E 390 
 .C18 
 Copy 1 
 
X 
 
 Conservation Resources 
 
E 390 
 .C18 
 Copy 1 
 
 iniliij 
 
 SismKV. 
 
 isJ± 
 
 IHi^BS 
 
 lift' 
 

 
 III 
 
 
 
 
 ta^l 
 
 
 
 ;r^ c ^ <^^C<K; 
 
 cc-cce 
 
 re cc. 
 
 ■ CefC 
 
 C ' C 
 
 
 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 1 1 
 
 ^^ • ^ 
 
 ^Aef.SJ.. Lh... 
 
 \i UNITED STATES OP AMERICA, fl 
 
 
 St 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 ^ c c 
 
 •rcrrc 
 
 ■■■ (lC 
 ,-cc , 
 
 
 •c:x<-' <^ 
 Oc c <<: 
 
 C <c 'C 
 
 C3;.c< 
 
 
 >.Ci_t 
 
 '■(.■ 
 
 <f( 
 
 CC c. 
 
 a^- 
 
 <"' 
 
 <!C. 
 
 C^' 
 
 <?c 
 
 CI ' 
 
 <L.^- 
 
 c.*0- 
 
 <tv 
 
 (-,' 
 
 C L 
 
 ,^'. 
 
 ' <f e 
 
 ,-e<- 
 
 <( <h 
 
 c: 
 
 <? o 
 
 <_'• 
 
 <r,t. 
 
 C^^ 
 
 <5-e 
 
 c< 
 
 j^c-. 
 
 C<- 
 
 ^ir^e 
 
 c^ 
 
 <T CC 
 
 c 
 
 <r<:c 
 
 
THE 
 
 ESSAYS 
 
 ©I^SSt^&^S^ 
 
 ADDRESSED 
 
 HON. JOEL HOLLEMAN, 
 
 ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED 
 
 NORFOLK AND PORTSMOUTH HERALD. 
 
 NORFOLK: 
 
 PRINTED t ? T. G. BROUGHTO.V * iOS. 
 
 ' 1841*. 
 

K 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 The following numbers, though addressed to the Hon. Joel Holleman, apply 
 to the party of which he was a member, considered as a whole. Mr. Ilollemaa 
 mdeed, is to be regarded, in them, as the representative of what has been usually 
 denominated the "Great Democratic Republican State Rights Party." Tha 
 Nos. discuss wiiU great power the leading issues of the lale Presidential contest, 
 and are valuable as containing an accurate political history of the times, and 
 as exposing with singular felicity, the empty pretensions and hollow incinceiity 
 of the miscalled Democratic party. The republication may serve to keep 
 alive opposition to a party, which, under the deception of fair professions and 
 the garb of Democracy and 8:ate Rights, have brought incalculable evil on 
 the country, and whose return to power is to be deprecated as the worst mis- 
 fortune that could beful it. 
 
-^ 
 
ISSAYS OF CAMILLAS. 
 
 j\o, I. 
 
 Abolitionism. 
 
 TO THE HON. JOEL HOLLEMAN. 
 
 Oa Tliursiliy last you delivered an address to the citizens of Elizabeth 
 City County, to which I propose to reply throuofh the medium of the public 
 press; and for adopting this mode of reply, I assign the following reasons: 
 
 First: After the conclusion of your address there was not time left for a 
 reply from the Whig speakers present. I impute to you no unfairness on 
 this point. After you had spoken two hours, you expressed a desire for 
 further time, in which wish you were indulged, by none more readily than 
 by the Whigs. 
 
 Secondly : I presume the course of argument j'ou pursued in your address 
 at Hampton, was the same which you have been using, and will continue 
 to use in the other counties of this Congressional District; and so an 
 answer for once will be an answer for all. 
 
 Thirdly: Your friends in Elizabeth City claim your effort here as a 
 triumph over your political opponents, and as such have heralded it forth. 
 It is even said the Whigs could not reply ; so if in the course of the strictures 
 I am about to pass upon your harangue your friends should have cause to 
 change their opinion on this point, and find themselves, along with their 
 friend, involved in a gross mistake and painful mortification, the blame be 
 upon them and not those who have been provoked to a just resentment. 
 Ijooking to the very vulnerable position in which your own unguarded 
 statements and the imprudence of your friends, have placed you, I shall 
 not be much surprised to hear you, ere long, exclaiming in the language 
 of the old Spanish proverb : " Save me from my friends and I will take 
 care of my enemies." But rest the blame where it should. 
 
 I need not say that in the strictures 1 am about to utter, I have no personal 
 feelings of any kind to indulge. For you personally 1 entertain no senti- 
 ments but of respect and kindness. At the same time I shall examine your 
 opinions on the interesting topics connected with the presidential election 
 with all that freedom which the great crisis in public affairs demands at the 
 hand of every freeman. As I shall "nothing extenuate," so shall I not 
 "set down aught in malice." I hope not to misrepresent you, nor do I 
 think I shall ; for having intended to reply to you from the Hustings, had 
 time permitted, I carefully noted down your positions, often in the very lan- 
 luage you employed; and these notes which were designed as the basis of 
 my intended reply, are made now the basis of the numbers I am about to 
 adiress you. 
 
 Your position in this district as its representative in Congress, gives to 
 your opinions an authority and influence which otherwise they might not 
 exert or deserve. The arguments you adopt too, are those which are used 
 by jour party, the country over. You possess besides, sufficient gift of 
 
p ibllc speaking and enouo^h of inq-cnuity to impart to the principles and 
 designs of your party all thp plausibility with which they can be inrestctl. 
 These considerations must plead my apology for making you the subje<:t 
 of the special notice which these articles imply, and of that searching^ 
 scrutiny which I shall apply to your opinions as expressed in your gpeeclj 
 in Elizabeth City. 
 
 Without furlber preliminary then, I proceed to my purpose. After much 
 detraction of Gen. Harrison and much pity for those who were supportini^^ 
 Jiim, you made this most remarkable declaration — "that the Whigs wcrj 
 driven by that miserable and detestable party at the North, the Abolitionists, 
 into the support of Gen. Harrison." Your design was most manifest — to 
 identify tlie Whig party of the country with the abolitionists of the North, 
 ml thus to excite prejudice against the Whig Candidate for the Presidency. 
 You dii not vouchsafe to assign far this extraordinary assertion any satis- 
 factory reasons. I call upon you for the proof that the "Whig party was 
 driven into the support of Gen. Harrison by the fanatics of the North." 
 AVhat single circumstance is there to justify this wholesale calumny upon 
 the Whig p.^rty of this Union? You intimate that Gen. Harrison wos 
 nominated in the Harrisburg Convention by Abolition influence, but is this 
 true? Do you not positively know — of your own fcrsonal knowledge — that 
 Benj. Walking Leigh and many of the most distinguished men of the coun 
 try, who were in that Convention, have declared to the world, that if there 
 was an Abolitionist in that Convention it was unknown to them? And do 
 you not know — if you do not, I now apprize you of the fict — that the E liter 
 of the Emancipator, the leading Abolition Journal of the North, (whose 
 authority on this subject ought to be conclusive) declared that he objected 
 to the H irrisburg nomination because the Abolitionists were not represented 
 in it? You ought to know this fact, and lest you may through ignorance 
 of it repeat this undeserved aspersion of the AVhig }>arty, I will transcribe 
 the extract for your special use. 
 
 In the Emtancipator of April 2nd, you will find this editorial: ''Now, it 
 rclll he obscn-cd, that all interest:^ ti^erc represented at. Harrisburg, except 
 the Abnlltinn interest, u-hich had not so for as 2vc /aioic, a single Represent- 
 ative." 
 
 You intimated also that Genert.! Harrison is supported by the Abolition 
 party generally, your desiirn being, doubtless, to create the impression that 
 as he IS supported by the abolitionists, he must necessarily be au abolitionist 
 himself or will be under abolition influence, if elecSed to the presidency. 
 Now let me suggest, that even if it were true that Gen. H. is supported by 
 tae -Abolition party, it by no means follows that he has any sympathies 
 with that party. For one, I heartily wish every abolitionist in the Union 
 would vote for him and thus swell to the utmost the popular vote in favour 
 of the man who, I trust, is destined to eflect the redemption of his counti v 
 from misrule and demoralization. But where are the proofs of your asser- 
 tion? There are none to be given. On the contrary, I charge you with 
 making a declaration which is condemned and falsified by facts of universal 
 notoriety. You ought to know, and doubtless do know, that of the numerous 
 abolition journals in the country (which must speak the sentiments of tlu; 
 abolition party) not a single one is devoted to the election of Harrison and 
 Tyler. And surely you cannot be ignorant of the fact, that in the Utica 
 Convention, in which the leading anti-slavery States were represented, 
 other candidates were nominated, viz; .Tas. G. Birney as the abolition cm- 
 didatc for the Presidency, and Thomas Earlo for the Vice Presidency of 
 
vhe U. S. Now, with these facts before you, I wish to know with what 
 propriety could you even breathe the intimation that Gen. Harrison is sup- 
 ported by the abolitionists? And in your effort to cast upon Gen. H. and 
 his supporters, the suspicion of abolitionism, was it consistent with justice 
 and candour to omit the material facts I have just noted? In the next 
 address you make to the people, you ought, in justice to your own character, 
 to supply the omission now complained of, and give the people both sides — 
 or in other words, give them the truth and the xchole truth. 
 
 Again : — In your zeal to fix upon the Whig party the stigma of abolition, 
 you instanced to the people of EJizabclh C'liy, as abolitionists, Messrs. 
 Clark, Saitonstall, aiid Smith, of the AVhig publishing committee. Now 
 whether these gentlemen be abolitionists or not, I do not pretend to knov/ — 
 but admitting them to be such, how did you deduce from that fact the strange 
 conclusion that either Gen. Harrison or the body of his supporters or any 
 considerable portion of them, are tinctured with the tendencies of aboi/ti ou- 
 ism? I should have supposed that you know too much of the rules oL 
 correct logic not to have discovered zn your conclusion a perfect non-sf quilur. 
 
 And while you were naming certain leading Whigs as abolitionists and 
 making the Whig party appear to your constituents a perfect Raw-hcad- 
 and bloody-bones — why did you not exhibit the other side of the picture and 
 recite the names of some of the leading members of your own parly who 
 are in the abolition interest? It did not suit your purpose; for that purpose 
 was, in relation to the Whig party — Spargere voces amhiguas''' — or lo use 
 a trite phrase, to "give th*? dog a bad name," so that all hands might be 
 raised to kill him. But as your memory is treacherous, I wil! venture to 
 supply the omission and offer some little proof that the poor Whigs have 
 not all the abolitionists in their ranks. 
 
 Who, then, is Marcus Morton, now Governor of Massachusetts? An 
 avowed abolitionist and a distinguished member of the administration party- 
 Who is Bcnj. Tappan, an administration Senator from Ohio? The indi- 
 vidual who said that "if a son of his had assisted the Whites in the South- 
 ampton insurrection he (Tappan) would have disinherited him." Who 
 is Dr. Duncan, the crack orator of the I^mocrat party in the H. of Rep- 
 resentatives? An abolitionist, who could not look at the soil of Virginia 
 without damning slavery at every look. Who was the late William Leg- 
 gett, who received from Mr. Van Buren the appointment to the Guatamala 
 mission? The man who said: ''I am an, abolitionist. I hale slavery in 
 all its form.'!, degrees and influences. Abolition is, in my sense a ncccssa ry 
 and a glorious fart of Democracy.^'' To these I add Gov. Porter of Pa., 
 Senator Morris of Ohio, Mr. Fletcher, M. C. from Vermont, Messrs. 
 Davec, Smith and Fairfield of Maine, Parmcnter and Henry Williams of 
 Massachusetts, and the Editor of the Evening Post, a leading administration 
 Journal in New York. Now these are all leading Democrats, and aboli- 
 tionists in the bargain. Yet Mr. Holleman would have the people believe 
 that the Whigs monopolise the fanatics of the nation. I much question, sir, 
 if you can match, from the whole Whig party of this country, the dozen 
 dc^mocratic abolitionists I have named. 
 
 Besides furnishing you these names for future illustration, excuse me for 
 refreshing your memory with a few other facts which go to shew, that while 
 your party are most vociferous in their professiorts of anti-abolitionism, their 
 acts do not correspond with their professions. At the last senatorial election 
 in N. York, every administration st^nator and delegate votc-d for GerrJtt 
 Smith, a wool dyed abolitionist, as Senator of the U. State?, while every 
 
8 
 
 Whi^ member of the Assembly voted for Mr. Talmadge ! ! ! Again, lu 
 I835*and'6 Mr. Weld, the famous lecturer on abolition, travellmg through 
 the n on-slav'e-holding States, openly electioneered for Mr. Van Buren. And 
 at the last Presidential election, the officers and pupils of the Oneida Insti- 
 tute an abolition association, voted for Mr. Van Buren. Now I pray you 
 to bear in mind these little forgotten scraps of your party history, and when 
 vou ao-ain appear before your constituents to calumniate the Whig party by 
 charo-?no- them with having in their ranks all the abolitionists of the land, 
 jU5t s'upply the omitted facts and let the people judge which party is the more 
 strono-ly inclined to the side of abolition. 
 
 You also charged Gen. H. with having been a member of an abolition 
 society in 1792. You forgot to explain to the people that at that time, there 
 were no abolitionists and no abolition societies, and that the society of which 
 Gen. H. was then a member was nothing more than a huviane association 
 whose object was to secure the rights of coloured persons by judicial inves- 
 tigation and decision. Being a lawyer and acquainted with the rules of 
 interpretation, you ought to have known ihdii words have different construc- 
 tions at different times, and are to be construed in the common acceptation at 
 the time they were uttered. If you wish authentic information on this sub- 
 ject, I refer you to any of the Whig editors who will furnish yon with the 
 letter of Tarlton Pleasants, Esq. of Goochland, who was a member of the 
 same society and who has furnished all the particulars to the public. 
 
 Upon what ground then do you charge us with being " driven by the 
 abolition party of the North into the suppoit orGen. Harrison"? Upon 
 none other than party effect — It is nothing more than the party slang of 
 the day to which I had hoped you were toO' proud and chivalrous to give 
 currency. 
 
 I make bold, then, to tell you, that you bare wilfully slandered, not only 
 the Whig party, in general, but more especially those distinguished patriots 
 and statesman that composed the Harrisburg Convention, the "latchet of 
 whose shoes" ordinary men are "not worthy to unloose." And as you 
 seem to be ignorant of the motive that actuated those choice spirits of our 
 country to make the nomination they did, I will endeavour to enlighten 
 you ori this point. Know then that they selected Gen. Harrison, because 
 he was an honest and good man, and the most available candidate to be had. 
 They knew that he stood the best chance of driving from power a part}' 
 who are rapidly transforming our representative republic into a practical 
 despotism, and as effectually poisoning the fountains of public virtue, and 
 sowing in our system the seeds of dissolution. Honest?/ and availabilitij 
 were the qualifications they required in a candidate who was to be the 
 instrument for dethroning a corrupt and usurping administration; and a few 
 short months will gloriously attest the wisdom of their choice. 
 
 They did not, asyoucharged the other day, pass over the "gallant Clay" 
 (as you most justly termed him) because, without selecting Harrison the 
 Whig party would lose the abolition influence. They pretermitted his 
 noble claims, because, great, good and chivalrous as he is, he is not suffi- 
 ciently appreciated by his countrymen to render him a safe candidate at 
 this awful juncture m our country's affairs. By the way, I was not a little 
 amused at the crocodile tears which you shed for the Whig neglect of the 
 "gallant Clay." I advise you to reserve your griefs for that (to your 
 party) ill-omened day, when the indignant voice of the American people 
 shall consign that party, with its chief, to a doom far worse than mere 
 neglect — to an irretrievable perdition. 
 
la my next, I shall notice your ungenerous and unmanly assault upon 
 the military fame of Gen. Harrison. And if when I shall have done with 
 you on this pomt, your conscience shall be at ease, then have I given you 
 credit for more sensibility than you really possess. 
 
 CAMILLUS. 
 
 General Harrison's Military Cajmcitij. 
 
 TO THE HON. JOEL HOLLEMAN. 
 
 Before proceeding to the main topic of this No., permit me to add one 
 suggestion more on the subject of Abolition. It is this — that on the sub- 
 ject of slavery, there is iw/ one j^rac/icaZ (/wt'i/ioM that can come up in the 
 next four years, to wit: the admission of Florida as a State of the Union. 
 With her application to be admitted may arise and most probably will a- 
 rise, a new Missouri question to disturb the tranquility of the country and 
 threaten the Union itself Excuse me for asking you the question, Avho is 
 more likely to be orthodox on this question so vitally interesting to the 
 South: Mr. Van Buren who voted to exclude slaves from Missouri, Arkan- 
 sas, and Florida too, or Gen. Harrison who voted against the Missouri 
 restriction and gave a similar vote in relation to the Territory of Arkansas'^ 
 If the past opinions and conduct of men furnish any guide to their future 
 actions, you must concede, if you are a candid man, thit on the subject of 
 abolition, the Whig candidate for the Presidency is far less objectionable 
 than Mr. Van Buren. When you undertake to enlighten the people again 
 have the candour to present this little point to their consideration. 
 
 I proceed now to notice your attack upon the mUitary character of Grn. 
 Harrison. By the bye, I do not understand the course of your party on 
 this point. At one moment you upbraid us with supporting a military 
 chieftain — a thing about which God knows original Jackson men ought to 
 be as silent as the grave — and in the next breath, you deny our candidate all 
 military merit, and pronounce him not only no hero, but a coward. 
 
 But to the subject. In your address in Elizabeth City, you said that "if 
 Gen Harrison's friends would have him considered a great hero, he must 
 stand the ordeal." And then with almost demoniac fury, you commenced 
 tearing from his brow the laurelled wreath that victory and valour had 
 placed upon it. The indignant tone and fiery manner you employed, it was 
 manifest to all who observed, made a deep impression on the feelings of 
 those who heard you. Some of the Whigs, I believe, for a while doubted 
 the heroism of the old General ; and I do know that some of your own 
 party left the Court House with the deepest impression that he was not only 
 a mock hero, but an ungrateful, ungerous man ! I will tell you frankly 
 what my own feelings were, when I heard you distorting facts and gar- 
 bling statements to defame, for party ends, the character of a General who, 
 as Col. Johnson said, "did more service and won more victories than any 
 commander in the last war," and who has adJed by his brilliant achieve- 
 ments, to the volume of American History many of its brightest pages. 
 They were those of unmingled indignation which I had hoped to express 
 at the conclusion of your speech, and in expressing them, to expose the 
 rank injustice you had perpetrated. 
 
10 
 
 What was the basis of your denunciation of Gen. Harrison? A few 
 sentences from a letter of Col. Croghan, Avritten in 182.5, which, taken in 
 connexion with all the circumstances, in no way affect the military reputa- 
 tion of Gen. H. The only force they had was derived from the vehement 
 manner in which you read them to the people, and the fact, that the cor- 
 respondence from 7chich you read, having never seen the light until a few 
 days before, was neivs to the people you addressed, with perhaps a, single 
 exception. Why did you not read the whole correspondence or give ^n 
 explanation of it to your hearers ? Had you done that, the extracts you did 
 r(?ad would have fallen harmless to the ground. I will do what you omit- 
 ted. _ It seems that Col. Croghan, the hero of Lower Sanduskj^ had been 
 i.iformed by rumor and otherwise, that Gen Harrison had knowingly per- 
 mitted the inibJication of iMcAffee's History of the late Avar in which was 
 contained a version of the affair at Lower Sandusky which Col. C. thought 
 (lid him and his comrades injustice. Gen. Harrison denied the charges 
 made by Col. C; and thus ended the first correspondence which was be- 
 gun July 1st, 1818, and closed August I3th, 1818, Avith a letter from Col. 
 C. expressing satisfaction and regretting his unguarded warmth towards 
 Gen. H. For some reason or other which does not appear on the face of 
 the correspondence. Col. Croghan thought proper to renew the correspon- 
 dence in the year 1825, the result of which was a reference of the difference 
 between them to mutual friends. I'his is very briefly the whole substance 
 of the correspondence from which you so feelingly and indignantly read to 
 the people, and made the basis of your assault on Gen. H's fame. 
 
 Now I charge you with unfairness — not to use a harsher term — in 
 several respects. 
 
 1. You read from Col. Croghan's letter of May 24th, 182.5, and from- 
 fkat only, concealing important facts which appear on the face of this very 
 correspondence. 1'hose who heard you at the very top of the pathetic and 
 with almost furious elocution, calling on the people to execrate this shani 
 hero, Avill be astonished to learn, that in this very correspondence, Col. Cro- 
 ghan (your own witness) pays a high tribute to the military merit of Gen. 
 Harrison. Yet such is the fact, as the following extracts will exhibit. In 
 Col. Croghan's letter of August 18th, 1818, is the following sentence : " I 
 may offer these particulars in excuse for the tone and language of my let- 
 ter, (the letter of 1st July, 1818, commencing the correspondence with Gen. 
 H.): but they do not cause me the less to regret having betrayed such 
 warmth. Yo;i had a rii-ht to expect other treatment,; and I do not hesi- 
 tate to say thai I have wronged your friendship." And again in the same 
 letter ; " I harbour not against you the most remote resentment. 1 am as 
 willing now as I have ever been to speak in your favor; nor will I ever 
 neglect an opportunity of doing justice to your military icorlh and servi- 
 ccsJ' Now had you favoured the people with these extracts, they would 
 have invalidated entirely those which you so pompously paraded from the 
 letter of May 24th, 1825. 
 
 2. You read not aline from Gen. Harrison's replies to Col. Croghan. 
 Should you say that these have not been published, I have upon your own 
 cotifession, to convict you of injustice in giving only one side of the ques- 
 tion and taking what suited your purpose, excluding what did not. Perhaps 
 the replies of Gen. H. may put the controversy in an entirely different 
 light, and doubtless will ; for we gather from the second letter of Col. C. 
 that Gen. H. denied promptly the charges preferred by the former. 
 
li 
 
 S. You did not state, (thoujrh it appears in this same correspondence) 
 that the controversy between Col. C. and Gen. H. w; s referred to mutual 
 friends for adjustment. I presume you are aware that the second difficuhy 
 was settled to the mutual satisfaction of the parties. If you knew this, you 
 ou^ht not to have withheld it from the people. 
 
 4. In your zeal to rob Gen. Harrison of his laurels, you forgat a most 
 material scrap of testimony which is to be found in every history of the 
 late War and which has been publi.shed a thousand times witiiia tlie last 
 ten months. I refer to the testimony of the very witness you put upon the 
 stand in Elizabeth City — viz: Ool. George Crotiihan, himself. In his let- 
 ter written from Lower Sandusky, Aug. 27th, 1813, (immediately after the 
 aftair at Foit Sandusky) Col. Croghan bears unqualified testimony to the 
 correct military conduct of Gtr.. H. in relation to that afiair in the follow- 
 ing terms : 
 
 " I have, with mnch regret, seen in some of the public prints, such mis- 
 ' representations respecting my refusal to evacuate this post, as are calculated 
 'not only to injure me in the estimation of military men, but also to excite 
 ' unflivorable impressions as to the propriety of Gen. Harrison's conduct re- 
 'lative to this affair. 
 
 " His characler as a viilitary man is too well eslahlishcd to need my 
 ' approbation or supjiort. But his public services entitle him at least to 
 'conmion justice — this affair does not furnish cause of reproach. If public 
 'opinion has been hastily misled respecting his conduct, it will require but 
 'a moment's cool, dispassionate reflection to convince them of its propriety, 
 ' The measures recently adopted by him, so fir from deserving censure, 
 ' are the clearest proofs of his keen penetration and able generalship.'''' 
 
 In this letter Col. C. goes on circumstantially to vindicate Gen. H. 
 and concludes as follows: 
 
 "It would be insintere to say that I am not fltttered by the many 
 handsome things which have been said about the defence which was made 
 by the troops under m.y command ; but I d.'sire no plaudits which are be- 
 stowed upon me at the expense of Gen. Harrison. 
 
 " I have at all times enjoyed his confidence as far as my rank in the 
 army entitled me to it : and on proper occasions received his marked at- 
 tention. I .have f.'lt the warmest attachment for him as a man, and nuj con- 
 fidence in hitiL as an ahlc commander remains I'jishakcn.'^ 
 
 Here, sir, is the disinterested evidence of your own witness given at a 
 time when he must have known all the circumstances connected with the 
 defence of Fort Sandusky, and what makes it the more valuable, is, that it 
 is re-endorsed in Col. C's letter of July 1st, 1818, already quoted. 
 
 Why did you keep this material testimony from the people ? 
 
 5. How came you to forget another portion of your country's history 
 which puts the conduct of Gen. H. at Lower Sandusky beyond question? 
 The general field and staffofficers, attached to Gen. Harrison's command, 
 in their letter of August 26th, 1813, use this conclusive language : " On a 
 review of the course then adopted ; (referring to the defence of Lower San- 
 dusky) we are decidedly of opinion that it Avas such as was dictated by mil- 
 itary wisdom and by a due regard to our own circumstances and to the sit- 
 uation of the enemy." This letter was signed by fourteen general field 
 and staff officers, among them Col. Croghan himself, and Brig. Gen. Cass, 
 then ofthe U. S. Army, now minister to France. Why did you conceal 
 this testimony from your hearers ? 
 
12 
 
 Finally, while you were disparaging the military pretensions of Geri. 
 H., confining yourself to the affair of Lower Sandusky, how happened it 
 that you " remembered to forget" the other brilliant achievements in his 
 history, which fix forever his military fame ? Why did you not tell the 
 people that when but a boy he left the dear scenes of home to encounter the 
 ruthless savage of the N. Western frontier? Why did you not tell how 
 this stripling soldier received for his conduct at the battle of the Maumee the 
 warmest applause of old Anthony Wayne ? Why said you nothing a- 
 bout the glorious action at Tippecanoe ? Why kept you from the people's 
 view the brilliant sortie at Fort Meigs and the still more brilliant battle of 
 the Thames, which in the defeat of Proctor and Tecumseh, humbled 
 British and Indian power in the whole N. West ? Why did you not in- 
 form the people that he captured Maiden and re-took Detroit, thus wiping 
 off from the nation's escutcheon the stigma which the treachery and cow- 
 ardice of Hull had left upon it? Had you recited these glorious exploits 
 to your hearers, they would have laughed at your bombastic efforts to dark- 
 en the military fame of Gen. Harrison by quoting a few unmeaning inter- 
 rogatories from a private letter. And why, sir, while you were laying 
 hold with such remorseless avidity upon one little circumstance to create a 
 black spot in Gen. Harrison's military reputation did you not advert to the 
 opinions of distinguished men of the country who have borne even eulogis- 
 tic testimony in behalf of the hero of Tippecanoe, Fort Meigs and the 
 Thames, among them the venerable Shelby, Col. Johnson, Langdon 
 Cheeves, Com. Perry, and Thomas Ritchie ? Perhaps it did not suit the 
 party ends you wished to accomplish, however it might have answered 
 those of justice. 
 
 You laboured also to produce an impression against Gen. Harrison of 
 ingratitude and injustice to Col. Croghan The whole life of Gen. H., a- 
 bounding as it docs in acts of noble doing, forbid such a supposition. But 
 impartialHistory condemns it. In Gen. H's official account of the affair 
 at Lower Sandusky, dated Aug. 4th, 1813, and directed to the Secretary of 
 War, he bears this decisive testimony to Major Croghan's merits : 
 
 " I am sorry that I cannot transmit you Major Croghan's official re- 
 port. He was to have sent it to me this morning, but I have just heard that 
 he was so much exhausted by thirty-six hours of continued exertion as to 
 be unable to make it. It will not be amongst the least of general Proc- 
 tor's mortifications to find thathe has been baffled by a youth ^oho has just, 
 passed his tioc7ity first year. He is, hoivever, a hero tcorthy of his gallant 
 uncle, general George R. Clark^ 
 
 What higher tribute could he pay to the gallant hero of Fort Stephen- 
 son ? He recognizes him as the sole hero of that affair, and that is " glory 
 enough." 
 
 I have not done with you yet on this subject. More anon. For the 
 present, I leave you, Ithmk, ina dilemma, either horn of which you may 
 take. You must either plead ignorance, or hold yourself liable to the im- 
 putation ofdisingenuousness and injustice. 
 
 CAMILLU3. 
 
13 
 
 IVo. 3. 
 
 Subject Continued, 
 
 TO THE HON. JOEL HOLLEMAN. 
 
 To give cflect to your aspersion of Gen. Harrison as a military man 
 you told the people of Elizabeth City that he resigned his commission in 
 the army at a period of the war when his services were most required^ 
 and you left the impression to prevail, that the resignation was prompted 
 cither by a want of patriotism or want of confidence in himself as a com- 
 mander. 1 have to charge upon you the inexcusable injustice of withhold- 
 ing the circumstances which caused his resignation. Had you explained 
 those circumstances, there could have been but one opinion among your 
 hearers, and that would have been, that his honor as a military man required 
 him to give up his command in the army. Justice requires the omission 
 to be supplied. 
 
