nue is declared to be its object, a standard is brain should be nomore stifiedt the issue of

given altogether vague and uncertain, to be
brought to the test of sober investigation. If the
iron masters, or the woollen manufacturers are
to be credited, a duty of 100 per cent. is indis-
pensably necessary to their protection, and even
the cotton manufacturers, while proclaiming
their ability to export their productions to every
quarter of the habitable globe, and to overcome
competition abroad, still insist that they cannot
meet foreign competition in our own markets,
without a protection varying from twenty-five
to upwards of one hundred per centum. The
grave question then arrives—Arc the interests
of the agriculturists to be sacrificed to those
of the manufacturers? Is the southern cotton
planter, especially, (depending, as he does,
almost exclusively on foreign markets, for the
sale of his produtions,) to pay enormous taxes
upon the articles which he receives in exchange
for the fruits of his industry, in order to render
more profitable the labor and capital of the ma.
nufacturer? When we hear persons speaking
of “a compromise” in this matter—and in the
same breath insisting that the protection extend-
ed to the manufacturers, by duties beyond the
wants of the Government, must not be impair.
ed, we confess we are unable to discover a
single feature that looks like a compromise in
such a proposition. .
Let the duties be reduced, (however gradu.
ally,) to the just revenue standard, and let the
manufacturers receive all the protection fairly
incidental to such a system, and existing diffi-
culties will be removed, and the country tran-
quilized. Even this, however, would be a com-
promise very beneficial to the manufa turers,
and greatly injurious to the agriculturists, espe-
cially of the southern States, for an ad valorem
duty on all protected articles of fifteen per cent
would, with the addition of charges, freight, in-
surance, &c. give to the American manufactu-
rer an advantage over the foreign, in our own
markets, of at least thirty per cent., and surely
no candid man will deny, that if any manufac-
ture cannot succeed with a protection o
thrty per cent, it ought to be at once abān-
doned. But while duties are to be imposed,
ranging from twenty to upwards of one hundred
per cent, and imposed not for revenue but pro-
fection, we must say, that if such a scheme is to
be a compromise, it is a compromise in which
everything will be yielded on the one side, and
nothing on the other. o o
rom the United states telegaara.
“Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and
to argue freely, according to conscience, above
all liberties.”
This was the language of a great and good
man; it has always been the language of free-
men. “To the pure all things are pure, not
only meats and drinks, but all kinds of know-
ledge, whether good or evil; the knowledge
cannot defile, if the will and conscience be not
defiled.” The freedom of speech, and the lib-

[ocr errors]

by stratagem or force, to give *::::: and false character, to suit the times,

meet the severest disapprobation of allowho profess to be the true friends of freedom. The abridgment of the liberties of speech, contained in an act passed by Congress, was pronounced unconstitutional by the States, and thus nullified; but I venture to assert, that it never entered into the minds of one of the advocates of this bill,that the very essence of our liberties,the freedom of debate in Congress, was not sacred. Destroy that privilege, annihilate that sacred right, and cre long, we may meet our friends in the street with anxious countenances, but afraid to speak, only through the pipe of a licenser. But we are told Congress ought to have passed laws defining the punishment of such offences; & thus it is, gentlemen allow their prejudices to palliate an offence. Is it a justi. fication for an offence that Congress had not passed an act covering the case? I have no inclination to show what has already been decided, that they had power; but surely there are some things among us, the moral beauty and exces. lence of which, are sofar superior toothers, that guards rather invite dangerthan preventit. Who would think of placing a guard to a church? And yet, the very existence of that church, see. ing that the liberty of conscience, and all the yaluable blessings we enjoy, and the suits ofthat freedom of debate, which should be held sacred by every lover of liberty; and every friend to his country. This is a subject of deep interest, and will be much reflected upon, and only requires deliberation to condemn. The worst species of gag law, is that kind which intends to intimidate representative freedom by the !. tol or the cudgel, and when we have so far de generated as to give countenance to such prac. tices, disorder and *onfusion must follow, and the Goddess of Liberty will have flown from this her favorite abode. Mr. Editor, you have said that you were not an alarmist. I believe it. But, Sir, these are strange times. I have thought highly of Andrew Jackson, and I have ascribed much of what I thought errors, to the head and not to his heart; but if he sanctions the practice of violence upon the persons of members of Con gress, for the freedom of speech in debate, ifit is true that he will carry his point by means adequate to accomplish his purposes without re; gard to the character of those means, then I will ask, where is the freeman who would not put him down. Mr. Jefferson's rule was to bind the Union by justice, by kindness, and by unremitting exertions to maintain and merit a character for fair doings. The national name was so exalted, that every man felt proud that he lived at that day, and was an American. But how altered are we! How strangely unlike ourselves! If we travel up the channel of time, and look into the history of Rome or Greece, and see a successful military commander returned to his native home, at the helm of State, doing

