« ForrigeFortsett »
o L - WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 5, 1832. * or Vol. VI................ $2.50 per ANNUM..... by Duff GRBEs. .........No. 28 to - so Taxes: / \ ------ "taxes o N tortotoxes * l -o o 4. o THE STATE TWINS: If you will not grant relics, - Add not mockery to my grief
- By Peter Prs part, Jux.
“one and inseparable, now and for ever.”
Whilst s, with every coming day,
Yet you say, we are but one!
By arguing, with logic vain,
We have received a copy of the State Herald, published at Portsmouth, New Hampshire; it contains an article of which the following is
the introductory part:
from all projects of violent resistance to the laws.” We extract it that we may contradict, into most unqualified terms, every inference vid the writer has drawn. Nullification is no to to evaporate. It is about to be put into cessful operation. The Telegraph wante riginally got up for the purpose of embo, southern party round Mr. Calhoun, two up to maintain the principles which took son was pledged to support, and stoo. tion of which it now opposes his to Mr. Calhoun did not take advantage from hostility to protective duties, to come frns; as the representative of the amitrifo seeing that sectional interestsandbals” had become enlisted on this question, M. (i. houn, although earnestly attaled " " friends, refused to permit his maroo h: ed before the public as a candio,” ground that the tendency of thitmo" would be to enlist those who are ow" in a contest for the Preslao, “” whole energy should be direct!" muth more important question of tool** unequal, and unnecessary two It is not true that Mr. Calhoun hoped, “” of Congress, unless it be mean', tlatlelod to convince a majority, by million they had not the power to enforcean losso. tional and oppressive law, agains to wild sovereign State. It is not true that the measure fro vocated by Mr. Calhoun and his "R" kak ers” has failed; nor is it true that to stel tal they are placed in a preposterousák". Mr. Calhoun and his “followlalo" lieve that a state has the constitutor" to place her veto on an unconstituto laws Congress, and that in case such Suto, "" requisite majority, declares a law of" to be unconstitutional and void, the * ment of the United States has no other” tive, but to abandon the law thus detou" unconstitutional, or to convent acotton s all the States, to decide whether the ho constitutional or not; and believing this nulf, calion is a lawful and constitutional ro's against the tariff, and that the queta" propriety of the exercise of the poverite State to nullify lepends upon the so s such State, Mr. Calhoun, and his ho South Carolina, having appealediovii wo intelligence and justice of Congress, into
Pealed to the intelligence and piticisms"
people of South Carolina; and instead o find the people or to the States, respectively, it foling themselves in a dilemma, they find the peo-llows that if Congress attempts to pass an unple of that State rallying around the standard constitutional law, or a law which it was not inof nullification, confident that it will prove to tended that it should have the power to enact, be a peaceful and efficient repeal of the op-seach State, quoad that law, has the same power pressions of the tariff. that it possessed before the adoption of the constitution. The General Government is the creature of the States; it was created by the States, three-fourths of the States, being less than onethird of the people of the United States, can alter the constitution at will; and it is, therefore, all a delusion to suppose that ours is a governgress has the power to lay and collect taxes for ment o ... people. It is a . any other than revenue purposes. A majority ernmen o onto - €8, not a government o in Congress Ilave said that they possess the united people. This, then, is not a question of - - what the powers of the Federal Government power to lay and collect taxes for the **-lought to be, but it is a question of what the powragement of anufactures. - south Carolina ers of the Federal Government are. If, in adoptdenies, first, that the measure is wise, and nex, ing the federal constitution, South Carolina has she denies the power of congress to *** **reserved to herself the right to nullisy an unbe wise. Here a question arises between * constitutional law, then she has the right to do state and the Federal Government, as to the so, and her patriotic citizens who urge nullificapowers of the Federal Government. Who is tion against what they believe to be unconstitu
We know that it has been said that nullification is revolutionary. That it will lead to civil war!! How can it do so? All that South Carolina asks, is a repeal of the tariff, or else a convention of all the States to decide the question of power. South Carolina denies that Con
to decide? The advocates of the tariff say *|tional, unjust, oppressive taxation, are main
supreme court. But South Carolina says that she was a state before the adoption of the fede.
taining the right which she refused to give up, when she became a member of the Union.
ral constitution; that she did not cease to be * whereas, if she did grant the power contended
State because of the adoption of the Federal
for by the tariff States, all these have to do is,
Government; that by assenting to the federal to call a convention of all the States to decide
compact, she gave up no more to that govern-the question.