 It is well known to all who are conversant with the events of the late 
 war, that about the close of the year 1813, Gen. Armstrong, then Secretary 
 of War, had come to entertain towards Gen. Harrison unfriendly feelings 
 and opinions. Accordingly, in his plan of the campaign for the year 1814, 
 no command was assigned Gen. H. in its active operations. All the dispo- 
 sable force in the north-west was marked out for active service and Gen. 
 McArthur designated for the command, while Gen. Harrison was to le 
 left in charge of the 8th military district. This arrangement, too, was 
 made after an improper interference on the part of the Secretary of War, 
 in detaching Gen. Howard from Gen. Harrison's command. This inva- 
 sion of his rights was promptly but respectfully resented by Gen. H., as in 
 the following extract from his letter to the Secretary of War, dated Feb. 
 14th 1814: "Apart from the considerations of my auty to my country, I 
 have no inducement to remain in the army; and if the prerogatives of my 
 rank and station as the commander of a district be taken from me, being 
 fully convinced that I can render no important service, I should much rather 
 be permitted to retire to private life." 
 
 Here was a modest and respeatful notification to the Secretary of War, 
 that if the rank and military prerogatives of Gen. H. should be invaded 
 by the orders emanating from the War Department, he could not consist- 
 ently with his honor, hold on to his commission in the arm)'-, Yet imme- 
 diately after this mild remonstrance, Cen. Armstrong repeated the injury 
 by detailing Major Holmes, a subordinate officer at Detroit to take 200 
 men from that post and proceed with them on board of Sinclair's fleet to 
 Mackinaw. To show that this order was an infringement of military pro- 
 priety, let us refer to the sentiments of Col. Croghan on the occasion, who 
 was immediate commander of the post at Detroit and whose rank wa.^ 
 overlooked by the order to Major Holmes. In a letter to Gen. Harrison, 
 the Hero of Fort Stephenson, like a true soldier, jealous of his rank, writes 
 thus: "ftlaj. Holmes has been notified by the War Department that he i^ 
 chosen to command the land troops which are intended to co-operate with 
 the fleet against the enemy's force on the upper lakes. So soon as X may be 
 directed by you to order Major Holmes on that command, and to furnish 
 him with the necessary troops, I shall do so ; but not till then, shall he or 
 fintj other part of my force leave the sod." And again; "My ideas on the 
 
14 
 
 subject may not be correct; yet for the sake of principle, were I a general 
 commanding- a district, I would be very far from suffering the Secretary of 
 War or any other authority to interfere with my internal police," 
 
 New in ordinary cases, such a disrespect of military prerogative ami 
 rank would justify the flighted officer in resigning his commission. Rank 
 is the essence of the military profession — ^jealousy of it, the living spirit of 
 the army and navy. An officer of the army or navy who waives his rank 
 except to extraordinary merit in actual battle evinced, becomes the scorn of 
 his fellows, and is proscribed from association with them. And even in 
 the militia appointments of the country, it is deemed incumbent on a pre- 
 ternitted officer to resent the military afl'ront by resignation. But how 
 much stronger is the case of Gen. Harrison? Ho had conducted the only" 
 .successful campaign in the north-west. He had brought it, in the latter 
 part ol IS 13, not only to a successful but a glorious result. He had 
 recovered he territory surrendered by Hull: retrieved the injured honor 
 of his country, ant' by the decisive battle of the Thames levelled the British 
 and the Indians in the north-west. Ytt immediately upon the heels of 
 this glorious campiign — when Gen. Flarrison had furnished incontestible 
 evidence of his military skill — in a month or two, indeed, after the splendid 
 victory of the 'I'hames, — Gen H. is not only cut off' from all active com- 
 mand in the ensuing campaign, but is insulted by an indelicate and unmil- 
 itary interference of the Secretary of War, with his prerogatives as a com- 
 manding General. Had he continued in the army under these circumstances, 
 he woul.l indeed have dishonored his military name, and tarnished the 
 laurels which he had won at Maumee, Tippecanoe, Fort Meigs and h.e 
 Thames. "A proper regard for my own leelings and honor (said he in h s 
 letter to Mr. Madison,) demands my retiring from the army." 
 
 You might not only have laid these facts before the people, as in justice 
 you ought to have done; but you might have informed them also that the 
 generous Gov. Shelby, knowing Gen. Harrison's military worth by personal 
 knowledge and observation, wrote to President Madison, urging him not 
 to ucceptthe resignation of Gen. H., and that Mr. Madison warmly regretted 
 that his absence from the seat of Government prevented his receipt of Got. 
 Shelby's letter before the Secretary of \Var had taken the responsibility of 
 accepting the r( signation. These, however, I suppose, were some of those 
 "small matters" to which you frequently alluded as unworthy of your 
 notice. And now, sir, 1 have the right to ask you what apology have you 
 for speaking in a prejudicial way of Gen. Harrison's resignation without, 
 at the same time, narrating the justifying circumstnnces under which it 
 was tenelered? 1 fear you are in the same dilemma I left you in at the 
 conclusion of my last. If however, in the estimation of the candid and just, 
 you can e>tricate yourself from the difficulty that besets you, I shall be the 
 last to begrudge you the deliverance. 
 
 I sincerely wish 1 could stop here. But iu your zeal to blast Gen.. H.'s 
 political prospects by blackening his military fame, you ventured aiiiither 
 dark insinuation which it behooves me to notice. ' To give the greater 
 force to your previous attacks, you ad led — "that he squeezed out a vole of 
 thanks a'M.l a medar^ leaving the inference to be diawn, that his military 
 character was involved in so much mystery and doubt., that Congress widi 
 great reluctance accorded him a complunientary vote. Now, sir, allow me 
 ro say, that this decl-^ration of yours is not in the remotest degree justified 
 by the facts of the case ; and the making of it by you is an act of unpardon- 
 able injustice, because yeu were nearly niue months in Washingtoa nmL 
 
15 
 
 had all possible opportunity of learning from the journals of the Senate and 
 tho records of the War Department, the precise slate of the case. 
 
 Let facts decide the justice of my accusation. At the session of Conjure ?s 
 in 18 14, two contractors with the Commissary Department in the N. West, 
 exhibited some claim to Congress, and in defence of their claim before t;h<> 
 Congressional Committee, produced documents which reflected seriously 
 upon the integrity of Gen. Harrison. These documents turned out to bo 
 artful mutilations of Gen. H.'s letter to the contractors and the Secretary of 
 War, which being unexplained, produced in the minds of the Committee 
 imfarourable impressions in regard to (ien H. The latter, being apprised 
 of ihe facts, in a letter da'.ed Dec. 20th, 1815, addressed a memorial to Con- 
 gress soliciting an investigation, forwarding at the same time the original 
 letters, the garbling of which had excited a suspicion against his honour. 
 The memorial with the accompanying documents waa referred to the Sec- 
 retary of War, with directions to report thereon at the next session of 
 Corhgress. The Secretary accordingly reported at the next s< ssion; his 
 report was referred to a Committee of the House of Representatives of 
 which Col. R. M. Johnson was the head: and this Connnittee, after a 
 searching investigation, not only acquitted Gen. H. of all impropriety what- 
 ever in hi.s connexion with the Commissary Department, but declared that 
 in his zeal for the public service, his private interests had severely sufler(d. 
 Tlie following is their Report, made Jan'y 22d, 1817: 
 
 "The s lect committee of the house of representatives, to whom was 
 referred the letter and documents from the acting SecreSary of War, on the 
 subject of gen'eral Harrison's letter, ask leave to Report — That they hare 
 investigated the facts involved in this inquiry, by the examination of docu- 
 ments, and a great number of most respectable witnesses, personally ac- 
 • juainted with the transactions from which the inquiry originated. And 
 the committee are- unanimously o-f opinion, that General Harrison stands 
 above suspicion, as to his having any pecuniary or improper connexion with 
 the officers of the commissariat for the supply of the army; that he did not 
 wantonly or improperly interfere with the rights of the contractors, and 
 that he was, in his measures, governed by a proper zeal and devotion to the 
 public interest.' 
 
 And Hr. Huibevt, a member of the Committee, entering more f"iilly upon 
 the vindication of Gen. Harrison, use. I the following emphatic language: 
 "The most serious accusation against the General was, that, while he 
 was commander-in-chief in the VWst, regardless of his country's good, he 
 was in the habit of managing ihe public conceras with a view to hi's ouii 
 private interest and emolument. — Mr. Hulbcrt said he could not refrain from 
 pronouncing this a false and ciucl accusation. He was confident that 
 directly the reverse was true. There tens the most satisfactory evidence, 
 thai the General^ in the exercise of his ojfcial duties, in his devotion to the 
 J) 'J Uicin teresl^ had iicghcled his private concerns, to his matcrinl detriment 
 aiul injury. In a word, said Mr. Hufbert, I feel myself authorized to say, 
 that every member of the connnittee is fully satisfied, that the conduct of 
 general Harrison, in relation to the subject matter of this inq^uiry, has been 
 that of a brave, honest, and honorable man: that, instead' of deserving cen- 
 sure, he merits the thanks and applause of his country." 
 
 Now it was during the pendmcy of this investigation, that the joint 
 resolution came up in the Senate "directing a medal to Be struck and to be 
 pr( s€nted, with the thanlcs of Congress, to Major Gem ral Harrison and 
 Gov. Shelby." This resolution, let it be noted, came up on the loth of 
 
16 
 
 April, 1816; whereas the report of the committee that investigated the 
 charges against Gen. H. was not made until the 22d of Jan'y, 1817. 
 
 When the resolution came up for discussion, the Senate was in committee 
 of the whole; and a proposition to strike out the name of General Harrison 
 was carried by a vote of 13 to 11. But when the resolution again came 
 up on the 20th of April following, and the Senate was brought to vote 
 upon the question, whether or not it would concur in the decision of the 
 committee of the whole it refused to concur, by a vote of 14 to 13, which 
 was equivalent to a repudiation of the censure implied in the vote of the 
 committee of the whole to strike out the name of Harrison. The subject 
 was then referred to the committee on military affairs, which did not report 
 that session, in consequence of the undetermined investigation before alluded 
 to. And for the same reason was the proposition made in committee of the 
 whole, to strike out the name of Harrison, as we are assured by Mr. Dick- 
 erson, who subsequently renewed the proposition for a medal and vote of 
 thanks. — On the 24th of March, 1818, the resolution of Mr. Dickcrson was 
 passed bi/ a unanimous vote of the Senate; on the 30th of March it passed 
 the House of Representatives with but one dissenting voice; and on the 
 4th of April, it received the signature of the President. 
 
 Thus it appears from the history of this transaction. 1st, that neither 
 branch of Congress ever refused Gen. Harrison a medal and vote of thanks; 
 2d, that the delay in voting the medal and thanks was produced by adequate 
 causes, that did not in the least affect Gen. Harrison's moral or military 
 character; and lastly, that Congress did, by a vote next to unanimous, decree 
 him a medal and a vote of thanks. These are the facts of this case, and I 
 dare you to deny one jot or tittle of what I here assert. 
 
 And now, sir, what becomes of your assertion that Gen. H. but "squeezed 
 otit a vote of thanks?" Why did you keep out of view the circumstances 
 that delayed the action of Congress in the first instance? Why did you not 
 tell the people that, after the vile slanders which then (as is the case now) 
 assailed the good name of Gen. Harrison, had been refuted. Congress by a 
 vote almost unanimous, did the injured General all the justice it could by 
 decreeing him the medal and thanks? And let me propound you another 
 interrogatory of graver import: — How do you, having the credit in the 
 community for great intelligence, and occupying the responsible station 
 of representative of the people — bound of course to give them the whole 
 truth upon all public matters — how do you, under these circumstances, expect 
 to defend yourself before the people you have attempted to delude, from the 
 grave charge of having wronged — and deeply wronged — a man who is 
 the benefector of your country, whose valorous deeds and bright achieve- 
 ments, next to those of George Washington, hare illustrated the military 
 history of America, and whose military fame — the common property of all 
 the citizens of the Union — you ought to be emulous to cherish unspotted? 
 Forgive me for saying that there is but one course for you to pursue to 
 reinstate yourself in the estimation of the good and just — atone for the 
 wrong by repairing ihe injury. Do this, ere comes that dread day of 
 retributive justice, when p^-tyrancor no longer beclouding the moral vision 
 of men, the conduct of all shall be judged by the standard of a pure morality; 
 and when it will be too late for those who have inflicted wilful wrong to 
 make atonements and receive forgiveness. — Recollect, too, that you will 
 be judged with more severity than the common men of your party. Allow- 
 ance may well be made for the latter when you will be entitled to none : 
 and for this most obvious reason — that you have had better opportunities 
 
17 
 
 of learning the truth, and the plea that you knew no better cannot avail 
 yoa. 
 
 A few words more, which I do not design to apply particularly to you, 
 but to all of your political "kith and kin" — from the ^^rcfl^ (?) Andrew 
 Jackson down to the lowest " Butt-cnder " of your party — not only io your 
 party, bat to all of whatever party, to whom they apply. Why these 
 assaults upon the military fame of Gen. Harrison ? Is not that fame \\\v 
 property of our conmion country, and a property too, beyond all priced 
 Surcl}', surely, it is — and he who becomes so "lost to manly thought" as 
 to filch this, a portion of the nation's dearest treasure, deserves the nam^- 
 of traitor. It is an execrable spirit that would rob the History of the Union 
 of the bright pages which the valor of Harrison has written there. It is a 
 spirit — possess it who will — that would invade the sanctity of the gravt- 
 itself and deny the sleeping dead their repose — a spirit that would riot on 
 the very vitals of virtue, however exalted, and innocence, however hwlplcss. 
 The creature Avho owns it — belong to what parly he may — would rake up 
 the ashes of George Washington himself, and play Benedict Arnold thn 
 first chance that offered. 
 
 And ah ! how futile arc the efforts of j'our party to puil down the proud 
 structure of Harrison's military renown ! Witii no immodest complacency 
 he can take to himself the sentiment of the Roman Poet, '■'Excgi monuvioi- 
 tiim are perennius;" and pointing to Tippecanoe, Fort Meigs, Maiden and 
 the Thames, he can laugh to scorn the puny eiTorts of mercenary politicians 
 Jo wither the laurels he has won. 
 
 There is not a word of truth — I take it upon me to say — in any of the 
 numerous charges against the reputation of this Ciacinnatus of America. 
 
 " No : lis slaiideri 
 Wlioes edge is sliiirper tlinii the sworJ, whose tongue 
 Oiit-veiioiiis all the worms of Nile; u hose breaih 
 Hides on the posliiig winds and tJoili helie 
 All cornets of the \%-()rld, Kings, Queens and States, 
 llaids, Matrons; nay the very secrets of the grave." 
 
 €AMILLUS. 
 
 Ko. 4, 
 
 Gen. Harrison^s 3Iental and Physical Pollers, 
 
 TO THE HON. JOEL HOLLEMAN. 
 
 Hiving finished 3-our unmanly assault upon the niilitary reputation of 
 Gen. Hairison, you inadc short work of his qualifications for the presiden- 
 cv, by pronouncing him to be ''i« his dotage.''^ This charge is about as 
 well founded as your imputations upon his military lame 5 and in pronounc- 
 ing him "in his dotage," I must say you resist evidence to the contrarv. 
 most abundant and conclusive. With respect to the physical vigor of Gt n, 
 Harrison, many and most respectable witnesses have testified in his behalf 
 and I doubt not that while in Wasliington you heard many a Buckeye de- 
 clare from personal knowledge, that he yet retains great physical activity 
 and energy. On this point, 1 respectfully refer you to a gentleman v.-ho I 
 believe, is at this time in your own count)^ MERRIT TODD, Esq., on 
 whose statements as well as his judgment, you know you can place the 
 most implicit reliance. He will inform you, that this old dotarj of yours 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 has strength enough left at least, to clean out the Awgean stable at Wash- 
 ington, lierculeanas the task may be. But there is one fact you niH«t 
 know about Gen. Harrison, which I think you ought not to have kept Irom 
 the people— viz ; that he lias l(!d a life of regular e.xcrcise and uniform tem- 
 perance. Now, when you again appear before the people, if you will only 
 let out this littlo fact, you will furnish them rather better data than yonr 
 naked assertions, by which they may judge of Gen. Harri.son's dotige. 
 Give the facts, and let the people judge for themselves. 
 
 With regard to his intelleciual fitness to discharge tho duties of chif'f 
 magistrale, let me suppose you a case. Suppose you were to hear of an in- 
 dividual delivering oil-hand public addresses that would do honor to oia- 
 tor3 of established fame — and suppose, further, that when that individual 
 takes up his pen, he sends forth his productioins beautiful and faullkss 
 iit style, rich in thought and abounding in useful information — what judg- 
 mmt would you pronounce upon his mtellectual character? Would yova 
 call liim a dotard ? I presume not. 'I'henifnot, you must acknowleilge 
 yourself in error in saying that Gen. Harrison is "in his dotage," For I 
 Jo hold that his speeches at Fort Meigs and Fort Greenville, and at Car- 
 thago would do honor to public speakers in the meridian of their fame; not 
 only for beauty of illustration, but for the manly sentiments with which they 
 aboun-.l, and the strong views and nervous thought that mark their every 
 .'♦entnncuand linr>. What can be more beautiful than his letter in reply to 
 tho Committee that in.vitcd him to the dinner given by the ritizensof Cin- 
 cinnati to Gen. Solomon Van Rensellacr ? For beauty of diction, senti- 
 ment, and classic elegance, itisequalto his Eulogy on Kosciusko, or to the 
 finest No. of tiie "Spectator." Indeed, all the papers which have emaaa- 
 pd from him, even within the Ijst few months, denote a freshness and vigor 
 that can only proceed from an intellect whose rniergies remain unimpaired 
 bvage. And rely upon it, sir, that when yow shaH come to be the equal 
 Oi" Gen. Harrison as he is nnir, either as an orator, a writer, or a statesman, 
 you will occupy no unenviable rank among tlie orators, writers and states- 
 men of your country. I shall then envy you much. 
 
 Were I to refer to particular cns'^s, I might shew you that it is no 
 uncommon thing for men to possess high intcllectuil and mental vigor et a 
 much more advance! age than Gen. Harrison's. Lord Mansfield adorned 
 !he English Bench longafter hisGT'th year. Chief Justice Marshall, when 
 nearly an Octogenarian, could not only endure much physical fatigue, but 
 d.-cide with readint ss and unsurpassed ability, the deepest points of civil and 
 international juri<pvuden>:i\ Jti Ige Penlleton continued the ornament and 
 i>r! le of our own court of appeal.'^, long after he w;is G7. AnJ Judge Brooke, 
 nowofthesime court, who cannot be fir from his 80th year, has, to my 
 o vn knowledge, and to yours too, Mr. Hollcinan, the ela.stie. step of gr»cu 
 youth, and a mind whose lu.ninous energies have defied the iVo.sts of almost 
 eighty winters. And to give you a case, to which Gen. Harrison's is deg- 
 t'ledtobear a strong analogy, Cincinnatus, the old J^oman farnier, wag 
 eighty years od when a third time he was called from his plough to .■savo 
 Kome. And so, I doubt not when the voice of tho American people shall 
 .summon the ol I fanner of North B-nd fronr his plou/h to the rescue of hi.s 
 country, he ^vill be found to pos.sess all the bodily an I mental capacity — 
 tiie '•'■ sana mens 'ni'iana corpora!'— w\\\c\\ s\\\\\\ be necessary, not only to 
 (ILscharge the duties of the high st uiou with advantage to his country, but 
 to add another aula brighter wreath to that which already encircles his 
 brow. He possrs^e? that rare gift to mortals, true Wisdo.n— Wisdom en- 
 
19 
 
 Tooliledby rirtnc, llial fortlie practical affairs of life, outweighs the brightest 
 ^•enius. 
 
 licallv, sir, I feel almost ashamed at having argfiied the points I have 
 just U'ft- so little fotiptlatioii must th^rebc with srnsible mm, for the idea 
 ihai Gen, Harrisoii is thesupcrnnimated being you would have him to be. 
 JJiJt my apoJogy must be that it is one of the favourite ad captandum argu- 
 iurnts of your party, and oue that has perhaps done the whig cause as much 
 injury as'auy of the slang to which they have resorted. So hoping the 
 next time you make the charge 'oi "dotage" against the old General, you 
 ■.vill mention the few facts at which I have hastily glanced, I take leave of 
 Jhis sJibject, leaving it to the grut'ie reader to determine whether the charge 
 ol'djDtage or .^ometlfmg worse may not somelimes be properly applied to 
 much vouuger wjr« ihau Gen. Harrison, 
 
 Hy «he way, did il oever occur to you, that if Gcu. Harrison is the su- 
 peramiuated creatPirc yoiJ assert iiim to be, and ho sliould happen to " slip 
 his wind" before the expiration <?f his four years, the goveriam<.'nt would de- 
 vol re upon John Tyler, a man wiio hasbeeji a S'tatc Rights Republican 
 from his boyhood up, and who would, of co7/rst'. suit you and your party 
 fo a fraction, if you are the State Rights mcii yoii pretend to be? "Only 
 thinli ofthat Master Brooke." 
 
 I sha'll now notice another very strange assertion of youns— -a oreat 
 slip It was— cue which assuro-s methat the 'cutest tactician may sometiau s 
 over rea-ch him.se-!f, a«d get caught in the very nets which he spreads for 
 others. You hud t!ie imprudeiice to charge Gen. Harrison v.i.h shuffling!!! 
 Theee were yoitr identical v^-ords : He has all sorts of opinion!^ for all sorts 
 ofif^n.'" I-could not fer the life of irc restrain my risibles when this sentence 
 icll from your lips, and I thought to myself that had Mr. Van Buren been 
 jjreaent he \\o\x\ 1 have reddened np to the temples, and not ihankid you for 
 •^rei.ark which was calculated to' call up no very pleasant reminiscences 
 ofhisow« political course. Excuse me for advising you for the future to 
 bear in mijid thattrJte inaxjm— -that " those who live in glass hotises ought 
 ''>miad \i3\v they throw stones." 
 
 In the fir^t place, I deny the charge as to Gen. Harrison, and deny it 
 :5atiy. There is no public man in America whose opinions upon all pub- 
 lic questions ha v»? been more consistent, and, of course, less influenced by 
 s dfish considerations. 'J'here is, indeed, a calm, smooth, unbroken consis- 
 tency shining through all his acts and professions, which is a cutting re- 
 pro;ich tothe selfis'.i politicians who trim their opinions to their intere.sl, and 
 t) the honor of which few public m -n can rightfully aspire. In this resp-ct 
 ' leu. Harrison resembles more closely perhaps than any one else, that gifted, 
 high-souled Virginian— -the Fabricius of the Old Dominion, whom a dis- 
 tinguished democrat usedto call the "master spirit of the age"— -1 mean 
 1 kdjamin Watkins Leigh, who never changed a political principle, and 
 who would surrender his very life sooner th:-,n modify an opinion by any 
 other than the standard of eternal truth, (-ren. Harrison, like him, reseni- 
 !)les — not the sien ler reed that ben Is to every breath of th^; zephyr- - but the 
 noble Oak whose manly trunk writhes not und;-'r the worst bla.st ol the 
 storm. 
 
 Til" oiilv «p: cifi -iUion you vpnlined in tbi-< new liiil ol iiidictmenf, rtliled 
 111 (rciuTJil Ibtriisoti's coiir.se f»ii (lie snt)je(t of itI)oruion. You said lie li'i'l 
 o|jinittii.s for ih.-. Somiierii slaveliolleis, aod opiiiiot:s for the Noriliern 'iljoii- 
 iiorii-tfi. N.;w, sir, allow itie lotell jou lh;it you ii^ve uiifoilunately selected 
 liie most ii;vnliicrible p'irtioii ol' (Jen. H.irrison's pnlilic liistMry to illusirMe 
 your po.'iitioii. Illhcre is any opinion of ids which has beeu ftMrlesslv ■mv\ uii- 
 
20 
 
 resetvedly ami ropeatei^ly expressed, it is that in which he denounces the fa- 
 natics of the Nortli. The terms of his denunciation are so unequivocal and 
 ])lain tliat aschoolboy cannot misapprehend them. And his acts furnisli liie 
 best commen:ary upon his words. Did he not sacrifice himself for Southern 
 rii;h;s on the i^lissouri question ? Was he not one ol the tliree representM- 
 lives from the anti-slave States, who at thai dark Iionr of trial to the South, 
 planted himself on her constitutional rights and stood by her to the last ? For 
 this heroic devotion to tlie cause of the South, was he not made the victim of 
 j)opular vengeance at home ? Was he notdiivcn from Congress for his vote on 
 the Missouri question ? And have you, sir, the haidihood and ingratitude 
 now to charge with tampering with the abolitionists the man who in tie woisi 
 of times s!ood shoulder to sl.oukler with the brave defendnrs of Southern 
 rights? lias he not time after 'ime reiterated his original opinions in relation 
 to the Missouri question, assuring us ou the one hand that we have nothing to 
 fear, and warning the abolitionists on the other, that they have nothing to hope 
 from him in the event of his elevation to the Presidency? Has he not d*;- 
 clared to the abolitionists in their very face that their elfotts wherever made, 
 whether in the Territories or the States, are weak, presumptuous and uncon- 
 stitutional ? lias he not said that if "there is any principle of the Ccnstitu- 
 tioi> of the United States less disputable ihan any other, it is, that the slave 
 population is under the exclusive control of the Slates which possess ihon,'' and 
 that " neither the Government of the United States nor those of the non- 
 slaveholding States, can interfere, hi any way icith tlie right of properly in the 
 slaves?'^ Andhas not his undisguised denunciation of tiie abohiionists called 
 down upon his head the villifying reproaches of the whole aboliiion paity ? 
 And with these facts before yuu, will you dare repeat the calumny that Gen. H, 
 is tampering with the abolitionists (f the North ? If you do, you deserve to 
 be held up to public indignation as an unscrupulous calumniator of unotieud- 
 ing innocence. 
 
 By the bye, in your liaste to inake charges against Gen. Harrison, you 
 did not recollect thatyou were treading on delicate ground. Mr. Vauderiiooi 
 or Dr. Petrikin, or even " previous question Cushman,'' would have read yoi 
 a lecture lor this paity slip. They and all practised tacticians would have had 
 more of the " fox and weai^le"' about them than to have said one word about 
 tampering with abolitiosiists. They wotild have "lain low and kept dark," re- 
 collecting that Mr. V^an Buren voted against the South on the Missouriand 
 two other similar questions — that he voted to give free negroes the right of 
 suffrage — and having bamboozled the South with the tickling notion of being 
 a " Northern man with Southern principles" — has propitiated the abolitionists 
 by the counteracting procce<iiiigs in the Hooe case. I wonder you did nor 
 see these things and avoid the rejuiiuler which is fual to the pretensions of 
 your candidate. 
 
 But inostwoful is your error in making against Gen. H. the genera! 
 charge of having " all sorts of oj-.inions for all sorts of men." Yon irrisisiibly 
 bring up to memory's view the shufiiing, changelul public career ol Mr. Vifn 
 Buren. So if in throwing a few stones at the glass house in which you have 
 ))Ut your candidate, 1 should com. nit a little havoc, your friend must find shel- 
 ter in that old proverb which I (|uoted in my first No. " Save me Irom my 
 friends." 
 
 What then has been ihe political course of your Cjmdidate for the Presi- 
 dency ? Assinuous as the seipeiit's coil — as meandering as the crookede-jt 
 river that winds its tortuous course to the ocean outlet. He was for and a- 
 gainst the war — against it when in the commencement it was unpopular ; for i", 
 when Indian and British outrage Had roused the whole country to a sense of 
 l)atriotic resentment. He was against Mr. Madison when the war was unpop- 
 ular, and for him when it had become jiopular. He was for and against D< - 
 Witt Clinton, according as liis fortunes waned or prospered ; and such was his 
 treacherous treatment of this distinguished man, that the latter characterised 
 hiin "a political grimalkiii— purring over petty schemes — mousing oversjnis' 
 
21 
 
 ter strafacems, williout elevation of mind or dignity of diameter." He was 
 even for and against the Internal Improvement system ofliis own State. He 
 lias been for and against a National Bank; for and against Internal Improve- 
 ments by the Federal Government ; lor and against toll gates on the Cumber- 
 land road; for and against n federal bankrupt law ; for and against the banks 
 and the credit system ; for and against the Sub-Treasury — here to-day, there 
 to-morrow — this side this week ; on tliat the next ; as inierest or some other 
 variable standard might dictate — rivalling the changing hues of the Chameleon 
 and the transforming [lOwers of Proteus himself. 
 
 And allow me in conclusion to say, that it has ever been, with me at least, 
 an invincible objection to IMr. Van IJurcn, that his principles have never been 
 fixed or deiertnmate. When so often changed, they can scarcely be the re- 
 sult of honest conviction. Interest, not the love of country or of truth must 
 govern them. There has been too much shulilling ; too much twisting and 
 turning; or to use your own expressive language, too much aft'edalion of "all 
 sorts ofo])inions for all sorls of men." And I should be unwilling to confide 
 in him upon the same i!rinci|)le that a man who olten violates his pledges is not 
 to be trusted, and that an open enemy is to be preferred to a disguised or uu- 
 ccilain friend. 
 
 The JNew Jersey and the Ilooc cases in my next. Till then adieu. 
 
 CAMILLUS. 
 
 71ie New Jersey Case. 
 
 TO THE HON. JOEL HOLLEMAN. 
 