erty of the Press, are rights tenaciously held by wrong, and frequently,too, not from any natural

the people of this country. “The issue of the propensity to do so,

o - * * *

but pressed by the impor--- o o - - -

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

tunity of his associates, their violence and the extrayagance of their demands, we may find a parallel in this our day. Perhaps this picture is over drawn, and too highly colored; but I do verily believe, it has not half the strength which the real condition of the present times demand; but I trust some spirits may rise up to shake this nation to a peaceful and healthful reformation, that we may once more behold the simplicity and virtue of our fathers. FRANKLIN.


In the report made to the House of Representatives on the 14th inst. by the Hon. John Quincy Adams, late President of the United States, there is contained the following paragraph:

“The complaints made against the President of the Bank at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in the summer of 1829, and the correspondence between the Board at Philadelphia and the late Secretaries of the Treasury and of War, form a Portion of the documents relating to the books and proceedings of the bank called for by the committee, and communicated to them. They are not noticed in the report of the chairman, but in the opinion of the subscriber, are more deserving of the attention of Congress, and of the nation, than any other part of the papers commented upon in the report. An effort, vey thinly veiled, on the part of two of the Exe“utive Departments of the General Govern*no to exercise a control, political and pecu*} over the proceedings of the bank and its honoho, a control highly exceptionable in principle, and even contrary to law, appears to him to be fully disclosed in those papers. He will not permit himself to inquire into the mo"o of the agents in those transactions. It is sufficient for the protection of the public inter. * that the projected encroachments of pow*were disconcerted and laid aside.”

It is manifestly the intention of Mr. Adams, in the above paragraph, to charge the “late Secretaries of the Treasury and of war” with a *rted “effort to exercise a control, political and pecuniary, over the proceedings of the bank and its branches,” which he deems “ highly exceptionable in principle, and even contra!y to law.” The two Secretaries are connected in the same member of a sentence, and the deo: over which they presided, are, in ike manner, connected in another sentence. In confirmation of this remark, their correspondence with the Board at Philadelphia is introduced as “an effort very thinly veiled,” &c. Mr. Adams has doubtless seen the correspondence to which he refers, and he cannot be suspected of inadvertency in the manner of making so great and serious a charge; still less of defect in the knowledge of the meaning of his own language.

The public will, therefore, learn with surprise that there cannot be a word or expression in any part of the correspondence of the late Secretary of the Treasury with the Board at

