What pliability of understanding some men possess! They will understand black to be white, or white to be black, just as it suits their consciences, and will tell you so with as grave an air as if they really expected to be believed. An adept in this art is the editor of the Albany Argus, and we were led to these reflections by a “twistical” article in the Argus of June 26th. The article was occasioned by a supposed “discrepancy” between the views of Governor Throop, and the letter of the President, relative to proclaiming a public fast. The former had denied that it was in the constitutional power of the State Executive to order a public fast, ' But the President had declared positively that it was the “province of the pulpits and the State tribunals, to recommend the time and mode by which the people,” &c. Some persons were dull enough to conceive that there was a little disagreement between the views of the Governor and those of the Presidenu. Oh no, says the editor of the Argus, no discrepancy at all! “I do not so understand the allusion.” A pretty broad allusion me. thinks. Oh no! When the President says “that it is the province of the pulpits and State tribunals;” he does not mean that it is the province,” but that it is not their province,” except so far as they may possess the power under their respectative • constitutions. And when the President says “it is the province of the State tribunals,” he “surely does not mean to affirm” that they possess such power. Admirable commentator!

THE GLOBE AND THE NEW TARIFF Bll, L. The Globe of yesterday gives the views of the Executive relative to the new Tariff Bill. It may be worth while to examine a little into the correctness of those views, and, also, into their accordance with the views taken by those who voted for this bill, and through whose agency it passed the House. The Globe says : “The true reason why Mr. Calhoun and his nullifiers in the south and west, have set them. selves against the reduction of the tariff, as proposed by the bill from the Treasury, or the proposition as modified in the House, is seen in this brief sentence: “IMMEDIATE AND Active assistasco" is Mr. Calhoun’s object. The proposed plan of “GRADUAL REDuction,” sub mitted by Mr. Hayne, in the Senate, is now abandoned. The President comes forward, and does what no other man in our takes the responsibility of a bill adjusted in the Treasury Department, upon the principles of compromise, such as offered by the Senator of South Carolina. He risks his popularity, upon the eve of the election in Pennsylvania and New York, and all the tariff States, and submits, in detail, as a conciliatory measure, a bill raising only $11,512,839, reducing the duties upon protected articles upwards of three Millions of Pollars; and those who invited his interposition under the solemn pledges in the Senate,

injure manufactures,” that they were “will
ling they should have the incidental protection
afforded by a fair revenue system,” that they
“did not insist on an immediate reduction to the
lowest revenue standard,” that they were wil-
ling to await “the payment of the public debt,”
and to allow “a reasonable time for the gradual
reduction of the present high duties on the arti-
cles coming into competition with similar articles
made or produced in the United States;” these
men, who, through Mr. Hayne, made by a re-
solution such professions of meeting concilia-
tion half way, now turn upon the President, and
spurn the efforts which he has made at the
highest hazard, to relieve them and to restore
harmony to the country "
We are here" expressly told, that this bill is
“adjusted upon the principles of compromise
proposed by Mr. Hayne;” that the proposed
plan of “gradual reduction, submitted by Mr.
Hayne in the Senate, is now abandoned ; and
that the south, after making professions of
“meeting conciliation half way, now spurn at
the efforts made by the President, at the
highest HAzARD, to relieve them and restore
harmony to the country !” Now, we positive-
ly deny that the south is unwilling to receive a
bill founded upon Mr. Hayne's proposition ;
and we justify ourselves in making this posi-
tive declaration, by the speeches delivered by
gentlemen of the south on the floor of Con-
gress ; by the resolutions adopted at numerous
public meetings at the south ; and by the sen-
timents expressed in their public journals.
But is this bill founded upon the psbpositions
of Mr. Hayne The Executive and the Globe
say, yes. We say, no. Upon the decision of
this question depends the consistency of the
south, its justification in its present course, and
the amount of gratitude to the President for
his efforts to relieve the south at the “highest
hazard,” as the Globe pathetically tells us, “of
the loss of his popularity in New York and
Pennsylvania.” We are perfectly willing to
let all these depend upon the decision of the
people, on this subject.
Now, what was the ground-work of Mr.
Hayne's propositions What are the principles
involved in them, which al one could ruake
them satisfactory to the south The Globe has
stated them in the quotation above: “ Gradual
reduction of the duties upon protected arti-
cles, to the incidental protection afforded by a
FAIR asvenue system "And is this the prin-
ciple on which the new bill was passed 2 How
surprised must those who voted for the bill be,
at this exposition of their views in voting for
the bill, and at the indirect pledge they have
thus given to yield up the “protective princi-
ple,” and gradually reduce the duties to a
“fair revenue system " We would rejoice if
it were so. We should rejoice if we had it in
our power to convey such glad tidings to our
southern brethren. But we have no such glad
tidings to convey.
We might appeal to every member of the
Sooth, if he voted for the bill under the impres-