 I come now to the New Jersey case. Here, too, vou exliibited but one side 
 of the question, carefully concealing or wilfully omitting important facts, which 
 I beg leave to add. But I cannot forbear doing justice to your ingenuity, if I 
 can say nothing for your candour. You so mudded the siieam that com- 
 mon eyes could not see to the bottom. You did, in fine, what those of your 
 calling often do before the jury — yuu mysiified the subject so as (o conceal its 
 i€al merits ; and knowing that you had a bad cause, or as the lawyers say. a 
 hard case, you artfully made false issues to the peo|)le in oider to divert their 
 attention from the only true one involved in the case. I shall attempt to dis- 
 pel the smoke in which you enveloped the New .Jersey qjueslion, and which be- 
 dimmed the vision of the unsuspecting yeomanry who were exjecting from 
 you '• the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." 
 
 I do net scruple to express the opinion, that during the whole progress of 
 the French Revolution, there never was started more dangerous and disorgan- 
 izing and dangerous doctrine than that which received the sanction of the Ad- 
 niinistrMticn party in this New Jersey case. It was not only a during outrage 
 upon the constitutional rights of a sov,ereign Slate of the Union, but a fearful 
 invasion of those fundamental principles of social order that lie at the bottom 
 of all government, and give to society its basis and existence. And what i-^ 
 the excuse you tendered for this outrageous, revolutionary and unconstitu- 
 tional proceeding (in which you were a co-actor with your party)? You re- 
 sorted to the miserable subrerfuge of telling the people (hat great fraud and in- 
 justice had been perpetrated by the constituted authorities of New Jersey, 
 into which fraud and irijnsiice it was proper to enquire previous to the organi- 
 zation of the House. I contend that you had no right to enter into any cob- 
 siderations of fraud or other impropriety until the House w.is organised; or 
 in other wordiJ, that tlie individuals returned accoralng to the laws of New 
 Jersey, were entitled to their seats, not only until the House was duly organ- 
 
22 
 
 ized, but until iJ should appear from exuminauoii lind after ihc organization, 
 that the returned meinbers were not entitled to tlicirseats. 
 
 The nrpurrjent is easy and obvious. Every delib^rittive body, hut more 
 fiarticularly the i-egisiatite, must be orpnuized without intetryi)tioii or disorder, 
 and with as little delay as possible. This is a truth approved by cotr^moB 
 sense and resulting necessarily iVom the nature of things. Of course, sucW de* 
 liberative assembly must, in its organization, be composed of those who Jire 
 priina facie entitled to sit as membeis. If the latter proposition bo not tru» — 
 if other persons than those who are j)rima facie entitled, be peiiniued to raise 
 questions of title heforc tlie protess of organization is completed, then not on- 
 ly may the organizaiioo of a deliberative body become a matter of irregularity, 
 disoiilt r and violence, but it may be postponed toa | eiiod incompatible with th« 
 jniblie interests, or even frustrated altogether. Take an illusiraiion. Suppose 
 the L.egi»lature of Virginia about to sit. While the process of organization 
 i." going on, A. rises in the hall antl declares that B,who has the Sheriff's certi- 
 ficate, is improperly retnirned, arid thai he. A., is the person truly elected, — 
 When the matter is settled, C. gets up and complains that D. is p>o£ entitled 
 to his seat, and so on until months or even a year might pass in the discussion 
 of preliminary questions. Now according to the doctnuf^ settled in the 
 New Jersey tase, ercry blackguard in the Commonwealth would have it in 
 Ills power to arrest the speedy and orderly organization ot the LegisUlure^ 
 and that Legislatuie would be without liie power to prevent the intuision. 
 Or to take the case which actually occuired at tlic last session of Congress: — 
 One individual, the clerk of the [I. of llepresentaiives, in pursuance of party 
 orders, started the diff.culty and defeated the organization of the House for 24 
 days. Now, if it was defeated for "24 days, might it not, on the same i)rinci- 
 ple, have been deferred 12 months ? The rule then, which 1 have laid down, 
 viz : that every deliberative body must, in its incipient stage, be com|)osed of 
 the members who are prima facie entitled, is ibe correct one, because it i? 
 lounded in the fitness of things, and because the converse of the pro[Josiiion in- 
 volves a pal|)al)le absurdity. 
 
 'JMic question then tomes trp, who nre prima facie the members of a Le- 
 gislattve body ? Obviously, those who have the return required by law, for in 
 anticipation of the very state of things which occurred in the New Jeisey case, 
 every country that has laws at all, has provided some mode of returning the 
 law-makers chosen by the c»msiiiuent body. 1 care nor whether the member 
 having the legal lelutn eTer received n popular vole. Tiie principle ti founded 
 in eternal truth, and cannot be vaiied by circumstances. To preserve older 
 and avoid interregnum ; to give being to the law making pewer, and to main- 
 tain the fabrick of Society, the possession of the return given by the Law, 
 makes the possessor iht prima Jacie member, who alone can rightfully partici- 
 jvjte in the business of organization, i'.r ncccst>itaCe rci, it must be so. 
 
 This is undoubtedly the correct principle which, with ail your ingenuity, 
 you can never successfully controvert uidess you can overthrow the maxims 
 ol common sense, and annul that general fitness of things which is the basis oJ 
 all moral law and of all social institutions and obligations. Wo have but to 
 apply the principle to the New Jersey case. You admitted in Elizabeth Cwy 
 that the laws of N. Jersey prescribed the mode of return lor her representatives 
 in Congress; that that mode was the certificate of the Governor attested by the 
 great seal of the Commonwealth ; that the five Whig membeis had the return 
 as prescribed by (he laws of y. Jerseys and that these laws were Constitutional. 
 Yon also admitted that the only return on which the Democratic members 
 founded their claim to jinrticipate in the organization of the House, was a cer- 
 tificate in their favour signed by the Secretary of State, who ho.d no legal right 
 to confer such a certificate. If the position before taken be correct, thee it 
 hdlows necessarily, that the Whig meinbers from N. Jersey, having the legal 
 return, to wit, the certificate of the Governor, were entitled jjrima facie to take 
 theirscats and assist in the formation of the [louse. Whether thev had received 
 a majority of the votes o( the people of N. Jersey, or whether fraud ImJ been 
 
23 
 
 pyaciiced by the authoihies of that state, were queifions which could not 
 wopedy arise u«til after the House was organized by the appoinimeiit of its 
 officers a«d 'committees. Tlie ort;aniEntion lia^ing ^aken ])lace, it would ibcn 
 be proper to refer all matters of fraud in tlie |>reinises to tlie Coinmiitee of 
 rrivileses and Elections to be by them considered aud d'ccid'cd according to tlie 
 Ihw and evidence of the case. 
 
 Doubtless, this most obvious view of the subject must have occurred to your 
 mind. But to break its force, you most vociferously cried out— fraud, fraud, 
 (laud— vrti knowing that if you could but arouse the moral instincts of your 
 iiearers, you would stand tlie' better chance of concealing altogether the tiue 
 issue, or if that true issue should be unfolded, of neutralising its eflTect. You 
 taiew wfdl (lie honesty of the jieople, and you knew as we^l ihal if you could 
 tjut persuade them to believe that fraud or injustice had been practised by ilic 
 Ruthorities of N. Jersey, you would create in their uiinds a prejudice ihut 
 would assist you much in blinding them to the vital point which lay al the 
 bottom of the question. 
 
 Now there are two answers to your allegation of fraud and injustice. Firstly, 
 if the rule I have already considered be the true one, you are estopped Irom any 
 sach plea. The projier time had not arrived to put in your plea. In one sense, 
 \he case v/ns coram nonjudice. There was no court to hear or to judge. It 
 wa'S not in session. Until it sat, no complaint could have been |)referred. 
 That is, until the House of Representatives was regularly organised, the con- 
 testing ntemibers could not assert tlieir claim. Till then they were without 
 redress, because 'by tbs etertjal principles of order, ("Heaven's first law") there 
 <ras no tribunal to consult. But the organization of the House once eftected, a 
 tribunal was that moment constituted; the contesting parties could submit their 
 grievances; and the House would refer the whole subject to its appropriate 
 committee and have justice done in the, premises. I defy you to overthrow 
 this position. As well attem|)t to upset the IriMs. 
 
 Secondly, you did not make good the charge o( injustice and fraud against 
 the Governor and Council of N. Jersey. True, you did, with furious gesture 
 and touching pathos, invoke your Elizabeth City constituents to sympathise 
 with their outraged and d'elrauded fellow citizens of N. Jersey, but you vouch- 
 SKfod not one particle of proof. No — the simple ipse dixit of the '* Hon. Joel 
 Holleman" (an interested witness) was the sole evidence adduced to fix upon 
 the Governor of a sovereign State what was pronounced the basest fraud ever 
 perpetrated upon a free and honest people. Now, sir, against your simple 
 assertion, I place the solemn declaiation of Gov. Pennington, In his letter of 
 August 10th, 1840, to the Secretary of the Fredericksburg Tippecanoe Club, 
 he holds the following language: -'But beyond every legal consideration con- 
 iiecied with the case, the fair examination of the evidence shews that the cer- 
 tified members (as in this State we all know was the fact) received the greatest 
 number of legal votes, and the administration party dare not have that subject 
 inve^siigated before the House. Therefore, it was, the resort was had to a call 
 of the previous question." Now, sir, here is the testimony of an individual 
 (as disinterested as yourself, at the least) who had examined all the evidence 
 aiid must have known all the facts of the case, that there was no fraud and that 
 the Whig members received a majoriiy of the legal votes of the people of N. 
 Jersey. But, sir, 1 will shew that you were disqualified to decide whether there 
 was fraud or not. When the case was in the first instance before the House, 
 that is, in its unorganized state, and when you gave your vote in common with 
 your parly to exclude the Whig members from ail psrticipatiow in the organiza- 
 tion of the House — then I say, you had not seen the evidence, and o< course 
 could form no correct opinion on the merits. Yet to efl'ect a party object, viz. 
 the election of an Administration Speaker, you voted in the dark — blind folded 
 I i«iay say— on a mere presumption of fraud. This is not all. Neither yoii 
 tvor any member of Congress except the nine members of the Committee of 
 Privileges and Electiona ever saw the evidence in the case. No sir. You 
 iigyhed the gag law, carried the previous question, cut off debate npd investi- 
 
24 
 
 gation, would not wait for the printing of the evidence, nor permit the Whig 
 meinl)ers to be heard — under these si)ameful circumstances uf darkness and 
 injustice, you guessed that (taud had been committed or tliat the Whig mem- 
 bers had not been duly elected, and voted to oust ihein of their seats. At no 
 stase of this most shameful proceeding, were you prepared to judge of the 
 merits of the case, and yet you act Sir Oracle on the occasioD, and as if with 
 pontifical authority, send fortli your anathemas against the ill-fated Governor 
 and Council of N. Jerrey. You well know, sir, tliat the facts of this ca&e have 
 not been permitted to reach the light. They have been purposely shrouded in 
 invstery and darkness. By means of the previous question your party stilled 
 debate, concealed the merits of the case fjou> the people, dislranchised a sov- 
 ereign State, and then to cover the enorn>ity of this nefarious affair, they 
 ejaculate, fraud ! just as the thief in the crowd sometimes joins in the hue and 
 cry in order to esc7pe detection. They remind me, for all the woild. ot the 
 Artful Dodger in OliverTwist, who stole the handkereliief and ingeniously laid 
 the theft on poor Oliver. So they who for party purposes committed a base 
 wrong, endeavour to screen themselves by shifting it upon the shoulders of 
 <Jovernor Pennington and his Council. 
 
 1 think I have shewn, fiist, that you had no right to make the charge of 
 fraud in this case, it being in the onset an immaterial issue; and secondly, 
 admitting that you were not estopped from putting in the plea of fraud, you 
 have not furnished any evidence whatever to sustain the plea. I hasten to the 
 conclusion, that in voting in the first instance to displace the Whig members 
 from N. Jersey, you were accessary to an outrrge on the rights of a sovereign 
 State, and to an invasion of the cardinal principle of social order, as unexampled 
 as it is inexcusable. 
 
 I have not done with you on this subject. 1 have much to saiy that will make 
 you rue the unlucky hour that made you the representative of the first Con- 
 gressional district. This is indeed, a most important subject. In its history 
 tlieie is wrapped up a hideous enormity which when exposed, will create in 
 the bosoms of the honest yeomanry of this district a deep and lasting disgu&t 
 towards its guilty authors; and that history I design to unfold, black as it is, 
 regretting, as 1 truly do, that in performing the task I shall be coinpelled to 
 show you off as cue of the prominent co-woriiers in this business of iniquity 
 and outrage. 
 
 CAMILLirS. 
 
 I\o. G 
 The New Jersey Case — continued, 
 
 TO THE HON. JOEL HOLLEMAN. 
 
 ]n my list I demonstrated that in crying out fraud in the New Jersey casfr 
 vou presented what the lawyers denominate an immaterial issue, and that ad- 
 mitting the propriety of the issue you tendered, you did not meet it with satis- 
 faciory ] roof". I propose now further to consider the arguments you em- 
 ployed on this sul)ject. 
 
 To blind the judgment ofyour hearers, you put them an grifuf question--— 
 Extended on tiptoe and lashed into very fury while you were demolishing the 
 man of straw created by your over-heated imagination, you propounded with a 
 tremendous flourish, this most imposing interrogatory : "Suppose, fellow-citi- 
 zens, (said you,) that your Sheriff were to withhold a part of the poll of your 
 electoral district, and give the return to a candidate who had not teceived a ma- 
 j ^Ity of the people's votes — would you not go to your cleik, demand a copy 
 of the polls and then goto the Capitol and demand that the returned member 
 should b? exclti ledj ah {nitiOy frqi^ the House ot Delegates V — Now, sir, thi* 
 
25 
 
 is your own case, and as strong an illustration for ihe defence of your position, 
 as you could have selected. Yet is it conclusive to shew, that the proceedings 
 in the New Jersey case, were irtcj^ulnr, disorderly and anarchical, I Iiave al- 
 ready put this very exanii)!e and from it proved, that if any one individual could 
 go into the Legislative IJall and interrupt the ors:anization of the Legislative 
 body for one day, he might do it for a year ; and if one individual could I'hus in- 
 terrupt its incipient proceedings, another and another and yet another might 
 repeat the example, and thus not only make ihal which should be a matter ol 
 order and despatch, one of disorder and delay, but absolutely defeat the organ- 
 ization of the law-giving auihorities. It is no reply to this to say, that it is 
 not likely for such a state of things to occur. If we establish a rule whiclj 
 would legalize such an occurrence, it will soon come to pass, pnrticuiarly in 
 degenerate and disorderly times like the present ; and we know well that in pe- 
 riods of high party excitement, every thing is attempted whieii bears the slight- 
 est semblance of legality, and not unlrequently tiiat which is positively un- 
 lawful. Our only safely, therefore, is to establish rules (bunded in the reason 
 of things, which put such contingencies as transpired iu the New Jersey case 
 beyond the fossihitily of occurrence. 
 
 But I willattend you through your supposed case. Imagine then, adcpu- 
 tation in attendance on the /Jay of meeting of the Legislature. Just as the 
 house is about to organize, the chairman of the deptitaiion rises in the Hall 
 and holds forth to this eft'ect : "Mr. Ciiairinan, IMr. Clerk, or centleinet; — (for 
 I should bo at a loss on such an occasion whom to address) — Mr. A. who has 
 the Sheriff's return as a membei of this body is not entitled to such return — he. 
 did not receive a majority of the legal votes, and the SherifT's return is a frau- 
 dulent return. I nsk you, therefote, in the name of the defrauded people of 
 Elizabeth City, that you at once exclude Mr. A. from this Hall, and in this 
 place receive Mr. B., who is the person really entitled to the seat." — 
 v\''ould not the Chairman of this Coimniltee cut a ridiculous figute in such an 
 attitude and be laughed at by the very boys in the gallery .'' Would you, sir, 
 even for the good people of Isle of- Wight, expose yourself by going on so 
 laughable an errand ? But what reply would the members present make to 
 the Elizabeth City Delegation ? It would be tliis : 
 
 ** Mr. A. has the Sheriff's return. The LAW authorises and requires the 
 Sheriff to give the return, and the person holding the return is the one prifiia 
 facie entitled to the seat. That LfVW is the iaw of the land and must be obey- 
 ed until it is repealed, as well by the members of the Legislature as by every 
 other citizen. And besides, such a Law is absolutely necessary to prevent in- 
 terruptions to tjie organization of the people's representatives. If the people 
 of Elizabeth C'ty have been wronged, they will have their redress so soon as 
 wo ate organized into a business body. We will then refer their case to our 
 Committee of Privileges and Elections, and if fraud has been committed or 
 other wrong done, we will do justice in the premises." This hypothetic reply 
 embodies the whole argument of the case, am] it is useless to multiply words. 
 But 1 will take it upon me to say neither the Hon. Joel Holleman nor Chiet 
 Justice Taney himself, nor mortal man beside, can overturn the simple, and it 
 seems to uie most obvious view of the question which is here presented. See 
 then, "how plain a tale can put you down." 
 
 But you had another argument. You s;.id the Constitution provides that 
 '' each house shall be the judge of the election, returns and qualifications of its 
 own members." "True, O! King !" No one was ever yet sucli a ninny «3 
 to doubt it. But who are the i/oHse or what is the House? In detetn.ining 
 this point, which is the gist of the whole matter, you begged the question, or 
 " put the cart before the horse." The membeis elect although wiicn assem- 
 bled together in the proper form they constitute the House ol Congress, do not 
 when scattered through the Union, compose a House in the parliamentary 
 or constitutional sense of the term. Nor when met in one confused medley 
 do they form a House. It is the assemblige at the propei place and oiganiza- 
 lion in proper form according to established rules olreason and parliantentary 
 Law, that cousiilute a House in the constitutional t^ense, 
 
26 
 
 It is not, then, until the members elect have been thus organized that they 
 acqtiire tlie right under the Constitution, a* a IJouse to judgiofihe election, 
 return and qualification of members. It follovrs tlierefore, (hat the members 
 elect of the last House of RepresentatiTcs who undertook in their unorganized 
 state to judge of the return and election of tho memb«rs from New Jersey, did 
 ati act which infringed the provisions of the Constitution and the rights of a 
 sovereign Stale. 
 
 And now, '• out of thine own mouth will I condemn thee." When you 
 were discussing the ilooe case, you vociferated Law, Law, Law, as lustily as 
 you had poured forth exclamations of fraud in the New Jersey case. Oh I it 
 was a horrible thing to swear negroes against wliiiemeni No one was more 
 opposed to this odious practice than yourself; but then it was law, and eveiy 
 good citizen would bow in submission to the Law!.' And 1 verily believe tbut 
 yoii did reconcile many a law-loving citizen ol Elizabeth City to the outrage* 
 ons proceedinus of the Hooe case, on the ground that t^ was laiv, lo permit 
 blacks to testify against whites. Now, my dear sir, how came you so sudden- 
 ly to lose all your reverence forthe Law, wlienyou came to consider theNevv 
 Jersey case. You expressly admitted that the Whig members l"rom N. Jersey 
 went to Washington with the L iwof that State in their favour — with the re- 
 turn prescribed by the laws of New Jersey, andyou did not pretend lo deny 
 that the Laws of New Jersey were constitutional and regulated the whole case, 
 ybu admitted further that while the Whig members had the return of the Go- 
 vernor, who was alone authorised by law lo grant the return, the Democraic 
 claimants had only the return of the Secretary of State, who was 7iol authorized 
 bi/ law lo grant any certificate of rc(ur7i. Yet, while you went for the supre- 
 nracy of the Law in the Hooe case, in the other you laughed it to scorn! 
 Yea — you gave credit loan empty, naked certificate of an officer, not known in 
 such cases, to the law, while you rejected the formal, solemn, authoritative return 
 of that officer, vpon whom and whom alone, the Law had devolved the businsss and 
 the diitij of making that return ! ! ! Sir, how is this ? Mio\) can explain it — 
 there is a great dilference between " my o\ goring your bull" and " your bull 
 goring my ox," or in other words, when men are set on the attainment of par- 
 ly objects, and their minds become enslaved by party servitude, truth loses its 
 attractions and law its force. It strikes ine, sir, that had you been the law-lov- 
 ing gentleman in the New Jersey case, that you ivere in the Hooe case, you 
 would have said : " Ha lex scripta est— tht; law gives tho Whig members 
 their seats, and that is snfTicient." 
 
 But this is not the only iiiconsistency of which 1 have to convict you. You 
 ridiculed — "tell it not in Gath" — but true it is — you even lidiculed the Great 
 Sea! of the sovereign State of New Jersey! That which is entitled to and 
 receives "full faith and credit," in the' Courts and all the municipal tribunals 
 ut every State in the Union; that which is the symbol of that something "one, 
 inseparable and indivisible" which we term Sovkkkigntt; that which is the sig- 
 nificant emblem of the separate supremacy of each State of the Uuion ; that type 
 (f sovereign power which tho sincere friend ot State Rights would no sooner 
 desecrate than would the citizen of the Urion tarnish the Stars and Stripes of 
 tbat Union — (hat sacred token you ridiculed, and tore from the brow of N. 
 Jeisey the mystic badge by which she was known as a distinct Sovereign in 
 tin,' Confeder.ition of States! Tliough you diJ not like some other members 
 of the Virginia Delegation, compare the Great Seal to " ap ox's foot," you 
 said something of a rkd IUBBo^ which was appended to it, and you said it in 
 the way ot derision — obvionvly intending to make your heaiers believe, that 
 after nil, tiiere was but little importance lo be attached to the great seal of a 
 State! Now, methougbt, when 1 heard you thus deriding the great seal of a 
 Bovettign State— surely this Mr. Eloileman is not a State Rights man, thus lo 
 maVefnn of the high emblem of sovereignty. But lol and behold! you turned 
 round, and declaring yourself a State Rights man "of the straitest sect," yoa 
 pitiod me and some other eood friends of State RiehtH, that we should be 
 e.i^agcd in the support ol that Rirant o!d federalist, William Henry Harrison, 
 
27 
 
 whom the federal Whigs had picked apas their candidate for the Presideneyl 
 ' Oh I consistency I thou art a Jewel" ! 
 
 Allow me row to r«cur once more to your charges of fraud, and to propownd 
 you one little enquiiy. Why did you. it there really was fraud, manifisl so 
 much anxiety to conceal from public view ihe EVIDENCE in the New Jer- 
 sey case ? Answer to your constituents, your country, your consciiice, and to 
 truth and justice, why it was thai you and your paity cast your votes to de- 
 cide the merits of this case before the evidence was prin'ed or read ? Thfre 
 must have been something " rotten in Denmark;" and as you and your party 
 " preferred darkness rather than light," you gave every honest man the riuht 
 to infer that there was something about this matter which could not stand the 
 face of day. And imw, sir, I mean to "brinj; your nose lo the grind sione ;" 
 and should the operation be a little severe, just recollect that you "threw the 
 lirststone." Vou harped much upon the fraud in the New Jeisey case — over 
 and over again you reiterated the chari;e of fraud against the Whig Governor 
 of New Jersey — your extreme sensitiveness made you almost frantic at the 
 bare thought o( fraud. Now, sir, if you are really sensitive on this subject — 
 if you abominate fraud and would expose It, just turn to Documents 12J, 297 
 and 313 of the 25ih Congress, and you will find ample employm«nt for all your 
 l>owcrs of indignation. There you will read of the |)lunder of the public Trea« 
 sury, worse than that ofCaius Verres himself — of the robberies of Linn, Har- 
 ris, Boyd, Swarlwouf, Price, Hawkins, Sicrling. Pollock, iMilchcll, Childiei>«, 
 Allen, Arnold, Scott, and scores of others who with impunity defrauded the 
 Government of millions of its revenue. There you will find that <lefault€r9 
 were kept in office fur political effect. There you will read ol Wm. Linn, who 
 was re-nominated for office ?t'Aen /le iffls /iVioji'rt /o be a defaulter. There you 
 will read of Wiley P. Harris, who for two years and a halfrobl)ed the Trea- 
 sury tcithoxtt being dismissed. Tliere too you will learn of Paris ChilJiess who 
 informed the Government '* he was no longer icorlhy of trust. There you wi!l 
 learn of (raud upon fraud — Pelion upon Ossa — fraud upon the Treasury, and 
 fraud upon the people. Now if you have triily a fondness lor expositig fraud, 
 deception, and robbery, only examine the Documents I have referred to, and 
 you will find enough to call down indeed upon the heads of )our paity, the con- 
 suming vengeance of an outraged people. ]f you can compose your uerveelor 
 the task, you can render the cause of Honesty essential aid. 
 
 In conclusion, I propose to do what you purposely omitted — to furnish to 
 the people of this district, a brief and unvarnished statement of the facts and 
 history of the New Jersey case. It presents an outrage unexampled in modern 
 civilization. Its whole history is an unbroken series of insult, wrong, injus- 
 tice, treachery, violence and oppression. The people have only to know that 
 history lo wreak their vengeance upon the guilty men who have blurred the 
 Annals of their country. 
 
 The first act in the Drama was the expulsion of the Whig members in the 
 very teeth of the law. This was an irremedi.ible wrong. It wa-fiirreparable 
 because the time (or repairing it passed away forever with the organi?'.;Ation of 
 tlie House. But as the case progressed, wrong was accunmlaied upon wrong. 
 The case being referred to the Commiitee of Privileges and Elections, it wag 
 resolved that both sets of meinbers should be peimitted lo return lo New Jer- 
 sey lo obtain full testimony on the merits of ihc matter, and a pledge was given 
 tiiat the case should not be i.iken up until the first Monday in April or May, 
 which, I do not recollect, but I believe in April. But shameful to relate, 
 while, the New Jersey members were at home taking tiieirteslimony under tlie 
 permission and solemn pledge o( the commiitce, the case was taken up in their 
 absence, ,iw\ the Democratic members admitted to the contested scats I A 
 luscr act of treachery never darkened the character of a civilired and christian 
 people. It is a stain on the national natne, second only to the Expunging Act. 
 It was a violation of the nation's faith which should make the cheek i f every 
 chivien of United America crimson with shtme fer the sullied honor of his 
 country. How did you vote, sir, on this qursiiou ? 
 
28 
 
 /i gain— a proposition was offered instructing the Committee to report to tlie 
 House the number of LEGAL votes given for e;>ch set of claimants! A mn- 
 ifon was made by one of your party to strike out the word legal, so as to penult 
 illegal votes to be counted. This motion was sustained by your party and was 
 defeated only by the casting vote of the Speaker. This renders it obvious that 
 your party were entirely unscrii|)ulous in the means it intended to employ — to 
 get the administiation members in. Efow did yew vote on this proposition ? * 
 
 In the next place, the Whic; members were not heard at tlie bar of the House. 
 Hitherto, it h.is been the uniform practice to adiriit contesting members to the 
 floor of Congress to be heatd in tlieir own defence. When Mr. Loyall con- 
 tested Mr. Newton's seat, it is well known that tliis privilege was accorded him. 
 A proposilijn was made to hear the Wliig members at the bar of the House, 
 but was voted down by your parly. Thus, the Whig members who went to 
 Congress armed wiih the laws to sustain their claims, were thrust from their 
 seats without (he poor |)rivilege which tlie meanest criminal enjoys, of being 
 Iieaid in defence of themselves and their Stale ! jNIost generous Party ! Ex- 
 cuse me for assigning the reason of this outrage. Your party durst not hear 
 the wronged and insulted representatives of disfranchised New Jeisey. No. 
 the proud and spirit-chafed freemen that claim descent fiom the heroes of Mon- 
 mouth, Princeton and Trenton, would have told a tale that would have called 
 back the spirit of the Revolution and held up to everlasting scorn the wicked 
 parly — with all its aiders, abettors and supporters — who concerted and consum- 
 mated tlie black deed that made Liberty, truth and justice bleed ! Ah ! Yes ! 
 It was politic enough to tie down the routed spirit of injured freedem! If let 
 loose, it might have enkindled a flame that oversweeping the land, in its con- 
 suming energy, would hsve left "not a wreck behind" of that fell Jacobinism 
 which spares neither Lil)erty, Morals, .Justice nor Law. But Ie6t I foiget the 
 question, pray how did you vo'e on the motion to admit the Wiiig members to 
 ^^.hearing ? or on the pievious question which denied them a hearing ? 
 
 But the worst is yet to come. After tlie decision of the House to piint the 
 minority and majotiiy reports of the Committee a motion was made bv Mr. 
 Jameson, of Missouri, an administaalion member, to adopt at once the repoit of 
 the majority which declared the Democratic members to be entitled to their seats. 
 On this motion, the previous question was demanded and chiried by the adminis- 
 tration party. Thus was all debate cut off — all investigation stifled — and all 
 the evidence in the case excluded. The parties csuld not be heard after the 
 carrying of the previous question, and ihey were not heard. The evidence 
 was not laid on ilie Speaker's table uniil a few hours before the making of Mr. 
 Jameson's motion. It had not been laid on the members' desks; and not one 
 individual had seen an iota of the testimony, on which the case depended, ex- 
 cept the members of the Coinmittee ! Indeed, to aggravate this mockery of 
 justice, though the EIousc had ordered the printing of the reports and Journal 
 of the Committee, yet im»icc/irt/c/t/ after the order for the j)'' intin n- ^ the main 
 question was put — before the priming could, by possibility, have been execut- 
 ed ! Why order the printing, if the house was not to wail until it was done ? 
 Thus were the representatives ol the people, forced to a vote, afl'eclino- tlie 
 right of individuals, and of a Sovereign State, without being prepared by the 
 examinaiion o'tlie evidence, to do justice in the premises! 
 