Philadelphia, on which to ground the charge of a concerted “effort” with the late Secretary of War, for any purpose whatever, as it was never known to me that the late Secretary of War ever wrote a line to, or received a letter from, the Board at Philadelphia; nay, more, the only correspondence of his with the branch banks, which came to my knowledge, was an order to that at Portsmouth, N. H., to transfer the funds deposited there for the o of pensions, to a State bank, which order, as soon as it was made known to me, being deemed contrary to law, I addressed a letter to the War Department, intimating my opinion to that effect. The case was afterwards, as I understood, submitted to the Attorney General, who gave a similar opinion, when the order was revoked. If there be any other correspondence of the Secretary of War with the bank or its branches, I am ignorant of it. The correspondence in relation to the ordinary business of the War Department with the bank, was, { course, not submitted to the inspection of the Treasury Department, and never came under my notice. It is due to the late Secretary of War, to state that he cannot be responsible for any correspondence of mine with the bank; he certainly had no agency in preparing it, nor do I know that he ever saw a line of it. For this, whateyer its character may be, I am alone responsible to the government and the nation, and while I disclaim the imputed concert of action, and all responsibility for the acts of others, in which I had no agency, I shrink from none for my own acts. I have therefore taken measures to have the correspondence with the Board at Philadelphia, growing out of the complaints against the President of the Bank at Portsmouth, N. H. published as soon as possible, relying upon the Public intelligence, alone for justice against a charge, for which, if true, I ought yet to be impeached. In the mean time, as the poison contained in the paragraph above quoted is spreading abroad, I embrace this occasion to deny the whole charge, so far as it relates to myself, whether alleged to be founded on facts or inferences, in the most unqualified terms; and only ask the favor of the public to suspend its judgment until the whole correspondence has been read. S. D. INGHAM.

raoxi th E. vir G IN IA ori M. Es. The editor of Richmond Enquirer, calls this a “Mullifying Paper.” Though our absence may cause this notice to appear rather unseasonable, we do not mean that it shall give him the advantage which he may have sought. The editoris welcome to all the benefits which may result from a dexterous use of partisan slarg— we shall not be forced into an abandonment of the Constitution, from the fear of a word. The Enquirer has been forced, (very reluctantly, we know,) to acknowledge that the doctrines which it now assails under the name of nullification, are those advocated by Mr. Jef. ferson and the republican party of 1798. This

fact is placed beyond all quibble or doubt, by



• Let him keep with the companions of his choice


the late publication of Mr. Thomas Jefferson Randolp!. The Enquirer was once the advocate of the principles of the ’98 Sphool—it now denounces Mr. Jefferson as a “nullifyer,” and publicly declares its reprobation of the doctrines contained in the Kentucky resolutions of 1798, '99. The editor has doubtless been able to satisfy his conscience—he has yet to satisfy his country, for this abandonment of the principles of the republican party. The facts, cir. cumstances, doctrines, were all known to him; and he had deliberately chosen his position— he is, of course, entitled to use such weapons in support of himself, as his necessities may require. He has thought proper to resort to the influence of party slang, rather than to sound argument—a circumstance which, while it dis– closes a coinscious sense of the weakness of his position, shows his adroitness in the selectio of the proper weapons. Quf course is a plain one: To know what was the faith of the Fathers of the Constitution, and to abide by it to the lust. We have taken the resolutions of ICentucky, penned by Thomas Jefferson, as containing the philosophy of our political system—the true doctrines of the Constitution. They are to us as a chart and compass in our political voyage; and call them by what name you please, we shall abide by them still. We shall not inquire whether we please this or that party in our course. We would not give a fiddlestick for the good or ill will of An. drew Jackson or Henry Clay, or of their organized presses. Ours is the cause of the people and the States; the cause of the country and of human liberty; and we leave that of Jackson, Van Buren, and Clay, to those whose ambition is suited to the employment. Again, we say, the editor of the Richmond Enquirer, upon a full view of the whole ground, has taken his position in direct hostility to Mr. Jefferson and the republican party of 1798. His conscience is easy, and his readers are, perhaps, satisfied. All that we ask, is, that if he should find that position hereafter, an unpleaSant One, that he turn no summersets upon tis.

