F230 




014 442 789 



Hollinger 

pH S3 

Mill Run FOS-2193 



F 230 
.S45 
Copy 1 



SPEECH 



OP 



MR. SEGAR, 



OF ELIZABETH CITY AND WARWICK, 



ELECTION OF STATE OFFICERS, 



DELIVERED IN THE 



J> 



HOUSE OF DELEGATES, 



WEDNESDAY THE CTH AND TUESDAY THE 13TH FEBRUARY, 1850. 



RICHMOND: 

H. K. ELLYSON'S POWER PRESS, MAIN STREET, 

OPPOSITE THE FARMERS' BANK. 

1850. 



9,^ 



< 



SPEECH. 



Mr. Segar said he had risen, not so much to sustain the nomina- 
tion of Mr. Heath, who for thirty years had honored and adorned the 
office of First Auditor, as to enter his protest against the principle on 
which it was proposed to exclude him. Gentlemen had shown great 
unwillingness to make confession of their principle of action 5 had seem- 
ingly shrunk from its avowal, as well they might, for on no considera- 
tion of puhlic policy, of right, or of justice, could it be defended. The 
gentleman from Franklin had said "the thing was to be done, right or 
wrong," and because the dominant party "had the right to do it." 
The gentleman from Rockingham had put it on the ground that Mr. 
Heath was an active partisan, and had written a play burlesquing the 
Democracy; but the gentleman from Roanoke had "let the cat out the 
bag," manfully "faced the music," and placed the thing on the true basis 
—that of retaliation upon General Taylor for federal removals. If any 
doubt could exist on the subject, it would be at once removed by 
reference to the democratic presses in this city, which, from day to day, 
send forth strong party appeals for the removal of the Whig State 
officers, on the principle of the u lex talionis." Gentlemen could not 
disguise it: — it was nothing more nor less than a proposition to introduce, 
now for the first time, in Virginia, the doctrine of proscription — to rear 
for the first lime, over the capitol of this proud Commonwealth, the flag 
of the "spoils;" and the argument to justify it was simply this: Gene- 
ral Taylor has removed Democrats from federal offices; therefore, we, 
the Democrats, now in the ascendancy here, will proscribe the Whig 
officers in the basement story of the capitol. 

A proposition more startling, he undertook to say, had never been 
announced in the legislative halls of Virginia. Here is a public 
functionary, holding an office purely ministerial, who came into the 
public service in the purer days of the Republic, when political opinion 
had nothing to do with appointment to, or removal from office. For 
long years he has discharged faithfully and satisfactorily the duties of 
his post. All admit, because none can deny, his superior fitness, moral 
and mental. W T e all know, from personal intercourse and observation, 
his vigilance, his promptness, his winning urbanity, and his entire com- 
petency. And yet it is proposed to displace him — not that a solitary 
being alledges him to be incompetent, unfaithful, or, in any respect, 
unworthy of public trust; but that he is a Whig, and that his removal, 
and that of other Whig incumbents of State office, are demanded as a 
measure of retaliation and revenge upon the Federal Executive. 

Assuming, then, retaliation to be the principle of democratic action 
on the present occasion, he appealed to his democratic friends if, on so 
unsound and unsatisfactory a ground, they designed to introduce into 
Virginia a policy which would, he solemnly believed, be pernicious in 
all its aspects, and affix a lasting stain upon the character of the State? 
He utterly denied to the democratic party, here or elsewhere, the right 



to avail itself of the law of retaliation. That law was one that belonged 
to the injured party, and to it only. The injuring party — the first 
offender — could never take rightly to itself the benefits of this law. 
If the Whigs had been the first to proscribe, there would be some justice 
in this excuse of retaliation; but it so happened that the "boot was on 
the other leg " — the Democracy were the first to set the example of pro- 
scription — they were the first sinners in the premises — not the sinned 
against, but the sinning; and being themselves the aggressors, they 
were without the pale of the doctrine of retaliation. If any could take 
advantage of it, it was the Whigs, who for twenty years had been the 
proscribed party. We, the Whigs, may commend the poisoned chalice 
to them; they cannot commend it to us. 

And admitting General Taylor to have proscribed in the worst of forms, 
what right have the Democracy of this house to say aught against it ? One 
would suppose, from the bitter lamentations and heated denunciations 
of the Democracy, that they had never in all their lives done any pro- 
scribing themselves, but that the wicked thing had been perpetrated ex- 
clusively by the naughty Whigs ! But what was the fact? Who com- 
menced the policy of proscription? Who first made proclamation — "to 
the victors belong the spoils? ' ' Who first shook out the glittering folds of 
the " spoils "flag? Mr. S. thanked God the dark sin rested not upon the 
party to which he belonged. In the younger Adams' administration, 
which was generally regarded a Whig administration, as in truth it was, 
one of the purest, and one of the brightest, because one of the purest, 
that has blessed the country since the days of Washington himself — 
during this administration there were but four removals, and these for 

... 1 

cause. There were not only no removals for mere opinion in those 
bright days of the Republic, when Executive power had not swelled out 
to its present enormous dimensions, but an American President had 
then scarcely the influence to procure an appointment for a friend; for it 
is well known that when on a certain occasion Mr. Adams applied to his 
Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Southard, for a midshipman's warrant for a 
young friend, whom he desired to serve, he was informed by his Secreta- 
ry there was no vacancy, and that the appointment could not be had. 
Truly were these, said Mr. S., the pure days of the Republic! An 
oasis it was in the desert of party — and contemplating, as he often did, 
this green spot in his country's history, he often thought of a prophetic 
declaration of Mr. Sergeant, made on the floor of the House of Repre- 
sentatives when vindicating Mr. Adams' administration from the charge 
of extravagance, "that he expected to live to see the day when the 
era of John Q,uincy Adams' administration would be looked back to as 
the pure days of the Republic." 

It was in the administration of General Jackson that the foundation 
of the proscriptive system was laid. Then for the first time within fifty 
years, — evil hour it was for the Republic, — was the spoils flag given to the 
breeze. Every foreign minister, every marshal and district attorney, 
every officer of any note, that did not agree in sentiment with the 
administration, was displaced. No abilities however commanding, no 
virtues however shining, no consideration of humanity however touch- 
ing, availed to arrest, the ruthless hand of proscription. 

Under Mr. Van Buren, there was no change of policy. In General 
Harrison's short reign, there were, he frankly confessed, some removals; 



5 

but that, if any did, presented really a case for the operation of the rule 
of retaliation. The sweeping proscriptions of the two previous adminis- 
trations having almost entirely excluded the Whigs from participation in 
the public offices, equalization — Mr. Jefferson's rule — was imperiously- 
demanded. 

Mr. Polk came into power, and proscription was onward still, and at 
rapid pace. But few Whigs were appointed to office. He (Mr. S.) had 
never heard of but one, a Mr. Childress, who had gone to Secretary 
Walker with strong democratic recommendations, made himself agree- 
able to the secretary, got on the blind side of his excellency, and 
finally received the promise of an appointment. But the democratic 
secretary, learning that Childress had the sin of Whiggery resting upon 
him, and being doubtless rapped over the knuckles for appointing a 
Whig to office, addressed a private note to Mr. C, informing him that 
his appointment was recalled, and gently intimating that had he, Mr. 
Walker, known that he, Childress, was a Whig, such an appointment 
would never have been dreamed of ! 

