« ForrigeFortsett »
tion of 1789, as well as on its continuation in 1829. It is an attack on popular Sovereignty —it is pronouncing an opinion that Louis the Sixteenth was not guilty—it is overthrowing the decision of the National Convention—it is the denying of the letter of Louis the Sixteenth himself to the King of Prussia, which admitted that he was a traitor—it is the condemnation of all that has been done in France during the last 40 years ; and it is intended as a warning to the Deputies, that the Peers of France are resolved on adhering to “legitimacy,” “divine right,” “passive obedience,” and “nonresistance.” As the law is not repealed, why it remains in force. Then, as it remains in force, let it be executed ' ' But no-the Government dare not-cannot carry it into execution. The monuments which it commands to be erected, the Minister dare not construct. When the next anniversary shall arrive, France will not weep—France will not pray for the soul of Louis the Sixteenth—France will not open her churches and flock to them, to weep and pray for forgiveness; and though the act of Parliament shall remain unrepealed, in order to insult France and insult the Revolution, yet it will never be a day of real grief or national mourning, because, though all capital punish. ments are immoral, and inefficient, and even unjust, yet Louis XVI. as much deserved death as any other traitor. The counter-revolution is now commenced. Will it be successful ? I will not answer the question, except by putting another—Will streams run to their source, or from it 2 O. P. Q.
STILL LATER. The packet ship Hudson, Capt. Morgan, from Portsmouth, England, March 21st,arrived at New York on the 19th inst., with London papers to March 20th. The Cholera increased considerably on the 17th, 18th, and 19th March, in London. On the 16th, there were in the north country, where the disease first appeared, 156 cases, in all the places, 61 deaths, and 148 remaining. In London, on the 19th, there were 73 new cases, 45 deaths, 55 recovered, and 130 remaining. this progress of the Cholera in so vast a population as that of London, cannot be considered as very alarming ; and in the north country it is abating. The total number of cases in all the country, from the beginning, to March 19, is but 6,878, and the deaths 2,026. The debate on the third reading of the Reform Bill began in the House of Commons, on the 19th of March, and though its opponents had given out that they intended to make a week's work, of it, yet its friends hoped the question might be put in the course of the next
day. on the 10th of March, in the House of Lords,
the Duke of Wellington made a speech relat
ing to the Belgic question and the correspond
which was to fix on the French Premier, Cassimir Perrier, the charge of misrepresenting the conduct of the French Government in the matter of the separation of Belgium: in conclusion, the Duke moved for the correspondence with the French Government on this subject, in October and November, 1830, when the Duke was yet in office.
Lord Gray, in reply, assented to the general correctness of the Duke's statement, but ob. served, that the publication of the papers would be improper at present. The Duke then withdrew his motion.
The amount of this matter seems to be that M. Perrier had, in the Chamber of Deputies, represented the Government of Louis Philip as always friendly to the Belgic revolution and the independence of that country, whereas Lord wellington says that the correspondence referred to, would show that the French cabinet, at the head of which Lafitte then was, was ready to co-operate with England to restore the dominion of the House of Orange over the Belgic provinces. If this proffer, on the part of France, were made without any stipulation for the redress of those grievances of which the Belgians complained, and which caused the re. volution, then it would be a gross breach of good faith; but if the proposed co-operation had in view the placing of a prince of the House of Orange on the throne of Belgium, and in that way restoring its dominion, accom. panied by new guaranties to the Belgians, then it was substantially but the same sort of ar. rangement that has been made through Leo' pold, and involved really no want of fidelity to public professions and engagements,
The latter we believe was the case, and we cannot but look upon the movement of Lord Wellington as really designed to embroil the relations of the British and French governments, and thus embarrass Lord Grey's administration, strengthen the opposition to reform in England, and help the cause of legitimacy on the continent.
ence between the English and French cabi. nets on that subject, the leading object o
dollars dach, that sum will entitle each to receive the weekly paper for one year.
APRIL 30, 1832.
Wol, WI....... .......By DUFF GREEN.82.50 PER ANNUM................No. 4.
