Sidebilder
PDF
[ocr errors]

> - - ** w. webb,) because the Jackson organs dared |ceased friend?, will you look at my first let

not insert it,” and Mr. Gouverneur released us ter to Mr. Blair, and at his reply? Will you from our promise to publish it. we shall no, read my second, and say whether its language * therefore, insert it to-day, if ever. Our future or its tone exceeds the bounds of propriety, or o course will be governed by future events. Let the restraints of a moderate but firm remon*** webb get on with his “because” as he does strance against injury suggested? will you * with his cause. we insert Mr. Gouverneur's hear me declare that I stated to him in person to letter to us with the simple remark, that our o- all the facts and particularly the promise which *o pinion is unaltered as to the necessity for the I stood pledged to redeen,” Will you then or immediate publication of the correspondence. read his article of the 22d instant, and say that ra: We do not feel bound to hunt up the articles it contained that which was due to the cocato in the Globe and Telegraph, none of which |sion, or ought to have been satisfactory to me. to have been read by us, and we stated this last But, Sir, even here I would have paused. fact to Mr. Gouverneur, both on Friday and yes- The motives which you told me would be imterday. As we know nothing of the merits of puted, were carefully appreciated at the time; the controversy, but what the correspondence I had contradicted the assertion to the face of discloses, except so far as we are informed by the man who made it, and then under all the Mr. Gouverneur’s introductory remarks in yes- peculiar circumstances of my case, perhaps I terday's Courier, and Webb's comments, we might have safely stood as I did. I would have choose for the present to let the matter rest, done so, but when I had ascertained beyond a having enough to attend to in which we, if not doubt that all my communications to Mr. Blair the public, are more immediately interested. had been submitted to others, and the article It cannot be expected that we shall be drawn in question was unsatisfactory in itself, and in into a controversy by answering the questions|italics reiterating the very substance of the origiof Mr. Gouverneur. We will not be. They mal charge, was written under their immediate who are curious to read the correspondence can dictation—I thought it time to reflect upon the

see it in yesterday's Courier. position, in which, single handed as I was, I might hereafter be placed. The charge as

John I. Munronn, E-q. suming some character of an Indian fight. It Editor of the Standard. was prudent for me to show myself fairly in the

open field. I have done so. I have done it in a spirit of the most respectful consideration for every claim which ought to have been respect

Sin: There is only one remark in your paper of this morning to which I think it proper to reply. What passed between us, at any time, inust be destitute of interest to others. As you ed. have chosen, however, to state a fact which it But, Sir, as motives are the question, I must was not my wish to be made public, you may give you more. In the meantime, the editor take the responsibility of the reply I shall make|of the Telegraph, taking advantage of the to it. I invite no injurious imputations; but I guarded and equivocal paragraph, contained in will, at all hazards, repel any the Globe, makes a most unmerited and un

You say that I told you i had reasons for my worthy attack upon me, full of insinuations of conduct which were unknown to you, and 1 the most degrading character. To suppose did not wish to disclose. As you have chosen that I could have most remotely countenanced

... publicly to allude to them, they shall be frank. such an attempt--s the worst of injustice. But, ... lysated. Sir, there is another fact. On the appearance li Mr. Blair is correct in his supposition, that a of that article,and in my absence from the city,

|a near relative of Mr. Monroe assumed the ol

letter was written by an individual to Mr. Mon. roe, immediately before his death, attempting * to induce some admissions, or to be the instru. ment of future inferences in respect to the

-posibility to pledge himself that I would reply to the article on my return, or that he would do it himself. My trust could not be events of the seminole war. it"excited his delegated with honor--and I could no longer

strongest indignation, and in such manner as he hesitate to act. thougot due to himself, he made his solemn| But, Sir, as you are so sensitive to the time, declaration, at the most interesting period of at which I have thought proper to defend the his life, that it was utterly fal-e. He confided) character of Mr. Monroe, what do you think the papers to me, and I gave him my pledge on of the time at which others have thought prohis own requisition, that whenever the matter! per to as ail it. Did they not know that the should be brought before the public in any Presidential election was at hand, when they shape, that I would promptly deny it in his connected his character with their discussions, name. Mr. Blair and others not only brought and were they to do it at pleasure, while we the matter froquently before the public by al- were to be prudently silent. If it is imprudent lusions, but finally, in his paper of the 9th of to defend the character of Mr. Monroe, on the June, inade the very declaration in substance. eve of a Presidential election, is it right, is it of the manner,in which it was met the public|just—is it honorable, for others to assail it, at are already possessed. * * * - such a seasoi, and make that a pretext why

Now, Sir, I ask of you, on this simple state-reply should not be given to their charges’ onent of facts, what would you conceive to be SAMUEL L. GOUVERNEUR.

the duty of an honest representative of a de..] New York, oct, 1, 1832.

[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]

FROM THE WASHINton GLong,

Mr. Gouverneto's correspondence with the Edi tor of the Globe.