To exhibit to what extent political opinion and partisan service were 
made the tests of fitness for public trust, and to shew the exclusiveness of 
democratic occupation of the offices of the country, he begged leave to 
refer to certain democratic authorities in the premises. Prominent 
among these stood the letter of Mr. Walker, just referred to. It is, said 
Mr. S., a precious document, worthy of cmotation, verbatim et literatim. 
And here it is: 

[Not Official.] 

May 4, 1846. 

Dear Sir, — On Saturday last, 1 directed your appointment to be made out. Since 
that period, it has been made known to me, that you are, and always have been, a 
Whig. This was veiy unexpected intelligence to me. You never did represent your- 
self to me as a Democrat; but I took it for granted that such was the fact. It is impos- 
sible for me to make the removal contemplated, for the purpose of appointing a Whig. 
I have felt constrained, therefore, to revoke the order for your appointment. 

I regiet this occurrence very much. Our short acquaintance had made a strong im- 
pression on my mind in your favor; and I still believe that personally you are entitled 
to my respect and esteem; but under the circumstances, I cannot make the removal and 
appointment as intended. 

T take pleasure in saying that your deportment throughout has been correct and 
honoraWe. Yours, very respectfully, 

R. J. WALKER. 

James L. Childress, Esq. 

Not less rich is the following from Wm. J. Brown, late assistant post- 
master general, of free soil memory, written to a postmaster in N. York, 
who had .seen fit to abandon the democratic party, who for that abandon- 
ment had been turned out of office, and who had the simplicity to re- 
monstrate with the postmaster general for turning him out for an honest 
change of opinion. This, too, deserves the commemoration of a literal 
transcript: 

Appointment Office, P. O. Department, } 
July 26th, 1848. \ 
Sir: Youi letter has been received and submitted to the postmaster general. I think 
your reasons for abandoning the democratic party wholly unsatisfactory. The post- 
master general has heretofore refused to listen to applications for the removal of post- 
masters I'm- such reasons. But the party tu which you are now attached having taken 



6 

"round against the administration, and the regular nominee of the party for President, 
T do not see how the administration can further refuse to act in these cases, without 
subiectino it to the charge of lending its influence to defeat the candidate of the party. 
I am yours, &c, W. J. BROWN. 

H. J. Sickels, Esq., P. M. 

And the Hon. Silas Wright had declared, on the floor of the United 
States Senate, that "he had no hesitation to avow, and he desired notice 
might be taken of the avowal, that his party, when in power, would 
always carry on the government by the aid of its friends rather than of 
its enemies; and that their opponents, now holding the reins, must not 
expect to establish a claim upon democratic indulgence by any show of 
leniency to democratic incumbents of office." 

These high authorities, Mr. S. said, pointed out clearly the general 
rule of democratic action in regard to the bestowal of federal office. 
Support of the "administration, and the regular nominee of the party ? " 
is a condition precedent of appointment to office, party fealty and service 
the consideration; of course, the appointment of Whigs, has been gene- 
rally a thing "out of the question;" and so rigidly has the rule been en- 
forced, that the offices of the Union have fallen almost exclusively.into 
the hands of democratic incumbents. 

In Mr. Polk's administration, indeed, proscription had been practically 
carried out in all its shapes and forms; from the high-salaried plenipo- 
tentiary to the humblest messenger and door-keeper. It had been carried 
where it was almost profanity to carry it. The holy ground of the judi- 
ciary had been invaded by its foul assault. In that department which 
is, after all, the first and the last hope of human right and human 
liberty, of law and of order — whose conservative influence is alone to be 
relied on to roll back the tide of a destroying jacobinism, on the one hand, 
and of tyranny, on the other— in which the"life, liberty, property and re- 
putation of the'citizen should stand so far above the dashing surge of party 
spirit, that its mistiest spray could never reach them — even here proscrip- 
tion has found its way; for since the democratic party had been in power, 
not one Whig had been appointed to the federal judiciary; and this uni- 
form exclusion, all would agree, was as much proscription as actual ex- 
pulsion. It had been carried even into the army, the right arm of the 
national defence, and that, too, in the dark hour of war, when the best 
talents of the land were wanted, without regard to party distinctions, to 
save the country's flag from disgrace. The gallant. Scott, the hero of 
more wars than one, who carried on his person the scars of honorable 
wounds, received while he bore in triumph the ring of his country, and 
Gen. Taylor, who had never raised that flag but to carry to it victory and 
glory — these veteran warriors and tried and distinguished captains, who 
had covered their country and themselves with glory by their many deeds 
of victorious valor, and whose names were historical — these master spirits 
of many a glorious battle-field, who had shed lustre upon the American 
arms, and whose bright achievements had gilded many a page of their 
country's annals — these experienced generals it was gravely proposed to 
set aside, and to put in their stead a man who "had never set squadron 
in a field" — "God save the mark"— Lieutenant General Thomas Hart 
Benton, who, whatever may be his proficiency in freesoilism, the very 
boys would say, was utterly unfit to lead the armies of the Republic; and 
out of eighteen generals appointed by Mr. Polk in the Mexican war, 



there was but a solitary Whig, as if Whigs were less brave and true than 
Democrats, and unworthy to be trusted under the banner of their 
country! 

Mr. S. said he was by no means singular in his opinion of the ultra- 
proscriptiveness of the late administration. He could call to his aid 
good democratic proof. The New York Evening Post, a leading demo- 
cratic journal, had written as follows: 

"If President Polk ever did recognize the fitness of a candidate for 
the duties of an office, a sufficient ground for appointing, or his unfitness 
as a sufficient ground for his removal, we have yet to learn the instance. 

#•#-*#• ###### 

He not only never promised, but he never gave an office to any man 
who he did not suppose would serve his political purposes the most 
effectively; neither did he ever spare one in office, except for the like 
reasons. Impelled by a bigoted and unmanly spirit of partisanship, 
without a parallel in the history of our government, he proscribed public 
officers distinguished for their ability, position, and character, that he 
might honor men equally distinguished for the absence of all those at- 
tributes." 

Proscription, then, had been practically exercised, under democratic 
rule, in all departments of the government, and every ramification of 
every department, until scarcely a Whig had been left in the public ser- 
vice. And yet our democratic friends now complain of Gen. Taylor's 
proscription, and make it the basis of their justification for removing the 
basement-story officers of this Capitol. For twenty years they practice 
proscription without stint, remorse, or mercy — for twenty years they mo- 
nopolise the offices of the people — for twenty years they gather round the 
spoils, begrudging almost a morsel or a smell to their Whig fellow-coun- 
trymen; and then turn deliberately round and condemn the Whigs for 
claiming just a fair participation in public employment. Done by the 
Democrats, it is a most innocent and commendable thing; but the moment 
the Whigs get into power, and do the very same thing, it is most abomi- 
nable, and deserves execration! The Democrats may steal the sheep; 
but if the poor Whigs peep into the pen, they commit a felony, and the 
guillotine should be their portion! This, Mr. S. said, was very conve- 
nient logic for his democratic friends — it looked strongly to the spoils — 
but he could not see its conclusiveness or admire its consistency. 