The Globe, in reply to our last article, ha surrendered the defence of Messrs. Forsyth, Archer, and Ritchie. We challenged it to demy, upon theauthority of these gentlemen, their denunciation of the conduct of Gen. Jackson in the Seminole war. With all its brazen impudence, it has not dared to meet the challenge. It now limits its labors to the defence of the Secretary of the T We will suspend our reply as to him for a few days, till put in posscssion of the necessary documents, when, unless we are mistaken, we will show that he was among the most bitter opponents of General o and that, too, long after the Seminole
But the eorrupt organ, knowing that its ground is untenable, has shifted the issue in relation to Mr. Calhoun. It asserts that the ommencement of Gen. Jackson's hostility to him originated not in the course which Mr. Calhoun pursued in the deliberations of the Sabinet on the Seminole question, nor in the fict that he was ignorant of what that course was, but because, while Mr. Calhoun was prosessing friendship to the General, he was secretly opposed to him in the cabinet, and that “he instigated and aided the attacks made upon him in Congress.” This is an entire change of the issue. Gen. Jackson himself, in the correspondence, limited his charge to the single fict that he had remained ignorant of the construction which Mr. Calhoun had put upon the order until Mr. Forsyth placed the kotet of Mr. Crawford in his hand. And on this fict, with the inference from it, on his part of the duplicity of Mr. Calhoun, he rests his boility. We appeal to the correspondence for the truth of our assertion. So effec"ally did that correspondence repel this foul charge of duplicity, by the most decisive testiony, drawn from the private correspondence between Mr. Monroe and Gen. Jackson, and between him, Major Lee, and Mr. Calhoun, * finally, by Gen. Jackson's possession of the letter of Mr. Monroe, of the '9th of Sep"mber 1828, which had been purloined and placed in his possession, and which contained & not conclusive proof of the construction *hich Mr. Calhoun had put upon the order, that the Globe, the corrupt organ of power, is *ompelled tosurrender the very ground on which Gen. Jackson himself has rested his *ication of hostility to Mr. Calhoun.— When we consider how brazen in the asser. * of falsehood Messrs. Blair and Kendall are, they are in the habit of suppressing docu**ndofpublishing false statements, which, *en clearly detected, they refuse to correct,
a proper idea may be formed of the force of the evidence which has compelled them thus to surrender the original ground of hostility which General Jackson assumed towards the Vice President. But driven from the first position, they have assumed another, in no respect more tenable. There is not the shadow of a foundation for the charge that Mr. Calhoun instigated the attacks on General Jackson. The facts are precisely the opposite. He acquiesced in the decision of the cabinet, and gave it decided support—when General Jackson was attacked at the next session. This General Jackson well knows. So much so, that he dared not assume that ground of hostility in the correspondence. We now challenge the Globe to assume that ground under the sanction of General Jackson. The Globe dare not meet this challenge; should it we . pledge ourselves to put it down beyond the power of controversy; and to show that General Jackson is indebted for his acquittal, in no smalf degree, to the very individual, whom the Globe now accuses of hostility, who, on that occasion, decidedly, supported him against those whom he now hugs to his bosom.
THE RAISING OF THE CURTAIN.
The article in the Globe of yesterday, was evidently put forth in advance of the report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the tariff, and to prepare the faithful how to act on its introduction. It gives us some indication, not only of what the report is to be, but, also, who are to be denounced, and with what views, in or. der to draw off the public attention from the true character of the report ; with this view the slang, a thousand times repeated by the Organ. that the friends of Mr. Calhoun and of Mr. Člay are acting in concert, to defeat a proper compromise, is again renewed. This false assertion is no doubt made in the hope that, whatever defects the report may contain, the charge of coalition will compel an acquiescence, on the art of those who may wish to correct them; but it comes with an ill grace, on the part of the Secretary of the Treasury,for we must consider the article as coming from him. If there be a coalition any where, it is between him and Mr. Clay, as will appear, on a comparison of his annual report, at the commencement of the session, and the proposition of Mr. Clay, in the Senate, on the subject of the tariff. Their views, by a comparison of the document, wiłł appear almost identical. The only difference is, that the Secretary is rather more ultra tariff than Mr. Clay himself. We give an extract from the report, and Mr. Clay's resolution in o Senate, that the reader may judge for him.