—with the sedition law federalists, McLane, Taney, and the high tariff republicans, Van Buren and Marcy. We mention this now, because we have lately seen indications of a purpose to slide back, as does the otter, tail-foremost, upon the south; while his eyes are steads fastly fixed upon the north. This attitude is not exactly respectful to those whom he keeps in the rear, and we shall be compelled to notice, if he do not change it. Commendatory notices, and frequent extracts from that nullifying paper, the Charleston Mercury—flattering encomiums on the Hon. Nullifyer, Mr

Hayne-soft praises of Messrs. Johnston and Bouldin-expressive caveats to the “soxs” of New York—increased zeal in professed hostili. ty to the tariff, and painful travailings of spirit n regard to the whole south—coupled with th

defence of Molane's tariff report—warm opp" sition to P. P. Barbour, and anarious solicitude

for Martin Van Buren—all, all are well under. stood. In the name of common sense, have you not already-turned summersets enough?



Upon the motion to recede from the amendment made in the Senate to the Appropriation Bill, by striking out the outfit for a Minister to France. Mr. MILLER said, in moving to strike out so much of the appropriation as relates to the outfit of Minister to France, he had no intention or desire to intrench upon the powers of the President or the House of Representatives. The question was purely one of legislation, over which both bodies had equal rights. The House of Representatives had as much right to insist on this appropriation, as the Senate had to amend the bill by striking it out. What we are now to decide is, whether it is proper to make an appropriation for a minister to France, to be appointed during the recess. The Senate had stricken out this outfit and the the House had restored it. Shall we recede or adhere to our amendment It is an ordinary question of legislation, involving none of the privileges of the Senate. The House of Representatives had the most unquestionable right to determine for itself, as a part of the legislative power, and so had the President and Senate. Each must put their own construction on the Constitution, and exercise their discretion and best judgment on such matters as come within the scope of action of each respective branch. The President had the right to put his construction on the Constitution, and fill up a mission in the recess, The House of Representatives, in the exercise of its judgment, might provide the outfit, assuming that the Executive could fill up a vacancy, such as this one, in the recess; and the Senate had an equal right to act upon its views of the constitutional powers of the President, as well as upon the expediency of providing now by law to fill the vacancy, either contingent or cartain, as it may be, in the mission to France, There was no reason for alarm on the score of invasion of the powers of the Senate; we had a double check upon the President; one legislative, and the other executive. We can either withhold the appropriation, or refuse to sanction the mission, or confirm the minister. The powers of the Senate were ample for the protection of its constitutional rights, if it were true to the States and itself. While he disclaimed any feeling of hostility towards the Executive, or the other branch of the legislature, he was prepared to incur any and every responsibility incident to the refusal to recede from this amendment. This appropriation involved something of principle and something of fact. In the first place, has the President power to fill up a vacancy which may occur during the recess, in a foreign mission?

[ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

Mr. M. said, he had expressed his doubts on this subject, when he first made the question on this outfit, and he had heard nothing to remove them. It had been said this was an every day practice of the Government. It may be so, but it did not appear ; no case had been furnished, in which the President's right to fili, during the recess had been recognized by prospective legislation. Such cases might be found ; they had not been produced ; and if they were produced, he did not consider the practice of the Government so far established as to overturn a plain rule laid down in the charter we had sworn to support. It was the written constitution, not the practices of the Executive nor the abuses of our predecessors, which we were called on to maintain. There is a very obvious differente between confirm, ing a minister appointed during the recess, and authorizing such an appointment in advance. The one case only concedes to a co-ordinato branch of the Government a fair right to Put its own construction on its own powers ; and the other puts the construction of the Senate on those powers. The one concedes the right” of opinion to the Executive ; the other subst: tutes the opinion of the Executive for our own, and recognises the entire right of the President to fill up appointments during the recess. Ho