There is nothing, then, in this plea of retaliation. It is all "leather 
and prunella." And if the Democracy of the House go before the peo- 
ple with no better excuse than this, they will be reproached with gross 
inconsistency, and be made to feel the smiting hand of popular indigna- 
tion and vengeance. 

But conceding that Gen. Taylor has made numerous removals, there 
was democratic authority to show that it was right. The ground had 
been taken, and most faithfully had it been acted on, that a change of 
agents on the incoming of every new administration, was a necessary 
policy. Amos Kendall had said, that "to reform measures there must 
be a change of men; that without a change of men, fraud could not be 
punished; delinquencies detected; unlawful allowances stopped; impro- 
per modes of doing business and irregular practices corrected." A Dem- 
ocratic Convention in Pennsylvania, which assembled in 1847, had 



8 

resolved, "That the removal from the various offices at Washington of 
every opponent of the National Administration, or of democratic prin- 
ciples and measures, has been long called for, and is alike demanded by 
the voice of the democratic party and by the best interests of the coun- 
try, and ought not to be longer postponed or delayed." The Editor of 
a leading democratic organ — Mr. Blair or Mr. Ritchie, he did not recol- 
lect which, but certainly the one or the other — had, soon after the inau- 
guration of Mr. Polk, oracularly declared, that "all the offices held at 
the will of the Executive, are supposed by the constitution to be reached 
by the renovating principle in the re-election of every Chief Magistrate, 
and every office considered as vacant." 

And the Washington "Union," of July 24th, 1S45, vindicating the 
wholesale proscriptions of Mr. Polk, held the following emphatic lan- 
guage: 

"The removals which have been made have been imperiously called 
for by a decided and irresistible public sentiment. Other removals will 
no doubt be necessary, and will not be prevented by the senseless clamor 
of the Whigs. Justification of a measure is uncalled for, when over- 
whelming popular approval sanctions it. An administration placed in 
power by the voluntary suffrages of a free people, and industriously 
engaged in carrying out the will of that majority, securely rests its confi- 
dence in the honesty and intelligence of the masses, and in the present 
case, is in no danger of being diverted from its purpose by the interested 
revilings of bitter opponents." 

Mr. S. did not refer to these authorities as reflecting his own opinions, 
but to illustrate two points — first, that the democracy are precluded by 
their own avowed and practiced doctrines from now condemning Gen. 
Taylor for making changes of public agents; and secondly, as showing 
how strong a game his democratic friends were playing for the spoils. 
Out of power, they abominate proscription ; no man should be turned out 
for opinion's sake; but in power, they conveniently discover, in the con- 
stitution and in party obligation, a "renovating principle," which con- 
siders "every office vacant," ready to be filled by the new Chief Magis- 
trate, and accepted by his followers as the spoils of victory, and a reward 
for partisan service. 

Whatever, then, Gen. Taylor may have done in the way of removals, 
it does not lie in the mouth of Democrats to condemn him. They must 
cast the beam out of their own eye, before they pluck the mote from 
their brother's. 

But while gentlemen excuse the preposed removal of Mr. Heath as a 
set-off against Gen. Taylor's proscriptions, are they sure that Gen. T. 
has in fact proscribed? Mr. S. denied that he had practiced proscription. 
He has removed no man purely for his party opinions. 

He has, it is true, made many removals; but it does not follow thence 
that he has proscribed. Many were indispensable, as matter of principle 
and of duty. There was that numerous class who had actively meddled 
with the elections of the country — who helped to degrade and corrupt 
the elective franchise — who, to use the expressive language of General 
Jackson, "had brought the patronage of the government in conflict with 
the freedom of elections." These, on democratic principle, ought to 
have been removed, So thought Mr, Jefferson, and so said Gen. Jack- 



i) 

son. It was on this principle Wra. J. Brown, Gen. McCalla and Mr. 
Burke were displaced: they had left their official posts to make partisan 
warfare for a particular nominee for the presidency. It was on the same 
principle that nineteen clerks in the General Land Office were removed 
in a single day: they had deserted their desks, and gone over to elec- 
tioneer in Pennsylvania, or had contributed funds to that object. The 
removal of such was not proscription. 

There were other classes whose removal was called for. Passing over 
the incompetent and faithless, (of whom there will be some in all admin- 
istrations) even-handed justice required that all those democratic incum- 
bents, to make provision for whom Whigs had been expressly removed, 
should in turn give way to those they had displaced. Nor ought those 
who were rewarded with place for a special partisan service, to escape. 

Numerous removals, then, having been made, how is it to be made to 
appear that Gen.' Taylor has not proscribed? He had, said Mr. S., 
made removals on principle, and principle only — either for cause, or 
towards the accomplishment of an object which had the sanction of Mr. 
Jefferson, a fair distribution of office betiveen the two great political par- 
ties of the country — in other icords, equalization. 

Let us see what views were held by Mr. Jefferson on the subject. 

In a letter to the people of New Haven, justifying his removal of the 
collector of that port, he said : — 

"I lament sincerely that unessential differences of opinion should ever 
have been deemed sufficient to interdict half the society from the rights 
and the blessings of self-government, and to proscribe them as unworthy 
of every trust. But on whom does this imputation rest ? On those who 
have excluded from office every shade of opinion which was not theirs? 
or on those which have been so excluded ? It would have been to me a 
ci f 11 instance of great relief had I found a moderate participation of office 
ir. the hands of the majority. I would gladly have left to time and ac- 
cident to raise them to' their just share. But their total exclusion calls 
for prompt correction. I shall correct the procedure; but that done, 
return with joy to that state of things, when the only question concerning 
a candidate "shall be— is he honest; is he capable; is he faithful to the 
constitution? 

"If a due participation of office is a matter of right, how are vacancies 
to be obtained? Those by death are few; resignations none. Can any 
other mode than that of removal be proposed ? This is a painful office; 
but it is my duty, and I meet it as such." 

Here the doctrine of equalization is distinctly laid down. "A just 
share"— a due participation of office" by both political parties— this is 
evidently announced as the doctrine of Mr. Jefferson. And the remedy 
for the grievance of inequality is as clearly set forth— removal, until, by 
that process, equalization is effected. 

Now, I assert, said Mr. S., that Gen. Taylor stands, in this matter, 
on the identical platform with Mr. Jefferson. Entering on the duties of 
the Chief Magistracy, and finding nearly all the offices in the hands of 
his political opponents, and those opponents a minority of the American 
people, he proceeded to do what Mr. Jefferson under similar circum- 
stances did— to equalize the offices— to make fair distribution. 
2 



10 

What else could he have done? To have made no removals would 
have been to perpetuate proscription; to continue an official monopoly in 
the hands of a minority of the people; to proscribe, by wholesale, his 
own political friends; to perpetuate the disfranchisement of one-half of 
his countrymen; and to award to the Democracy a sort of fee simple 
title in the offices of the country. 