Mr. Clay's proposition is in the following words : “Resolved, that the existing duties upon articles imported from foreign countries, and not coming into competition with similar articles made or produced within the United States, ought to be forthwith abolished, except the duties on Wines and Silks, and that they ought to pe reduced.” Now, what does Mr. McLean say in his report He says, “To distribute the duties in such a manner, as far as they may be practicable, as to encourage and protect the labor of the people of the United States from the advantages of superior skill and capital, and the rival preferences of foreign countries, to cherish and preserve those manufactnres which have grown up under our own legislation, which contribute to the national wealth, and are essential to ourindependence and safety, to the defence of the country, the supply of its necessary wants, and to the generai prosperity, is considered to be an indispensable duty.” And, again : * “The objects more particularly requiring the aid of the existing duties upon the principles of this report, are believed to be wool, woollens, cottons, iron, hemp, and sugar, as comprehending those articles in which the agricultural and manufacturing industry are more particularly interested.” But not content with this, and manifestly with a view to propitiate the shipping interest, he says : *in the competition which it is obliged to maintain with the commerce of the world, every where the object of peculiar aid, it would seem to demand of the Government a liberal support. It is believed that the expenses of building and fitting out vessels of every description, including steamboats, are injuriously increased by the present duties, and that a drawback of a large portion, if the whole of the duty on all of the articles composed of iron, hemp, flax and copper, whether of foreign or domestic production, used in their construction or . ment, might be author.zed, under proper safeguards, with obvious advantage to other interests, and without material detriment to the revenue.” We cannot but consider it a little ungracious on the part of the Secretary, that, after Mr. ay's proposition and his own have been ren: dered unpopular, by the vigorous attack of those whom he now calls ultra anti-tariff men, and under that character makes his false accusation against them, he should assume another position, and denounce, in advance, not only Mr. Clay, with whom he acted in the first instance, but those also who have discredited his first project, as not coming up to his new standard of tariff faith. We say, that this article gives us some intimation of what the report is to be. We fear the indication is not propitious to the harmony of the nation. If we are to judge from it, the Secretary proposes to retain, forever, a rate of duty o
on all the leading articles of consumption, high er than it was fixed in 1816, when the country had a debt of one hundred and thirty millions hanging over it, and when its population was one third less than it is at present! Should such be the fact, as we fear it will be, those who expect to restore this distracted country to a state of harmony and peace, must not look to this admininistration to promote it. He must have a very op. conception of the actual state of public feeling throughout the entire south, who supposes that such a project will give satisfaction there. That there may be some more devoted to the Executive than to the interests of their constituents, and who are prepared to sacrifice the latter to the Presidential election, and who, in that spirit may agree to any project however ruinous, is but too probable. Beyond these, however, no project can give satisfaction which does not, with the payment of the debt, bring substantial relief. Those who suppose that this great event is looked to, with the deep interest which it is, in any other light than bringing relief to those who have so long borne the public burden make a great mistake. It is in this light, and this light only, that it can be hailed with joy; and if the burden originally imposed on our commerce for the payment of the debt, is in all the leading articles, not only to be retained, but actually increased, that event, the anticipation of which now fills with joy, will be regarded with far different emotions.-what possible difference can it make to the real tax paying portion of the country, if the rates of duty are to be fixed higher than the debt re}. whether it be paid or not? What dif. erence can it make to them, if the money raisto out of their labor is still continued, whether that money is to go to public creditors, or to pen: sioners, contractors, jobbers, and office holders 3 Of the two the former is much the less corrupt application, while to the real tax payer the bur ben is the same. We consider that the time has arrived, when we are called on to speak with boldness. Justice, and nothing but justice to all, can restore the public harmony and we cannot but consi: der it as ominous, when we see the devoted artisans of the administration, men who are É. as its peculiar and almost exclusive friends, voting, daily, for the most extravagant appropriations, and defending the present ex; tragant rate of expenditure, exceeding that of all former time ; add to this, the indication of the mode in which the Administration proposes to adjust the tariff, and we can see but little prospect of a return to a sound condition of things—a condition in which economy and accountability, light taxes and equal burdens, and a rigid construction of the powers of the Government shall prevail. The Globe of yesterday, contains an article most grossly assailing both House of Congress. That this attack not only receives the Executive sanction, but eminates from him, cannot be doubted. We will be enabled to answer this calumny in detail—it is only postponed. In