 A biief quotation of the ojiinions of the vaiious members, as expressed at the 
 time, will best illustrate the outrageous enormity of this proceeding. 
 
 " The tyranny, (said Mr. Garland of Louisiana.) practised by the majority 
 in. this whole New Jersey case, is enough to drive freemen into open rebeK 
 lion." 
 
 " Will the previous question, (asked Mr. Fillmore,) deprive the parties con- 
 
 *There i.^a isliglil inaccuracy bere. A proposition was mado to have reported to the 
 House the votes polled for each set orcl:iiitiaiit-<. A motion vva.s then made bv a Whig 
 urnmber to insert the word legal, so a« to require the Coininilti;e to report only the /<^- 
 gnl votes cast. Tlii« motion tho domorcrulic members resisited and voted against, it \i 
 believed Mnaiiiniously. — Tho inaccuracy is therefore in form, not in siibstanco. 
 
29 
 
 cerned, of tlie tight ofbcing heard in their own cause, as was the invariabl* 
 usage of tlie house, in all cases ol disputed elections ?" "Yes," replied tire 
 Speaker — and so it was. 
 
 ' 1 demand (cried Mr. Triplet,) that the evidence be read. It is oppres- 
 sion — it is the very height of tyranny, to insist on my voting, before 1 hare 
 heard the lesiinjony in the case 1 :im to judge. How can I know what 1 am 
 voting about ?" 
 
 Said iMr. IMonroe — " Wliy order the printing of (he pajjers in the case to 
 gttide us in our judgment, and yet compel us to volt- dirccily nndi'r the [)r«- 
 vious question? Whnl was the meaniug of this gag law? He would not vo;e 
 in the house under such Cfjercion." 
 
 '• What, (exclaimed Mr. Underwood.) take tlie main question before the re- 
 ports are printed ?" 
 
 "To vote, (said Mr. Sergeant.) without i)eing infurntcd of the law and (aols 
 of the case, wouhi be, in my opinion, to pronounce a judgment without knowl- 
 edge, and a violaiiun o( conscience and duty." 
 
 "I cannot vote (said Mr. Gushing,) because I am unable, without llie evi- 
 dence, to judge on ".vhich side the truth lies. Thus situated, 1 cannot atiJ 
 will not vote, and ask the house to excuse me from voting." 
 
 " Tlie volume of evidence (said Mr. Salionstall,) which you, sir, have just in- 
 forme i us, contains nearly 700 pages, teas laid tij)on YOUR table wilhlhe Ueporls 
 TH IS iMORNlN(i. It has vol been placed upon ours ; neither has tlie jour- 
 nal, another large volume. We have had no o|)portunily to read a word of 
 either. I cannot vote understandingly on this subje. t — without the hazard, in- 
 deed, (jf doing thigrant injustice." 
 
 "The rudest nation of savag(?s (exclaimed Mr. Alford,) never dishonored 
 ihenameof man,bycondemninga fellow being, without hcaritigthe evidence. 
 It has been reserved for an American Congress, (said he,) who claim to be 
 civilized and intelligent men, to set an example, essentially violative of every 
 principle of justice. You demand a decision ofthis question, and refuse the 
 lieariiig of the proof 
 
 " i demand the right to hear it. I have not seen or heard it. I could 
 not. It is now produced for the first time. This is a judicial trial. I am 
 one of the judg"es. M}^ associate judges require me to decide this case 
 hut refuse to let me hear or see the proof. You dishonour me by your 
 conduct. I will submit to no such tyrannical dictation of perjury against 
 iny conscience. I will suffer death first.'' 
 
 Such was this New Jers^^y case — a continuous proceeding of iniquity and 
 wrong. Unheard and undefended, a sovereign State was disfranchised ol 
 her representation in Congress and freemen of their rights : and that too by 
 a party who profess to be the chosen and exclusive guardians of Stata 
 lligbts and democracy ! It is an outrage that cries aloud for the avenging 
 might of the people. It has but one parallel in modern history. When 
 the disorganizing measures of the French Jacobins in Revolutionary 
 France were brought before the national assembly, no debate w^as permit- 
 ted — the friends of liberty and order were hooted down— and the measures 
 of violence and blood that characterised this sanguinary era, were carried 
 bij acclamation, as it was termed by the Robespicrcs, Dantons, and Marat? 
 ofthatdaJ^ So it was in the New Jersey case. The solemn rights of in- 
 dividuals and a whole Commonwealth were voted away by acclamation^ — 
 under the tyranny of tlie gag law ! 
 
 There is nothing wanting to aggravate the atrocity. Had not Whig 
 members been ejected, the Sub-Treasury bill — that measure of destruction 
 and ruin — had never been passed. And no doubt the anxiety of the admin- 
 istration party to carry this measure caused their unwarrantable expulsion. 
 
 Ajid in this work of iniquity most foul, where was the Representative of 
 
30 
 
 ©id District No. 1 to be found ? Whtre was tho Hon. Joul Hollemnn, 
 while was being perpetrated the foulest outrage but one in the whole his- 
 tory of the Union ? I take the liberty of informing tho voters of the first 
 Congressional district, that fou were pariicept crimi7iis throughout this no- 
 fLirious proceeding. 1 envy you not the honors of your representative sta^ 
 tion.. A day of reckoning will eoon be at hand, and a sad day will it be for 
 you and your colleagues in this sinful work. The day will come, sooner 
 or later, when every actor in the New Jersey scene as in tho Expunging 
 (iecfl, will be consigned to an infamy "universal and eternal." 
 The Hooc case in my next. 
 
 CAMILLUS, 
 
 I\o. 7. 
 
 The Hooe Case. 
 
 TO TFIE HON. JOEL HOLLEMAN. 
 
 I hjd not dt sig!\ed or expected to pursue you further with iho N. Jersey 
 cas/?; but since my last No. was written, some additional information ha< 
 been developed in relation to it, which induces me again briefly to recur to 
 the. subject. In a speech made in ('hcsterfield county a few days since, the 
 Hoa, JoH.N M. BoTTS, a member of the Committee of Privileges and Elec- 
 tions of the last Congress and a gentleman of irreproachable integrity, 
 solemnly made the declaration which he said he would verify by his oatli. 
 thottlie testimony exhibited in support of the claims of the five Whig mem- 
 bers from N. Jersey, clearly e.stablished the due election of those members, 
 an-ithat but for the rejection by the Committee of much of that testimony 
 on fhe most frivolous grotinch, the Whig claimant.-? must have taken thijr 
 scats, in the House of Uepre?entatives. Now the point to which 1 wis!\ 
 particularly to direct the attention of the voters of your district, is, lliat your 
 party— yourself in the number, — not only would not examine this cvi.lencL' 
 to ascertain whether or not a portion of it had been rejected on frivolous 
 j^Toands, but you would not permit others to examine it. I appeal to the 
 honest j-eomanry of the first Congressional district if this conduct be not 
 unjust, unfair, dishonest and disgrace ful ? Will they longer tolerate a party 
 th;it has been guilty of such despicable meanness ? And will n prond an I 
 highminled people permit themselves to be longer represented by an indi- 
 \idual who so far forgot the honour of his district and hia country, as to 
 have- participated in so iniquitous and revolting a proceeding? 
 
 The motive of the party in refusing to hear or permit the evidence to be. 
 lieard, is perfectly obvious. In the first instance it was resolved to gtt th-r> 
 administration members in al all hazarda, in order to secure the passage of 
 the Sub-Treasury bill. So when the final report was made by the Com- 
 mittre, accompanied by the evidence of the cas", the admiui^stration party 
 n-ould not go into an examination of that evidence, h$l it mi:^lfl (ura out, 
 lli-at the WhiiS members had recelvc.l a majorilif of U-gal voles; inwhicli 
 ev.'nt the enormity of all their past proceedings in the caso would liavebcf n 
 apparent, and the jiarty held up to the indignant scorn of the American 
 p'opleas having perpetrated flagrant injustice and wrong upon a soverei^in 
 State, and by mcan.s of that injustice and wrong curried impoitant moasurt s 
 
31 
 
 which, without resort to such means could not bavo boon carried at aU. 
 They therefore adopt«^d th« ahernativo which i;^ often onibraccd by bruz*n 
 transgressors — they stuck to the wrong " to the biltor end " — ^just as the man 
 who-tttlls one lie, will sometimes utter u dozen more to conceal liie first. 
 
 And now, sir, 1 will dismiss you on this point by propounding to you a 
 few interrogatories which I demand of you to answer to this people. '1 hey 
 are the very same that were propounded by Mr. Botls to the ILjn. Juo. W. 
 Jones, ooe of your colleagues in this sinful business, wliich, by the l)yo, he 
 was constrained to answer in the affirmative. 
 
 1st. Had you, when you voted to give the administration members their 
 seats, read or heard read, any portion of the testimony in the N. Jersey e^isc? 
 
 2. Did you not only refuse to examine the testimony yourself, but refusij 
 time, toother gentlemen who demanded it as a right and who refused to vote 
 unless that right was granted to them ? 
 
 "Screw your courage to the sticking place" and answer these question?. 
 Yes or No. I know you recoil from the trying task, but Truth answers 
 these hard interrogatories for you in the affirmative. And hor answer re- 
 veals the well deserved doom that sooner or later awaits you — cveiiaatiug 
 retirement as a public man — a retirement that will be i&ndered the more 
 desolate and forlorn because it can never be cheered by the sympathies of 
 the virtue and intelligence of your country. I tell you, sir, this N. Jer.spfy 
 ,^as-?. will be to you the " Shirt of Nessus" — like Banquo's ghost it will rise 
 up belbro you ever and anon, — and the hour is not far distant, whrn over- 
 taken by the vengeance of a wronged and roused people, your party wiil 
 soliloquise in the remorseful language of the guilty iVIacbi.th: 
 
 •'This, evon-liaiidcd Justiro 
 ConiinendR tlio iiigrcdienU of our poisoned clnlico 
 To our own lips " 
 
 I 3m now to consider the Hooe case, th« facts of which are briefly these. 
 Get>j-ge Mason Hooe, a Lieutenant of the U. S. Navy, was tried some tims 
 during the last year by a Naval Court Martial on charges preferred by 
 Couimander Uriah P. L'^vy. On this trial two negro slaves, viz: the coolc 
 and steward of the ship Vandalia, were sworn as v/itnesses ani actually t. .$- 
 ti!]cd against said Hooe. Lt. H. entered his protest ag;iinst the introlnction 
 of tliis testimony but was over ruled. The Court having su.spendrd him 
 froui the West InJia Station, he applied for redress to the Pr* sideiit of thy 
 I'liitel States, Sf ttinir forth the fat-t that negro witnesses had been allowed 
 to-t'otify against him. Tiie Presl-lent — this "Northern man with Southern 
 fo'-lings," — after examining the papers in the case, endorsed upon them: 
 "The. President finds nothing in the case of Lt. Hooe which jus! i fit s liis 
 interference;" theEnc;lish of which is, thut he approved the deci.-?ion of tha 
 Court Martial, and, of course, tlie introJuction of the negro evidence. 
 
 You justify the admission of this evidence on the grouivl that it was law. 
 Yts, though as I stated in my last number you cherished not the least 
 r. .sfTcct for the law in the N. Jersey cas\ yet in this case, you defeiuled thi-« 
 gross outrage upon Southern filling by »he plea that H was lair and, that 
 il was tiie duty of every good citizen to bow in submission to the law. You 
 v.'cre called on to open the statute book and shew the law that authoiised a 
 negro to testiliy against a white man. You said there was no suck staluic. 
 ]j"Whe votei-s of tiic first district boar this in mind. You admitlcd (here 
 f'-fis (M express late permitting a slrvo to testify against a free white man. 
 But, you said it was a princij)le of the common law that governed the case. 
 All 1 this is the position you look, that by the conunon law, every person 
 of legal age and souul mind not labouring unier some di.sabilitv, isagom- 
 
32 
 
 patent witness. Under this principle, you asserted the legality of the testi- 
 mony of the negro witnesses in the case of Lt. Hooe, and you defied any 
 lawyer to controvert the proposition. Now, sir, I claim to be no lawyer, bnt 
 I am vain enough to question the soundness of the legal opinion you have 
 advanced, and 1 think I shall be able to demonstrate you are no Coke or 
 Mansfield j'ourself 
 
 Do you, sir, as a legal character, venture the broad assertion (which is the 
 fair result of the opinion just referred to) that the common law unmodified 
 bv our peculiar circumstances and institutions, is the law of the land in this 
 Union? ' If so, all the absurdities and incongruities of the English com- 
 mon law, are at once engrafted on our system of jurisprudence. Upon this 
 broad principle, you would take in the law of primogeniture, the maxim 
 of the English law that the " King can do no wrong," and a thousaad others 
 that are well suited to the genius of a monarchical Government, but utterly 
 repugnant to the spirit of a representative Republic. These examples are 
 conclusive to shew that the common law, extensively as it enters into the 
 basis of our legal system, is not and cannot be universally adopted as a rule 
 of action in this country. Where then, in the absence of statutory provision, 
 is the limit — the line of demarcation? Obviously this — that the common 
 laAV can no farther be adopted as a rule in our courts than it is consonant 
 with the character and spirit and genius of our Institutions. 
 
 If for example, a Judge of a U. S. Court were called on to decide a case 
 which rests on Common Law principles, he will in his decision, exclude 
 all such principles of the common law as are inapplicable to our circum- 
 stances and inconsistent with our political and social institutions. — So it 
 ^vouId be, I presume, in the state of Virginia and in every state where it is 
 not precisely regulated by statute what portion of the common law is 
 adopted and what portion excluded. And there is no doubt in my mind, 
 that even if the act of 1789 had not enacted that the laws of the several 
 States should be adopted as rules of decision in the U. S. Courts, an en- 
 lightened Chief Justice would decide in any case at common Law arising 
 in the Supreme Court, that negroes should not be permitted to testify in any 
 case in which a white man might be a party. He would look, in his de- 
 cision, to the general character of our civil, political and social establish- 
 ments and by that criterion, exclude negro testimony if it were ofTertHl. 
 And such a decision would not only be compatible with the genius of our 
 system of government, but consonant with the moral sense of the virtue 
 and intelligence of the land. 
 
 Ifthe rule I have laid down be the correct one, yours is wrong necessa- 
 rily. Andif Uiinebe the true one, it is the easiest matter imaginable to de- 
 duce from it the conclusion that the admission of negro testimony in the 
 Hooe case was illegal and improper. It was contrary to the spirit of our 
 institutions. In a large portion of the confederacy, the domestic institution 
 of slavery exists and is recognised by the federal constitution. God and na- 
 ture seem to have placed insuperable barriers between tho white man and 
 the black. Inferiority of intellect is as strongly stamped upon the consti- 
 tution of the negro as diversity of colour. And from necessity, the people 
 of the Southern section of the union, have carried out these ordinations of na- 
 ture. All, I believe of the slave States, acting on the notion of the inferior- 
 ity of the black race in point of intellectual and moral endowment, and 
 looking to the fact that in most cases they are incapable of comprehending 
 the obligations of an oath, while at the same time from their peculiar sitii- 
 aiion they are peculiarly liable to compulsion, fear, bribery and other im° 
 
33 
 
 proper influences ; all the slave States, I say, have passed laws forbidding 
 blacks to give evidence against white men, and Congress, by the Judiciary 
 act of 1789, enacted that the laws ofthe States should be regarded in gene- 
 ral, "as rules of decision in trials at oommon Law in Courts of the United 
 States, in cases where they apply." Now I contend that the admission of 
 negro witnesses against a free white man, is not only an outrao-c on the 
 feelings, and inconsistent with the peculiar institutions, of a large portion of 
 ihe citizens ofthe Union, but as a general proposition, it is wrong and incon- 
 gruous to permit a slace, degraded as he is from necessity and di.-?tinguish- 
 txl by inefiaceable marks from the whiles, to testify against a free white 
 mail. Want of room prevents me from carrying out this reasoning ; but I 
 Slope some Lawyer competent to the task will lake up this subject and in- 
 vestigate it fully. 
 
 But there is one view of this question which seems to me to overturn 
 aZ* JOTO this specious position of yours, and to show imanswerably that the 
 common Law has nothing whatever to do with this case, and it is this : The 
 common Law does not recognize slavery. iXccording to the English Law., 
 there is no si'ck thing as slavery. The maxim of that Law, is, that the air 
 of Britain is too pure for a slave to breathe in ; that the moment a human 
 being puts foot on British soil, he "stands redeemed, regenerated and dis- 
 enthralled by the irresistible genius of Universal Emancipation." Now if 
 the common Law does not recognise such a thing as slavery, how can its 
 maxims beapplied to slavery ? How can it regulate and govern that which 
 m its contemplation, does not exist I If it does not know such a being as a 
 slave, how can it have principles to govern the case of a slave ? The truth 
 is, that the common law not contemplating such an institution as slavery, 
 has no rules or maxims for it. But such an institution being recognised ia 
 this countr}', must be governed by peculiar rules resulting either from the 
 general character of our social and polhical system or from express statu- 
 tory provision. If we alone have such an institution as slavery, we alone 
 can ha'i'e and make laws adapted to that institution. 
 
 Surely it were wrong and unreasonable to adopt for a peculiar institu- 
 tion of our country the rules and maxims of a code which not only repu- 
 diates that institution, but looks upon it even with horror. Or to submit 
 this whole question ia aKother form— the Common Law of England is 
 adopted in this country so far and so far only as it is founded in the univer- 
 sal principles of Justice and the general fitness of things. When this uni- 
 versa'hty of its maxims fails, peculiar circumstance's come in to modify it or 
 ^0 annul it altogether. 
 
 'J'he Common Law, then, doe« not furnish the rule for the Hooc case. 
 And if it docs not, where Vi-xe we to find it 1 May it not be found in the Js- 
 dieiary act of 1 789 ? That act expressly provides that " the laws of the se- 
 veral States, except where the constitution, treaties or statutes of the United 
 Stites shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of de- 
 cision in trials at Common Law in the courts of the United States in cases 
 where they apply." It is true that Courts Martial are not mentioned-— say 
 jt is even a cfts(/s 0OTt55ws---is not law a series of analogies, and if Con- 
 gress has enacted that the laws ofthe States shall be rules of decision in 
 United States ("Jouits siuing in those States, would not a just analogy extend 
 the rule to Courts Martial also? Now Lieut. Hooe was tried within the 
 limits ofthe Territory of Florida, the laws of which forbid the swearing 
 of negroes against white nun ; and if the spirit of the law of 1789 be car- 
 ried out in a just analogy, testimony should not be permitted within the ter- 
 3 
 
34 
 
 ritorial limits of Florida, which is interdicted by her laws. In the absene« 
 of express statutory provision, surely the obvious spirit of the law of '89 
 6?ig-ht to be carried out. It were surely safer and more proper to regard 
 th.1t obvious spirit than to go directly counter to it I maybe met her* 
 with the objection that when a Court-martial sits at sea, it is beyond the ju- 
 :.'odiction of any particular State, and therefore, the observance of the spirii 
 oftheact of'89cannot be insisted on. Admitit — say that this, too, isa clear 
 C'lsus omissus — still it would be safe and proper to follow the only rule laid 
 dawn by Congress, or, if this should be excluded, to be governed by tb* 
 grneral character of our social and political establishments, which last, I 
 liivo attempted to shew, would forbid the admission of the ne^ro as a wit- 
 ness against the white man. 
 
 But all this legal reasoning is unnecessary. There is one argument 
 from which you cannot escape. You will not deny that as Commander 
 ia chief of the Army and Navy, the President had the power to reverse tba 
 decision of the Court Martial in Lieut. Hooe's case and to send it back for 
 trial, ds noi:o, v.'ith instructions to exclude the negro testimony on the new 
 tfiai. You, sir, who went with Gen. Jackson in his worst acts of ExcctN 
 live usurpation: Removal of the Deposites, the Protest, Expunging and 
 al!, can hardly deny to the President the power to reverse, in whole or in 
 p.iit, the decision ofa Court Martial. Then, sir, if Mr. Van Buren be re- 
 ally what you say he is — 1 " Northern man with Southi rn principles," 
 how easy a matter was it for him to send the case back to be tried over with 
 the exclusion of the negto evidence? He remitted a portion of the sentence 
 against Com. Elliott. Why d.d he not reverse the decision of the Court 
 m Lieut. Hooe's case, and thus give substantial evidence of his Southern 
 feeling by acting like a Southern man? The answer is — that either " he 
 i.5 not a Northern man with Southern feelings and principles," or he wish- 
 ed by the proceedings of the Hooe case, to curry favor wit'i the abolitioa- 
 ists of the North. To be brief, Mr. Van Bur(n had ii in hispower to repu- 
 diate and discountenance this outrage on Southern feelings, bui did not df 
 i'- — I hoi 1 him, therefore, as responsible for the introduction of the negro 
 toatimony in Lieut. Hooe's casf^, as if by his order and in his presence, it 
 ii:ii been introduced. So much for your "Northern man >vith Southern 
 prmcipli s.' Had he possessed one spark of Southern feeling, he would 
 iii'.^e set aside the decision of the Court Maitial and ordered a new trial 
 w .th instructioiis to reject the testimony of the negro witnessi s. 
 
 \ou Slid too, that other testimony than that of the n^gro witnesses, caus- 
 ed rhe conviction of Lieut. Hooe. So much the worse ; for if hisconvii-tion 
 r )uld be procured on tiie tesliuiony of free white men, why lug in the ev- 
 i i.-'iice ol sl.ivcs ? 
 
 V o!i sai I also, as hag the President too. thu where competf nt evidence 
 i-s adduced sufficient to establish a particular thing, the intro luction of iu- 
 eorupetent evidence to the s:inie point, will not set aside the verdict. This 
 IS true in civil cases — but in criminal cases, the rule does not hold, because; 
 ia them, every thing is to be literally and strictly construed. In fine, there 
 J.< no ground on which you can justify the President of the United States 
 Jor permitting a black slave to be sworn as a witne.-^s against a free white 
 .'a-iti. It isa dangerous pr( cedent for the South, and one most revolting 
 to the feelings of every Southern man in whose bosom party fealty has not 
 ( n'iri^u:sh-d thelast relic of sympathetic emotion. 
 
 ^ on sh ;11 not — no yoi shall not excuse yourself and your party by say- 
 ing, 'hnt the Whig members of Congress would not " come up to the bull 
 
35 
 
 ting,"' and assist in providing legal enactments against this practice for the 
 future. Your party, sir, has a majority in both houses of Congress, and if 
 t-hey are imbued with that southern feeling which you arrogate for them, 
 how easy a matter was it for them to have passed what laws they pleased 
 on the subject without being indebted to the poor Whigs for aid ) No. 
 You shall not " lay this flattering unction to your soul" — and I do hereby 
 hold you up, Joel Holleman, to the voters of the first Congressional Dis- 
 trict, as a representative of a slave State, who permitted your party malig- 
 nity to overcome the honest feelings of a Southern man, and to justify 
 t4ie revolting measure of sending into court a black negro slave to swear 
 away the honor of an ofilcer who wore the stars and buttons of the United 
 Hmcs Navy !" "Oh shame ! Where is thy blush ! ! ! " 
 
 The Army bill in my next. But before I proceed farther in these Nos., 
 allow me to tender you a CHALLENGE. As your friends in Elizabeth 
 City, think you achieved a triumph in your address to them, and made out 
 iha case of your party fair and unimpeachable, I wish to break a lance with 
 s;i> valiant a Knight, and by a fair trial of strength, to test the respective 
 merits of our respective causes. I therefore challenge and dare you to 
 'meet fKi at any iivie and place yon may designate, on the merits of the 
 Presidential election. I prefer Elizabeth City as the scene of our com- 
 bil. I wish your admirers ihcri: to be present and judge between us. But 
 j;^y« can ciioose the time and place, — your own dunghill if you prefer it. 
 Only take up the glove which is here thrown down, and Camillus will lay 
 aside his anonymous garb and hasten to meet you-— and in meeting you, to 
 «hew to the world, that the Whig cause is the cause of the Country, ht.r 
 Constitution, her Laws, her Liberty! — I dare you. Or if you fed unequal 
 to the conflii't, get what aid you can — substitute whom you will, the Union 
 oyer. I make this challenge in no spirit of empty boast. It is no vain con- 
 iidence in my own very humble powers. It is the justice of the cause I 
 war for. It is-— that David with his Sling may sometimes be a match for 
 the h:iughty philistine— -and that 
 
 "Thrice is lie .-irinnd \tIio !i:i!li Ira quarrel just. 
 
 And he hiit iiaJ<«>(l, liio' locked np iii »<leeJ, 
 
 W'Jiose ccijscietict; with injustice is corrupted." 
 
 CAMILLUS. 
 
 Yhe Standing Army, 
 
 TO THE HON. JOEL HOLLEMAN. 
 
 \ promised to consider in this nurjilior the Standing Army scheme of the 
 Administration, of which you were the apologist in your Hampton speech. 
 Indeed, sir, there seems to be no act of the lafct or present Administration, 
 however indefensible, to which you have not yielded your approval. 
 
 Here, too, yourself au'l your party Inve made bountiful use oltheart^ 
 <)[ special pleading to exonerate Mr. Van Buren from the sin of having 
 ri'oommended the scheme for reorg.mizing the militia, which was sul- 
 iaift(f^i to Congress on the 20th of March, 1810. All the blame of this 
 schpm'?, sav you and your fricu'ii, r^sis upon Mr. Poins'.tt, the Secretary 
 
36 
 
 of War, and not upon the President. The latter had nothing to do with 
 it and never saw it. And Mr. Poinsett himself has written several laboured 
 communications to exculpate the President from all participation in the 
 detailed plan of 20th March last, and of course takes all the blame of 
 the thing upon himself 
 
 Now "there are several reflections which occur to my mind on this 
 subject. The very solicitude manifested by you and your party to shilt 
 the blame from Mr. Van Buren's shoulders, is proof conclusive that there 
 is somethiu"- wrong in the matter. Why volunteer defence where none 
 Avould be required if the scheme were indeed unexceptionable? And if 
 the scheme be a bad one, (which is undeniable) and was sanctioned by Mr. 
 Poiasstt, why does not the President dism.iss the guilty minister who was 
 the author of so obnoxious a measure? 
 
 I do not propose to consider the point whether IMr. Van Buren ever saw 
 or had any agency in Mr. Poinsett's plan of the 20th of March, '40, because 
 thai is not the true iss-.tc in this matter. I will admit even if you choose, 
 that of this plan the President knew nothing; or to use the language of 
 Mr. Poinsett's defence, "had no agency in preparing the plan reported to 
 (ronp'ress, and no previous knowledge of its details." I am willing to take 
 the President's word that he never saw the detailed plan. 1 have no dis- 
 position to involve the chief magistrate of my country in a falsehood, even 
 if there were the best ground for doing so. Nor will I venture to charge 
 mendacity upon the Secretary of War, though I must say there is an in 
 consistency in his statement about the army bill which / cannot solve. In 
 his letter to Mr. Ritchie he states that the details of his plan v.-ere not pre- 
 pared until the 20th March; but it has since come to light both by the testi- 
 mony of Mr. Phelps and the admission of Mr. Poinsett himself, that a plan 
 similar to that of 20th March, 1S40, had been transmitted to the Senate in 
 the shape of a bill, on the 2Sth of January preceding! How far this dis- 
 crepancy in Mr. Poinsett's statements ought to discredit his testimony, the 
 country must judge. 
 
 Butl am prepared to take higher ground than has heretofore been taken 
 on this subject. I contend, first, that in relation to public measures, the 
 testimony of our Kulers should never be taken, and indeed they should 
 never be permiited to give it. It is one of the worst signs of the times that 
 the servants of the people are permitted to explain away their obnoxious 
 acts. What a dangerous precedent it is! Permit the evil-doer by his own 
 interested testimony to disprove his evil doing? The worst acts of the 
 v/orst rulers might easily be deftndcd on such a principle. There is but 
 one safe rule on this subject. We should judge the ads of public meji I ?/ 
 their obvious import. And I cannot but regard it as an insult offered to 
 tine American people by the President and his Secretaiy of War, that they 
 should dare, after presenting an obnoxious measure, to palliate its oiTensive- 
 ness by an midignified special pleading; better suited to the demagogue or 
 pettifogger than to the high dignitaries of one of the first governments on 
 earth. 
 