that they “did not propose io destroy or even

sion that it was to be followed up by a reduc

[ocr errors][merged small]

tion of duties to a “fair revenue system?” Was Buren. We have been greatly misunderstood there any such private understanding among|if it be supposed that we intended to say that the members, or was there a single expression all those who voted either for the engrossment used in the debate, that,by any ingenuity, could or the passage of the bill, were the partisans of be tortured into conveying such an idea? Is either Mr. Van Buren, or of Mr. Clay. The there any friend of the tariff who voted for the Richmond Enquirer had said that the friends of bill, who will say that he voted for it “upon Mr. Van Buren could control the question, and the principle of compromise” proposed by Mr. our remarks had reference rather to the provi. Hayne? They would, we are sure, particular-sions of the bill, than to its passage. It is

ly the gentlemen from New York and Pennsyl

known that the vote upon the engressment and

wania, be very unwilling to go home and tell upon the passage, was much larger than the their constituents that they had voted to de-vote upon the several provisions. This is to be stroy the “protective system,” and gradually to explained by the fact, that some of the southern reduce the tariff to a “fair revenue system.” and western members who are opposed to a Their popularity is now suffering from what|high tariff, voted for the engrossment, and again their constituents suppose they have already|for the passage of the bill, because they con. done, or are willing to do, to relieve the south.|ceived it to be their duty to vote for any bill reWhat would be their situation, if, when they ducing the taxes. It is admitted that this bill return to their constituents, they should con-] does reduce the revenue about four millions

firm the representations of the Globe?

three hundred thousand dollars. It would,

The New York Courier may be supposed to therefore, be unjust, and it was not our inten. be as well acquainted as the Globe with the tion to assert, that all who voted for the bill are views of the friends of Mr. W. Buren. It takes a the partisans of Mr. Van Buren or of Mr. Clay, very different view of the case. In a letter, writ. By the term we intended to refer particularly to ten from this place, and published in the New those who were designated by the Richmond

York Courier, and which we republished a few
daysago, it was stated that it was not the intention
of the friends of the tariff to “abandon the pro-
tective policy, but to strengthen it.” This let-
ter was evidently written to quiet the minds of
any who might have entertained a suspicion of
their having an intention of reducing the pro-
tection to “a fair revenue system.” But why
need we attempt to prove a fact known to eve-
ry member of Congress? The article in the
Globe was not intended to produce an effect
here. It was to be reechoed by the affiliated
presses, south and east, and carry the glad ti-
dings of victory over the protective system
The practical effects of the bill are not less
falsely and deceptively stated than are the
principles upon which it was passed. It is sta-
ted that it will produce only about twelve mil-
lions. Mr. McDuffie has stated, in his place
in the House, that from calculations he has
made, he is convinced it will produce more
than twenty millions of dollars. And when we
reflect that in the single port of New York
there has already occurred, under the present
bill, more than six millions for the first quarter,
every intelligent man must be convinced that
Mr. McDuffie's calculation cannot be too high.
That there must be a very large surplus re.
venue, none will pretend to dispute. Why,
then, raise so much uuder the new bill. The
answer is obvious—to protect domestic manu-
factures. And yet, in direct contradiction to
these facts, the Globe has the hardihood to as-
sert, that the bill is founded on the principle of
reducing “protection” to “the incidental pro-
tection afforded by a fair revenue system.”
We shall resume our observations in our next

Enquirer as his friends, and who, that print admits, controlled the bill, and who, by voting against all propositions for reducing to a fair and just tariff, compelled other members to vote against the bill, or to take such a reduction of the taxes as they, in their tender mercy, deigned to give us. It is, however, a striking fact, and we do not now recollecta single exception, that the vote of every southern member who voted for the bill, may be justly attributed to considerations apart from the billitself.