TRIAL OF SAMUEL HOUSTON. Continuen. The House assembled at 11 o'clock. Mr. STANBERY moved, that the words “the complainant,” by which he was designated in the Journal of the House, be striken out. He did not appear there as the complainant. He had addressed to the House a statement of the case, and the House and the nation were the complainants, and not him, (Mr. S.) For his part, he conceived that vengeance was satisfied as for he was satisfied. Mr. B00N objected to the alteration ; but after some remarks from Mr. Mences, Mr. AnMoln, and Mr. Cooks, of Ohio, withdrew it at the suggestion of Mr. Speight. Mr. HALL, of North Carolina, offered a re$olution, providing that no member of the House but the members of the committee discuss the questions propounded by the accused ; that all questions be submitted in writing, and that no member but those constituting the Committee, be permitted to object to questions. * HALL was heard in support of his proposition. Mr. WICKLIFFE, Mr. ELLSworTH, Mr. DODDRIDGE, and Mr. HUNTINGtoN fol. lowed, when Mr. REED, of Massachusetts, moved to lay the resolution on the table; on which the ayes "does were asked for and ordered. .* HALL, however, withdrew his Protion. .*WICKLIFFE then proposed a resolu**ing the discussion of questions propo* to the Committee, but subsequently with. *witto avoid a lengthened discussion. Mr. Houston was then conducted to the bar by the Sergeantat-Arms. * Key, the counsel for the accused, with* the objection to the deposition of Luther Blake astestimony. Mr. STANBERY then submitted a certificate of the magistrate before whom the deposition * made, stating the date of the time when ,t was taken, The Counsel objected to its reception, as al* did Mr. Khan, of Maryland. Thereading of the paper was called for, but *śatived—ayes 77, noes 90. . The question then was on receiving it as testimony, and after some debate Mr.VINTON moved that the witness be per*ted to withdraw the paper on the ground
that it was unncessary, inasmuch as the paper, of which it was confirmatory, had been received. The Counsel argued, that the best proof of the circumstances attending the making of the affidavit, would be the prsence and evidence of the magistrate before whom it was sworn. The motion of Mr. Vixton was agreed to. Mr. STANBERY proceeded— Although I had such knowledge of this contemplated fraud as satisfied my own mind, about the period that it took place, yet before I
..] made the remarks in the House, I had read the
exposition of that transaction in the Telegraph, and the facts stated by the editor of that paper confirmed my former conviction ; and I believe that the fraud can be substantiated by the witnesses whose names I will proceed to give the House : Mr. Thomas L. McKinney; Mr. John Shackford; Hon. Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, a member of this House; Hon. Mr. Branch, a member of this House; Gen. Duff Green, of this city; Gen. Van Fossen, of New York; Hon. Mr. Dickson, of New York, a member of this House; William Prentiss, of this city. It will be necessary to make out the case, also, tohave the proposals for the contract, which are, on ought to be now, on the file of the War Department, and the correspondence between the individuals who made the proposals, and the Secretary of War. I have nothing further to say in answer to the interrogatories. Interrogatory by the Counsel for the accused : Q. When did you receive the affidavit of Luther Blake, presented yesterday? A. I believe it was received after the last interrogatory was propounded, but before I had given any answer to it. I believe it was at the first time the interrogatory was read. I believe it was during the discussion of the propriety of putting it. Q. When did you first hear of it, and from whom? A. I heard nothing about it till it was presented to me. . Q. Do you know how long the said Blake remained in the city, after giving the affidavit, and was he in the city when you received it A. I know nothing about it. I have never seen the man, and know nothing about him, but from the information of others. Q. Had you any information of his havi left the city, and when did he leave it? A. At the time I presented the paper, I had no information whether he had left the city, or any thing about him. I have since learned that he left the city on the 17th. Q. Was he requested to remain, and give evidence in this case, and by whom? A.. I heard from Mr. Prentiss, of this city, that he did request him to remain, but the to gency of his business would not permit him. Q: Had you heard of the affidavit before you received it—did you learn at whose instance it was given?