 Secondly, though the President may have had no knowledge of the details 
 of Mr. Poinsett's plan, yet is he to be held as responsible for it as if he had 
 been the author of the whole scheme. He retains in oflice as one of his 
 confidential ministers and advisers the man who -was the author of a measure 
 that palpably infringes the Constitution in several particulars, and that has 
 called forth the marked reprobation of the people from one end of the 
 pountry to the other. And he is the more justly to be held accountable, 
 
because in his letter to his friends in Elizabeth City he more approves than 
 conieinns Mr. Poinsett's plan. He even declares it to be in its essential 
 parts, preferable to any scheme which had ever been presented by his pre- 
 decessors. He does not positively say it is unconstitutional, but rather i7i- 
 rlines to that opinion, though the unconstitutionality of the j)lan is as man- 
 ifest as the light of meridian day. If his retention of Mr. Poinsett in ofllce 
 be not a virtual approval of the pli'n of the latter for re-organising the militia, 
 it is conclusive to shew that he does not recognise in the plan those very 
 obnoxious features which have excited the serious apprehensions of the 
 people. Besides, is it respectful to the people — is it democralic — to retain 
 in office a Secretary of War who has proposed the adoption of a measure 
 which a large portion of the constituent body condemn as unconstitutional, 
 dangerous and oppressive? I hold the President, therefore, responsible for 
 the whole plan of Mr. Poinsett, and shall continue to do so until he repudi- 
 ates it in terms so plain and imcquivocal, that his meaning cannot be 
 misapprehended. And let me ask you a question on this subject: If the 
 President really disapproved the details of Mr. Poinsett's plan and desirid 
 to discharge himself of all agency therein (which in his Elizabeth City 
 letter he seems solicitous to do) — why did not he in plain language express 
 his disapprobation of the plan and thus relieve himself of the odium of 
 having approved it? Was it tenderness of his Secietary that induced him 
 to withhold his censure? If it was, his conduct is equally reprehensible. 
 The President, who has less sympathy and tenderness for the people than 
 f^r one of their servants, merits the harshest requital in their power to in- 
 liict. View th3 subject then in what light you will, IMr. Van Buren is 
 clearly responsible for the Army bill with all its principles and details. 
 
 But, thirdly: without regard to Mr. Poinsett's detailed plan, 1 v/ill make 
 it palpable tnat the President did approve and recommend one equally ob- 
 jectionable in its principles if not as oppressive in its details — one indeed 
 that is obviously violative of the Constitution — which could not be carried 
 out in detail without working oppression to the people — and one which 
 would, as etlectually as Mr. Poinsett's scheme, vest the military power of 
 the States in one branch or other of the Federal C4overnment. I shall not 
 allow you to throw over this subject that veil of mystification which you 
 hold ever ready to spread over the deeds of your party. Like the cunning 
 Indian who raises a dense smoke and under its cover retreats unseen from 
 his enemv, you made considerable fuss about Mr. Poinsett's plan (though 
 with evident reluctance) and leaving him to bear upon his own shoulders 
 the ponderous weight of the plan of 20th March, you hoped to secure the 
 safe retreat of the President and to keep in the back ground one other plan 
 which the President did see, approve and recommend ; and to which I now 
 invite j'our attention. 
 
 In the last annual message of the President of the U. States, you will 
 finl these words: 
 
 •'I cannot too strongly recommend to your consideration the plan sub- 
 mitted by that officer [the Secretary of War] for the re-organization of the 
 militia of the United States." 
 
 What plan? the question arises. Either that of 20th March, 1840, or 
 that which was furnished in outline in the Report of the Secretary of War. 
 dated 30th Nov., 1839, and made to the President of the U, States. But I 
 have admitted, to avoid confusion, that the President did not refer to the de- 
 tailed plan of 20th March which Mr. Poinsett reported to Congress. Then 
 he must have referred to the plan contained in the Secretary's animal Report, 
 yhich is as follows : 
 
38 
 
 "It is proposed to divide the United States into EIGHT MILITARY 
 DISTRICTS, and to organize the militia in each district, so as to hare a 
 body of twelve thousand five hundred men iu active service, and another of 
 eqail number as a reserve. This would pive an ARMED MILITIA 
 FORCE OF TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND xMEN, so drilled and 
 stationed as to be ready to take their places in the raolis in defence of the 
 country, whenever called upon to oppose the enemy or repel the invader. 
 The age of the recruit to be from 20 to 37. The whole term of service to 
 be eight years — 4 years in the first cl iss, and 4 in the reserve : one fourtl* 
 part, [iiffenly-Jive thousand men,) to leave the service every year, passing, 
 at the conclusion of the first term, into the reserve, and exempted from 
 ordinary militia duty altogether at the end of the second. In ih'u manner, 
 twenty-five thousand men will be discharged from militia duty every year, 
 :ind twenty-five thousand fresh recruits be received into the service. It will 
 be sufficient for all useful purposes, that the remainder of the militia, under 
 certain regulations provided for their gavernment, be enro-llled and be' 
 mastered at long and stated intervals; for, in due process of time, nearly 
 the whole mass of the militia icill pass through the first and second classes, 
 and' be either members of the acti\re corps, or of the reserve, or counted 
 among the exempts, who will bs liable to be called upon only in periods of 
 inrasion or imminent peril. The manner of enrolment, the number of days 
 ef{ service, and the rate of compensation, ought to be fixed by law; but th® 
 details had better be left subject to regulation — a plan of which I am pre- 
 pared to submit to you." 
 
 Now the President most certainly did see this plan — it was a part of his 
 annual message — or what is the same thing, it was a part of the report of 
 his Secretary, which was made — not to Congress, but to the President as 
 the Chief Executive officer of the nation, and which accompanied the 
 annual message. This plan he did approve and recommend to Congress, 
 and I am now to shew that it is one Avhich, as much as Mr. Poinsett's de- 
 tailed scheme, demanls the reprobation of the xlmerican peopSe. 
 
 It contains three most exceptionable features — First, it proposes the con- 
 s>lidition of several States into one militarj'' District. Secondly, it proposes 
 to drill or train the militia of the States. And thirdly, to place the railitia 
 in active service. 1 shall consider each separately. 
 
 L As to the consolidation of the States into military Districts. This is' 
 the worst feature of Mr. Poinsett's detailed plan. It is founded on th9 
 assumption that the Federal Government may take the militia of the States 
 be5«onl their territorial limits. This much you admitted to me in a private 
 argument. Indeed, it cannot be questioned. If Congress may form a 
 military diatrict af several States, surely its authority will extend over the 
 entire district. And besides, why erect several States into one grand dis- 
 trict, if the militia of each State is to be confined in its operatian-s to its 
 respective territorial limits? Why not let each State form its own separate, 
 inlependent district? No.v this scheme of consolidating the States into 
 military districts, is liable to three insurmountable objections. First, it is 
 unconstitutional. There is no principle of the Constitution more clearly 
 settled than this, that the General Government has no power to exerciss 
 any the slightest control over the militia of the States, except in certain 
 cases specially enumerated in the Constitution. Secondly, it is dangerous 
 and alarming in this, that it yields to the Federal Government the militari/ 
 principle — if I may so speak. For the moment that we concede that the 
 Federal Government can order one soldier from a State except in the con- 
 
39 
 
 hhgencics specified in the Constitution, that moment the bulwark which de- 
 fends us from military despotism is prostrated forever. (These points will 
 b« further considered under another head.) — And thirdly, this consolidating- 
 plan cannot be carried into practical effect without harrassing and oppress- 
 inifj the people. The moment we begin to remove the militia from their 
 neighborhoods, no matter for what purpose, oppression begins nccessarili/. 
 We eubject them in some sort to the hardships and privations of War. 
 We separate them from their homes, their families and their business. 
 We need no better proof of the correctness of this position than is fur- 
 nished by the details of Mr. I'oinsett's plan. The leading, the very tirsl 
 feature of that plan is, the consolidation or district principle; yet the mo- 
 ment he began to carry out the principle in practice, his plan became 
 otnbarrassing and oppressive. It at once osdered the militia from their 
 homes and neighborhoods to hundreds of miles' distance, and to enfor«« 
 tkis hard provision, it became necessary of course to enact heavy penal- 
 ties; and hence it is provided in his detailed p!an that the militia man 
 ^vho shall refuse to obey the orders of the President when called out by 
 him, is subjected to the rigour of the Court martial system and put even 
 under the rigour of the articles of War, which involve the cat-o'-nin«- 
 lails, cashiering and death! Such is the district system which stands at 
 the very head of the plan recommended by Mr. Van Buren.for reorgan- 
 ising the militia. 
 
 2. The plan of 30th Nov., '39, which the President saw and approved, 
 contains an unqualified proposition for drilling or training the militia of 
 the States. This involves a palpable violation of the Constitution, for in 
 the 8th Section of the 1st Article of that instrument, "the authority of train* 
 ing the militia aocordingto the discipline prescribed by Congress," is ex- 
 pressly " reserved to the States respectively." So Mr. Tan Buren did see 
 aad recommejida pian most obviously violative of the Constitution, and sub- 
 T'ersive of the rights of the Stfitcs. 
 
 3. The plan which received the undoubted sanction of the President pro- 
 vides for placing the militia of the States in active service, without regard to 
 the contingencies enumerated in the Constitution which must occur before 
 the Federal Government can lay claim to the service of the State militia. 
 (See the extract from Mr. Poinsett's Report of 30th Nov., already quoted.) 
 Here again, we recognise a bare-faced infringement of one of the most sa- 
 cred provisions of our Constitution and most vital principles of free govern- 
 ment. The Authors of our Constitution most wisely and most carefully 
 provided, that Congress should have no power to call out the militia of the 
 States into actual service except in three specified cases : "to execute the 
 iawsof the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." (See 8th 
 Sec. of the 1st Article.) 
 
 This were surely one of the wisest provisions of our boasted Constitution, 
 and one which the freemen of the United States should most fondly cherish 
 and at all hazards maintain. They should surrender it only with their 
 life's blood. The wise statesmen who framed our admirable system of 
 Goveromeat u'ere obviously most solicitous to exclude from it as far as po5- 
 sable thetwo great elements of despotic goverameiit, the money and milita- 
 ry powerf-'-or rather, soto guard and restrict these ingredients as to lear* 
 CO foundation for the erection of a despotic government. Hence the provi- 
 sion that "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in cons«- 
 quence of appropriations made by Law"—- a provision which belonging to 
 the cardinal maxime of all free Government was intended to place the pub- 
 
40 
 
 lie purse beyond the reach of the Executive by assigning^ its custody and 
 disposition to '.he immediate representatives of the people— -a provision, how- 
 ever, which has been set aside by the sub-treasury bill. Hence too, the pro- 
 rision already recited, which reserves to the States respectively the authority 
 oftraining the militia, and which forbids the Federal Government to call 
 forth the militia, excfept to execute the laws, repel invasions or suppress i n- 
 surrections. Observe the jealous caution with which the military power is 
 guarded and restricted ! The Federal Goversmfent is not al-lowed irfKlei' 
 a'nv circumstances in time of peace to train or drill the militia. Nor can 
 it, save in certain cases expressly named, make a demand upon a State for its 
 militia. AV^'hy these restrictions? Because a great central government, 
 armed with the vast military power of a great nation, would have within it- 
 self the elements of military despotism. Because, if the States once yielded 
 their authority over their mililia, except for the general defence, they wouUl 
 yield up an instrument which might be, and certainly would, in time, be' 
 wielded for the utter destruction of State Rights and for consolidation in its 
 most odious form. Therefore was it provided, by the sagacious fathers of 
 the Constitution, that except in specified cases, the Federal Government 
 should have no power to march a single militia-man beyond the territorial 
 limits of the State to which as a citizen be owes especial allegiance. 
 
 But all these wise provisions of the Constituticn are in theory disregard- 
 „ed, and would be in practice frustrated,, by the plan which the President re- 
 commended to the consideratioH of Congress. That plan proposes the cal'l-' 
 ingof the militia into actual service in time of peace— not to "execute the 
 Iiws" — nor to "repel invasion" — nor to "repress insurrection" — but for 
 the purpose of being drilled or trained, which is also expressly forbidden 
 by the great Charter of our Liberties. Whether there were ulterior views 
 in those who originated this odious, oppressive and unconstitutional mea- 
 sure, it is the province of each one to determine for himself; but I do warn 
 my countrymen against this wicked scheme. Iniquity enough, God knows, 
 has come fram the hands of the party in power to justify us in looking upon 
 all its measures with suspicion and distrust. And, be it remembered — "eter' 
 nal vigilance is the price of Liberty." It is the incipient stage of usurpa^ 
 tion as of vice that we have most to dread. What has a beginning must 
 have an end. We must strangle the monster in its infancy, ere it acquire 
 by age the strength to wrap its giant arms around the enfeebled body of our 
 political system, and crush into fragments its every limb. 
 
 I do, for one,, from my soul believe, that under the transforming policy of 
 tlie present administration ^ the whole theory of our government is rapidly 
 changing. New and dangerous principles are being engrafted on the Con- 
 stitution ; and not the least dangerous and alarming of these is the measure 
 which proposes to transfer the military power of I he States to the Federai 
 (^Tovernment, or^ more properly, to the Federal Executive. Already the 
 cu.stocly of the public money is yielded to the E.vecutive. Carry out in 
 practical operation the extraordinary proposition recently submitted by the 
 administration for re-organizing the militia. — as it has been artfully term- 
 ed — and if our Government want any essential of practical monarchy and 
 military despotism, I know not what it is. Let not the people be deceived 
 by the title which has cunningly been given to this plan. It is no plan for 
 ■•' re-orginizing the militia of the United States." It is a naked scheme for 
 raising a standing army. By Mr. Poinsett's plan, for which I hold the 
 President responsible, it is purely a standirig armi/ ; for his scheme re- 
 commends that when going to and returning from the central place of ren- 
 
41 
 
 dezvous, and while there on duty, the militia are to be considered in the ac- 
 tual service of the United Slates; and every tyro knows that the Presi- 
 dent is commander-in-chief of the militia of the States, "when in the actual 
 service ofthe Union," — while in many other respects, if not in all, the mili- 
 tia called out in pursuance of Mr. Poinsett's plan, will possess all the avail- 
 ability of a standing^ army. More of this hereafter. 
 
 I flatter m^'self that I have established two propositions in this matter: 
 First, that even if Mr, Van Buren had no knowledge of the detailed scheme 
 ofthe 20th March, he is nevertheless responsible fo» it ; and secondly, that 
 he did see, examine and "strongly recommend" a plan equally objectiona- 
 ble with that of Mr. Poinsett — one indeed, which would not only prove 
 highly oppressive in practice, but which at the same time involves a flagrant 
 infraction of the Constitution. 
 
 I shall resume the subject in my next. 
 
 CAMILLUS. 
 
 IVo. ». 
 
 The Standing Arm y— -continued. 
 
 TO THE HON, JOEL HOLLEMAN. 
 
 I propose in this number to review the arguments you urged in defence, 
 or more properly in palliation, of the Artny bill of Mr. Poinsett, for with 
 all your party unscrupulousness, you had not the hatdiliood to take upon 
 your shoulders the gigantic scheme of the. Secretary for reorganizing the 
 militia, — or to speak in plain Eng'isli, for raising in lime of peace, an im- 
 mense Stinding Army. 
 
 Your main posiiiDn was, that Gen. Harrison had originated and approv- 
 ed a similar scheme. — And this seems a favorite alternative of your party. 
 Unable to justify the revolting transgressions of their leaders, they artfully, 
 and I might say,dishonestly, attempt to excuse them, by shewing that others 
 have been guilty of the like offences. Why, upon this principle, one 
 rogue might excuse himself by shewing that some brother rogue bad per- 
 petrated a worse theft than his. So with your party, I mean its leaders, 
 orators and tacticians — not the honest yeomanry who are deceived and 
 deluded by the managers. The moment any one of its obnoxious meas- 
 ures provoxes the pointed condemnation of the people, it is triumphantly 
 echoed by those whose office it is to ''give the cue," that a similar one wns 
 approved by Gen. Washington, Mr. Jefferson or Mr. Madison. You 
 scruple not to calumniate these spotless sages and patriots, if by that 
 calumny you can prop the sinking fortunes of a sinking party; and if you 
 can by perversion and misrepresentation but make it appear tliat Gen. 
 Harrison is identified with an exceptionable measure of the Administra- 
 tion, you seem in perfect ecstacy at the discovery. But in this case, you 
 shall not "lay the flattering unction to your soul." I mean to make it 
 obvious to every honest mind, that no plan bearing the slightest aflinity to 
 the obnoxious one recommended by Mr. Van Buren, evt r received the 
 sanction of Gen. Harrison, 
 
 1. I defy you or any of your co-adjutors to [)r()ve that Gen. H. ever 
 suggested the QonsoUdation of the States int,o military T">i3trKts.. Ilis plan 
 
4-2 
 
 of 1317, submitted in the form of a bill by the military committee.of Which 
 he wafl chairman, not only confined the militia tothe limits of the respect- 
 ive Slates, but to the neighborhoods to which a^ residents they belonged. 
 The lOih section of that bill is in theSe wot-ds, "Be it enacted, that once 
 in eVery year all the officers of the respective brigades and all the sergeants 
 <>f the lespective regiments shall be assembled together WITHIN SUCH 
 BRIGAI3ES, al such times And places ai map be jird^ided by the Legis- 
 Idlures oj tht setttal States, for the purpose of training and discipline.'^ 
 And the same pToVisioh runs through the plan reported in 181 8, by anothef 
 comniittee, of which Gen. H. was the chaifman. Thus it appears, that 
 while Mr. Van Buren approved and recommended a plan Consolidating 
 the States into military Dictricts, and of course detaching the militia from 
 the territorial limits of their respective States, Gen. H. proposed to confine 
 them while under discipline to theit respective States. Under Gen. H.'s 
 plan, the citizen of Elizabeth City, or Nansemond, or Princess Anne 
 would do the military duty required of him within a few miles of his 
 home, and ere night fall, return to his family and iiis business — under the 
 district system sanctioned by the President, he mighl be removed hundreds 
 of miles from his home and be detained for weeks or months. What ia 
 the system now in force.^ The citizen who is on the rnusier roll leaves 
 his wife and children in the morning, and with glad heart returns in the 
 etening. How should we relish the chanye proposed by the district sys- 
 tem? There is not a man in Virginia who carries a soul within his bosora 
 — not one who has ever realized the fond feelings of a father — no one whose 
 heart has vibrated to the tender chords of nature's endearing ties, or felt 
 the enlivening magic of the dear scenes of home, — there is not a man in 
 the Old Dominion or in America whose soul has been attuned to the 
 sweet sensibilities which the bare thought of "wife, children and friends" 
 inspires, that would not cry aloud against the unfeeling tyrranny that in 
 times of profound peace would wantonly sport with the ties that bind 
 heart to heart, and give to the social relation all its charm and worth. And 
 I warn the happy yeomanry, who would not be uselessly dragged from the 
 endearments of domestic life, to beware of the authors of this military dis- 
 trict system. Let them read the details of Mr. Poinsett's plan, and' then 
 ask themselves how they would like to be dragged twice a year from their 
 TPives and children to some central point in a district composed of the 
 states of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, 
 there to be drilled twenty or thirty or forty days each time, be paid the 
 contemptible sum of eight dollars per month, and be subject while there 
 to the rigour of the articles of War! I do not believe the people will sub- 
 mit to it. It is tyranny, wanton, unnecessary tyranny, to which they 
 ought not to subDiit. In time of war, there is no American who will not 
 willingly undergo all the hardships of the camp and the field. But to drag 
 the quiet citizen to a far distance from his home in time of peace to be 
 drilled and disciplined, when the same thing might be as effectually done 
 in the immediate neighborhood cf his residence, is oppression not to be 
 borne by freevicn. The truth is the district system recently recommended 
 by the Administration, can never be carried into practical operation with- 
 out, at every step, oppre?sing the citizen. 
 
 2. No plan of Gen. Hanison's can be found that proposes to train or 
 drill the militia of the Stales. So far from it, that he expressly declared 
 in 1 S 1 7, that tiie Fcdf ralGovernment possessed no constitutional authority 
 to tniii the nulitia. — He then, has never proposed a plan, that like the one 
 it'i:oinmcndcd by Van Buren, palpaLly infringes the Constitution. 
 
43 
 
 S. There is another remarkable difference between Mr. Van Buren's 
 and Mr. Poinsett's plan of SOth Nov. and those approved by Gen. H. 
 The former as I have demonstrated in my last number, provided for 
 placing the state militia in active service, in time of peace, without regard 
 to the contingencies enumerated in theConslitution, that alone justify the 
 colling of the militia into actual service. And the 17th section of Mr. 
 Poinsett's plan expressly prorideB, that during such period (the period of 
 ta-aining) including the time when going to, and returning from, the place 
 of rendezvous, they (the militia) shall be deemed in the service of the U. 
 States." And, carrying out this idea, he styles the militia thus in service, 
 "the militia of the U. States;" whereas there can be no such thing as 
 U. Slates militia, until they are in service as contemplated by the Consti- 
 tution — viz: when '"called forth to execute the laws, repel inrasion or sup- 
 press insurrection." The plans of Gen. Harrison, on the contrary, are 
 but simple plans for disciplining the militia icilhin the territory of the 
 Stales, and under the sole authority of the Slates. And this, indeed, is 
 all that can be constitutionally done in t'le premises. There is, in fine, thio 
 broad and essential dissimilarity between the projects reported by Gen, 
 Harrison, while he was in Congress and those which emanated from the 
 administration at the last session of Congress, The former are in strict 
 conformity witli the Constitution; the latter are distinguished by reckless 
 disregard of some of the most obvious and, at the same time, most sacred 
 principles of that instrument. 
 
 And there is an important feature in the plan of SOth Nov. 1 839, which, 
 80 far as I have seen, has thus f-ir escaped public observation; but deserves 
 the most deliberative consideration of the people. The Secretary of War 
 s'Jg-gests in his annual report, that the details of his plan "had better b« 
 left subject to regulation" — that is, that the Executive Department should 
 hare the fixing of the details. These are his words: "The manner of en- 
 rolment, the number of days of service and the rate of compensation, ought 
 to be fixed upon by Zaip, but the details had better be left subject to regular 
 tion, a plan of which I am prepared to submit to you," Now I under* 
 take to say, that since this was a government, there has never been mada 
 80 unblushing and impudent a propotial to increase the power and add to 
 the prerogative of the Federal Executive. A gigantic scheme is brought 
 forth, authorising the placing of the militia of all the states of the Union, in 
 service, beyond the territory and authority of the States, and when thus 
 under the control of the federal authorities, all the details of whatever gen- 
 eral plan might be adopted, are to be fixed by the Secretary of War and 
 his master, the President! Suppose for e.xample, Congress at its last session, 
 had adopted by law, the general, undetailed plan, submitted by the Secre- 
 tary of War in his annual report and recommended by the President, leav- 
 ing the details to be settled by regulation of the Executive Department; 
 might not and would not the obnoxious details of the plan of 20th March, 
 1810, have been appended to the general plan ? And in this way, might 
 not the most odious and oppressive regulations have been fastened upon tho 
 people? Yet here we have a subaltern executive officer — suggesting that 
 the most dangerous power, legislative, aye, monarchical in its character, — 
 should be conferred on his superior, the President; and that superior, listen- 
 ing with willing ear to the kind suggestions of his very kind subaltern, and 
 recommending to Congress to grant himself the high prerogatives which 
 that subaltern craves for his Highness ! In the name of Heavi n, where is 
 executive power to end ? Is it not vast enough already, that the ex'-cutiva 
 
44 
 
 should be entrusted with authority to enact the details of a plan for the g-ov- 
 ernment of an army of 200,000 men? — "Manner of enrolment, number of 
 days of service and rate of compensation to be fixed by law" ! — all else by 
 Executive will! I have not the patience further to consider the audacious 
 proposal. But I ask — and as a friend of Gen. Harrison, I ask with defi- 
 ance and with pride — has this pure republican and wise Statesman ever, 
 in all his life proposed any measure or done any one act so strongly savour- 
 ing of POWER, as this? No. He is the sworn foe to pverogativa, 
 except the prerogative of the Constitution and the law. And thank God ! 
 he has made a solemn vow to his countrymen — a vow that we know will 
 be kept — that if elected to the Presidency, he "will use all the power and 
 influence vested in the office of President of the Union, TO ABRIDGE 
 THE POWER AND INFLUENCE OF THE NATIONAL EX- 
 ECUTIVE." 
 
 With regard to the detailed plan of Mr. Poinsett, there is not the most 
 distant resemblance between it and any of the projects which have emanated 
 from Gen. Harrison. But there are discrepancies, wide and vital, which are 
 too important to be passed over altogether. The 17th Section seems to 
 regard the Executive of the U. S. as the fit repository of any and all power, 
 however inordinate. It authorizes the Prcsidetti to call forth suchnumbers 
 of the active force as he pleases; to call them, to any place within the mil- 
 itary district, he may choose; and at any time his royal will and pleasure 
 may select! In Gen. Harrison's plans, both of 1817 and 1818, all these 
 matters are left to the State Legislatures. In them there is no donation of 
 unnecessary power to the Federal Executive. 
 
 But, perhaps,the most remarkable feature of this gigantic scheme — which 
 I believe has also escaped public attention — is, that which constitutes the 
 President Commander in Chief of the militia in a case wherein he cannot 
 be such according to the Constitution. By the 17th Section of the plan, as 
 we have already seen, the militia while under discipline and training and 
 when going to and returning from the place of rendezvous,are to be "deemed 
 in the service of the United States." And by the 2d Section of the 2J Arti- 
 cle of the Constitution, the President of the U. States is Commander in 
 Chief of the "militia of the several States,when called into the actual service 
 of the LT. States." Now what is meant by "actual service of the U. States?" 
 As before proved, the militia can never be in "actual service of the Union," 
 except when regularly called forth to execute the laws, repel invasion or 
 suppress insurrection. But the service of Mr. Poinsett's plan is not a service 
 for either of these purposes. It supposes the militia removed beyond the 
 limits and authority of the States, of course under the control of the federal 
 authorities, and pronounces them in the service of the U. States — not to 
 execute the laws — nor to repel invasion — nor to suppress insurrection — but 
 to do something, it matters not Avhat, independent of, and different from, 
 these three objects or requisitions. But according to his plan, it is actual 
 service, and being actual service, the President becomes Commander in 
 Chief. It follows that this plan makes the President Commander in Chief 
 of the militia in a case not contemplated by the Constitution, for that instru- 
 ment declares he shall only be such when he requires the militia to execute 
 the laws, suppress insurrection or repel invasion. To illustrate by an ex- 
 ample. Suppose the 17th Section had been enacted into a law. The militia 
 of the oth district comprising Virginia, Delaware, Maryland and the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia, we will suppose, are assembled at Washington in pur- 
 suance of the law which declares therr^ to. b^ in the actual, service gf the 
 
45 
 
 Union. Would not tlie President under these circumstances be Commander 
 in Chief of the forces thus assombied, though there was no invasion to repel, 
 no insurrection to repress, and no resisted laws to execute? Surely — for 
 crery law is Constitutional until it is pronounced by a competent tribunal 
 to be unconstitutional. And had such a law passed, the militia marched 
 forth to its rendezvous, must have re-j-arded the President as Commander in 
 Chief, ami being under his command, bound by the ''effulations or details 
 which he in his sovereign will might dictate, 1 should like much to know 
 what, under these circumstances, would distinguish liim from a military 
 d -spot, and what could hinder him from making an unholy use of the 
 military power at his command? The truth is, this plan of Mr. Pomsett 
 adds in cfilct a new clause to the Constitution, conferring as it does, military 
 command on the President where it is not allowed, or, what is the same 
 thing, making the President Commander in Chief of the militia in four 
 cases, when the charter of our liberties permit it in only three! fo the 
 Executive Department, is not content with the vast prerogative it already 
 possesses — it is not satisfied with taking to itself logislative finiction, as it 
 has most eflectually done in many cases — it is not gorged by that accumu- 
 lation of power that clothes it with more prerogative than is possessed by 
 any limited monarch in Europe,— -it must have the highest attribute of 
 sovereignty — the amending power — the power of adding to the Constitution, 
 which three fourths of the States are alone competent to do! Has Gen. 
 Harrison ever proposed or approved so mad, outrageous, and unconstitu- 
 tional a plan? No, never. And I dare you to the shewing, 
 
 There is another most remarkable difference between Gen, Harrison's 
 plans for reorgani.sing the militia and the one which emanated from Mr. 
 Poinsett. The latter proposes to subject the militia of the States — the free 
 citizens of- Virginia and her sister States-— to the hard operation of ihe 
 Articles of AVar, and that in time of profound peace? Yes — know it, 
 fellow citizens of the first Congressional District, that under Mr. Poinsett's 
 plan, you may be doomed to death, disgrace or to being stretched upon a 
 b.irrel and receiving upon your na^red backs the blooddetting stripes of the 
 cat-o'-nine-tails. Before you yield your support to this administration, go 
 read the Articles of War, and in them read what is in reserve for the free 
 citizen of your district who miy happen, perhaps undesignedly, to violate 
 any of those regulations or details which his Majesty, the President of the 
 U. S. or his subordinate, the !?ecretary of War, may ordain for your ol> 
 servance ! And if any friend of the ad:ninistration should tell yon that 
 this scheme will never be passed, do you point him in reply, to the sub- 
 tre.asury bill v.'hich was earned through Congress, though it had been 
 three times condemned by the people, and do you tell him that you cannot 
 trust the party v/ho have violati:d all their pledges, and who perpetrated th« 
 vile, astoundmg, revolting atrocity of the N. Jersey case. 
 
 It is true, Gen. Harrison's schcmeii recommended the militia iri the actual 
 service qf the Union, lo be placed on the same footing with the regular U. 
 S. troops; but the service his plans contemplate, is that actual service pre- 
 scribed by the Constitution, when the militia might be called out to "eiecut-o 
 the laws, repel invasion or repress insurrection." But iNIr. Poinsett's plan, 
 without any regard to these constitutional provisio^ij, proposes, in time of 
 pfiace, to subject the militia to the Articles of War. If the people of th« 
 United States are prepared for a military government, be it so — they have 
 the right to submit to despotism if they choose. They are the sovereigns 
 of the land — the sources of aj( power — and if they chQ0.sc to be slave*, ikj 
 
46 
 
 man can dispute their choice. But for one, I abhor the plan (and I deepis* 
 t^e author of it) which may place myself or my son across the block to 
 receiTe from the stroke of some sturdy arm, the deg^rading and bleeding 
 stripes of the CAT-O'-NINE-TAILS. 
 