Mr. Dickerson will have to move more cautiously with his amendments, or he will find himself unconsciously among the “base and bitter faction,” as the Globe, with its customary amenity, terms all the friends of the tariff, who will not accept the Jackson Van Buren Tariff bill. A few per cent, more or less will decide whether he is to be “a friend of peace and moderation,” or “one of the base and bitter faction!” What a pity Mr. Dickerson culd not respond more favorably to the call of the Globe, and, at its suggestion, consent to the “modification of his ideas” in the present “cri'

oommunications, so

FOR THE UNITED STATES TELEGRAPH, Gen. Gness: On opening the “official” this morning, my attention was drawn to a letter with the signature of “Robert Williams,” addressed from Mississippi, to the editor of that print, under date of the 25th ult, cations so frequently appear in the columns of ------ the journals in the pay of the administration, THE WAN BUREN TARIFR BILL. and particularly in that conducted under the

Several gentlemen who voted for the bill eye of the President, that it is almost a waste which has passed the House, have intimated to of words to animadvert on them; but to prevent

us that we have done them great o by the imposition attempted to be palmed on the speaking of them as the partisans of Mr. Vanlpublic by the Globe, I beg permission through

your paper, to make your readers acquainted with this distinguished correspondent of the President's organ, in this city. The Globe introduces him to our acquaintance, as a gentleiman who has been “Governor of his State and representative in Congress, at the most important epoch in our history;” which description might lead persons unacquainted with the facts to suppose that he is the same individual who, for many years, represented the State of Mississippi in the Senate of the United States. The name of that gentleman is Thos. H. Wil. liams, who is now in retirement, respected by all who know him, and is, in all respects, the opposite of the miserable wretch whose name is subscribed to this infamous letter. This Robert Williams, never was Governor of the State of Mississippi, nor did he ever represent that State in Congress, or fill any other office within the gift of the people where he is known. He was, for a short time, territorial Governor, but was compelled, by his crimes, to resign, and for nearly twenty years past he has attracted very little notice, except as a wandering mendicant, living on the charity of others, and notoriously unworthy of credit, either in a pe. cuniary or moral sense. This man formerly dabbled in the dirty work of political parties in Mississippi, until he became so totally bank. rupt in fame and fortune as to excite the commiseration of all, and the resentment of no one. The writer of this article, though a citizen of Mississippi, has not heard of him for the last eight or ten years, and had actually numbered him among the deal, until this veritable letter revived the recollection of him. This brief notice will serve to show the valuable acquisition of this new correspondent to the kitchen cabinet, who will doubtless provide for him some suitable reward for services of which they stand in present need. It is said, that an office is now vacant at Natchez, which can be filled without the advice and consent of the Senate; may not this insolvent letter writer have been operated on by a desire to push his claims to Executive favor, by the fashionable and efficient expedient of vituperation and vulgar abuse of particular members of the Senate, for the high crime of voting to reject the nomination Martin Van Buren? This inquiry might probably be answered at the General Post Office. The Globe cannot too highly appreciate this unexpected recruit in the war of calumny and detraction, waged by the Executive on the Senator from Mississippi. He will doubtless prove a most potent ally, if he is but moderately subsidized. About twenty-five years past, this degraded creature was the bitter enemy of Senator Poindexter. He continued to fulminate his calumnies through the paper of an inSolvent editor of the name of Marschalk, until it was thought by the friends of that gentleman,

at a prosecution for some of those libels ought to be instituted against the printer, there being no positive proofto designate the author of the publication. The indictments opened the wides' field of inquiry into the public and priwate acts of the prosecutor which any one could