A. I did not hear of it before it was presented. I have since understood the affidavit was taken at the instance of Mr. Prentiss. Q. Do you know in whose handwriting the affidavit is? A. No. Q. Do you know when the said affidavit was taken? . A. No; only from the affidavit of the Magistrate's, now in my possession, which .. it was taken.on Monday, the 16th day of April. Q. Are the papers now shown you, the Nos. of the Telegraph to which you allude in your testimony, and in which your remarks are printed from the Intelligencer, of the 2d instant? A. I alluded to publications in the Telegraph revious to my making the remarks. Q. Did you mention to the friends with whom o say you consulted as to the reply it would e proper to make to the note of the accused, that you had not intended, in your remarks, to impute a fraud to the accused? A. I drew my answer on the same day on which I received the note from Mr. H. at my desk, without consulting any one. That evening I consulted my friends, in consequence of which, a sentence was stricken out, and some other trifling modification made. I do not recollect that I mentioned to them that I did not impute fraud. . I was much astonished at receiving a note from him on the subject. I believe the note of Mr. Houston designed to be to give him a pretext to commit personal violence upon me, not to redress any grievances of his, but to gratify the vengeance of others. Q. Did you state that belief last mentioned to those friends? A. I think there was some conversation of the kind. Q. Who were the friends with whom you consulted? A. General Vance, of Ohio, Mr. Creighton, of Ohio, and Mr. Ewing, of Ohio. They were not all present at one consultation. Mr. Mercer was present at the same time. . Mr. Taylor, of New York, was also consulted, he boarded at the same house, and was the first I consulted. They were usually considered as my confidential friends and advisers. There was some conversation also with Mr. Arnold, and several other members of the mess where I boarded. They did not all know it. I am confident there was a conversation with Mr. Arnold. Q. Why did you not, in reply to the accused, state that you had not intended to impute fraud to him? A. His letter forbade me making such a reply. He called on my only to know if my remarks were correctly quoted. One reason why I did not was, that, I thought it were pretence to give him an opportunity to make an attack. Q. Did you, in your conversation with the Hon. Cave Johnson, in relation to the accused's note, state that you had not intended to impute fraud to the accused; if not, why not? A. I considered it too improper, after what had taken place, to have any conversation with Mr. Johnson on that subject. I thought that he ought to have addressed himself to Mr. Creigh
o ton. In the course of conversation I told, Mr. Johnson that my words did not necessarily impute fraud. Mr. J. said, Mr. Houston had a right to put his own construction. Q. Did you, when you'stated to Mr. Johnson that your words did not necessarily impute a fraud to Mr. Houston, also state that you did not so intend it? If not, why did you not? A. I did not state to Mr. Johnson that I did not intend to charge Mr. Houston with fraud. I do not know what reason I had for not stating it. I was not called upon to give any such reason, and gave none. * Q. Did you say to Mr. Creighton, that you had not intended to impute fraud to the accused? A. I do not recollect. Q. You * of the accused being several times seen by you with a club or bludgeon. Was it your expectation that he would attack you with the club or bludgeon? A. After I had received the note from Mr. Houston, I noticed he was in the Hall for several days; I do not know how many days. He always had the bludgeon with him, and I thought in passing in the lobby one day, I discovered he had pistols under his coat; I saw the mountings of the handles, and I expected he would attack me with the bludgeon, and if I made any resistance that he would attack me with the pistols or a dirk. Q. Had you not, before seeing what you supposed to be pistols on the accused, armed yourself in the manner you have previously stated? A.. I armed myself immediately on receiving his note. That is, the next morning. I do not remember seeing Mr. Houston before I re. ceived the note. I had a slight recollection of seeing him once before on the Pennsylvania Avenue. Q. Had you not before or about *** time of receiving the note met him in the War Office, and did he then offer you any insult or violence 2 A. I have no remembrance of meeting him at the War Office. I will here observe, my acousintance with him is very slight. At the time he was here in 1830, he was pointed out to me. Possibly at some party he may have been introduced to me, I remember to have met him then, but did not know him. Q. In the attack you have spoken of, did the accused attack you with his right or left hand A. I do not know ; the blow was violent on my head. Q: What was your reason for not officially charging the fraud which you state you knew of, upon the parties concerned in it? A. I do not know that it is incumbent on me to make charge of all the frauds I hear of There are other members in this House whom I wish to take the lead. I am willing to lend my aid to go ahead. I wish further to state, that when I first heard of this fraud, I considered myself as a supporter of the administration, and I was not prepared, exactly then, to make an attack on them. It was the first act