 Where then is the likeness between Gen. Harrison's plans and tho9« 
 recommended by Mr. Van Buren and Mr. Poinsett. There is no analogy, 
 sir, no, not the slightest. They are as far asunder as the poles; and with 
 all your special pleading you cannot, for the life of you, establish the rs- 
 motcst similarity between them, in points which are essential and vital. 
 No sir. That great and good man whom I have heard you pity and 
 rerile, is too deeply imbued with the spirit of liberty, too deeply indo«- 
 tfined in the great principles of free government, ever to have lent his 
 sanction to any mad scheme of military Despotism like those which hav« 
 received the commending sanction of your President and his Secretary. 
 And you, sir, in endeavoring for party ends to involve Gen. Harrison 
 in the sin of having supported a great military project like that of 4h« 
 administration, calumniate one of the purest Republicans in this land. 
 But .so it is with the leaders and managers of your party. They are dts- 
 perata — and in that desperation, they will to the last hour 
 
 "Distort the truth, accuniul.ite llie he, 
 
 And pile tlie pyr.-iiniil of caliiiiidv." 
 
 I hare not yet considered all your flimsy apologies for this army scheme, 
 and will resume the subject in my next. 
 
 CAMILLUS. 
 
 IVo. 10, 
 
 The Standing Army — continued. 
 
 TO THE HON. JOEL HOLLEMAN. 
 
 T proceed in the consideration of your defence of tho Standing Army 
 scheme. 
 
 To palliate its oflensiveness, you harped much upon a provision of ths 
 Art of 1792, re-enacted in Mr. JefTerson's .Administration, which requires 
 lh-3 militia to arm themselves, and from thrsc premises you argued that ths 
 Whigs had no right to complain of that provision of Mr. Poinsett's plan 
 which requires the militia to furnish themse'vcs with arms at their own ex- 
 pense. Not so fast, I pray you. There are somo miterial circumstances 
 eanaected witii theprov'sion of the Act of 1792, which you omitted. Tha 
 rcqusition upon the militia to furnish themselves with arms, was not com- 
 pulsory, tor there was no penalty attached for its non-observance. And, 
 being an oppressive one, it grew intodisuso, for in few, if any of the States 
 was it ever observed. Accordingly, in the year 1803, Congress finding 
 that the recommendatory provision of the Act of '92, was disregarded in the 
 Statts, aiid s 'eing the inequality and oppressiveness of compelling the mi- 
 litia to arm themselves, virtually repealed it by makmg an appropriation 
 tVom the national treasury for that purpose. In fine, the law wa-s a dead 
 1 Iter imtil the 23d of April, 1803,anithen it was, in etlect, annulled. What 
 then is the position of .Mr. Poinsett in relation to the provision contained in 
 hi?; plan for reqtilring the militia to arm themselves? It is this: Here- 
 
47 
 
 commended its renewal after time and experience had demonstrated its hard- 
 »hip — after the people of the United States had repudiated it by refusing to 
 obey it; and after CongrcBS, by making an appropriation for furnishing 
 •arms, had conceded that it was embarrassing to the people and repugnant 
 to their feelings, I should humbly think, to say the least of it, that it is not 
 Tery democratic to insist now on a measure upon which the people for Hfty 
 years past hare stamped the seal of their condemnation. 
 
 But, you said that, after all, this thing of the militia arming themselTea 
 was a " snail matter." Not so small either. Say it will require 15 
 dollars to purchase the arms, &c. required by Mr. Poinsett's plan. How 
 many men are there in every county in the State who are unable to take 
 this sum from the support of their families 1 '1 here are numbers in every 
 community who have not the moans of buying sugar and cofl'ee for their 
 wtTcs and children. How would it operate upon these ? How, in fine, 
 will it operate upon the poor fnanof whom it is said this democratic admin- 
 iaWation IS the peculiar friend and guardian ? Where is the poor man in 
 Isle of Wight, and Norfolk Countj', and Elizabeth City, and Nansemond, 
 and Norfolk Borough, and Princess Anne, to get 15 dollars from to equip 
 himself according to Mr. Poinsett's plan ? What is that man to do, who 
 in all the year has not 1 5 dollars at onetime? According to my notion, 
 this is no " small matter," at least for the poor man. Or if it be intended 
 that the Government shall arm the militia, as some have contended, it will 
 require thirty millions of dollars to commeni:* this great scheme — to put it 
 a-going even — a sum rather astounding to a nation whose treasury is al- 
 ready bankrupt ! 
 
 So you lose the benefit of the argummt drawn from tho Act of '92. Ths 
 fiiCld are against you ; and the other apology you tender, that this arming 
 af the militia is a " small matter," likewise fails you. 
 
 But thejosition you most relied on, and to which you clung with the per- 
 linacity that binds a man overboard to the plank that holds him, was, that 
 Gen. Harrison — oh yes— -Gen. Harrison sanctioned a similar proposition ! 
 Why, when did Gen. H. become such high authority with you and you>r 
 party ? But are you sure, mj good sir, that G( n. Harrison dil support a 
 proposition for compelling the militia to arm them.s^lves .^ If 1 mistaka 
 wot, I shall be able to shew that he clearly repudiated such a provision. 
 
 There were but two bills or drtailed plans reported by the military com- 
 mittee of which Gen. H irrisoa was chairman : that of January 17th, 1817, 
 and that of January 9th, 1818. 1 might here call upon you in order to 
 make good your argumenl.to show that Gen. H. approved each and eT<>ry 
 se.Jion of the bills reported ; for you, sir, have been long enough in public 
 life to know that a chairman is by no moans responsible for the dct.iils or 
 evtii the principle of the bills repoitcd irom his Committee. He never 
 votes in Committee unless a tiii occurs, and his business is to report such 
 bills as a majority of the committee may direct. But I will admit that he 
 1-* responsible both for the bill of 1817 and that of 1813 ; anl I will shew 
 rhat no unconditional plan for compelling the militia to arm themselves is 
 iurolvedin either. It is true the 1st section of the bill of 1817 requires that 
 the militia should provide themselves with arms, but this provision was ob- 
 viously designed as a temporary on^, to exist only until the Slatexjhraugk 
 the aid of the Federal Government, should be ready to furnish their Mili- 
 tia with armf. For the 13th stction of the same bill is in these words : Bo 
 it enacted, that the Secretary of War of the United States shall, as soon as 
 iJie sam$ may be practicable, Y>roviJie fo): each brigade, svcA arms, equip- 
 
48 
 
 menl$, tents, and equipage, as may be necessary for the purposes of this act, 
 to be furnished li'/if/cr requisitions from the Executive of i he several Statts 
 and Territories, which shall be previously made to the War Department. 
 Provided, (mark this) that the arms and equipments so delivered, shall he 
 charged to the Stales and Territories under the provision of the act of 
 April 23d, 1818, for arming the whole body of the militia." There can 
 be nothing more conclusive than this. Either the provision of the first sec- 
 tion was intended as a temporary one, or the militia were to provide them- 
 selves from supplies furnished by the General Government and to be paid 
 for by the States and not by the militia in their individual capacity. Nor 
 is this all. It is further provided, in the same section-—" that in lieu of the 
 appropriation under that act (of 1808) there shall he applied annually, un- 
 der the direction of the President of the United States the sum of ■■ — 
 
 dollars for arming and equipping the whole body of the militia." So 
 that the bill of 1817, carrying out in a liberal spirit that provision of the 
 Constitution which authorizes Congress to " provide for arming the mili- 
 tia," lays the foundation for relieving even the States from all expense on this 
 subject by gradually raising a fund for "arming and equipping the whole 
 body of the militia." And the mode of executing the provision is as wise 
 as the provision itself is liberal. The fund is to be raised by a gradual and 
 easy demand upon the treasury, so that the operation might be as liule em- 
 barrassing as possible to the people. Indeed, nothing seems to emanate 
 from General Harrison that is not marked by wisdom. 
 
 But if there is a doubt resting on this point, it must be forever dissipated 
 by reference to the subsequent Report and bill of January 9th, 1818. In 
 these, the sentiments of Gen. Harrison are lully and unambiguously ex- 
 pressed on the point in question. The following is the second section of 
 this Report : 
 
 " The Constitution having made it the duty of Congress to provide for 
 arming the militia, this power isnot duly exercisedhy merely enacting that 
 the militia shall arm themselves. A law to that eftcct, unsanctioned by 
 penahies, will be disregarded, and if thus sanctioned, u-i/Z Z»(; unjust; for it 
 will act as a capitation tax, which the opulent and the needy will pay equal- 
 ly, and which will not be borne by the States in the proportion fixed by 
 iiiQ Constitution. The commiUee do not approve of putting public arms in- 
 to the hands of the militia, when not necessary. That mode would expose 
 the arms to be lost and destroyed. They conceive that Congress should 
 provide arsenals, from which the militia of every pari of the U7iiled States 
 could draw arms when necessary, which would be a sutTicient exerciseof 
 the power to provide for arming the milhia." 
 
 Jn aecQrdaocc with thrse suggestions, the bill which accompanied the 
 Report, expressly enacted in the second section, that " the President shull 
 cause arsenals to be provided in the most secure situations i7i each Stale and 
 Territory; and shall, so soon as the .same is practicable, ca^se to be de- 
 posited therein, aims, camp equipage, and ammunition svjficicnt to arm and 
 piovide (he Junior class of the militia and the companies formed by voluU' 
 iary enlistment ; and, so soon as convenient, sutFicient to arm and provide 
 the Senior class.'^ Only the officers ani dragoons are required to equip 
 themselves. 
 
 Now, sir. with these facts beSrfie you, with whi^t fnce could you argue to \\ie 
 people that Gen. Hairison supponcd tlie obnoxious nieasmc of cornpelt- 
 in? tiie r^iilltia to arm themselves? There is not a word o( truth iuthft charge. 
 The liicts prove directly the contrary ; and you were either ignoraqt of il|e 
 
49 
 
 fiicts, or wilfullj perverted them. And, tlierefore.'yonr attempt to exculpate 
 
 Mr. Poinsett by inculpating Gen. llairison — it inistiabie subterfuge at best 
 
 is ati abouion. Wliy doyou not defendthe tiling on tljc ineiits ? I will an- 
 swer for you — because it is indefensible; because a compulsoiy demand upon 
 llie yeomanry of the country to keep themselves provided with arms and equip- 
 ments in time of peace is unjust, unequal, oppressive and lyiannical, and vou 
 know it to be so. 
 
 In the next place, you " cried aloud and spared not," because Gen. II. I;;id 
 recommended a stupendous scheme (or imparting military insiiuc ion. to all 
 tiie youtlis in the cnuntry I you paraded (orth to ihe people '• Gorson?, Hy- 
 dras and Chimeras dire," isi ilic outrageous and uncousiituiiona! projjosition 
 to make a mdhtairy school ef^the v/ho'e country ! Yoia se-eiiMcd lo lie almost be- 
 side yourself on this point, when with stamiting foot and lashing arm, you an- 
 nounced, that at last you had cornered the old General ! ] saw dis uiclly t!ie 
 fl;4sh of joy roll from your animated eye, and methought 1 siw the smile of 
 triumph playing u|)oii the coun'enances of your delighted friends, when c.vra- 
 tliedra you proclaimed the wonderful discovery that this old ignoramus of a 
 Whig candidate for the Presidency, had himsell' recommended a most horrible, 
 most unconstitutional project ! 1 do hate to dash tiiiscup from your lip; to diive 
 from ) our phiz the self com|)!accncy with which your ominous d'scovery lislit- 
 ed it up, — oh, it is most cruel, I know ; to steal into the little Kden your fan- 
 cy has created, and deseer'<ile the rosy Ijowers upon which you Jio|)ed in gcn- 
 t'ie softness to recline, — but Truth, injured Truth — demands that vourTei)os2 
 ibe disturl)ed.. 
 
 ■(ien^ Harrison proposed a gigantic scheme for instrnciing the youth ( f the 
 country!! Good Heaven! have you forgot that this Administration has pio- 
 posed a scheme whicir le.ivcs all its predecessors far, far in the rear; a scheme 
 lo raise a Standing Army of 2()0,0(!0 men in time of peace, and iho deiai's of 
 which CHiry the free Yeomanry of the land hundreds of miles from their bus- 
 iness and homes —keep them there ("or a long i)eriod — while there, place them 
 iinder the control of the J'resident of the United States, and subject tkem to 
 ijie rigorous rule of the Articles of War ! And yet you dare to come before 
 an intelligent people and t^lk about Gen. Harrison's proposing a gigantic 
 scheme! I must say, sir, it is the most barefaced, unblushing impudence i 
 iiave ever come across. Which, sir, I make bold to ask you, which scheme 
 — "honor bright" — is (he more gigauiic and preposterous. Gen. li.'s, admit 
 iin^it to be ail you say it is, orihaiof Mr. Poinsett ? 
 
 But, Gen. Harrison's plan is shariiefully unconstiiiJiionan Ah! and wliat 
 ii^ht have your party, wlio make a plaything of thcConstitutiot?, to prate iibout 
 ilip constituiionahty of things ? Just about the same light that arrant rogue? 
 have to lecture honest people about honesty. I wonder you did not think of 
 tiie danger that persons wlio live in glass houses incur by throwing stones- 
 General liarrtson the author of an nneonslitutiona! plan ! Why, wlio propos- 
 ed to consolidate the States into military districts, contrary to the letter and 
 (spiiitofthe Constitution ? Mr. Van 15ur(ui and Mr. Poinsett. Who jiropos- 
 od to transfer dom the States to the Federal Government, the authority of 
 tiainiiig the militia, which in express words, is reserved to the Stales res,',cct- 
 ively / Martin Vaw Buren and Joel II. Poinsett. W!io projiosed to call the 
 urilitiainto actual service, *;hen it might not be nee essary to "execute tlie 
 laws, repel invjsion, or suppress irtsuriectioir,'' in which cases only, cvn it be 
 <!onsliti:iii)n;illy done ? The President of the United States and iiis Secieta- 
 ry of War. Yetyoij litive the ellVonteiy to jabber about Gen. Hanisou's sup- 
 fxiriing an uncoiisiiiutional j)roject! It is brazen liaidihood and sickening in- 
 consistency. 
 
 But what will the honest reader tliiiik, when he comes to learn that (ien. fl. 
 ex))ressly admiticd t!ic unconstitutionality of his plan of miliiaiy instruction, 
 aiid that (hough in his opinion, it was the best that could be devised, it could 
 not be canjcd into effect witliout an amendment ol the (Constitution? Yet 
 such is the fact ; and you, sir, admitted it, but not until you weic driven to 
 4 
 
50 
 
 the admission. When you were running on at a rapid rate about the uncon- 
 stitutionality of llie plan, you were asked by the writer of these Nos., if Gen. 
 11. had not himself admitted that it would require an amendment of the Con- 
 stitution to carry it out, to which you leplied in the affirmative, but to bieak 
 tiie force of the disingenuousness, you s;iid, that he did not make the admis- 
 s on until after the lapse of a considerable time, he became convinced o( tha 
 inconslilutionality of the scheme. A poor come-o(f indeed, for when should 
 v/e iPtract an error, but when we become satisfied of its e;iisfence ? Besid^'s, 
 li;is Mr. Van Buren admiited the unconstitutionality of his plan of 30th No- 
 vember, '39, or Mr. Poinsett, that of his enormous and odious scheme of 
 J\!arch 20ih, 1840 ? I rather guess that you ;md your high friends are cor- 
 nered, not (jen. Harrison. Indeed, take him in tlie battle field, or elsewhere, 
 lie is liard to corner. 
 
 The next tack you made, was equally unfortunate with the rest. And it 
 \\ ill require no veiy heavy squall to send your frail baik sinking to the bottom. 
 You declared tiiat Gen. Harrison opposed the (lisl)anding of the standing ar- 
 try of 1798. Your design was obvious — to make the people believe that Gen. 
 11. had once been in favor of a standing army. You are vastly wise to be sure. [ 
 Ijave yet to learn th;it the army, if army it may be called, which Gen. H. voted, 
 in 1800, against disbanding, was a standing army. Ever since I was a boy, I 
 Iia"e always heard this army called the provisional army, and a provisional ar- 
 my it was, conditioned to exist only for a limited line, and a limited purpose. 
 It was no part of the regular military t stablislimeut of the Union. lam 
 not mistaken on this subject. Here is the act itself,of July 16,1798, by which 
 it was raised : 
 
 •' Sec 2. "Be it further enacted, that the President of the United States, be, 
 and he hereby is authorised to laise, in addition to the present military estab- 
 I shinenr, twelve reiriments of infa itry and six troops of lujihl dragoons, to be 
 enVnted for, and (luring the continuance of the exi.4ing differences between the 
 I nited Stales ami the French Jicpiibtic, unless sooner discharged.'^ (Vide 4 
 \ ol.LawsU. S. p. •2\iO.) Jt will thus be perceived, that the regiments recruit- 
 ed for tlie provisional army of 1798, were (o continue in service only until the 
 ciiflerences betncen France and the United Staiesshould be made up. It was 
 then, no standing army; and the charge you pref-^rred against Gen. IJ. o( hav- 
 ing supported a standing army, is without foinvlaii-tn. 
 
 Jiut wliat were the circumstances under which this provisional army was rais- 
 ol? It was at a time wher the most unfriendly rel itions ex sted between the 
 l^rencii (tovernment and ours. The diplomatic communica.ions even, whicii 
 p.issed between the two Kfpublics had not only assumed a;i unfriendly but 
 even nncaulioiis lone ; and war between the two was regarded on all sides i i- 
 
 < viiable. Already indeed, there had been a ditificulty on the high seas between 
 two naional ve-sels of the two nations. Jt w.is under these threatening cir- 
 cumstaiices — when war was at our very doors — that the act of July 16, 1793, 
 was passed. On (he 7tli January, 1800. it was proprtsed lo repeal this art; and 
 against repeal, G't-n. Harrison made a speech. i'i)r vote he had noiif. being a 
 di legate from a teiritory. With him. in his course on thi- subject, were Gen. 
 Samuel Smith of Maryland and other distinguished lvepul)licans ol ihat day. 
 Had he acted dilf. rently, hewould have deserved the name oflrrlur; for the 
 dilK'iences lietween France and America Jiad not been tvadc up. and the same 
 necessi y which led tfi tht; raising of the i)rovisional army in "98. still existed 
 (or its cominuaiicc. Under this stalemen' of facts (said G^'ti. Smiih.) will gen- 
 tlemen lliiiiK o( destroying this army at once .^ Will it not be nmre prudent 
 III wait two or ihice months for advices from our envoys?" Besides, there 
 verc peculiar obligaions on Gen. H. to resist ihe disbanding of the provisional 
 Itegiinciils. The N. Western territoiy, of which hewasihe Pveiiresentative in 
 
 < ongress, wonid necessarily have been much fxposed in the event of war, both 
 by reason ol its spaise population, and iis coniiuniiy to the great lakes; and it 
 v^a5 moreover every day liable to Indian depredation, an 1 violence. Had Gen. 
 H. tinder such ci'Tunista'-ces. fivovf^d t!:;' dis!)andit;c of t!i" n-ovi<i <rnl troo'kS, 
 
51 
 
 iie wouH lia'ye C)iTi;nitte'JI llie double sid of infiJelity to liis immed'rUe con- 
 ^limenis arnJ to his country. Andafterall, this army a!)out which so much 
 ins been said bv the partizans of tlie aJiiiit)isir;«tion, amounted only to 3,399 
 Dien ! Wiicit then becoiiies of y.mr chaige that Gen H. was o-ice the advocate 
 •of a great standing army? Ii is like all the other charges against this wise 
 Had virtuous statesmm, uiisupi»i>ried by truth. 
 
 Anc^ some are atteiupiing, ainunj; them, Mr. PonseJt hiuiself, to d«!fend tlie 
 President, by asserting;, that thouiih he " strongly rLCommended to the consid- 
 ipration of Congress"' the plan of 30lh Nov. lasl, he nevertheless did not neces- 
 sarily a|)|)rove it. Sirange defence indeed ! In whata dilemma does it place 
 the i'rcsideni! Verily, Air. Van IJiiren will be kept half his lime exclaimins 
 'Save me (rom my friends." \\y tlie Coistituliou, the Executive is required 
 lo '• recommend to the consideration ot Congress, such measures as he shall 
 judge n-ccessary and expedient.''^ Now he did recommend the plan of 30ih Nov. 
 ;is I have already un uiswen.bJy sliewa ; and Mr. Poi isett admits this himself 
 j 1 hisl.isi Jeticf to Mr. Ritchie: in one portion of it, lho\ he alterwards argues 
 tiiat ilmmirh Mr, Van IJurcH recoiniuended the plan, it did not follow that he^ 
 ;ipproved it. iJ'the latter posiiio.i be true, he involves his friend the Preside^},, 
 j) the uiienviable predicament of having recommended to Congress me-as nres 
 %vhich he did «ot believe to be " necessary and expedient." If tlie ft'.ei.ds. of 
 Mr. Van I>u4eii persist in the attempt to exculpate him by assertinij that 
 J hough he rece:nMiended he did not approve of the Secretary's plan ,if 3Dth 
 Nov., '39. ihey wil] but involvii him in moral infamy as well as fi.v uj .on bina a 
 gross violation -of ihe Constitution. 
 
 Lastly, you attempted to soothe the people by assuring them t'/^aj the- anusy 
 bill wi4:| never be passed. This is more than you have a right to say,. M'r^ \inii~ 
 3.-man, And I warn y.)U, fellow citizens of the first district, flguias!! *•' hiyia* 
 j' is unction to your souls." Canyon safely trust the party that peip&tjaieJ 
 ihe owtrage ujjon our sister State of New Jersey — that for i .nrty purpusjs, pro- 
 iancd law, justice, good faith, and S ate Rights, and s:)urn.e,I every moral and 
 ipuliiical obligation I Can you coiifi le in the assuiances of a parly that car- 
 ried througii Congiessa bill (the sub-treasury) which i^ad three times been 
 condemned by the peojile ? Does popuUr ri'probaUoti of measures dcttr this 
 administration fiom pressing them on to consutnmaiij /> T Can you rely upon 
 ihose who ever keej) rt a ly on their lijJS profossiors which their ai;<s belie ? 
 Who " keep tht- word ol promise to our ear and tr ;ak it to our hope ?" No. 
 You ciiuiiot. 
 
 "Tliey who trii«Ulicir plighted triilb^ 
 Lean on a reed tJial soon may part, 
 And .send its shivers to the heyit." 
 
 llyou trust them, you do it at yonr petil. X.isten to the SSretJ song wliicli 
 your representative pours fuilh lo his coii?tjtuents. and you mny repent, wlien 
 it will be too hitf, that you leut a chaimutl ear to the d;^^ceiving >tiaiiis which 
 I.iid upon you the spell of a false and tat;il securiiy. 
 
 If any thing be wanting to excite your distrust, advert to the fact iliat Mr. 
 \'an I'uren is uncomniiiled against this liuge schcine either on the ground of 
 expediency or couslilutionaliiy. His i outse about it pure non-committal, 
 liehas'ielt a pJace, as he always dues, to creep out at, if he should be re-elect- 
 ♦'d and wish to pass the measure. ]'lainly. manilesily, obviously r)bjeciioiia- 
 hie as it is, his optics are nit keen enougti to [lerceive its delormily ; and in- 
 stead ot coming out like a man and a sta'esman, and denouncing a defoinuMl 
 and vicious measure, he veils Iiimself in mystery "wlups the devil round the 
 stump,"''' and holds forth th^ Ajlluwing equivocal laoiiuage : ''It becomes me 
 (>ee his Klizjbeth City L-lter) in tiie fu e of so much apparent aniliDiiiy, to 
 hesitate before / can pronounce definittly vpon its constilulionalily. I shall, 1 aitt 
 coiiliJent, in the opinion o( all c.indid minds, hcsl pcifjrni my duly by rejrutn- 
 '})S U) do so un il it becomet necessary lo act officially in the tuatlcr." The Kn- 
 glish ofwiiicli is, "1 an free lo act as I pletise — 1 may appiuve or disappiuve 
 tlie measure as my interest oi other cotisidjrati ins demaud." 1 mu>t uke ii 
 
52 
 
 upon me lo -eay, tlsat !;cre is an example ofqnJbblfDg upon n grave a:ul solenm 
 question whicli'cuii be the product oulj ol'a little mind, and which is despita- 
 l)le to the 'last degree. The man who can bring liiniself to quiljljle on a gieat 
 question like itiie militia scheme of Mr. Poinsett, would be a tvrant, Kiiii>, dic- 
 tator, despot, kiHave, or any lliin;: else which a souiid, degraded selfishness 
 might require. Atsdifthe people o("lhe United States afier this inexcusable 
 shuflhng, will lunany ri; k of having this standing army plan lasteiied upon 
 them, they will liclUy ineri'^ the most galling yoke tliat can be applied to their 
 slavish necks^ 
 
 Attempts aie daiily made too, to deceive you as (o the true character of the 
 new scheme (>r re-organising the militia. You are Cold it is no standing ar- 
 my, but it is. Ifroom permitted, I could demonstrate that it has most ol the at- 
 tributes of a sti'.nding army. The easy availability of the militia wiion called 
 out ; their utter independence of State authority and consequent subjection 
 to federal control ; the long jicriod of camp and field service ; the provision 
 that wiien drilling lliey sludl be deemed in the actual service of the Union, and 
 the consequent one that they «ill be under tiie command of the President o! 
 the United S tates as Commander-in-Chief ; and above all, the consideration 
 that several pretexts may, by the Executive, be drawn from the Constitution 
 lor continuing tiicm in service beyond the period designated for training — al! 
 these ciicumstances and consideiations combine to render the scheme of iMr. 
 Poinsett at least as dangerous as any standing army can well be, it it be not 
 fully lant-,iinount to it. 
 
 In conclusion, let m*^ say to the voters of this district that one of the griev- 
 ances o{ wii'-ch ourfaihers complained against the King of Great Britain iii 
 their struggle for Independence, was, that he kept standing armies in the colo- 
 nies in times ol peace. " He has (says our immojtal Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence) Kept among us standing aimies without the consent of our Legisla- 
 tures." The very same thing our Rulers proposed at the last session of Con- 
 gress ; yet, thouga in the llevoUuion our ancestors unsheathed their swords 
 10 redress the grievance, we "deliberate in cold debate" whether iveshall or not 
 (juietly subinic to, in aur servants, what we rt;sisted al the bayonet's point in 
 George the Third ! And such was the jealousy of the people, of every thing 
 like a standing army at tlie commencement of the present century, that it was 
 with difficulty they could be reconciled to the provisional army in the elder 
 Adams's time; so much so, that an effort was made to disband it before the set- 
 tlement of the difficulties with France. JNor should I venture much in saying, 
 tliat had the younger Adains proposed a plan like that which was recommend- 
 ed by the administration last winter, a revolution would have been the conse- 
 quence, which would have huiled him in ten days' time from the i'lesiden- 
 iial chair. Al.'.sl Alas! "\\'hat a change has come o'er thespiiit of our 
 dream. 
 
 CAMIILLUS, 
 
 No, a a . 
 
 The Tariff. 
 
 TO THE HON. JOEL HOLLEMAN. 
 
 I propose now to cunsidcr the cot"nparitive iTierits ol the two Presidential 
 caaJuiates, on the leuduig- questions of National Policy, includinn- tht; 
 TariH; Internal Improvement, the Bank, State Rights and the Sub-Treasury. 
 
 And first, of the Tariif. You declared Mr. Van Buren to be far tlie 
 more orthodox of the two on this subject. And you went 50 far even as to 
 
prpsent him to your constittunts as the jhi/i-TariJJ' cvLivVidaic fo: the Presi- 
 dency. With what propriety you put forth tliis extraordinary pretension, 
 Jacts shall decide. 
 
 1 might very properly raise hefore your constituents the question of your 
 credibility as a witness ia these matters. 1 have shown most clearly that on 
 th^ subject ofAbolitioii you have misrepresented, and c^rossly misrepresented, 
 (ieu. Harrison; tliat.you have wilfully slandered hi."; military name; that 
 for p:irty ends you laid a traitor's hand upon the lauivls that enwreath his 
 own and his country's brow^; that yoxi have, contrary to evidence most con- 
 clusive, represented him as a superannuated dotard; that in the N. Jersey 
 case, you cunninglj^ concealed from the people the true facts of the case, 
 and became the shameless advocate of a shameful outrage upon justice, law 
 and right: that you justified the admission of negroes to testify against free 
 white men on the ground of its legality; that you defended a dangerous 
 standing army scheme, and in defending that scheme, attempted to establish 
 a parallel between Mr. Poinsett's plan and those once approved by Gen. 
 Harrison, when in fact there was no resemblance: all these points and many 
 v,'o:se, have been fairly made out against you, and I might therefore sav 
 that all your arguments and declarations on other subjects are unworthy of 
 notice; tx uno disce omnc^, I might exclaim — but I will take no such 
 advantage, and continue the exposure of your miserable attempts to delude 
 the people. 
 