Mr. S. then entered upon a statistical statement to shew that in the 
offices at Washington, and in the country generally, equalization had 
not been reached, much less transcended. 

On the 30th September, 184S, the proportion of Democrats to Whigs 
in office in Washington, was, he asserted, on authority he could impli- 
citly rely on, about as five to one — a disproportion most unjust. Now 
the proportion is about equal. 

But suppose it stood now as four Whigs to three Democrats — 
would this be unfair or unequal? When, for many years, the pro- 
portion had been as five Democrats to one Whig, could complaint be 
made of a change which should introduce a ratio of four Whigs to three 
Democrats? When, for near a quarter of a century, the disproportion had 
been most gross in favor of the Democrats and against the Whigs, could 
a reasonable preponderance now in favor of the Whigs be objected to as 
unequal? Surely not; for, under the peculiar circumstances of the 
case — considering particularly the long-continued and close exclusion of 
the Whigs — time, as well as number, is properly an element of equali- 
zation. 

But, in truth, unless he had been grossly deceived by those who had 
the best means of furnishing correct information, equality had not been 
attained, certainly not exceeded. 

In the War and Navy Departments proper, there had been scarcely 
any removals — perhaps not half a dozen in all. This he asserted on 
the authority of the Heads of those Departments themselves. 

In the General Post Office, according to a statement which appeared 
in the National Intelligencer, there were, when Mr. Cave Johnson left 
it, forty-four democratic clerks, and but two Whig. Here, surely, was a 
demand for equalization. 

Of the eighteen Heads of Bureaux, but one was known to be a Whig, 
the third Auditor, Mr. Hagner. Leaving out the fifth Auditor, whose 
politics are doubtful, the salaries received by democratic Heads of Bu- 
reaux amounted to $47,500; those received by Whig Heads of Bereaux, 
or rather the Whig Head of a Bureau, to $3,000! Here, too, a male- 
rial change was demanded; yet several of the old democratic incum- 
bents are retained, among them the second Comptroller, the Treasurer of 
the United States, the fourth Auditor, the Commissioner of Pensions, 
and the first and third Assistant Post Masters General. 

And the Home Department was far from presenting the bloody pic- 
ture which party limners had painted for it. At the close of Mr. Polk's 
administration, there were in what now (exclusive of the Department of 
Public Buildings) constitutes the Home Department, one hundred and 
twenty-seven persons employed. Of these, ninety-three were Demo- 
crats, with a salary of $117,137; and thirty-four Whigs, with a salary 
of $45,100 — a difference in favor of Democrats of fifty-nine persons, 
and of salary $72,037. 



11 

On the first of January of the present year, there were employed in 
the Department of the Interior, (including- the Department of Public 
Buildings,) one hundred and thirty-eight persons. Of these, eighty are 
Whigs, with a salary of $105,650; and fifty-eight are Democrats, with 
a salary of $68,417 — shewing ;i difi'erence in favor of the Whigs of only 
twenty-two persons, and of salary $37,232. Formerly, there were nearly 
three Democrats to one Whig, and the former received nearly three 
times as much salary as the Whigs; while now, the ratio of both persons 
and salary is only as one and a fraction to one, in favor of the Whigs. 
This, considering the former gross inequality, might be regarded nothing 
more than fair distribution. So that, after all, the present Head of the 
Department of the Interior is not the blood-thirsty butcher he is so often 
represented to be. He has had the firmness to do justice — that is "the 
head and front of his offending" — nothing more. 

So far, then, as the Departments at the seat of government arc con- 
cerned, the point of equalization has not been passed. 

In the Post Office Department, speaking generally, according to the 
Post Master General's report, there have been only 2,100 removals out 
of 19,000 incumbents — shewing an immense balance in favor of the 
democracy; it being well known that hitherto the post offices of the 
country have been almost exclusively in the possession of the Dem- 
ocrats. 

In particular places, it is true, the principle of ecpiialization may have 
been exceeded; in the large cities of the North, for example, where the 
excess was indispensable. There all the office-holders were brawling 
and working partisans. They contributed money to electioneering pur- 
poses — to the corruption of the ballot-box; and, according to Mr. Jeffer- 
son's rule, and Gen. Jackson's, deserved expulsion. But, in the aggie- 
gate, taking the country through, fair distribution has not yet been 
accomplished. This hour, said Mr. S., the democracy hold a large ma- 
jority of the offices of the country. 

Let us now come nearer home, and see how the account stands in our 
own State. At the moment I am now speaking, said Mr. S., it is indis- 
putably true, that under this Whig administration a large majority of 
federal offices, both in number and amount of salary, are filled by dem- 
ocratic incumbents! There are the post offices at Lynchburg, at Fred- 
ericksburg, at Petersburg, at Richmond, at Portsmouth, and at Norfolk; 
the judge of the Western district, marshal of the Western district, judge 
of the Eastern district, attorney for the Eastern district, surveyor of the 
port of Hampton, collector of the port of Smithficld, (held by Dr. But- 
ler, the democratic nominee for Treasurer, himself a monument of Whig 
forbearance,) and the navy agency at Norfolk, involving an annual pat- 
ronage of two millions of dollars, and, in this respect, of more pecuni- 
ary and political importance than all the other federal offices in Virginia 
put together. 

And what have the Whigs per contra! They have the attorney for 
the Western district, the post offices at Wheeling and Winchester, the 
marshal for the Eastern district, and the collectorships of Alexandria, 
Richmond, Norfolk, and Petersburg! A decided majority of the more 
important federal offices in Virginia held, under a Whig administration, 
by Democrats! Let the fact be noted by the people, that at the very 
moment their democratic representatives here are exclaiming against 



12 

Gen. Taylor for proscription, and pleading that supposed proscription in 
excuse for the removal of our excellent State officers, at that very mo- 
ment the Whigs hold comparatively a small portion of the valuable 
federal offices in Virginia! Equalization, even, has not been attempted! 
What does this prove but that, at least in Virginia, Gen. Taylor has 
demeaned himself most gently and generously as regards this matter of 
removals, and that the cry of retaliation which is now raised, is raised 
without any just reason whatever, and is onl) r a party pretext to cover 
the enormity of a thing, which, unveiled, would be too monstrous to be 
contemplated without disgust and abhorrence. 

Much clamor had been raised about the removal of Virginians, and 
the attempt has been made to send forth the impression that citizens of 
this State have been peculiarly the subjects of proscription. Doubtless 
many have been removed; but the reason is, that Virginia has had in the 
public offices, at least in Washington, more than her due share. East- 
ern Virginia, for example, had 65 clerks; when, according to a fair pro- 
portion, she was entitled to but 12. Justice to the rest of the Union 
required the inequality to be corrected. 

But the large number of removals made in a given period — that, say 
our democratic friends, is proof conclusive of the ultra proscriptiveness 
of the present administration. By no means, said Mr. S. The system 
of democratic proscription had been going on for twenty years, until 
there was nearly a democratic monopoly of the offices of the National 
Government. Numerous removals, therefore, became indispensable, in 
order to effect equalization. It could be effected in no other way. As 
Mr. Jefferson said: "Deaths are few, and resignations none." Remo- 
val consequently, was the only process; the only alternative — and the 
frequency of the exercise of this instrumentality, Avas necessarily in pro- 
portion to the exclusiveness of democratic occupation of office. If it 
be used gradually and slowly, equalization can never be effected in the 
course of a single administration. 