We publish the correspondence for no other object than to correct the very singilar mistake which appears in it, as published in the Courier and Enquirer. The fact stated in the Globe, that Mr. Monroe had given secret orders authorizing Gen. Jackson's course in Florida, is seized on by Mr. Gouverneur as involving Mr. Monroe's character—because, he says, it would fasten “evasion and duplicity” on Mr. Monroe, who had “disavowed before the world his (Gen. Jackson's) conduct in Florida,” and would show that he had “privately encouraged and promoted the very acts which he afterwards disapproved.” Our whole auswer to this attempt to make our article a crimination of Mr. Monroe, consists in a direct denial of the fact as stated by Mr. Gouveneur And we prove, conclusively, by quoting Mr. Monroe's message to Congress, that he has “Not Disavowed beyone the would his (the General's) connuct 1x Fluit DA,” but expressly declares, he “AuThonized MAJon GENERAL Jackson to ENTER Flon, na;” and further, we prove by the same message, that so far from having “Artenwagos misapphoved” his acts when in Florida, Mr. Monroe expressly maintained before Congress, that they were ‘justifiable.” But the whole weight of this proof is lost by the substitution of Mr. Calhoun's name in the place of Mr. Monroe's, in the correspondence. Where we say “after the terminution of the campaign, Mr. Mósitor, speaking of his orders to Gen. Jackson,” &c. &c., the Courier and Enquirer makes it read “after the termination of the campaign (or Mr. Calhous, speaking of his orders,” &c. &c. We do not think that the mistake exists in the letter sent to Mr. Gouverneur. It does not, in the copy we have retained. with regard to the question which is now to be inade, it seems, between Mr. Monroe's representative and the late venerable John Rhea, for a long time a member of Congress, we have nothing to say, except that we think it should have been made in Mr. Rhea's life "ime. As to the communication of Mr. Rhea to Gen. Jack. son, which the latter construed into confidential instructions as to the mode of conducting the Florida campaign, the fact of its reception by the General, we believe has never been disputed. Whenever the President's veracity upon that point is questioned, by any individual worthy, of consideration, we imagine that proof will be adduced which will put it beyond controversy. so far as Mr. Monroe's character is concerned, the public will have observed that we have studiously avoided making any inference to its disparagement. Mr. Gouverneur, by stating that he “disavowed” and “afterwards disapproved” the General's conduct in Florida, was enabled to draw inferences bringing his re. putation in conflict with the wremark in the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

t;lobe, in which (by the bye) he was not namea. we disentangled Mr. Monroe from this

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

*

ment alone throws into Mr. Van Buren's scale. For, although the Postmasters receive but a commission, the whole is disbursed by the Department, and the disbursement goes to swell the number of partisans enlisted through its agency. If we apply the same rule to the customhouse, we find that there are in New York two hundred and forty-five persons, whose salaries, in sixteen years, will amount to the sum of $4,306,845; that there are in Boston, sixtyeight persons, whose salaries will amount to $1,243,649 ; that there are in Philadelphia, seventy-four persons, whose salaries will amount to $1,235,490; and in Baltimore, thirty-six persons, whose salaries will be $655,181, Now, in the case of the bank, the principal and interest is to be repaid, and that the bank confers no obligation by lending money which is well secured, appears from the fact, that it

lends to its enemies as well as its friends. But

in the case of the officeholders, they put the whole sum into their pockets, and not a cent is to be returned to the Government. If there be corruption in either case, which is the most powerful engine The bank or the President * The business of the bank is to lend money; it was instituted for that purpose ; and unless it can be made appear that there was gross partiality or corrupt motives, there is nothing in the fact of lending money that should impeach the institution. On the other hand, the offices of the country were instituted for the public good, and should be filled with men who are devoted to the public interests. Mr. Marcy has declared public offices to be “spoils,” belonging to the victor party in politics,” and this administration has practised on the principe. It would be wrong in the bank to deny accommodations to any but its political friends, and it is certainly more wrong for the President to bestow his patronage exclusively on the partisans of a particular personal favorite. Yet, such is the fact, and it cannot be denied. The immense supy of $312,018 disbursed annually through the Post Office Department in the State of New York, and the sums of $269, 177 disbursed in salaries to agents of the treasury in the city of New York; and the sum of $195,895 annually disbursed in salaries to like agents in Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, are in the character of so much money annually paid in those * Mr. Marcy, one of the Senators from New York, in the course of the debate on the nomination of Mr. Van Buren, said, “But it may be, Sir, that the politicians of New York are not so particular as some gentlemen are, as to disclosing the principles on which they act. Thev boldly preach what they prac. tice, when they are contending for victory, they avow their intention of enjoying the fruits of it. If they are defeated, they expect to retire from office. If they are successful, they claim, as a matter of right, the advantages of success. They see nothing wrong in the rule that to the victor belong the o:

States for the purpose of transferring their votes to Martin Van Buren : These sums added together, are equal to $777,500, which is the interest on the sum of $12,051,500, with this remarkable difference: that in the case of the bank the borrower is required to repay the principal and interest, in the case of the officeholders he refunds neither principal or interest! But we are told, that the Governinent must have officers, and should pay them. We grant this—so must the bank have borrowers. Corruption, therefore, does not necessarily attach either to the bank or the Government. That depends upon the abuse of the powers necessary of each. If the bank lend its funds for the purpose of buying up partisans to insolvent persons, it must sacrifice the interest of the stockholders, and that would be corruption. But no such case is alleged, even by Amos Kendall. Now, how is it as to the patronage"of the Government: the whole of it is carried into the political market as so much capital in trade, and openly vended in exchange for votes in favor of the President’s favorite | | Is not this most profligate corruption, and are not the fact and the enormity of the evil sufficient cause to alarm the citizens of this country

Will we stop by the way to prate about a petty bank accommodation to a printer which has been paid, or put it in comparison with corruption like this

As to Webb and Noah, our opinion of them has undergone no change. But it is clear that, if Webb is corrupt, Noah is equally so. Noah, however, supports the re-election of General Jackson, he adheres to Martin Van Buren, and he not only escapes censure, but he is rewarded with an office worth four thousand dollars per annum, and is complimented as a patriot—while his partner is denounced and hunted down as the corrupt and bribed advocate of the bank. How is this 2 But this is not all. When General Jackson came into power, he established rules by which all persons in the employment of the Government, who had taken an active part in the elections, were to be removed from office. The impropriety of bringing the patronage of the Government to bear upon the freedom of elections, was a o which his friends and the people recognised ; but what has he done * Instead of reforming the abuse, he has put out one set of active electioneering agents to put in another | | Is this reform ' '

Did not the editor of the Globe go on to New York, and levy six thousand dollars on the of. ficeholders in the cities of Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York Are not the officers of the Government in those cities the owners and conductors of newspapers devoted to his reelection Are not the officeholders in the large cities required to contribute a per centum on their salaries to party purposes ** And yet,

* The fact was proved in the Wiscasset case, and the editor of the New York Courier and Enquirer, who is intimately acquainted with the arrangements of the party, says,

[ocr errors][merged small]

these presses have deluged the country with a clamor against the Bank of the United States, upon the ground that it has bought up the public press by lending money on good security to a few editors!! Verily this is straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel ! : * But why do we not hear of the sums loaned by the bank to the partisans of Mr. Van Buren? Why do we not hear of the sums loaned to Barty and Johnson, and Forsyth and Eaton, and Ritchie || Are they disinfected of all corrup. tion by the powerful agency of Jacksonism 2 ... We call the attention of the plain unpretend. ing farmer; of the honest tax paying laborer, to the documents which we lay before him, and ask him, if it was sufficient cause to remove a postmaster, that he advocated the election of Mr. Adams, is it not sufficient cause to remove one now when we find him busily engaged as a committee man, supporting the re-election of General Jackson Yet, it is notorious, that the whole influence of that Department is now engaged in electioneering for Jackson and his pet, Martin Van Buren : We do not intend to say, that every postmaster is a partisan of Mr. Van Buren ; but we aver, and it is known, that while an active support of Mr. Van Buren is a certain passport to favor, opposition to him will be sufficient cause of removal. As to the custom-house. It is known that the first cabinet was dissolved, that Mr. Van Buren might get possession of the patronage of the Treasury and Navy Departments. we do not publish these documents as a vindication of the bank. Farbeit from us to vouch for that institution : . But we adduce them as

proof most conclusive, that the sins charged to

the bank, are as the mole hill to the mountain, when contrasted with the corrupt agency of the federal patronage. These documents refer only to the patronage of two departments in the §tate of New York, and the cities of Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore: the reader should bear in mind that the same system embraces all the patronage, of all the departments, in all the States - we are opposed to corruption, whether it be practised by the bank or by the Government, and we warn the honest unsuspecting taxpayer

“It is time to be up and doing, to counteract the misstatements of the Extra Globes and the efforts of the officeholders against the nextognaor of the country. In this city, the Republican General Committee, consisting principally of of. ficeholders, have had the Message stereotyped, and 100,000 copies of it printed for gratuitous circulation : Every officeholder under the Ge: neral Government—every State and county of. ficer in this city are regularly assessed by the committee, and thus they have always at command two stron rhinto thousani pollins to be employed against the people in circulating

to keep his eye fixed on the When a bank lends money, it ...o: that he who borrows shall repay; besides the great objection made to this bank is that o much of its funds belong to foreignon is: debts are not well secured, the loss fills onto stockholders. On the other hand, when thef ficeholder puts his hand into the pull. instead of paying back, he requires the s: taxpayer to fill it up that he may draw afteå supply. The bank will take care of its The object of Kendall, Lewis and Company, is to fix the public eye on the bank, whito, peculate on the treasury. The question how before the people is not a question with the bank; it is whether the whole revenues to the Government shall be used by Kendall, lows and Company to purchase in partisansār Mr. tin Van Buren, and enrich themselves fronto “spoils” of office.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

electioneering papers. They justly consider the veto Message a paper of this kind, addressed to the worst passions of our pature, and therefore has it been circulated gratuitously

ly been usual to distribute out of the surple".
moluments of the custom house, at the to "
each year, amongst those officers such surther
sum as may be deemed adequate t orithtm

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic]
« ForrigeFortsett »