 Wherein, sir, is to be found the preference of Mr. Van Buren over Gen. 
 Harrison on the subject of the Tariil'.^ You declared with seeming con- 
 sciousness of triumph, that the latter voted in the Senate of Ohio, as far 
 back as 1820, for strong Tariff Resolutions. Grant it; and yd Mr. Van 
 Buren has the start, by several years, of Gen. Harrison. In the year 1817, 
 iMr. V. B. while a member of the N. Y. Senate, voted for Resolutions in- 
 structing the Senators in Congress of that State, to '' use their influence 
 to obtain efficient protection for the infant inanufactures of the U. S., partic- 
 ularly woolen and cotton, either by a pcrvianail augmentalioii oi \.\\qAu.\.\qs 
 upon certain goods, or by the irrohibillon of such woollen and cotton goods 
 fro.n foreign conntries, as can be supplied by our own manufacturers." If 
 Gen. Harrison ever supported stronger resolutions than these, be good 
 • aough to shew them. 
 
 We next find the "Northern man with Southern principles" voting for 
 the high protective duties of the Tarifi" bill of 1824. x\nd in 1828, he 
 voted for the bill of that year which, was prohibitory as to many articles and 
 which very properly received the title of '-Bill of Abominat'ons." 
 
 iJui it is said l)y liie panizans of iNlr. Van Uuren, that though he voted lor 
 the Tariff of 1828, he did so in obedience to instruciions (roin liie New York 
 Legislature. You and every intelligent inan of your paiiy Uii )w thi.s to be a 
 iii:stake. In hi.s sheep speecli, inade in 18-27. he declared tnat "i« 1824 he had 
 the honor of a seal in the Senate of the i'. .S., and had given to ihc Tar {(f of that 
 year a decided nupport." In the same speech, he .speaks of the policy of pro- 
 icUive didies as the "SETTLKD P0LIC7" of ihe country, and'declares 
 Ins rcu.|ine.ss at all limes to sustain all such latcs as might be necessary to ajj'urd 
 iegislatice jtrotcctioii to the manufactures of the couniry. But there is other 
 aiid positive proof that he did not vote for the Tariff of 1828 under the inHnence 
 of instnictiiins. We have the authority of Gen. Thompson of S. (.'arolina and 
 ol the Hon. Henry A. Wise of our own State, that Mr. Van lUiren wrote a let- 
 ter to Mr. Talmadue of New York, in which the former declared that lie did 
 not require any instructions to vote for the Tariff of 1826, but should have voted 
 for it xcilhnut instructions. 
 
 Thus far, we find him recognising by his professions and acts, both the con* 
 
54 
 
 slittitlnn.'^lity ^^ncl ilic policy of Prorection. No-w, sir, T cull on j'oir fo p/oJace 
 one .'•in<;ie »ulj5cqiient act or dec braiioii conirndictory of his general couise ]ti 
 tavoiirof the TanlF policy. I will shew yon, on the contrary, that he h;i3 vprv 
 recently reaffirmcii his paist fflphiions on tbc stjlijiecf. In lib Eliaabelh City 
 letter, dated 3lsi July last, besides oilier thjng.^, he uses rhis language : i believe 
 the cstablisliment of eo^ir-vercial rssulaliona, with a vicvj to ihe f.ncoyragcmtnt ej 
 domestic 'prodvcls, Is he icilhiu the Constitvlioval poi'ier vj Cong.rrss.'" Yet some 
 of his friends p^ay lie !■=■ opposed to the Tariff on ConsiiJulioiial' grounds. 
 
 1 now demand upon what ground it !S, vviili these facts of common histrry 
 before you. thai you presume to present Mv. Van Buren to your constituenis 
 as the Anti-Tarilf candidate for the Presidency? You have no other ih-ui 
 the promt)tings of a reckless spisit o-f paity that has do respect fe-r Irut'b or other 
 mm at oUfgatinn., 
 
 Strange, str;uige de-lusfon must if be, tlj.it tempts the f7eo;.>leof the South to 
 !>ustain as an anti-tariff candklate, the man wh.o voted f«vrihat Tavifi" bill which 
 drove the South almost to madness, and •c>clual!y caused SoultiCa.ioli.aa lo place, 
 herself in the altitude of resistance to the laws of the Union! Wheticc came 
 the example of practical nulhGcation, hut from tlie oppressive Tanffof lSi!3 ? 
 And di;l not Mr. Van Buren support ihis biil? And yet will S'onthern mcr? 
 deceive themselves with the absurd notion, that on the subject of the Tatitrhe 
 is Southern m his feelings, as the late Democratic Address to the vorcrs of this 
 district asserts? It is tlvc verresJ delusion t>y lay that ctc? vet spelli-b^und 
 the senses of men ? 
 
 And let me present to you, fellow ci izens of the first district, anottier con- 
 sideration on this questiorr. Do you no't know, and does i^ot yoisr representa- 
 tive well know, th;u if Mr. Van Buren was to dare retrace his eouise on tlie? 
 Tariff que&tion. and declare against the po-licy of i>rotection, he could not get 
 a vote north of Ma.soiv and Dixon's liae? Would not such a step be at once 
 f'ltal to his pretensions? Y^'et it is true, that while the Southern people are 
 supporting bim for his supposed ojiiposiiion to the Tariff, his Northern friends 
 are sustaining him mainly on the ground that with resp-^cE to the policy of pio- 
 teclion he is in Northern interests? 
 
 I do not pretend to say that Gerr. IlaiTKon denies the Coasi?tutron,-vl pwwer 
 of Congress to protect domestic manufactures. There aye few men North or 
 South of the Potomac who do. The power has been recognised from ihe foun.- 
 dition of the Governmeii>t. The scsond act passed by the p.rsl Congress under 
 the l^'ederal Constituiion, was an. act "for laying a duty oa goods, wares an.^ 
 merchandize imported into tlie U. States;" and if I mistake not, ihe discrimin- 
 ating principle was contained in that act. It was not until a shorf time previous 
 I) 1824, that the power began to be questioned. And at tliis day, the be.,t 
 republicans in the land are disagreed on this point. T shall not, then, deny iluu 
 Gen. Harrison has recognised the policy of [uotection. But in the name <yi 
 justice ;uid frulli, J do protest against ha7ii.)g hin.i hcid up a^s i!ik exclusivs? 
 TarilF candidate for the Presidency, when his opponent rs equally eX'.Gepiiiona- 
 ble, and in my opinion \\\)i more so, on that sulject. There are soMie points oi 
 difierence between ihein, which aie in favour of Gen. Harrison, and these 1 shall 
 notice. 
 
 First, Mr. Van Buten voted against the bill "to reduce the duty on imported 
 sail;" (Ten. 11. in favour of il. The former, indeed, moved I's indefinite post- 
 ponement. 1 will briefly ^juote the debate. 
 
 Mr. Cobb (of Georgia) said : "The course taken by the Senator fjom N.York 
 (Mr. V. B ) appea?s to me very extraordinary, h is curious that this is thcr 
 only bill liiat proposes to repei.1 a tax \vldck is •paid chiejhj hj tht iKoplt <J' tli& 
 Syvthern Slates." 
 
 Mr. Harrison said: '■'He thought >t woufd not be denied that a tax on a 
 necessary of life, as was that to which the bill referred, which took as much 
 from ihe poor man r>s fiom the ricli one, was in utter hostility to tlie principles 
 of our government." Again: "This duty upon salt, is opposed to another im- 
 portant priDcii)le. It is a tax, and a heyvy tax, on agticullure; upon that in- 
 
55 
 
 teresl which is more iifiportant than any o'her, and on which, ijuleed, :'ll the 
 otiiers depend," (See Congiess l)(;l)atcs, vol. 4, p. 5!i-2 ) Tluis ii seems, ihiU 
 while («en. II. voted af;;ii:isl a tax which was oppressive to the poor man, and 
 peciiUHrly so to the Sonihern people, iMr. V^ati ikiren voted for it. Who is 
 the better man Cor the South and lor the poor? 
 
 Secondly^ Gen. II. has declared that "good faith and tlie peace and liarnioiiy 
 of the Union" require that the compromise act of '3-"i should be carried out 
 "in its sjHiit and inlention»" Again, in his letter to Messrs, Don, Taylor .i;;d 
 others, dated Zanesville. Nov. 2\, IS'^G, he says: 
 
 **I regret that my remarks of yesterday were misunderstood in relation lo 
 the tariff system. What I meant to convey was, that I had been a warm advo- 
 ciiie for that systein, upon its first adoption; that 1 still believed in the beiieli:s 
 it had conferred upon the country; but 1 certainly n'^vcr had, nor ever coulJ 
 have, any idea of reviving it. What I said was, that 1 would not agree to the 
 repeal as it 7ioir stands; in other wortls, 1 am ior supportin;^ the Coinpromiic 
 Act, and never wi{| agree to its being altered or repealed." 
 
 Mr. V^an Buien, I will admit, has made a si.uilar declaration, though not in 
 fenns eq;ially strong. He does not meet the question boldly like (lea. 11. But 
 here is the g<eat dilferen e between them that merits all consideration. Tiie 
 oae h-as never broken a pledge and may be implicitl}' rr lied on. The same 
 cnnnot be jus ly predicated of Mr. Van Bureu, who has frequently made pro- 
 fessions which his acts contradicted, and whose public course is replete with 
 inconsistencies that cannot be reconciled with elevated views, or pohtical 
 lionesty. 
 
 And thirdly, there is one great practical fWsUncUon between them, that ought 
 to be regarded conclusive against Mr. Van Buren. There is far greater probij- 
 bility that the Tariff will be revived under the administiation of the latter than 
 Mnder that of fien. Harrison. Without an economical administration o( the 
 (ioverninerit, either a revival of the Tariff is unavoidable, or a icsort to diif ct 
 taxation. Now who is the more likeJy to give us an economical administration, 
 and thus avert the necessity of reviving the Tariff, Mr. V;\n Buren, who hns 
 increased the expenditures from Ti to37 miJIiotis of dollars a year, or (Jen. H. 
 who has pledgee] himself to introduce into eve^y department ot the (Jovernment 
 the most rigid econo:ny? 
 
 I know that IMr. Van Bu^en has made many piofessions of economy, and 
 talked much of reducing the revenue to the wants of the Government; but it is 
 nil empty jirofession — vox el pretcrea Tii/iU. It were vain and senseless to prate 
 about teduciiKg tlie levcnue to the wants of the Government, when those wants 
 sre fixed at 40 millions per annum. The wants of the government must be 
 reduced and the revenue graduated accardingly. Economy, indeed, consists 
 not so much in reducing the revenue, as in f.urtailing the want.s of the Gov- 
 ernment. So extravagance consist-s ira creating unnecessary subjects of expen- 
 diture as well as in profuse appropriation to each particular object- 
 
 Will Mr. Van Buren, if re elected, reduce the expenses o( the Government 
 to the true economical standard.' — That is the question, and to test it, let facts 
 lie consulted. 
 The ordinary or permanent expenses of Mr. Adams' first year 
 
 amounted to $6,533,000 
 
 xMr. Van Buren's fust year to 13,098, 0( 
 
 Increase 6,560,000 
 
 And in the next two <lie proportion is about the same. 
 The extraordinary expenditures in the first year of Mr. Adams were S.l.W.OOO 
 Mr. Vac Bu,ren's"grsl year 24,166,000 
 
 Jnr.resse 19,013.000 
 
 The proportion in the subse^jucnt yeairs about the same. 
 The aggregate permanent e::pe,use5 of Mr. Adams' first three years 
 
 amounted to " §20,723,000 
 
 Mr. Van Buren's fiist three years to 40,261,000 
 
56 
 
 The aggregate extraordinary expenses of Mr. Adams' first three' 
 
 years 10 $16, 381, 000 
 
 Nr. Van Buren's first three to 73,586,000 
 
 Nearly five times as much in the latter as in the former! 
 Tlie aggregate amount ot all expenditures ill Mr. Adams' first 
 
 three years was 836,704.000 
 
 Of Mr. Van Buren's first three 111,000,000 
 
 Increase of expenditure in Mr. V. B.'s tliree years over Mr. Adams' three- 
 SEVENTYFOUR xMlLLlOiNS AND A qUARTEKIir 
 Again: The civiJ list in 1828, (the last year of Mr. Adams' admi'nis- 
 
 tralion) was §1,455,000 
 
 Tn 1838, the second year of Mr. V. B. 2,620,000 
 
 In 1823, there were employed in the War Department 20 Clerks — 
 
 salary, ' §28,000 
 
 In 1838, there were 50 Clerks— salary, 82,500 
 
 !n the Custom House at New York there were employed 174 offi- 
 cers — salary, §119,000 
 [n the year 184'0. (see Blue book) there are engaged 497 olTlcers ai«J clerks 
 with a salary of 556,000 dollars!! ' And wiiat is inexplicable except by the 
 supposition of tlie most wanton extravagance and waste, iheve was no more 
 revenue collected in the year 1840, than there was in 1826! 
 
 These cases are given merely as s[)ecimens of the extraordinary augmentation 
 of tlie expenses of the Government. The increase is about the same in most 
 uf the other D-partments, And if 1 were to enter minutely into the various 
 items of wasteful extravagance furnislied m the- various branches of the public 
 service, I should write several (olio volumes. I may at some future time enter 
 more particularly into this subject. For the present 1 have sliewn enough to 
 establish my position, that all this proftsslon of economy by Mr. Van IJuren 
 and his friends is idle talk — profession wiiliout practice — and that those who 
 fxpect the necessity for reviving the Tariff to be obviated by the reduction ot 
 the expenditures to an economical standard under Mr. Van Buren, must find 
 themselves grossly mistaken in the end. Inhere is nothing, more absolutely 
 certain than this — that unless the expenses of government shall be reduced to 
 the amount expended under Mr. Adams' administration, the T mitt' must he re- 
 vived — will he revived. Such a reduction, if we judge Mr. Van Buren's- 
 future administration by the past, can never take place while he is in power, 
 (len. Harrison, on the contrary — the pure and virtuous being, whose long life 
 both public and private is unspotted by a single blemish — is pledged to his 
 countrymen to give them n strictly economical government;, and if he dof s 
 this, in iliat proportion will tb« necessity be removed for filling the Treasury by 
 recourse to a renewal of the Tariff. 
 
 But facts of very recent occurrence coi.firm this speculative reasoning, and 
 expose the shameful hy|iociicy of tliose who claina this administr.ition to be ari 
 anti-tariff one. We have the authority of Mr. Wise, as well as of the public 
 records, that the adminrstraiion party in the U. S. Senate at its last session, 
 ilid actually procure the passage of a bill through tiiat body creaiing a new 
 Tariff, and reviving the duty on nearly one hundred Articles, fthai were free 
 under the compromise of ]833,j from 15 to 50 per cent ! Yet it i^ presumpti:- 
 ously asserted by the administration party ihat they alone will observe faithfully 
 the compromise act — that they alone are the anti tariff party of the country, 
 an J on that account entitled to the support of the Southern people! A more 
 audacious pr-etension was never set up. It has nothing to sustain it but the 
 to'ilness with which it is avowed, and is about as reasonable as the claim of a 
 hardened rogue to be cnisidered an Ironcst man, or of Robespierre to be called 
 a democrat, l^ecause he kept the gulloiine leeking with the best blood of France. 
 
 To show how preposterous is the notion that (he Whi^s are the exclusive 
 t iriff party, I might refresh your memory with a list of those of the Van Ijurci; 
 jiarty who have been all their lives warm advocates of ihe protective policy, 
 an. 1? them Mr. Benton, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Sturgeon, Mr. Dickerson, iMr. 
 
57 
 
 Hendricks, Mr. Kane, Col. Johnson, Mr. Tliomns, aisd other leaders of ihe 
 party; but I forl)ear and hasten to vindicate (len. Harrison from a most iiUberal 
 and undeserved aspersion of yours touching; this question of the Tatilf. 
 
 Followincf the Address recenily put fortli by the Loco Foco convention at 
 Poitsniouth, you revived the long since exploded chari;e, tliat Gen. H. on ;i 
 certain occasion dechired— -"that he woui<i not agree to the repeal of tiie Taiift". 
 even if by its operation the grass should be made to grow in tlie streets of 
 Norfolk and Charleston." 1 think I should push chaiity too far to permit you 
 to put in here the pK.a of ignorance. The facts of the case Inve heen 
 published and repuhlished a tliousand times; and tliere is not an intelliireiit 
 youth in the land, wiio doe.s not know thetn as they really exist. Tiie 
 rctnarlv wliich Gen. II. did niake, is to be found in his address to the 
 Hamilton cotinty agricultural society of Ohio, made in 1 831, to which 
 you have the same access for reference, as you have to Hume's History 
 of England, or to any other book or document, or speecli, that lias been 
 put in print, and thus become a part of the world's history. 
 
 If I could believe that you did not know where to lind the real facta 
 of this matter, or had never heard them given. I could excuse you, but I 
 cannot believe this, without supposing you inexcusably, childishly ignorant. 
 Surely I should be wrong to say of the Reprfsonlalive in Congress of 
 District No. 1, that ho was ignorant of facts which the very schoolboys 
 know — and that he has never read a paper which for several years has 
 been going the rounds of the American press. Am I not then justifiablo 
 in holding you up to the voters of this district as a wilful calumniator of 
 < ten. Harrison, on the subject f f the Tariii', as I have before exhibited 
 you on that of his military fame? But lest you repeat the calumny, I 
 refer you to his Hamilton county address, where you will find that the 
 charge you ventured is but a gross perversion of a i'cw sentences of that 
 speech. This is the truth of the case, and you dare not, under your proper 
 signature, controvert what I now state. Cicn. Harrison did not say that 
 he would not go lor a repeal of the Tariff, even though it should catisc 
 the grass to grow in the streets of Norfolk and Charleston, but exactly Ihe 
 reverse — to wit — that if its effect would be to make grass grow in the 
 streets of Norfolk, or to produce any such deplorable consequence in the 
 South, he would then cheerfully vote for a repeal of the tariff, even though 
 '•its continuance should be beneficial to a majority of the American 
 people." 
 
 Strange, passing strange it is, to what extremes the party spirit of the 
 day will carry men, who have party objects to attain. You have again 
 perpetrated a wilful wrong upon Gen. Harrison ; and you ought to hang 
 your head in shame, when you reflect that it was so easy a matter to have 
 avoided the infliction of the injury, either by iirojjcrly informing yourself, 
 if you were ignorant of the facts, or if you did know them, by magnani- 
 mously coming forward, and manfully doing justice even to a political 
 opponent. These delinquencies will be visited upon you, Mr. Ilolleman, 
 sooner or [ater. Beware of the Ides of April. 
 
 I think I have made it clear that on the suiiject of the Tariff, Gen 11 ir- 
 rison is greatly to be preferred to Mr. Van iJuren. In my next, I shall 
 contrast thein on the subject of Internal Improvement, and a National 
 
 ^^"'^- • CAMILLUS. 
 
§8 
 
 IVo. PJ» 
 
 tntertud linproicements. 
 
 TO THE HON. JOEL HOLLEMAN. 
 
 £ am no\V tt) compare our caiidklates on the subject of Intern:.! Improve - 
 Hif nt. 
 
 I shall admit in the onset, that Gen. Manison has conceded the powei ol 
 Congress over Internal Improvement. But whatever votes he may have given 
 or whatever opinions expressed, he is far less exceptionable than Mr. Van Bu- 
 ren. 
 
 In the year 182-2, the latter voted in the Senate of the Ufiited Slates for a 
 bill making appropriations for tlie repairs, continuance, tVc, of the Cumber- 
 land road, and also to erect toll gates theieon in the several States through 
 which it passed. 
 
 This is by far the most ultra Internal Improvement vole ever given since the 
 Union was lormed. It was nothing more nor less than would be a law of 
 Congress compelling every citizen who passes from Norfolk to Princess Anne 
 Couil [louse to pav a toll for travelling the road leading from the one point to 
 the other. True, Mr. Van Buten has retracted this vote. I will do him jus- 
 tice. But did Gen. IJariison ever give so wild and silly a vole as this ? And 
 has he not this advantage over Mr. V. B. that while ihe latter voted for the 
 ereciion of toll gales on the Cumberland, Road, Gen. II. has no such enor to 
 j'elract, no sucli sin to answer for? 
 
 But to continue tiie n;rraiive. In 1823, Mr. Van Bnren again supported a 
 bill providing for the continuaiion and repairs of the Cumberland Road. Up 
 to this time tlien, he recognised the Constitutional power of Congress to con- 
 struct roads and canals. But in 1824, the gieat Erie and Champlain canals 
 were nearly completed and the people of New York having built their own itn- 
 proveu-enis, had become opposed to the construction of public works out of the 
 Geneiai Treasury ; and hence no doubt, the change in Mr. Van Buren's opin- 
 ion tlr.it followed about this time. 
 
 Accordingly, we find him in 1824 taking a stand against the Constitutional 
 power of Congress to construct works of Inlcrnallmprovement. In 1825. he 
 lepeatcd his opposition by offeiing resolutions to that efl'ect. In May 1826, he 
 opposed the subscription by the United States to the stock of the Dismal 
 Swamp Canal, and in the celebrated debate on Foote's Resolutions, (I think 
 it was.) he recanted his vote on the erection of toll gales on the Cumberland 
 Road. 
 
 Let us now inquiie what has been his subsequent course. You ventuicd 
 the stiau^e declaration that there was but one s-iuaie circumstance that would 
 go to prove him an Internal Im|)rov2mciit man. Let us refer to the facts. To 
 say nothing of his early votes, advert to his otlfi'jial acts since he was President 
 (if the United States. — On the 25tli day of May, 1838, an act was passed by the 
 (Jonsress of the U. S. from which I make the lollowing extracts: 
 
 " For continuing the Cumberland Road in '.he State of Ohio, one hundred 
 and fifty thousand dollars. 
 
 For continuing the Cumberland Road in the Slate of Indiana, one hundred 
 ^)nd fifty thousand dollars, 
 
 Fof (?ontii)uing the Cumbejiand Road in the State of Illinois, one hundred 
 and fifty thousand dollars." (See Session Acts, J638, p. 48.) This bill re- 
 ceived the signature ol .Mr. Van Buren, 
 
 TiiHs it appears that a little more than two years ago. Mr. Van Buren sigo- 
 <m1 ^ bill makin;: an appropriation at one dash of nearly half a m.llion of dollars 
 f.ir the Cumberland Road. What becomes then of your declaration that there 
 IS but one circuins iiiice that can fix upon him the advocacy of Internal Im- 
 
59 
 
 proveinent ? But t'lis i< a rcr^ smjll item in ihe account to be i'cnJi?ieJ .1 - 
 gainst Mr. Van Buren and his parly. I am prepared lo (le;nonstrnte I'roni i\ul\ 
 furnished by Secretary Woodbury's Report i\y.n praclically this is b^j far the 
 inostuLlra Internal Improvcmtnt Administration tiuii is known lo out Civil His- 
 tory from 1789 lo this day. 
 
 It is well known thai in his letter to Sherrod Williams in 1P3G, Mrj Van 
 Buren expressly recognised the principles of (Jen. Jackson's INlaysville veio 
 ^lessace, and in his late letter to Mr. Caiy and others of Eliz.ibeth City, he 
 re-affirnis his approval of those principles. " I thron^liout (says lie) gave to 
 the measure of which that document (the veto message) was an exposition, my 
 active, zealous, and anxious support." 
 
 Now let us (MKinire what is the principle of the Maysvillc veto Message. It 
 is this : tliat iliongh Concrej-s may have no Constitutionid power actually to 
 conslruct roads and canals, yet it lias the power lo appropriate money t'rom the 
 National Trensuiy fur their cvietruclion. A dislinciioii without a diflerence, 
 as facts declare. Indeed, ihc attempted discrimination is really laughable, 
 and when we come to the practical operation of the ruh; (which is the only sr.t> 
 isfactory test) we shall be presented with 7n instance of specious humbuggery 
 and imposture, which could not be credited but for the fact that it is made out 
 by the records of ihc country. Let me examine then, the ptacticul woikingof 
 the boasted principle of the Maysville veto. 
 
 Mr. Adams, be it remembered, acknowledged the Constitutional power ol 
 Congress to conslrucl roads and canals, and favoured the discreet practical ex- 
 ercise of the power. But let us view the comparative operation of /a's rule and 
 that (a safer one it is saiil to be) which Gen j^ackson originated and Mr. Van 
 Buren, following in the footsteps, has adopted in praciice. The following ta- 
 ble exhibits the appropriation for Internal Improvements in each of the (our 
 years of Mr. Adams's, the 8years of Gen. Jackson's , and the 3 years of Mr- 
 Van Buren's administration : 
 
 Adams's 4 years. 
 
 1825 $334,353 
 
 1826 488,740 
 
 1 827 275.263 
 
 1828 375.906 
 
 Total, ??], 474,267 
 
 Jackso:<*s 8 tkars. 
 
 1829 §1,088,000 
 
 1830 962,403 
 
 1831 808 913 
 
 1 832 8-24 655 
 
 1833 1.216,344 
 
 1834 894.606 
 
 1835 a-] 1.257 
 
 1836 958:341 
 
 Total 7,584,524 
 
 Va^ BlRE.n's 3 TEARS. 
 
 1837 Si, 493, 310 
 
 1838 .1.191,803 
 
 1839 1,000,491 
 
 Total, g, 685,609 
 
 Here will be seen at a glance the oppfation in pvaciice of the vaunted Mays- 
 ville veto doctrine, which Mr. Van Buren has nmde the ba-sis of his ofi'icial 
 conduct on this subject. A lew most curious results ap|)ear. 
 
 1. It was noluniil the principles ofthc Maysville Message were put in force, 
 tliat appiopriations for Internal Improvement began to swell beyond all pre- 
 vious precedent, and increased until they reached an inordinate amount, in 
 
60 
 
 r>Ir. Adams's 4 years, tlie appropriations ranged from tliree to four hundred 
 lliousand dollars per annum; but so soon as tiie much huided rule of the 
 Maysville veto came in play, that momenl approjirialions began to run into 
 millions and larce fractions of millions ! 
 
 •2. Mr. Van IJureu expended more for Internal Impruvements in the first 
 year of his / dmhiislration than Mr. Adams in his (bur! See the table above. 
 .1. The average per-annuni expenditure of Mr. Adams was S368 588 ; of 
 Get:. JacUson ??y;36,922, neaily a million ; and of Mr. Van Biiren 31,228,000 ! 
 And lastly, what is remarkable in this iimsl remarkable matter — Mr. Adams 
 admilled the Constitutional right of the Federal Governir.ent to build roads, 
 ikc, while it is pretended by l<ir. Van Buren and his friends, that he denies 
 lioth the consiitutijnaliiy and expediency of expenditures for such objects. 
 Yet — .John Quincy Adams, spending a few hundred tlunisands was denounced 
 from one extremity of the Country lo the other for his lavish expenditures for 
 Internal Improvement, while this Administration, annually expending itsmil- 
 lions, is ciied up as the Anti-Internal Improvement Adminisiraiion ! If iui^' 
 ]iosture more impudent than this was ever attempted, it Ins nevet come to my 
 knowledge. And how arifiilly liie mystification is managed! Telia Loco 
 Foco leader that i\lr. Van Buren isan advocate of Internal Improvement and 
 he replies instantly — " He is not a friend of that policy— he is in favor of the 
 dodirines of Oen. Jackson's Maysviile Veto"— lur the respondent always I'oi- 
 gets to explain the jjractical operation of the veto principle. And thus is the 
 honest enquirer who has no access to public documents, humbugged with the 
 notion that this great Maysviile Veto lays prostrate every thing like Internal 
 Improvement by the Federal Government. Let the Whig speakers remove 
 this mystification and exi)lainwhat is really, practically meant, by the IMays- 
 vlUe Veto. 
 
 May I not now come to tlie conclusion for which 1 started — that the pre- 
 sent Administration is by far the most ultra Internal Improvement one we have 
 liad from the foundation of the Government ] It is inJisinitably true. 
 
 Nor is this all. I have to convict the President ol crying inconsistency on 
 this subject , and in two respects. 
 
 First. In his Elizabeth City Letter, iielays down this very correct and un- 
 questionable maxim — that "the Federal Government cannot ajjply the nation- 
 al funds to objects upon which they are either expressly prohibited Irom act- 
 ing, or in respect to which there is an acknowledged absence of delegated au- 
 fhoriiy." Accordingly, says the President, it would be unconstitutional to 
 devote the surplus revenue to the emancipation of slaves, because the Fed- 
 eral Government possesses no nuthotiiy to interleie with the institution of 
 slavery. Now let us see how far he oi)serves this maxim, in'respect to Intcr- 
 i;al Ii;iproveinent. He denies the Constitutional power of Congress to con- 
 struct roads and Canals, but signs bills annually for an appro]) iition of §1, 228,- 
 000 towards the construciion of public works. He denies the power to dothc 
 thing, but "ap(,li"s the national funds" todo it with, in the very teeth of the 
 rule laid down in his Elizai)etli City letter. 
 
 Again, in his letter to Shpirod Williams, he says : the wliole SMbject, (Tn- 
 lernal Improvemeni) was reviewed in the President's Maysviile message. Sin- 
 cerely believing; that the best interests of the whole Country, the quiet, not to 
 siy the stability, ol the Union, and the jiresei vation of that motal force which, 
 peihaps, as much ;is any. (»ih<'r holds it together, imperiously required that 
 the disiruclive course ol l-gishiiion THEN PRI-' V AH^ING, "should, in sonie 
 pioper and constitutional w;iy, BE ARRESTED, 1 throughout gave to the 
 measure, of which tlnit Djcuinent was an exposition, md active, zealous and 
 anxious support." 
 