the President this right is there any differ

ence between a vacancy in an existing mission and a vacancy in a mission not yet instituted These are questions to be solved by a reference to the Constitution. minate, and by and with the consent of the $9. male an oint embassadors, other public ministers,” &c. The nomination conters no office un: til the appointment is made : the appointment is not made until the Senate passes on the nomination. When there is an existing legal office, the appointing power is under a mora obligation to fill the same. * If a judge resigns or dies, the vacancy must be filled, or the *P. pointing power omits to do its duty. It is not so of a foreign minister: if he dies or resigns, there is no legal obligation to appoint his successor. The mere volition of the appointing power makes the office and the minister in the same breath. - Public ministers are not subsisting officers of the Government. There is n , , minister to France until he is appointed ; and there is no office of minister separate and apart from the incumbent. Hence a vacancy cannot be predicated of a foreign mis-ion. when a minister is recalled, there is an end of the office as well as the mission. The power of the President to appoint during the recess cannot extend to a minister, because there is no vacancy to fill up. Evely appointment of a minister is an original one, and not the filling up of a preexisting office. It seems to be admitted, pretty generally, that the President cannot originate a foreign mission, without the advice and Consent of the Senate. Mr. M. said, he was no able to discover any difference between cases

“the President shall no

France this year, does not constitutionally implv that you must send one next year; the recall, or resignation, or death of the minister, determines the mission. And, unless the President can originate a mission in the recess, he cannot appoint, where there has been an antecedent mission. We have now no minister at the court of Austria. There may be just as much necessity for our representation at that court, on the first of October next, as at the French court, upon the termination of the office of the present minister to France. The right to originate missions at each of these courts, is, by the Constitution, the same. But if it were proposed to grant an outfit for a minister to Austria, to be appointed during the recess, it would not be sustained. How is it, then, that we propose to recognize the right of the President to originate a mission to France during the recess? It is obvious, that this view of the question involved a constitutional power, which made the objection to this appropriation a substantial one. ff he believed the President had the abstract right to renew the mission to France, during the recess, he would not care whether the appropriation should be specific or contingent. Assuming that the President had the power to fill up the mission during the recess, it was immaterial out of what fund the outfit was paid. it then became one of mere expediency, whether we should be represented at the French court, during the time which would elapse between October and the next session of the Senate. This appropriation affirms three propositions—first, the constitutional power of the President to fill up all vacancies that may occut during the recess ; secondly, that this yacancy will happen during the recess; and,third!y, that the same should be filled for the two months ant cedent our next session. Mr. M. said, he doubted, nay, he denied, every one of these propositions. He had attempted to prove that an embassador was not a subsisting officer of the Government; and hence where could be no vacancy in such office. But, suppose he erred on this subject, and that a foreign mission is such an office as may be filled during the recess, then a question of fact had to be settled,” which is, has the vacancy happened, or is it to happen 2 if the vacancy has already happened, in the sense of that term in the Consti ution, n, one would contend it could be filled during the recess. During the debate on the very question, whether this was an actual or contingent vacancy, the Secretary of State sends us the following letter :

(COPY.) DePantytes r of State, Washington, 21st.dpril, 1832.

SIR : I am directed by the President to infirm you. that there is, at present, no vacancy in the office of Envoy Extraordinary and Mi

nister Plenipotentiary to the King of the French;

where a minister has heretofore been sent, and |but that such vacancy will occur in the month where one has not. The sending a minister tolof october next ; Mr. Rives having requested

[ocr errors]

leave to return at that period, and his request
having been acceded to by the President.
Respectfully, your obed’t serv't,
S. Smith, Fsquire, -
Ch'm. of the Com, of Finance of the Senate.
In this letter, it is not said that the vacancy
will “happen” in the month of October, but
that it will “occur.” . *
That which was before uncertain becomes
now certain. It is now no longer doubtful whe.
ther any vacancy exists in the office of minister
to France, if the office be one in perpetuity.
The incumbent has asked leave to return in
October, and leave has been given. This fact
is made known to us while we are discussing
the question ; it becomes, therefore, a part of
the res gesta, and determines the period
at which the incumbent will go out of office,
It is now a perfect certainty that a vacancy in
the office of minister to France will occur in
October. It will not happen during the recess ;
it has already happened, and an outfit is to be
provided for his successor. The very legisla-
tive provision for an outfit would be conclusive
of the fact of a vacancy." How can a vacancy
be said to happen during the recess, when Con-
gress provides an outfit now 2. If we pass this
appropriation, it will be a solemn legislative

enactment, declaring that a vacancy exists in the office of minister to France in October Then the President ought to make the

, next.
nomination at the present session.