But it is said, that General Taylor came into the presidency pledged 
against removals — that he declared in the canvass, that he would be the 
president of the nation, and not of a party; and that in his inaugural 
address, he had proclaimed honesty, capacity and fidelity, as his stand- 
ards of qualification for public trust. 

Are these declarations, said Mr. S., to be construed into a pledge on 
Gen. Taylor's part, to make no removals of Democrats? If so, he was 
pledged against equalization — to the perpetuation of proscription, and to 
the perpetration of injustice to one half of his countrymen. But his 
declarations bear no such interpretation. He has, violated no pledges. 
On the contrary, he has faithfully kept them. He has by allowing both 
political parties to participate in the offices of the Republic, proved him- 
self the president of the people, and not of a party. He has not driven 
all the Democrats from office, as his predecessors did the Whigs. He 
has shewn by his course, that he regards the two parties as citizens of a 
common country, and equally entitled to share its offices of trust. If he 
had made no removals, thereby still continuing the offices in the hands 
of democratic incumbents, and still excluding the Whigs, he would in- 
deed have proved himself the president of a party, and not of the na- 
tion, and would indeed have broken his pledges. 



13 

Nor could his avowal of honesty, capability and fidelity, as tests of 
fitness for public station, be interpreted into an engagement to makeno 
removals. That avowal had reference obviously to original appoint- 
ments, not to removals. It meant merely, that in making appointments, 
regard would be had to moral and mental fitness — not that no removals 
would be made. There have been, said Mr. S., I candidly confess, 
some removed who were honest and capable; 1 know such myself; some 
of them are my cherished personal friends. I could name one; an 
editor of a Democratic Journal — a gentleman of the finest talents, and 
the noblest character, who though himself removed; took a stand on this 
subject worthy of the best days of Virginia; and I sympathise with these, 
that necessity and principle, required their displacement; but they were 
displaced, not on account of political opinion, but in furtherance of Mr. 
Jefferson's rule of ecpialization. If competent and faithful public ser- 
vants have been sacrificed to this salutary republican rule, it is not the 
fault of the Whigs, but of those (the Democrats) who have filled the 
public places of the country with democratic incumbents, to the almost 
entire exclusion of the Whigs. They created the necessity for the appli- 
cation of the rule, and are responsible for the consequences. And my 
life on it, said Mr. S., if Gen. Taylor had, on assuming the presidency, 
found a fair distribution of office between the Whigs and the Democrats, 
not one capable and faithful officer would have been dismissed. 

Mr. S. said he could produce democraiic proof that Gen. Taylor's ad- 
ministration had not been proscriptive. The New York Evening Post, 
a leading Democratic Journal, rebuking the Washington Union for its 
unfounded complaints against Gen. Taylor, had used the following em- 
phatic language: 

" But supposing that the Washington Union was in a position to com- 
plain of proscription, it is effectually destroying the force of its com- 
plaints by beginning before there is anything "to complain of. Consider- 
ing the legion of offices which it is the duty of the President to fill, his 
forbearance, thus far, has been conspicuous; and whatever may be his 
course hereafter, thus far the democratic party have no reason to com- 
plain of injustice. 

"He has made but few changes, and most of those have been, in our 
judgment, decidedlv advantageous to the public. When the public ser- 
vice is threatened, it will be time enough for the Union to begin the war; 
but even then we would counsel that journal to leave the complaining 
to those who can do it with some show of consistency, and with propor- 
tionate effect." 

The simple truth is, said Mr. S., that Gen. Taylor makes removals, 
as before intimated, on a fixed principle. He does not act, as some of 
his predecessors have done, on the maxim, that to the victorious party 
belong the offices, but upon the more popular, he would say, more truly 
democratic doctrine, that both political parties are entitled to a share of 
public employment. Upon this republican rule, he trusted the present 
Chief Magistrate would continue to act, until equality had been fully 
established. And when that happy medium shall have been arrived at, 
he trusted both parties, having a fresh starting point, and taking a new 
latitude and departure, would unite in preserving the equilibrium in all 
future time, and thus breaking up the spoils system forever. Then may we 



14 

return to the purer practices of the earlier Republic — to the good old re- 
publican usages of its primeval simplicity and purity. Then, to use the 
language of Mr. Jefferson, we can "return with joy to that state of 
things, when the only questions concerning a candidate shall be: Is he 
honest, is he capable, is he faithful to the Constitution?" Then, if our 
democratic friends shall so choose, a new era begins: 

" Magnus ab integro seclorum nascitur ordo." 

But suppose Gen. Taylor has done wrong in this matter of removals, 
shall we copy the wrong? Because he has proscribed at Washington, 
shall we do the like at Richmond? Shall innocent men suffer in Vir- 
ginia, for the sins of guilty men out of Virginia? Sir, there is no rea- 
son, surely no Christianity in the doctrine. 

Gentlemen on the democratic side of the house alledge, in excuse of 
their course, that they are but carrying out our o»vn rule of equalization, 
by removing two of the four Whig officers in the capitol. Remember- 
ing, said Mr. S., the party ingenuity of my democratic friends, (which has 
ever been most remarkable,) I knew well Mr. Speaker, that you and your 
party, would go before the people with the plea, that you are only meet- 
ing the Whigs upon their own ground, and enforcing their own rule of 
fair distribution. But upon this platform you cannot stand for a mo- 
ment. There is no soit of analogy in the two cases. The doctrine of 
Mr. Jefferson, which Gen. Taylor has adopted for his guide, is: that the 
principle of equalization is to be applied only, where by the operation of 
proscription, there is gross inequality between parties, in the enjoyment 
of the offices. Where there has been no proscription for opinion' sake, 
the principle is not in point. My democratic friends do not apply the 
principle properly, and we all know that there is as much in the applica- 
tion of a principle, as in the principle itself. There is, indeed, no differ- 
ence between a wrong principle, and the wrong application of a right 
principle. Both aie repugnant to sound morals. Now, if Mr. Heath 
had, when he came into office, turned out a Democrat, simply because of 
his being a Democrat, there might be something in the plea of equaliza- 
tion now put in. But such is not the fact; he was elected to the office of 
first auditor, in the purer days of the Republic, when a man's personal 
qualifications, and not his political opinions, were regarded. There was 
indeed, at the period of his first election, no such party division as that 
of Whig and Democrat. It was in that most glorious era of our politi- 
cal history, when, according to the highest of democratic authority, 
11 we were all federalists; all republicans," — when honest men and ca- 
pable men, not bustling politicians, were sought out for public sta- 
tion — when to ask a man's political opinions in reference to his appoint- 
ment to office, would have been regarded an insult to the American peo- 
ple, and a degradation of our republican institutions. It was at a time 
like this, that Mr. Heath was elected to the office he now fills. He was 
not then a Whig himself, for there were no Whigs then, and he turned 
out no Democrat, for there were no Democrats then to be turned out. 
No man was proscribed for him; he ought not to be proscribed for any. 
He was selected originally for his high merits; his superior qualifica- 
tions — let the reason that led to his original appointment, protect him 
from proscription now, and retain to the commonwealth his invaluable 
services. 