desire, who supposed that he could be justly charged with a violation of the rights of his fellow-citizens, or of the dictates of integrity and honor. The defendant, backed by this “Robert Williams,” and about a dozen agents and abettors, availed himself of the statute which permitted the truth of the matter charged as libellous to be given in evidence, and went into a full investigation of every transaction in which the prosecutor had participated throughout his past life in that country. Subsequent to the trial which resulted in the conviction, fine, and imprisonment of the editor, circumstances rendered it necessary that Mr. Poindexter should call on the presiding judge for a report of the trial, which was inserted in a pamphlet published at that time, and being in possession of a copy, it is inserted below to show how futile have been the efforts of this veteran calumniator, to impair the fame and popularity of the Senator on former occasions. Since the trial on these indictments, the writer is authorized to state that from the purest motive of benevolence and charity, Mr. Poindexter has contributed a large sum to keep this poor man from actual starvation, although we knew at the time, of the many vain attempts which the object of his munificence had made to impair his standing in society. For ten years past the name of this vagabond has not been seen in the public prints; and now it seems he is at his “dirty work again” in the columns of the Globe. We may well say of the editor and his correspondent “par nobile fratrum.” “It is needless to notice the contents of the letter; the prefatory remarks of the official paper will be made the subject of another communication. Z. June 28th, 1832.

Spaing PLAINs, CLAIBorne Countr, M. T. July 28th, 1815.

DEAR SIR: Your favor of the 6th instant was not received by me until the 23d. I was unavoidably, prevented from answering it by the succeeding mail. I hope, however, that this de ay will not be of any very serious disadvantage to you. In that letter you wish my answer to the following queries : 1. Whether I did not preside in the trial of Andrew Marschalk, for sundry libels printed in his newspaper, againt you ?

2. Whether under our laws the defendant has not a right to give the truth of the matter charged as libellous in evidence 2

3. Whether in that case, the attempt was or was not made, and whether you did not permit him to go into a specification of any thing his witnesses could state concerning your conduct, at any period since your residence in this country

’, Whether, after occupying four days on the trial, he established any one fact which reflected the least dishonor on your moral character, and whether the defendant’s counsel did not, in the argument, abandon the ground of justification altogether

In answer, I have to state, that I did preside in the trial of Andrew Marschalk, on two indictments for libels printed in his newspaper, called “The Washington Republican,” against you. Under our laws the defendant, in such cases, has a right to give, in evidence in his defence, the truth of the matter charged as libellous ; and this privilege the defendant, on that occasion, availed himself of to the fullest extent. He was permitted, at your instance, to go into a particular specification of all the circumstances relative to any transaction of your’s with others, whether of a professional or private nature, since your residence in this country. A solitary case only excepted, which took place between yourself and the unfortune Mr. , and which is, by some, called “an affair of honor.” In that, a witness who was an important friend to the unfortune Mr. y was brought into court, who stated the subject about which he was called on to testify, and that he had not voluntarily come forward on that occasion. This witness was objected to by the Attorney General, on the ground that his evi


dence, if fully given, would implicate himself

in an affair of a most serious nature. His testi. mony was, on that ground, rejected by the court, with the remark, that the court did not conceive itself bound to notice, officially, eve

much had been said and written, relative to your character, he did expect to have heard something proved, which would have placed it in a very unfavorable point of view; but, so far from that, he was well satisfied, that the fairest character among us, which had had so many transactions with the world, could not have appeared more fair, after having been subjected to such a rigid examination, embracing every transaction for a period of fourteen or fifteen years. I have heard several other gentlemen express themselves in similar terms. In the argument of the cause, the defendant's counsel did not pretend to have proved the

rested the defence of their client on the latitude which ought to be given to the liberty of the press, and the propriety of taking, by means of the press, a wide range in scrutinizing the conduct of public agents. I am, Sir, very respectfully, Your most obedient, And very humble servant, WALTER LEAKE. Geo. Poindextra, Esq.