That which is known, cannot be said to be

unknown. What has happened, cannot be an event that may happen. If, upon the faith

of the facts stated in the letter of the Secretary |

of State, an appropriation is made of nine thousand dollars, at the request of the appointing power, will that power hereafter be permitted to say no vacancy has happened? Is the public treasure to be locked up for outfits that may not be wanted If the President, to make that certain which was before contingent, makes a communication to the Senate, how can those who are parties to a law passed on the assumption of such a state of facts, controvert the same The power to make the vacancy is with the President ; but the power to provide the outfit is not. The President makes the va. cancy to get the money : yet it is said there is no vacancy. It is a vacancy during the session to get the money; and a vacancy during, the recess to fill the office. The power to fill of fices during the recess is confined to accidental and unknown vacancies. What are known and provided for takes the power from the President. To the Deity nothing happens— with Him there are no casualties—everything is known and provided for; but Congress has not

the power omnipotent, as it may be, to decree

that which has not happened, but, that which

has happened, may happen, and provide

for the exigency. The Senate ought, in its

legislative "character, to take care that no

detriment comes to their executive powers.

we do not stand in need of light from history

to instruct us of the tendency of all power to

concentrate in the hands of a single person,
We have only to look around us, and the in:
fluence of the executive power is easily per-
ceived, in doors as well as out of doors.
It cannot be doubted but that the President
of the United States is constantly absorbing
all the executive power of the Governmeat.
The Senate will, in the process of time,become
a mere circumstance—a registering junto, ex-
ercising no control over the subjects constitu.
tionally confided to its care. We ought to
guard against such a state of things.
Mr. M. said, he had voted for the outfit for
minister to Great Britain, under the belief that
a nomination would be made during the ses-
sion; and for the same reason would vote for
the present outfit, if it were intended, during
the present session, , to make the appointment.
The contrary is implied in the above letter. If
it be so important to the country, that no
chasm shall take place in this mission, that we
should now grant the outfit, is it not equally
important that we should make the appoint-
ment of such a minister as the whole appoint.
ing power may approve of
A minister in a chrysalis state ought not, but
in extreme cases, to take his outfit and salary;
he should be fledged fully before the public
funds are dissipated on him.
for outfits and salaries are regularly and annu-
ally granted, no minister need ever be sent to
the Senate. “The President shall have power
to fill up vacancies that may happenduring the
recess of the Senate, by granting commissions
which shall expire at the end of their next ses"
sion.” * * *
Appointments made during the recess, it may
be fairly contended, will always expire during
the recess. The commission will expire only,
at the end of the session. The vacancy does
not occur during the session, and must there-
fore occur during the recess. If the vacancy.
in such cases occur during the recess, let
pliant Senate grant the outfit, and what is these
to prevent a perpetual appointment to this of
fice without the consent of the Senate? If even
the minister be rejected, the right to appoint
him again would result from the principles on
which the appropriation is supported. It is said
that it would be obviously improper to reap-
point, in the recess, an officer who had been
rejected by the senate, that it would be sphin
violation of the . In what would
the violation consist? It is no violation of the
constitution to renominate a person rejected by
the Senate, but it would be a violation of the
constitution to appoint, after the rising of the
Senate, a person to office which became vacanto
during the session, although the term of office
had to run into the recess. In this respect, the
outfits for the minister to France and England
both stood on the same footing; the commissions

[merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

if appropriations

of both are now determined, and yet both run

« ForrigeFortsett »