That convention, when assem
ment, than was granted by the constitution;|bled, will have power either to say that the •y -
that the constitution gave no power to the supreme court, which is the creature of the Fed eral Government, to decide questions of political power which may arise between her and the Federal Government. But S. Carolina says that the constitution has provided that a convention of all the States may amend the constitution, and that such a convention, being thus empowered, can take cognizance of the question of the powers of the Federal Government, and dispose of all doubt by enlarging, confirming, or denying, the disputed or doubtful power. But does one say will you give to a single State, Delaware, (for instance,) the power to set aside a law when all the other States are in favor of it. We answer no. We will give no new power to any State. The question is not, whether we would grant a new power to a state; it is what power has the State reserved” Each State, hefore the adoption of the Federal Constitution, had the power to veto a resolve of Congress, and as all powers not delegated by the constitution to the General Government or inhibited by it to the States, were reserved to
power to protect inanufactures, by high duties, has been granted; or to grant the power if they deem it expedient. In this way the question may be adjusted without civil war, and without ruin to any interest. It is thus that nullification is a peaceful remedy; and it is thus that nullification would preserve our glorious Union.
but to return to the question of the veto pow|er. That power has been given to a single individual, and the abuse of a power is no argument against the wisdom of granting it. It is a sufficient answer to those who deny that the little State of Delaware has the power to veto an unconstitutional low, to say that the little state of Delaware, as to all the purposes of legislation, as well as in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, has as much political power as the empire State of New York; and that it is apparent that when the States consented to empower one individual to veto an act of congress, unless it was passed by a majority of two-thirds of both Houses, the little State of Delaware, having as great a voice in the matter as the great State of New York, (she being equally represented in the Senate,) it is appa-South Carolina will not proceed to “frk rent that, if she did not provide,in the Constitu-(nullification,” because nullification is not; for tion, an express grant of the same power for her-, cible remedy; but she will as certainly adopt self, it was because no power was delegated but “practical” nullification, as that her kgilure that which was expressly granted or inhibited; meets.
and it follows, there being no inhibition, the As to the suggestion that Mr. Calhoun vil power of the veto appertains to the sovereignty his leading friends, are unwilling to renous of the State. Nor can those who insist that all hope of power, and that, their conness this is a Government of united people, instead of with General Jackson being dissolve', to a Government of united States, argue that the adopt a union with Mr. Clay, as the rest it States who formed the Constitution gave imore future power; the answer is, that had it object been future power, they would use
power to one individual than they were willing
should be retained to three-fourths, or two-thirds of the people of a State.
But do we hear the advocates of the tariff
say that they will not call a convention of all the States, because they cannot obtain, in such convention, the requisite majority? We reply, what will you do? South Carolina does not propose to declare war against the United States. upon Congress declaring war against South Ca. rolina, because she believes the tariff to be unconstitutional, and therefore resists it? If Con. gress declares war against South Carolina, the fault will be on Congress, and not on South Ca. rolina. But no one can for a moment suppose that any citizen would be in favor of a civil war, when it could be avoided by a convention of delegates from all the States. Do we not see convention upon convention assembled for the purpose of promoting the election of a party leader? Who then can suppose that any citizen will prefer civil war to a convention of delegates, deputed by all the States to dis: cuss and settle this question of disputed power? It is because we believe that no American cit. jzen would advocate civil war, when it could be so easily prevented; and that we believe nul. lification is a peaceful remedy; and it is because we believe that the States have not delegated this power to the Supreme Court, that we are in favor of a convention; and it is because the majority who are in favor of the law, will not otherwise call a convention; and because we can see no other means of redress against unconstitutional oppressions, that we are in favor of this exercise of one of the reserved rights of the States, South Carolina has made up her mind to test the question of power. Mr. Cal. houn is ready to go with her through the conflict, and he would be unworthy of her favor if he was not. He is, therefore, in no dilemma.