We insert the communication of our corres

ry rumor which might be afloat, on subjects of with him, on the propriety of permitting Mr.

that or any other nature ; but if a person came voluntarily forward and made oath to such facts as would make an investigation necessary, it would feel itself then bound to institute an inquiry. But, as the witness had not voluntarily come forward, he might retire ; which he accordingly did. After a trial which occupied three or four days, your character exhibited as much purity as any man's could have done, which had been subjected to such rigid scrutiny. For, the trial having taken place in the county wherein your residence had been fixed, since your first arri. wal in the country, an opportunity was the bet. ter afforded to exhibit evidence relative to eve

Burrows to enter upon the soil of the Old Domion, for the purpose of erecting a monument to the mother of Washington. Our comment swent to show the reduced condition of that State, exhibited in the fact itself, and to rebuke the Globe for assailing Virginia for an act of which General Jackson forms an important appendage. The writer has given us an assurance that he is what he professes to be; but he must excuse us for not inserting his postscript which, to say the least of it, is rather imperti. nent for a stranger. We do not permit such to lecture us through our own columns, on the question of duty or editorial etiquette. We are not his competitors for the promulgation of

ry transaction of your's, in which any kind of a code, either of ethics or morals—Editor Tol

dispute had arisen with others ; and that evidence, too, derived from witnesses who were parties against you in those disputes, and whom, though honest, might be fairly supposed to be much under the influence of self interest in forming the opinions of your conduct about which they were to testify. And no person who heard the trial can be of opinion, that the opportunity which was then afforded, was in the least neglected, but that it was pursued with the most rigid assiduity, Indeed, it was matter of much surprise to many, whose minds bad been somewhat affected by 80 many scandalous charges as had been published in the defendant's newspaper, that something was not produced in evidence, which would, at least, have cast a shade over your character. After the trial was over, I heard a gentleman of “high standing and great respectability.” (and who was not one of your warmest friends,) declare, that he was never more disappointed in his expectations, than on hearing the evidence delivered on that trial : for, after so

* FREDER1cksbung, June 20th, 1832.

Sin: An absence from home of some days has prevented an earlier notice of a piece copied by you from the Globe, with a commentary of your own, and which seems originally to have appeared in the Rochester Reporter. .

The writer charges the “Clay prints" with praising the liberality of Silas E. Burrows, for the purpose of blinding the public to his connexion with the United States Bank. This is a forced, illiberal, and I believe, unjust construction. Mr. Burrows is known to be one of the most devoted friends of General Jackson, and I had thought that the report of the minority of the Bank Committee, which, torpedo like, blew up the malice and misconstruction of the majority, had settled the question of Mr. B.'s entire freedom from all blame in that matter. But, alas! in this day of corruption, intrigue, and scrambling for power, nothing is too sacred, nothing too gross to be circulated, if it suits the purposes of political partisans. Calumny with

truth of the matter charged as libellous, but,

pondent without entering into a controversy .

hydra-head and stentorian lungs, strives to es


[merged small][ocr errors]

tablish an Agrarian law even in moralts, and too
many are found willing to pull down to their
own level, those whom they have neither the
liberality of heart, or accomplishment of mind,
otherwise to reach.
An explanation is asked of Mr. Burrows'
evasion of the Bank Commitiee, and is thus
shortly given in the words of a letter to a friend
here, which I am permitted to use. “After
they were in session in Philadelphia, Mr. B. vi-
sited that city, and put up with them at the
United States Hotel. He thence went to
Washington and stayed two weeks, returned to
New York, went thence to New England, and
knew not that he was wanted, till the report
appeared. No subpoena was sent him; no infor-
mation communicated to him, or his clerks, that
he was wanted, and the whole was a piece of
trickery and management.” "
For your comment, it is sufficient to say, that
the “ler meratoria” fully justified Mr. B. in
taking two and a half per cent on a “fair bu-
siness transaction.” But admit venality in this,
and how does it affect the propriety of Mr. B.'s
agency in the monument, when it occurred sub-
sequent to the commencement of that agency.
To say that benevolence, obviously disinterest-
ed, and highly honorable, (I might almost say
unexampled,) becomes “malum in se,” by the
subsequent misconduct of the party rendering
it, would establish a new code of ethics, for the
honor of originating which, no one will, I fancy,
compete with the editor of the Telegraph.
I am not disposed to be Mr. B.'s biographer,
but as the Reporter has alluded to his public
life, and seems to think this bank business the
only part of it, I may add that he filled some
ublic trusts abroad, under Mr. Muuroe, as I
ave always understood, in a highly satisfactory
manner. He came here, recommended by Ma-
jor General Scott, and Mr. Munroe, who was
first elected to office by the citizens of this
place, and never lost their confidence. This is
not the first time Mr. B. has supplied public de-
linquency by munificent liberality, and those
who have given nothing towards the monument,
should be the last to complain that he is per-
mitted so largely to contribute in this matter by
the citizens of Virginia friendly to the object,
and more especially by those of