15 

• 

But after all, is there any reason for the application at this time of the 
rule of equalization, so far as the State oifices arc concerned? None 
whatever; for while the Whigs have the first and second auditors, treasu- 
rer, and secretary of the commonwealth, and attorney general, the De- 
mocracy have the governor, two members of the council, superintendent 
of the penitentiary, penitentiary store-keeper, and register of the land 
office. And taking the principal offices throughout the State, both as to 
number and salary, it will be found, after deducting the judgeships, 
(which are not political offices at all, and whose incumbents were mostly 
elected before the present division of parties,) that there is already a 
pretty fair distribution. And if equality does not at this moment exist, 
it soon will under the democratic practice now invariably pursued, of 
making all appointments from the ranks of the Democracy. Are any 
new appointments, legislative or executive, if of any account, now con- 
ferred on Whigs? Are any likely to be? Let the candid men of the 
dominant party answer the questions. 

I have thus endeavored to demonstrate, said Mr. S., that the reasons 
for which our democratic friends propose the introduction of proscription 
in Virginia, are wholly insufficient; that they nave no right to avail them- 
selves of the law of retaliation, being the first wrong-doers; that having, 
when in power, practiced proscription to the utmost extreme, they are 
estopped, now that they are out of power, from condemning it in others; 
and finally, that Gen. Taylor has not, in the true sense of the term, pro- 
scribed? 

If these positions have been established, the whole basis of their justi- 
fication tumbles from under them, and they must stand before the peo- 
ple, (if they displace Mr. Heath,) as having perpetrated an act of un- 
worthy revenge, and of egregious injustice and wrong. 

But the consequences, moral, social and political, of bringing proscrip- 
tion into our midst — have you and your party, Mr. Speaker, ever reflect- 
ed seriously upon them? 

Have you ever soberly weighed its effect upon the public interests in 
the constant change of public functionaries which is to follow its adop- 
tion? One spring, the Democrats are successful at the polls, and the 
following winter out go the Whig holders of office: the next election day, 
by one of those strange 1 evolutions in politics which are every day occur- 
ring, the Whigs are victorious, and at the ensuing session of the Legisla- 
ture, they in their turn, as matter of sheer justice, displace the demo- 
cratic incumbents. The consequence is, that just as the public officer is 
becoming familiar with the duties of his post, he is turned out, and the 
interests of the people fall into inexperienced and incompetent hands. 

Have you ever looked to the social consequences of the movement? 
Have you drawn for your imagination the picture of an exasperated and 
divided people? Have you called to mind the deep resentments, the bit- 
ter suites, the jarring discords, the burning revenge, the personal feuds, 
which will be the necessary results of this policy? Have you thought 
how it will embitter the social relations, by arraying one-half of the com- 
munity in rancorous hostility to the other ? And are we willing to sacri- 
fice on the altar of party proscription the social tranquillity and happiness 
of our people? 

And have we contemplated the political effects? How it will degrade 
eveiv election into an ignoble squabble for place? How it will transform 



16 

• 

a nation of proud Yirginians into a nation of sordid office-seekers? 

And is this the time, Mr. Speaker, to be introducing among us the 
elements of strife? Now, when a common danger should unite us as a 
band of brothers together — when the rude hand of aggression is almost 
clenched upon our limbs — when our only safety, too, is in union, un- 
broken, perfect, and hearty union — when an undivided front is the only 
guarantee of vindicated right, a rescued constitution, and an integral 
Union — when but a few days ago, in the name of our endangered rights, 
we sent forth from this hall a solemn appeal for fraternity and harmony—I 
say, is this the time to scatter among our people the seeds of discord, irri- 
tation and distrust? Is this the fitting moment to rouse up the party vin- 
dictiveness, which is to make us an embittered and divided people? 

But there is one consideration, Mr. Speaker, which, above all others, 
weighs heavily upon my bosom, and which would bring me on my knees 
to the democratic party in this House, if that would avail to make my 
supplication effectual; and that is, that the honor of Virginia is in dan- 
ger from this thing. Sir, I shudder at the very thought of seeing the flag 
of the spoils streaming in triumph over the Senate-house of the Old Do- 
minion! My heart sickens within me, at the dread idea, that from the 
liberty-inspiring banner of Virginia, the proud motto, sic [semper 
tyrannis, is to be struck out, and on its folds inscribed that ignoble maxim 
of Tammany Hall paternity, "to the victors belong the spoils." 

Sir, I call upon you and your party, as proud Virginians, to ponder 
over this thing. Only think of it. Virginia, the land of Washington, 
of Henry, and of Lee — the noble mother of heroes, states and statesmen; 
whose past history is but a series of associations of undimmed glory and 
bright renown, and whose name was once the synonym of lofty chivalry 
and unstained honor. Think of it — I repeat. Look upon the scene — 
Virginia, "the good old mother of us all," crouching at the low, mean 
shrine of the spoils! 

Let the Federal Government do what it will, Mr. Speaker, but let us 
not introduce proscription in Virginia. Oh! let us not bring this accursed 
fiend about us to destroy the sweet peace of our hearths and firesides. 
There are elements of discord enough among us already. There are 
great domestic concerns that require all the harmonizing influences we 
can bring to bear upon them; and around that altar — and not the altar 
of the spoils — the altar of Virginia — Virginia in her purity — Virginia in 
her dignity — Virginia in a name untarnished — around that holy altar 
let us all gather, and send up our mingled orisons for the renewed pros- 
perity of our beloved State, and the preservation of an unsullied name 
forever! 

I need say but little, said Mr. S., of Mr. Heath's qualifications as an 
officer. They are as familiar as house-hold words throughout the broad 
limits of Virginia. In every nook and corner of the State's domain, in 
every glen and on every mountain side, his praises have been rung, — the 
unreluctant homage of the honest yeomanry, who have tiansacted business 
in his office, and who have felt, practically, his value as an officer of the 
people. There is not a deputy sheriff in the State, nor a clerk of a 
court, nor a commissioner of the revenue, that does not know him as a 
ready, civil, accommodating, able public officer, and that, does not ad- 
mire and love the man who knows so well how to blend the accomplish- 



17 

merits of the gentleman with the right discharge of the stern duties of 
official responsibility. Sir, there is about him a mildness, a gentleness, 
a soothing address, an unpretending simplicity, and an easy, yet firm 
impartiality, too seldom met with in public functionaries, and which 
make him the very pattern of what a servant of the people should be. 
You see the plain countryman go into his office — he is awkward, feels 
perhaps some of that awe which is often felt, and which some make you 
feel, when in the presence of official dignitaries — your Auditor meets 
him with a republican civility and gentlemanly case, which at once inspire 
confidence, and soon makes the visitor feel that he is the master, and the 
Auditor the servant. Or, perhaps, his papers are not properly prepared, 
and he cannot draw from the Treasury the pittance which makes the 
object of his visit, — you'll see Mr. Heath carefully pointing out the de- 
fect, and instructing him minutely how to proceed, by endorsing on his 
papers exactly what is to be done. 

