a protective duty. He has not paid anything into the Treasury, and yet he is enabled to sell his goods at the same price for which those which paid $5,000 were sold? Is this equal justice? Is not this taring the planter $5,000 that the manufacturer may make $5,000 of profit; and is it surprising that the south should complain of a scheme that compels them to put fifty per cent of the value of their agricultural products into the Treasury for the the purpose of enabling the manufacturers to add fifty per cent. on the price of their labor, all of which goes into their own pockets as profits. So long as there was a public debt, and it was necessary to pay taxes, the south have submitted in patriotic acquiescence; but they would be worse than slaves, if, without a murmur, they would permit Mr. McLane's schemes of ermanent taxes, and a gradual increase of expenditures, to be rivitted upon them. As to the ravings of Mr. Niles—as to his threat to enforce these taxes by his musket bearing freemen, we would says the musket bearing free. men of the north are as much interested in reducing taxes, as the musket bearing freemen of the south; and there is, we trust, too much intelligence and love of justice, in both sections, to submit to the oppression. To the party slang which represents this press as fac.
tious in its opposition to Mr. McLane's scheme, all candid men, and partic cly those of the south, will see in the voluntary sacrifices which we have made, and the bitter persecution we have encountered for opinion's sake, , ample pivos of our sincerity, and of the disinterestedness with which it has been maintained. Assaults of this character against the only press at the seat of Government, which has dared honestly to maintain the great interests of the south, come with a very bad grace from a press located in that section, and professing to be the advocate of truth and justice. We conclude by asking the editor of the Intelligencer to point out to us the language in which Mr. McLane has pledged the administration to use its influence gradually “to reduce the tariff to the revenue point?” We repeat that, as we understand his scheme, it proposes a permanent system, and imposes at least tex millions of taxes beyond the necessary expenditures of the Government.
ONE OF THE BULLIES REwARDED. The Globe has denied that the President used language calculated to encourage the assaults made upon members of Congress, and also denounces what has been said upon the subject as slanders upon the Exe utive. We copy below, from that print, of Saturday, what purports to be an authorised and authentic statement of what did take place. We understand that Mr. Barringer, one of the persons who heard the conversation, has been threatened with excommunication, and that there has been a compromise, and consequent modification. But we invite an attentive perusal of the official bulletin, and ask the American reader to pause and reflect upon the tendency of the disclosure which it makes. What right had the Chief Ma nounce both Houses of Congress? What right had he to assert that the statements made on the floor of the House and of the Senate were slanders? Had he investigated the charges, and shall the mantle of his opinion protect the conduct of his favorites from the scrutiny of the reresentatives of the people? But who could ve believed that he would have recommended as a cure, (which means nothing more nor less than to silence all investigation,) a resort to the club of the assassin' Yet we are now informed, by authority, through his official orn, that he denounced the House for usurpation and slander, and soid, “that the mischief would cure itself,” “by the occurrence of a few such cases.” But we are not left to conjecture on this subject. Our readers are aware of the blustering of Doctor Eli S. Davis. The Edgefield Carolinian informs us that this bully has been rewarded through the Post Office Department. The Carolinian says. “The mail has not been carried, for the last four or five weeks, on the route from this place to Anderson, C. H., by the way of islockersville, Holloway's, Deadfall, &c. The original contractors, Reynolds & Harrison, hav
istrate to de
ing failed some time ago to perform their contract, Mr. Francis Bettis was engaged to carry the mail temporarily on this line, and he, we understand, did his duty faithfully while he was employed. But it was found necessary at Washington to make some compensation to Dr. E. S. Davis, for the failure of his expectations in Florida, and to him was given this mail con. tract with some others. The Doctor remains at Washington, and he has mate no arrangements t at we know of, for the fulfilment of his contract. The Postmaster her, has written re. peatedly to the Post Office Departmen on the subject, and has received authority within the last day or two to make a temporary contract for the transportation of the mail. It exhibits the genius of Gen. Jackson for the administration of our public affairs, that, in the midstof changes in his abinet, he has stubbornly kept in .#. in defian e of all censure, the most incompetent of all the heads of Departments.”
THE ASSAULTS UPON MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. The Globe, , the 25th, gives toe following statement, who h, if it had originally appeared in this, or any of the opposition prints, would have been denounced as a gross slander: “That the arrest and confinement of Houston by the House of Representatives, was an act of usurpation not warranted by any giant in the constitution—that the punishment of Houston for the violation of the law belong d to the Judiciary, not Congress—that the power of Congress to punish for contempts, belonged to it o’ly in its capacity as a body to preserve its deliberations from interruption—that no act which did not affect its functions as a delibera tive assembly, could be construed into an ok sen e against it as a political body—th ti to ist d only as a deliberative body when its mem. bers were assembled together in the Capitoland hence, its power of self-protection was cus, fined to its walls, for it had no being beyond them—that the individual members of the Hous", when it was not in session, were upon a footing with other citizens—they were und:; the protection of the laws,and the cours would redress all injuries to them, as to other." To sus’ain this view, he adverted to the case of gasimir Perer, the pros nt Prime Minister " France, and a member of the House of DePoo. les. He stated tilat, from late accounts, it appeared the Premier had, in the discussion in the House of loeputies, improperly asperse the character of a French citizen; that the citi. zen awaited the adjournment of the House, net him beyond the walls, and chastised him 'or the insult. The Deputy and Prime Mini; ter complained to the House, and was rese by it to the laws and the judicial authority for redress. And this, he observed, was the proper course. The President expressly declared to Mr. Danforth, Barringer, and others, that Governor Houston's conduct could not be justified, but ask: ~d, in urn, o be her members of Congress could be justified in slandering private citi"