We must ask pardon of our correspondent whose communication is below. When receiv. ed, it was immediately handed to the composi. tor, with instructions that an editorial introduc tion would be prepared for it. The pressure of other matters had driven it from our notice. We invite a continuation of his contributions, and will endeavor to give his next a prompt insertion.

- Washington, 31st May, 1832.

Mr DEAR SIR : I have but just received your letter, and you see I #. to it an imme. diate reply. The subject of it is one of great importance, and produces much excitement as well as considerable contrariety of opinion. Nor should we be surprised at this ; for, to its

*mportance may be attributed the first, and to
the vanity of the human mind may be ascribed
the second. Besides, the principles of our Go-
vernment being essentially free, we should in-
vestigate with freedom whatever political doc-
trine may be broached concerning them.
Hence, the principle of nullification having
been openly avowed by a man, as remarkable
for the splendor of his talents, as he is for the
elevated station to which the votes of his fel-
low-citizens have raised him, it is natural that
this doctrine should produce considerable ex-
citement; and that the bold and fearless man-
ner with which it has been advanced, should,
at least with some, place its advocate in the
ranks of scheming politicians, visionary theo-
rists, or diso ganizing jacobins. This, I say,
is natural enough but, before we, my dear
Sir, come to this conclusion, let us take ano-
ther course. Let us pause and consider deli-
berately what this doctrine is. Let us examine
it without passion, and decide on it without
prejudice. Let us look at it without reference
to names; for great names are imposing things;
and it sometimes requires a gigantic effort of
the mind to guard against their undue influ-
ence. Let us, then, enter upon this subject
with minds as unshackled as they be by such in-
fluence. However brilliant may be the genius
of Mr. Calhoun ; however his mind, stored as
it is with the treasures of political knowledge,
may tower amongst the first statesmen of this
or any other land; however skilled he may be
in the science of our Constitution ; still he is a
man, and infallibility does not necessarily be-
long to his conclusions. . And of all other poli-
ticians--of all men, in fact, however gigantic
may be the grasp of their minds and profound
their learning, the same may be said : and thus,
I think, will appear to you, evidently, the pro-
priety of our entering upon this subject un-
shackled by prejudice, and uninfluenced by
names. Let principles, and principles alone,
be the subject of Öur discussion. Let us in-
quire whether the principle of nullification be
sound in theory and just in practice. Let us
ascertain whether it spring from the imagina-
tion of some hot-headed enthusiast, or whether
it is based upon the Constitution and the inhe-
rent rights of man. This is the plan which we
$ould pursue, and this is the one which I pro-
pose to adopt. To enter, then, at once upon
the subject ; you ask me, has a State a right to
nullify an act of Congress Permit me, for the
purpose of sustaining the ground which 1 shall
take, to meet this question, by another and in
my response to it, my answer to your question,
and my reason for this answer, will be found.
I would ask you, then, has an individual a
right, under any circumstances, to resist a law
of the community in which he lives? You say
that he has not ; and cite the consent of a ma-
jority of that community in favor of the law, to
support your position. I grant, in the outset,
to at common consent may be a very strong ar-
gument in favor of a law ; but, although this
rule, as a general one, is good, yet to this, as to
all general rules, there exists, sometimes, very

« ForrigeFortsett »