On the whole, said Mr. S., I have never known so perfect an exam- 
ple of a public officer; and I undertake to say, that no man, however 
humble, or however exalted, ever left his office without a pleasing im- 
pression of him who filled it. 

Of his value as a public officer, a single fact may speak. On a recent 
occasion, his fidelity and ability — and these alone — saved to the com- 
monwealth the large sum of $9,000. And the facts are these: A claim, 
having some connection with the Internal Improvement fund, was pre- 
sented to the Auditor. He disallowed it. Appeal was taken to Judge 
Robertson's court. After a laborious investigation, an elaborate opinion 
was given by the court, overruling the Auditor's decision, and a decree 
entered requiring him to issue his warrant on the Treasury in discharge 
of the claim. The Attorney General happening to be present at the 
time the attorney for the Bank made demand for payment, told Mr. 
Heath the claim ought to be paid, for that he had fully investigated it, 
and considered it strictly legal. Mr. H. dissented, and desired the Attor- 
ney General to prepare a petition for a supersedeas, apprising him that it 
was his purpose to carry the case to the court of appeals. Mr. Baxter 
accordingly prepared a petition, but assigned no error, because he could 
not conscientiously assign any, believing there was none. Of course, 
the supersedeas was refused. Mr. H. immediately called a meeting of 
the Board of Public Works, laid the whole matter before them, and 
gave them his views, when it was resolved to employ other counsel, 
which was done, a petition for a supersedeas assigning error was present- 
ed, an appeal allowed, the case taken up, the decision of Judge Robert- 
son reversed, and the decision of the Auditor, of course, affirmed. It 
turned out that both Judge Robertson and Mr. Baxter were wrong, and 
Mr. Heath right. These facts, said Mr. S , by no means impeach the 
legal ability of Judge R. or Mr. B., for on the point involved the ablest 
counsel differed; but this they do shew, that by Mr. Heath's fidelity and 
legal discrimination, a large amount had been saved to the common- 
wealth. They proved, that so far as the peculiar business of the Audi- 
tor's office was concerned, Mr. H. was as sound a lawyer as the Attorney 
General and the circuit judge, and even better. And this is the officer 
whom we propose to displace for one who is entirely untried and inex- 
perienced! 

3 



18 

There is one point of view in which his public services are invalu- 
able, and almost indispensable. He has grown up with all that por- 
tion of our system of laws that has relation to the fiscal concerns of 
the commonwealth, and is entirely familiar with it in all its ramifications 
and bearings. He has a knowledge, in this regard, which no man, 
however gifted, can acquire save by years of constant and laborious in- 
vestigation. And put whom you will in the present Auditor's stead, 
years must elapse before his successor can learn properly the duties of 
the office. And the loud complaints of sheriffs, clerks, and commission- 
ers of the revenue, will very soon demonstrate the impolicy and evil 
consequences of substituting for Mr. Heath one less versed and experi- 
enced. Sir, his removal will be a great public loss, and there is not a 
member of this House that does not know it. 

As a man, said Mr. S., Mr. Heath requires no eulogy at my hands. 
I have known him from my boyhood, and for one I have ever looked 
upon him as the very Cato of Utica of the Old Dominion. 

But there are some facts connected with his private history which it is 
peculiarly fit to make known on the present occasion, and which, I am 
sure, will make a deep impression on this House, unless it be impenetra- 
ble to every generous emotion. 

A short time before the inauguration of Gen. Taylor, or immediately 
thereafter, Mr. Heath penned a most beautiful memorial to the President, 
asking the retention in office of Mr. Nelson, then the collector of the 
port of Richmond. It was handed to me by its author, written in his 
own hand-writing, with the request that I would present it to the Whig 
members of the Legislature for their signature; which I cheerfully did, 
and having obtained the signatures, handed it back to him, and by him 
it was transmitted to the Executive. 

Another case — that of Shimuel Godwin, late a member of this house, 
whom we all know well, for his warm nature and his ardent democracy, 
and who had been appointed to office by Mr. Polk. That office was the 
only means of support for a wife, ten daughters, and a son. Feeling a 
deep interest in his fate, on account of his own personal merits, and of 
his dependent family, I addressed several letters, and got others to ad- 
dress them, to the head of the department in which Mr. G. was em- 
ployed; but receiving no satisfactory assurance, I wrote a last letter, and 
knowing that Mr. Heath was personally acquainted with the secretary to 
whom it was addressed, I applied to him to add his solicitation to mine, 
hoping that our joint intercession would be successful. Mr. H. did not 
hesitate for a moment. "I will do it with the utmost pleasure (said he;) 
and the more willingly, that Mr. Godwin once headed a movement for 
my removal." And he then indicted, at the end of my own letter, a 
most touching appeal in behalf of Mr. G. The mission of mercy was 
successful. And such a man as this, it is proposed now to immolate on 
the altar of paity proscription ! 

If the deed be done, Mr. Speaker, there will be one consolation, at 
least, for those who do it; for some solace they surely ought to have for 
a deed so cruel and revolting — something to soothe the conscience — some 
"flattering unction for the soul;" — and that consolation they have in 
this — that a nobler victim was never bound for the stake — that nobler 



19 

blood never stained the block! But let my democratic friends remember, 
and beware, that the "blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." 

Some charges have been made. It is said that the Board of Public 
Works, of which Mr. Heath and Mr. Lawson are members, have been 
partial in the appointment of State directors and proxies. I am author- 
ized by those gentlemen to say, that, so far as they are concerned, there 
is no foundation whatever for the charge. Of the officers appointed by the 
Board, whose politics they have been able to ascertain since theh appoint- 
ment — for they were not "known before — 57 were Democrats; 37 Whigs. 

It was said by the gentleman from Logan, that it was highly desirable 
that the Board of Public Works should be changed, and that for this ob- 
ject, Mr. Heath and Mr. Lawson should be removed. Why, said Mr. 
*S., change the constitution of this Board? Ts it, proposed to put in their 
places abler and better men ? It will not be done— it cannot be clone. 
Or is it designed to make the Board a political Board, and the Internal 
Improvement fund a political fund? If it is, the Board ought to be' in- 
stantly abolished, and the fund for internal improvement scattered to the 
winds. And I warn the internal improvement party in this House, that 
if such is their purpose, they are encamping the whole system on a mine 
which will explode, and blast it into countless fragments forever. 

It is charged, too, that Mr. Heath is a violent partisan. There is no 
truth in the imputation. To use his own language, "So far from being 
a violent partisan, I am scarcely a partisan at all. I think, and talk, and 
vote, like other free citizens, and that is about the amount of my offend- 
ing." 

And last of all, it is said that some twelve years ago, he wrote a play, 
which was intended as a burlesque upon the democratic party. 

I take it upon me to say — for I am authorized to say it — that this pro- 
duction of Mr. Heath's pen was not written with political objects, but 
designed merely, to use the words of the author, "as a sportive satire 
upon the excesses of party zeal at the time it was written," which was 
about the period that party intemperance was assuming in our country its 
most rancorous form. There was in it, I repeat it, no political or party 
desiffn. Moral effect was aimed at, and that alone. 