Will the advocates of the tariff insist
identified themselves with the stronges, i.e. est; and they, instead of Ritchie, and Dno. and Mitchel', and their associates, would hat been the apologists of the tariff No. Mr. Calhoun and his friendshare km. ed no union with Mr. Clay; not twen in the purpose of defeating the re-election of Gottl South Carolina will not votest Mr. |Clay. So far from regulating or who of the advice of South Carolina finisterior of the 1'elegraph has acted with their ow. ledge, and entirely independent duet Op. nions. He has acted upon the icot f is owr judgment, and regirdless of the to which it may have on Mr. Calhoun's so prespects. Should it tend to depress thatuo tuous and enlightened citizen, it willbeakout. of deep regret; but, even then, he will be wo soled by the consciousness that he his wo from the higher impulse of public duo, This is, perhaps, a propet time low, that disapproving, as we do, of the to measures of policy which Mr Clysskogo support, we do not enterthelissash;wo of the candidates before the public, “F* Mr. Wirt; but we do not concast " be our duty to advocate the election of to We advocate reform—we oppose extrao” unnecessary, taxation, and cornpional" will do this, whoever may be President, Our position is extraordinary; but, so great object of REFORM, it is doubly eficient. He is short-sighted, indeed, who forgo" future in the petty contest for present " We labor for our country, and out highest" bition is to promote her future interes” sil prosperity. If this press were to eat th: lists as the advocate of Mr. Clay, it wou" going over from one party, that itcomio" another, which it disapproves; whereo" ing the selection of a candidate to the Foo themselves and making war upon the *
Practised by men in office, we release our press from party shackles, and obtain a moral influence, which, to be preserved, requires a steady adherence to the same great principles; but which, if preserved, cannot fail to have an important bearing on the administration of public affairs, let who may be PresidentThus General Jackson came into power, pledged to reform the administration of public affairs. He came into power pledged to restrain those abuses of federal patronage, which it was believed had brought the influence of the Government to bear on the freedom of elec. tions. He was pledged against any attempt to nominate his successor. Yet we find him openly in the field of politics, devoting all his in duence, ALL his patronage, All his popularity, to the selection of a successor. It is to prevent the consummation of this unholy coalition, intended to corrupt the fountains of the public will, that we oppose his re-election. It is to no. tify the people of the corrupt ends, aud practices of those who have abused his name and popularity, that we have entered the canvass. The people gained a glorious triumph when they elected Gen. Jackson. We call upon them to rally again for a much greater triumph in defeating him. If it was important to show to the world that the people of the United States would not ratify a coalition between minorities, headed by influential leaders, intended to trans. fer their votes, and perpetuate its power by an
Whenever the venerable editor of the Richmond Enquirer finds himself unable to answer the arguments of an adversary, he folds himself in his consequence, and affects to have discovered something disreputable in the character of his cotemporary. This is the common resort of ignorance and cowardice. Thus, by way of casting a reproach on this press, he says, “when could it have been expected, that such editors as D. Green and J. W. Webb, would “pig together in the same truckle bed” ” This may be a refined sentiment. We suppose some will think so, since it appears editorially in the Richmond Enquirer; but it proves nothing. When the editor of the Courier and Enquirer was rendering himself so supremely ridiculous, by his idle gasconade and empty boastings, he found an apologist in the purlite Mr. Thomas Ritchie. If our memory serves us, the Curnel addressed a loving letter of explanation to his faithful brother of the Richmond Enquirer; which was accordingly published, for the especial benefit of the good people of Virginia. What has Mr. Webb done since, that he should be avoided as a “moral pestilence " Has he been bribed to support the bank No. If bribed at all, it was done before, and it has since been repaid; he has disgorged the bribe, if This, then, is not the cause why Mr. T. R. is no longer “pigging with him in the same truckle bed.” He has deserted Jackson, Aye, there's the rub If
one had been given.
abuse of the patronage of the Government, it is doubly important that we should now exhibit a much more sublime and imposing spectacle, by withdrawing our confidence and our suffrage from a popular President, who, seduced by flatterers, and betrayed by a false estimate of the character and intelligence of the people, supposes that he can practice, with impunity, that, for the suspicion of which his predecessor was condemned. ls we defeat the coalition of Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, no President will dare violate his pledges—no President, for many wears at least, Čare attempt to appoint his successor. This is the great object which we have in view. We therefore wish it to be distinctly understood, that we have formed no union with Mr. Clay, or any other leader; and when we call upon all men, every where, to unite against the re-election of General Jackson, we do so because we are convinced that that is now our highest duty. |
Webb had quietly pocketed the charge of bribery—if he had continued to “pig” in the same stie with Thomas Ritchie, he would have been a gentleman . But as he has refused to admi' that he was bribed, that is proof that he was bribed, and that his press is venal and corrupt; and that all other editors who are opposed to the re-election of Gen. Jackson are also corrupt . This may be iogic in Mr. Ritchie's school; this may satisfy Virginians now; but the time once was, when they would go a little farther, and ask Mr. R. to explain how it could be that Webb was, if Noah was not, also bribed; and how is it, that three-fourths of the revenue of the United States is committed to the care of a man, who was bribed to sell his principles and his character, by the paltry sum of seven thousand five hundred dollars' The first loan from the bank, which it is charged was the bribe that bought the Courier and Enqui
yer, was $15,000, and Webb and Noah were
partners. It is clear, that if, as the Globe