And many, many a fine moral is there, Mr. Speaker, in this effusion 
of his genius. And I can almost pity the dull sensibilities of that man 
who can read this unpretending, yet beautiful drama, without deriving 
from it both intellectual and moral refreshment, and feeling himself a 
better man when he put it down than when he took it up. 

There is not a chaiacter in the dramatis personce that does not incul- 
cate some wholesome moral, or hit off some vice of these party times of ours. 

Major Koundtree is a faithful repiesentation of a class, too numerous 
in both parties, who make money and votes by pot-house carousals. 

Slang, Bangall and Rowdie, are electioneering bullies, to be found in 
both parties, whom all men of all parties detest. 

The droll Supine, with his humorous pedantry, enforces a manly 

virtue the moral firmness that prompts to the confession of error when 

it is discovered, and to atonement for it by recanting the wrong and pur- 
suing the right. 

And in old Mrs. Roundtree, the Major's better half, who was so soli- 
citous that her daughter Kate should be well educated, and cultivate 
genteel associations, and who so often entreated her husband to expend 



20 

on the education of their daughter a portion of the means he was in the 
habit of squandering in electioneering frolics, — I say, in old Mrs. Round- 
tree, every man, Whig and Democrat, must recognize a character to bo 
commended and admired: for what parent is there that does not prize 
the education of his child above all other earthly treasure? 

Now, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that I am not informed of the politics 
of Mrs. Roundtree. She may have been a Whig, (for the ladies, God 
bless them! are nearly all Whigs,) but Whig or Democrat, she was cer- 
tainly, though humbly brought up, a most sensible woman, for she seems 
to have cherished constantly, the laudable pride to have bestowed 
upon her daughter, all those accomplishments of education, which so 
much set-off and adorn the female character, and make lovely and at- 
tractive, the gentler sex. To the character then, of Mrs. Roundtree, no 
one, Whig or Democrat, can except. 

And in Jhd characters of Henry Fairweather and Catharine Round- 
tree, is taught one of the most beautiful and touching of morals. 

Henry Fairweather, the son of Gen. Fairweather, the democratic con- 
gressman, you recollect, foils in love with Catharine Roundtree, who 
though born to humble life, was nevertheless, by the praiseworthy ambition 
of her good mother, highly educated and accomplished. Gen. Fair- 
weather becomes highly indignant, that his son— the son of a member of 
congress, should think of forming an alliance with the daughter of an 
inn-keeper. But finally, the noble and generous Henry Fairweather, 
and the beautiful and accomplished Catharine Roundtree, are united 
in marriage. And what a moral is taught in this union! It brings 
up and impresses this lovely moral truth — that without regard to party or 
family distinctions — without regard to the adventitious circumstances of 
rank and fortune, which make up the inequalities of life, there is after 
all, but one union that should challenge a parent's approval — the union 
of heart with heart —but one alliance that merits the esteem of the wise 
and good— the alliance of virtue to virtue, and worth to worth. 

And I defy any man with a soul in his bosom, to read unmoved the 
interview between Henry Fairweather and Mrs. Roundtree, or that 
between Henry and Catharine, when he first breaks to her the story of 
his love. There is a vein of practical good sense, and of manly, ele- 
vated and delicate sentiment, running through the conversations of these 
interviews, which must find a response in every bosom, not closed to 
every emotion of generous sensibility. This play a burlesque upon the 
Democracy! Sir, I have never perused in all my life a production, in 
which there is more of the genuine democracy. It is replete with the 
spirit of our republican institutions — republican in all its characters and 
teachings. Surely, Mr. Speaker, in the union of Henry Fairweather 
and Catharine Roundtree, the son of a member of congress with the 
daughter of a tavern-keeper, there is nothing anti-democratic. And if 
the house will allow me, I will venture to read to it a few sentences from 
the play, as a sample of its democratic tenor; and the portion I have se- 
lected, is that wherein Catharine Roundtree is pleading her humble 
origin as a reason why she should not listen to the suit of Henry Fair- 
weather, and Henry, by an argument, any thing but aristocratic, meets 
her objections: 

" Catharine. Think Henry, — think how relentless is family pride; 
think of the scorn which Catharine Roundtree would have to encounter. 



21 

11 Henry. You overrate this matter much. We live in a country 
where the prejudices to which you refer, are fast yielding to the spirit of 
the age. Mankind are becoming too wise to believe, that to be well de- 
scended, as it is called, gives claim to respect in the absence of personal 
merit; and innocence and beauty are as often found in humble life, as 
in the circles of fashion and luxury." 

If there is to be any where met with a more beautiful illustration of 
democratic sentiment, I hope my good democratic friend from Rocking- 
ham, will instruct me where I am to seek it. 

Sir, the times are indeed " sadly out of joint," and party intolerance 
has indeed reached a maddening height, when the authorship of a lite- 
rary performance of decided merit, and whose only philosophy was a 
just satire upon follies of the day, is converted into positive offence! 
Mr. Speaker, this little book of Mr. Heath's, (which I undertake to say 
does possess decided literary merit, though opinions perhaps better than 
mine have declared to the contrary,) so far from being brought up in 
judgment against him, should be remembered to his praise, and be re- 
garded a recommendation. It but shews, that while he has the talents 
to make the best comptroller Virginia ever had, he has the genius, 
when withdrawn by a leisure hour from the drudgery of official engage- 
ment, to contribute a gem to the literary casket of his native State. 

There is one more consideration which I desire to press on our demo- 
cratic friends in this house. They have frankly admitted, and it is 
creditable to their candor, that Mr. Heath is more popular as a public 
officer; more peculiarly acceptable to the people of Virginia, than any 
other they have ever had in their service. Sir, it is most true; we all 
know it— he is even beloved of the people. If the election were put to 
the popular vote to-morrow, he would distance all competitors. 

Now, I put it to my democratic friends to say, how they can presume 
to supersede an officer thus acceptable to the whole body of the people. 
You claim to be, par excellence, the Democracy; the especial friends of 
the people; you say that the will of the people, is the cardinal principle 
of your faith, and the supremacy of the popular wish, superior to all 
other political considerations. Now, if your professions are indeed sincere, 
with what face can you go before the people, and tell them that you 
have proscribed an officer, who, by your own confession, has given them 
the highest possible amount of satisfaction? And how dare you go be- 
fore them, with the flimsy and insulting apology, that you removed him 
because he was a Whig, and for that reason only? 

But I trust that better counsels will prevail, and that the blow will not 
be struck. Sir, let us retain this excellent man and officer in our ser- 
vice. His youth and his manhood have been given to the State. Let 
us not in his old age turn him adrift. No! Rather let his grey hairs con- 
tinue to illustrate the post he lias so long adorned, and retain in our con- 
fidence and service, a man who is dear to the people of Virginia, whose 
loss will be a public calamity, and his fall a public lamentation. 

Above all, let us preserve the honor of the State, by scouting from 
this hall now and forever, the execrable doctrines of proscription and the 
spoils. 



014 442 789 



0014' 



M 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 442 789 P 



Hollinger 

pH 8.5 

Mitt Run F05-2193