 Here Mr. Van Buren, looking with holy horror upon the "destructive 
 cour.-e of legislation" prevalent in Mr. Adams's time, ihoucht it ought '-to 
 lie arrested" at all hazards. Aye, the very stifeiy ol the Union required it — 
 t'use ex'ravajiant expenditures for Internal Improvement by Mr. Adams, 
 s'lould no longer be endured — yet now that lie is president, he persists in this 
 
61 
 
 "(les'.ructive couise of legislation" — Yes, in a course f.ir more destructive, ex- 
 tr;tv;igani and d.nii^erous — and appropriates millions wlii-re ihousonds only 
 were wont to be cxpentled ! Wliillier lias all liis holy ardour for llie "stability 
 of ilie Union" fled .' Wliitiier has liis zeal to airesi a "dosiructive cotuse of 
 Icirislation" taken wing ? I will answer — to the tecesics of a calculating-, sel- 
 fish ambiiious heart 
 
 Thus have I reviewed the cours'^ of. Mr. Van Burcn, on the subject of In:er- 
 ternal Improvement. First lie was in f.ivor of it uneijuivocary, unreservedly. 
 Next, he took bold grounds against it : aiid now whih; lie is President, he sanc- 
 tions mfinitilv larger a|)propriaiions for tlie purpose than any of his predeces- 
 sors. After this tergiversation and sliuniing, who is willing to confide in Mar- 
 tin Van Iknen as the anti-liUetnal Improvement candidate for the Presidency ? 
 Belter, far better is it to trust the wise and virtuous statesman who assures us 
 that no public works but those which are strictly national, should ever receive 
 llje patronage of the Federal (I(}Vernmeiit. 
 
 But in this matter as in the matter of the 'I'ariff. there is one great practical 
 difference between Gen. Harrison and Mr. A'an Buten. The policy of the 
 former will revive and re-instate the state systems of i)ub!ic works ; the i)olicy 
 ol the latter has been to prostrate all the state improvements, and never can 
 they be resuscitated until his course of administialiou be fundamentally chang- 
 ed. 
 
 The various state improvements which have sprung up in the last 20 years, 
 were the legiiimale offspring of the credit system. Against that bcnificenl 
 system, a ruthless war is waged by this Adminislraiioiii The banks — tlie 
 great pillar of the credit system, and one of the bountiful sources from which 
 flowed the supplies for the systems of state Improvements — are straining and 
 perishing under the ruthless blows of their vandal oppressors. The other 
 source of supply — foreign credit — is almost evaporated under the exsiccating 
 influenceof the anti-assumption Resolutions of the United Slates Senate, and 
 of the destructive .Jacobin doctrines— the Ituiis of modern democracy— which 
 threaten the foundations of the I'ublie Faith, and ot the institution of property 
 itself. No wonder, when the government of the Union by the al)siraci reso- 
 lutions of the last winter, proclaimed to the world its suspicion of the solven- 
 cy and integrity of the States, that the latter are unable to procure funds for 
 the prosecution of their public works. Would to God, I had cotnmenced 
 these feeble Nos. sooner, so that I might more fully expose to my pount:y- 
 menthe pusilanimous conduct and |)ernicious measures of those who inflic e ! 
 this reeling blow upoQ the once inoud tabiick of State credit. But if theie is 
 one truth moie legibly written than another, by the i)olicy of tliis Administra- 
 tion — if amid tlte ruin of the great in:eresls of our country whicU all around 
 us we survey, there be one spot o( desolation more dreary than anotlier — one 
 reflection which comes back upon the soul with keener pang than any other 
 — it is — that the systems of Improvemeni which i>romised to pour into the lap 
 of the Slates the lichest troiihies and brightest glories, lie withered all by the 
 biigliting measures of this administration. And if ever this enriching policy is 
 to be built up again, the ui:er prosita ion of the party in power, must be the 
 foundation on whi(di the rebuilding must begin. The credit system must be 
 re instated in its pristine vigour ; the war upon the banks must cease; the 
 "perish credit, peiisli commerce" dogmas of the reigning dynasty must be ob- 
 literated forever ; the wounds upon b^tate credit must be healed by a cherish- 
 ing, generijus national policy; the revolutionary, disorganising maxims ofiho 
 new-fangled dcmociaey in relaiion to the abrogation of charters and vested 
 rights, must be swept away wiih the very besom of iinnihilalion, ere the State 
 Governments can be enabled to resnn.e and consumm ite their pul)lic works. 
 
 To those who have looked into the philo.sophy of this subject, it is a pro- 
 ]iosition perfectly palpable, that the people of this country n-Ul hare Inter- 
 nal Improvements, if by any means whatsoever they are to be had. The 
 example of the New York system has proved incontestibly that tlie general 
 eftl-ct of the policy is to devclope the resources of a country, to stimulate 
 
62 
 
 its enterprise, and to add to tlie wealih, conifort and happiness of ourspe' 
 cies. Then as long as the instincts of our nature remain, the people of this 
 Union, hi'^hly spccnlative and commercial in their feelings and views, will 
 I'lamour for that policy which is so enriching in its efilcts, and which adds 
 so largely to the sum of social convenipncc and conifort. Then have In- 
 ternal Improvements, they must and will. If they cannot have them from 
 the resources of their respective States, they will demand them from the 
 < ieneral Government. They will look to the Federal Treasury for that 
 which they cannot derive from State means ; and thus the whole country 
 may be driven hy interest and neces.sity to the sanction of Internal Im- 
 jirovements by the Federal Government. 
 
 The question then occurs, who is more likely to raise up the prostrate 
 svstems of State Improvement, and thus direct attention from federal aid-— 
 (Jen. Harrison, who is a friend of the credit system, of the banks and of 
 commerce, or Mr. Van Buren, who is the great head of the "Perish Cred- 
 it, Perish Commerce" party, and whose destructive policy has blasted the 
 Iriisincss of the country through all its ramifications and departments ? 
 
 There can be no difficulty in replying to this grave enquiry. As sure 
 as Mr. Van Buren shall be re-elected, the whole business of Internal Im- 
 provements will be transferred from the States to the Federal Government, 
 and the widest scope may then be given to the accommodating principles 
 ofihe Maysviile veto message, if, on the contrary, Gen. Harrison be 
 elected, the great interests of the comitry, among them Internal Improve- 
 ments, will be reclaimed from their fallen condition ; the States will go on 
 with their rail-roads and canals; there will be no reason for reliance on 
 the National Treasury ; and the agency of the Federal Ciovernment in 
 public improvements will be confined exclusively to those objects which are 
 ])cxvliarhj nallonal in their character. 
 
 You said the Cumberland Road was a work sui gencr'n:; ihoii it was 
 raised originallv from thn reserved two per cent fund. Grant it. But yo;a 
 firnish'-d yourself the answer, when you admitted, as you did, that the two 
 per cent fund is exhausted, and that the work is now turned over to the Fed- 
 eral Government, anl prosecuted by the Federal appropriations. 
 
 And you made one ad.nission at SuOblk when you were prtssed ou th's 
 subject, to which I call th ? special attention of your constituents. When the 
 act of 1833, making a large appropriation to the Cumberland Ro-ad, was 
 j)roJuced and read by the author of these Nos., you admitted that Mr. ^'aa 
 Buren /i.i.'/ signed bil'is of large appropriation for the Cinnberhind Road ; 
 that you were sorry he had ; ihat it teas wrojig and jou did not agree 
 ■irlth him." Well done, Mr. Holleman, thought I. For once yori acted 
 like a man —like a candid an I honest man. And so pleased am I with this 
 iuitance of ingenuousness and cani.uir, that I cannot florbear tendering you 
 a friend's advice : do not forfeit the credit you have won by ever again re- 
 presenting Mr. Van B iren as the Anti-Internal Improvement Candidate 
 lor the Presidency. ■ If you do — mind — 1 warn you — if you do, — 1 repeat 
 it, — your admission at Suffolk shall liiunt you, as did Banquo's ghost Mae- 
 b( th, and each time you mount the Hustings oir the stump, rise up in ju Ig- 
 ment against you an 1 your " North -rn man with Southern principh s.' 
 
 I have but one more consid-jraiion to present, and it is one which shall 
 dissipate forever, tile idea you anl your friends so assiduously inculcate, 
 tliatihe Van Buren party are the exclusive opponents of Internal Improve- 
 ment. 
 
 At the list sssion of Congress, when tlie Cu.nberland Road Bill was on 
 
its passiQfe in the Senate, it was voted for by 11 Alministration Sen:itors, 
 whom, for your special edification, I will name, viz : Messrs. Allen, Ben- 
 ton, Buchanan, Fulton, Grundy, Linn, Nicholas, Porter, Robinson, Sevier, 
 Sturgeon, Tappan, Wright and Young. 
 
 And what is yet more remarkable, the bill was defeated only by the votes 
 of the Whig Senators ! 
 
 ^'ct, have you the presumj)tion to charge the Whig party with being tlie 
 exclusive advocates, and to claim the Administration party as the exclusive 
 opponents, of Federal Internal Improvement ! "Oh! Consistency 1 Thou 
 art indeed a jewel." 
 
 CAM1LLU3. 
 
 I\o 13. 
 
 National Ihink. 
 
 TO THE HON. JOEL HOLLEMAN. 
 
 What are the respertive merits of tbe two candidates for the Presidency 
 on tiie subject of a National Bank, we are now to enquire. 
 
 Many years ago, Mr. Van Buren was the organ for transmitting to the 
 Directors of the late U. S. Bank an application for the establishment of a 
 branch of that Institution at Albany. I presume of course, lie was favour- 
 able to the bank and believed in its Constitutionality; for surely no man 
 of elevated i hiracter would permit himself to be in any way connected 
 with the establishment of an inexpedient and unconstitutional institution. 
 
 In 1S2G, on the llocr of the S nate of the U. S., he expressed the opm- 
 ion tl at the constitutionality of the bank ought to be regarded a spllled 
 ipiestion — res adjudicala. In this opinion, lie coincided with Mr. Mad- 
 ison, William II. Crawford, and many other distinguished Republicans of 
 the country. 
 
 And we liave the authority of the autlior of the ''Banking B ibble Burst," 
 now an active partisan of t!ie President, and the Editor of an Administra- 
 tion pres.?, thai "Mr. Van Buren was Ijmself an advocate for the U. S. 
 Ban'i, until he found iis funds could not be used to make hi n PiesideBt.'' 
 (See p. 71.) 
 
 When Gen. Jackson, in a pet with tlie directors of the bank beca-.'so 
 ihey would not permit him to wield it as a political machine, determiird 
 to put it down at all hazards, Mr. Van Buren followed suit to him to 
 \\ hose slippers he aspired, and declared •'uncompromising hostility to a 
 National Dank." That he is sincere in this hostility, I do not mean to 
 (j leslion. But the brief review just taken will shew that his course on this 
 sulij^ct, as upon all others, is marked by an inconsistency which is irrecou- 
 cilal)le with soundiies.s of judgment or iiide|)endence of character. 
 
 Wliat now, are Gen. Ihriisou's opinions on tliij subjec? They are 
 entirely unexceptia.-ialde. In his Jett^er to Sherrod William.s, he avera 
 tliit he would sign a bill for a bank charter under the folloaiiig circuui- 
 stances and conditions alone: 
 
 First, whenever "it slioiild be clearly ascertained" that a bank is indis- 
 pensably necessary to the administration of the fiscal concerns of the 
 nalion. "^I'he most rigid State Plights man cannot except to this doc rinc. 
 
G4 
 
 h is not only the conceded doctrine of Virginia, but it is the doctrine of 
 the Nullifiers themselves. No man in his senses will deny that an inci- 
 dental power which is absolutely necessiry to tftectuate a particular sub- 
 stantive grant is as clearly constitutional as the substantive power itself. 
 
 Secondly, he will not sign a bill re-chartering a bank until its absololo 
 necessity for managing the fiscal operations of the Government, shall have 
 been demonstrated by the failure of all other expedients. Surely, surely, 
 if dll ether plans for administering the finances shall have been tried and 
 shall have failed, no me will be found to raise his voice against the only 
 remaining expedient, of a National Bank. 
 
 Thirdly, considering the division of sentiment among the people of the 
 United States as to the propriety of a National t3ank, and awarding to t'le 
 popular will that liigh deference which is yielded to it by every true re- 
 publican, he declares he will not sign a bank charter "until there shall be 
 an unequivocal manifestation of public opinion in its favour." 
 
 This is true democracy. Not that spurious sort, of modern origin, which 
 affects peculiar devotion to the peo )le without one act as an earnest of its 
 sincerity, but the democracy of Washington and Jelferson and Madison, 
 which looks to the people as the source of all power and to the people's 
 wishes ao the Irgiiimate guide to the conduct of their agents. 
 
 \Vide indeed is the difference betwixt the self-styled and arrogant Dem- 
 ocrat who now rules the destiiiies of the American people, and the unpre- 
 tending, unaffected Republican in whose hands those destinies are destined 
 ere long to be placed 1 
 
 The one, with love for the people ever on his lips while his heart is far 
 Irom them, presses agiin and again upon Congress a favourite measure of 
 nis oicn^ which the people throug-h their immediate representatives time 
 after time condemn. His will, not the people's, must be done; and through 
 the perpetration of revolting- outrage and the adroit application of Execu- 
 tive patronage, his will proves too strong for the people's. (Refer to the 
 sub-Treasury bill.) — The people at their polls reject their faithless repre- 
 sentatives, and our Democratic President instantly rewards their infidelity 
 by exalting them to high offices within his gift. See the cases of Mr. Cam- 
 breling, Mr. Grundy, Mr. Selden, Mr. Moore, and Mr. Niles. All these 
 were cast off by the people, yet this democrat of a President promoted 
 them to places of the highest trust. This is the new democracy — to pass 
 laws which the people disapprove and to elevate men whom the people 
 spurn; in other words, to laugh the popular will to scorn. 
 
 Gen. Harrison, on tlie contrary, gives us his earne.«t assurance that if ho 
 should bo elevated to the Presidency, he will not sign a bank c'larter un- 
 less these shall be aa unequivocal demonstration of popular opinion in its 
 favour. Whose is the belter democracy.^ 
 
 But to return from this digression, Clen. II. moreover declares that he 
 does not believe that the authority to incorporate a National Bank can be 
 derived from the power to regulate Commerce. Many of the ablest stales- 
 men of the Union deduce the authority to charter a bank from the latter 
 source; it is a means for icgulating commerce, say they; but Gen. II dis- 
 agrees with such, and here again he is with the State Rights party. Upon 
 the whole, I see no room for the most fastidious disciple of the State 
 Rights School to find fault with Gen. Harrison's opinions about the l)ank. 
 If he never sanctions its re charter, until it shall be proved by the failure 
 of all other expedients to be absolutely necessary to the proper manage^ 
 nicut of the fisQul concerns of the nation, and until the voice of the people 
 
65 
 
 shall be heard loud in its behalf, it is impossible he can do wrong in the 
 matter. 
 
 But there must be some plan for managing the finances ; for the collec- 
 tion and disbursement of the revenue are indispensable to the very exist- 
 ence of the Government. What plan then shall we adopt? We have 
 tried the state banks twice, and each time they exploded and ftirnished 
 jncoiitestible evidence of their unfitness for financial agency, niul wc have 
 the authority of the Adminit^tration party itself, froiYi the "butt-endcr" to 
 the President and his Secretary of Finance, that the State hanks are of all 
 others by far the unsafest and worst fiscal agents. So by their own shew- 
 ing the choice is narrowed down between a U. 8. bank and the sub-treas- 
 ury, the latter of which the administration has adopted as its system for 
 collecting and disbursing the revenue. I will admit then, for argument 
 sake, that Gen. II. is in favour of a National Bank, and which, I pray you, 
 is preferable, his plan of a U. S. bank or the administration plan of a sub- 
 treasury? 
 
 In my opinion, there is no just comparison, a national bank being on 
 every imaginable account, infinitely to be preferred. 
 
 But, before I proceed to contrast the two, allow me to propound you a 
 query, which, doubtless, as you are an able lawyer, you can answer for me. 
 If the Government has the conatilutional riglit to collect its revenues by 
 tpeans of a sub_treasury, why has it not equally the power to do the same 
 thing through the medium of a national bank ? If it must effect the ends, 
 to wit: collect and disburse the revenue, it must have the means of accom- 
 plishing those ends. Now vvhy may it not select a bank as the means, as 
 well as the sub-treasury? If government have the right to select the 
 means, may it not choose the best means within its reach? And again, 
 does.not every constitutional objection that lies against a national bank, 
 apply with equal force to the sub-treasury as a fiscal and financial ))lan? 
 I did not design to raise the constitutional question at all, for Gen. Hnr- 
 rison's opinions on the Bank are so devoid of constiiutional difliculty, that 
 I need not raise it; but I wish light on this sulij^ct, and hope you will not 
 withhold it, as I am a State Rights man myself of the straitest sect, and 
 should dislike to fall into any opinion that is antagonistical to my favourite 
 doctrine. 
 
 But I suppose you will readily admit that if the Governnient can choose 
 one sort of Bank of its own creating as its fiscal agent, it may another. 
 Now I wmII demonstrate that your boasted sub-treasury will prove iiothin,^ 
 more nor less than a great Government Bank, dangerous to the last decree, 
 — far more so than a U. S. Bank; and that it can never be made to answer the 
 purposes of a fiscal agency. 
 
 1. The Sub-Treasury must and will become a Government Bank. I 
 hold it to be a proposition not to be successfully met, thnt the co-existence 
 of the sub-treasury with the banking system, is as entirely incompatible as 
 the existence together of fire and watei. 
 
 Confidence, we all know, is the very soul of the banking system. 1'he 
 fspecio in the vaults of the banks is, in a great degree, the basis of that con- 
 fidence which is necessary to sustain it. Whatever therefore tends to drain 
 from the banks their specie, tends to destroy confidence in them and to 
 abridge their usefulness by crippling their functions. 
 
 To this drain they are liable on the occurrence of every commercial con- 
 vulsion. Whenever a large foreign balance accumulates against this coun- 
 try, the drain commences upon the banks for their specie to pay that balance, 
 5 
 
66 
 
 and they are compelled of necessity and of duty too, to suspend specie pa^"- 
 ments. It is unavoiJable, and is by no means the serious thing it is generally 
 supposed to be; for suspension of cash payments is no evidence, not even 
 presumptive, of the insolvency of a bank. Indeed, the specie in hand is but a 
 aniaU portion of the assets of a bank. 
 
 These commercial vicissitudes are independent of the banking system. 
 They result from the immutable laws of trade, and are common to all 
 countries, no matter what their systems of currency may be. They happen 
 in hard money countries as well as in those which have a paper or a mixed 
 currency. They happen in hard money France, and in hard money Hol- 
 land. And happen they must to all countries that do not exactly accom- 
 modate their import to their export trade. 
 
 Besides, it has been successfully demonstrated by Professor Dew, th';{ 
 this country is, from the peculiarity of our cotton trade and from the corn 
 laws of England, peculiarly liable to great commercial disturbances. A 
 short grain crop in England, by causing the exportation of specie and a con- 
 sequent run upon the Bank of England, causing a contraction of its loans, 
 diminislies the demand for American cotton, the latter falls in price and no 
 lonn-er to the former extent pays American debts due in England; spccia 
 must take its place, runs commence on the banks, and a genera! commer- 
 cial revulsion takes place. 
 
 The truth is, these revulsions depend upon the course of trade, and this 
 last is influenced by a great many circumstances, some of them accidental 
 even, as a short crop, the seasons, &c. And until we can revolutionise the 
 laws of trade ; until we can give law to the seasons and bar all the accidents 
 and vicissitudes to which the Almighty in his providence has thought fit to 
 subject all earthly things ; until we can control private credit and bind down 
 by fixed rules the instincts of man; until we can reverse the climate, alter 
 the f^eography and change the staple productions of the various sections of 
 the countrv; until we can direct the course of trade by rules as fixed as 
 those that guide the planets in their spheres ; until, in fine, we can so order 
 things that our country shall export exactly as much as she imports and 
 no more, so as to leave no foreign balance against her — a thing beyond the 
 reach of finite wisdom — till we can do these things, we shall be subject to 
 commercial revulsions whether we have a banking system or not. 
 
 Now the first revulsion that comes upon the country with the sub treasury 
 in operation, will sweep away the banks— or, if the first do not its work of 
 annihikuion, the secoml or third will be inevitably fatjl. Add to the foreign 
 drain for specie, the domestic one of the sub treasurj- — the latter a never 
 ceasing one, and running in a thousand perennial streams — aud 1 should 
 like to know what can save the banks from destruction '? 
 
 It is said, I know, that the drain exercised by the sub-treasury, will be 
 neutralized by the constant return of specie to the banks as fa.st as it is 
 taken out-to pay Government dues. The fallacy of this notion is abimdantly 
 exposed by the experience of the last few years. In times of penic, net a 
 dollar of specie ever returns to the vaults of the banks, as we all know. 
 The timid and wary either hoard up all the specie they got, or it becomi j« 
 an article of traffic, is bought and sold by the brokers, and no longer runs 
 in the'channels of circulation. The drain then, Avhich the sub-treasury 
 will exercise upon the banks, will be, in time of commercial panic, an un- 
 mitigated one — a constant flowing out without any counteracting reflux. 
 
 Now what will be the effect of these repeated revulsions? The banking 
 system first fools the straining; the sub-treasury aggravates the straining by 
 
furnishin2|; t\Vo (iraiAs instead of one; the irepeated suspensions of specie pay- 
 ments with their ii'tltendant contractions, and the suffering and distress ihey 
 ■create, will exctte against the banks a deep feeling of hostility which will 
 sweep then\ away as if with the besoin of destruction. The people will 
 call for their destruction, and in their exasperation, dash the whole system 
 into fragments. Have not the two recent suspensions well nigh proved 
 fatal to the banks, and has it not been a most difficult task for the friends 
 ^f the System to save it from the destroying vengeance of a prejudiced and^ 
 •inceteed people? 
 
 But if the people do not cry out for their destruction, the system will j^ink 
 of itself. With the increased liability to accident and loss which tlie sub- 
 treasury would create, no man could be found silly enough to invest a dol- 
 lir of capital in bank stock. And in confirmation of this speculation, I 
 doubt whether, if the legislature were to-morrow to grant the most favour- 
 able bank charter that could be devised, a dollar of the stock would be 
 taken while there remained the slightest prospect of having the sub-treasury 
 in operation. 
 
 But why should I argue this proposition when tlie acts and admissions 
 of the ad.ninistration party, declare that the design of the liidcpondent 
 Treasury is to destroy the banlcs? Do we not every day hear the frit-nds 
 of JMr. Van Burcn declare that they support tke sub-treasury because^ it will 
 break up the banks, the thieving shops, as they arc termed in Loco Foco 
 phrase? Is not the artillery of the whole administration press opened upon 
 the banks, and the support of the sub-treasury system invited on the ground 
 that it will exterminate the whole brood of the State banks? And tlie very 
 leaders of the administration, though at first they falsely said they had no 
 designs on the State institutions, now boldly avow their real purpose. Look 
 at hard money France says Mr. iicnton ; turn to hard money Cuba says 
 Mr. Tappan: give us gold and silver alone says Mr. Calhoun ; and "all 
 experience," says Mr. Walker, "is again.st the use of bank paper, even 
 when convertible." There can be no rational doubt that it is the object, 
 and that it will be the inovit.ibls consequence of the sub-treasury, to blot 
 out forever the entire banking system of the country. 
 
 'I'he state bank system being overthrown, there is but one step to a gov- 
 ernment bank. I hold it to be a proposition too clear for dispute, that the 
 vast exchanges of this great country can never be carried on, without the 
 intervention of bank agency, or paper money, in some form or other. The 
 transportation of specie for each commercial transaction, is too inconyen:ent 
 nui cmbarsassing to be borne. Bills of exchange cannot for a century to 
 GO.ne remedy the evil, for, in a country like ours, with so little rcdunJai.t 
 capital, and presenting so many more profitable modes of investment, capital 
 will rarely seek the channels of exchange. Whatever portion of it now 
 takes that direction, is in anticipation of those commercial disasters and de- 
 rangements of the currency that constitute the harvest of the brokf r and 
 exchange dealer. 'I'o make the subject plain, is there capital enough now 
 invested in the business of exchange among us to do one thousandth pait ol 
 the commercial operations of tliis wiiltly extended country? 
 
 Then bank agency and bank piper of some sort, we must and will have. 
 But bear in mind, that the banking system, has perished in its conflict with 
 tlie Sub-treasury. Whence, then, is to come this indispens.ible nitdi nn of 
 exchange? It must be government paper or drafts acting as a circulating 
 medium — in other words, the sub-treasury must have banking powers, an I 
 becoai3 a b-in'v of issue and circulation. Alreadv, indeed, the treasury 
 
68 
 
 firal^s, in the present derang'cment of the currency, are performing- the 
 functions of exchange. And when the banking system shall have beea 
 extirpated, these drafts will soon command a premium for purposes of Com- 
 merciil remittmce. Do not treasury notes now command a premium, as 
 would U. S. Bank notes, or any paper possessing credit throughout the 
 Union? And is not this the case, in all sub-treasury countries? We have 
 the authority of a late traveller in Russia, Mr. Bremmer, that the "paper 
 money of the Russian Government, stands so high in public favour, that on 
 reaching Moscow, he found his notes worth 17 per cent, more than at St. 
 Petersburg." There being no banks, (says this intelligent traveller,) as 
 ia other countries, it becomes necessary ior the trader at Moscow, or in any 
 other part of the provinces, wdio has a payment to make in the capital, " to 
 buy government paper to the amount of his intended remittance, there 
 being no othe) medium through which remittances can be made." 
 
 Besides, as Professor Dew well remarks, the people themselves, in the 
 madness of their suffering, Vv'ill call on their representatives to invest this 
 government machine whh banking powers- In the general crush of the 
 banking system; in the return from a paper to a metallic, and from a plen- 
 tiful to an insufficient currency; amidst the distress and ruin which from 
 all th^se causes united, will overspread the land, there will be one loud cry 
 from the sufferers to invest the sub-treasury with banking functions. 
 
 And thus the whole banking pouter of this vast country, tvill be concen- 
 trated in the FcdcralGoGcrnment, and will enure to the Federal Executive. 
 It will be able to contract or enlarge the currency, to raise and depress 
 prices without any restraint from the usual laws of banking and trade, and 
 to make the whole financial system of the nation, subservient to the views 
 of a political party. 1 can imagine nothing more consolidating and anti- 
 state rights than this — no despotism more complete and unalloyed. 
 
 Thus, alter all, the party in power, while they swear uncompromising 
 hostility to a National Bank, give us anational or government bank of the 
 worst possible sort — one, in comparison with which, a U. S. bank, like the 
 late one, is all innocence and matchless perfection. And they attempt to 
 deceive the people with the idle prete.vt that they are by their new fiscal 
 scheme, dissolving the connection between the Government and the banks, 
 — separating bank and state as they say — when, in fact, they are but reti 
 dering the connexion close and indissoluble. 
 
 I shall resume the contrast in my next, conclsding for the present with^ 
 this interrogatory: v.-hich i.s worse, a Bank of the United States, or the Sub 
 Treasury? 
 
 CAMILLUS, 
 
 The 8ah-Treasurij. 
 TO THE HON. JOEL IIOLLEMAN. 
 
 In my last, I attempted to demonj^trate, I think successfully, that the ef- 
 fect of the Sub-Treasury policy must be to destroy the banking system 
 — wdaether such be the design of its authors or not. That such is their ob^' 
 jcct, no observer of the times can be so incredulous as to doubt. Some of th*s 
 
GO 
 
 leaders of the party now boldly ayow it : "down with the banks," is echoed 
 fcom a thousand presses; give us hard money, cry the deluded fcllowers 
 of this pretended anti-bank Administracion : and in the only instance ia 
 which they dare make a rfirec^ assault, they scrupled not to lay ruthless 
 hands upon the system. In the District of Columbia, the destroyer has 
 commenced his work. There, the banks have been swept away like so 
 many cob- webs before the sweep of the broom. 
 
 And see the disgusting' treachery and insincerity of those who oriirinatcd 
 this new scheme of finance ! In the beginning they assured us it was not 
 their design, nor would it be the effect of the sub-treasury, to interfere in anv 
 way with the State banks. But when a strong prejudice against thorn had 
 b^en excited by the repeated suspension of specie payments, they took ad- 
 yuntage of that excitement and under its cover are waging a war of exter- 
 mination against all banks whatsoever. 
 
 And they will never rest until they level in the dust this proud structure 
 of modern wisdom and civilization. Tlieir disecrating hands are upon it 
 now. Pillar after pillar is falling from beneath it ; and if there is one pro- 
 phecy that may be more saftdy ventured than another, it is, that if this rad- 
 ical faction be continued in the government for four years more, tlie noble 
 fabric will present no trace of its former grandeur but one massive pilo of 
 magnificent ruins. 
 
 I believe the Banking system to be among the highest inventions and 
 noblest resuUs of modern civilization. Evils it undoubtedly has (and what 
 human thing has not?), but how incomparably far do its blessings out- 
 weigh its ills! Were I asked for the trophies of this victorious policy, I 
 should point with exultation to the unexampled march of our country to 
 prosperity, wealth and grandeur. Read its illustrious triumphs in the hap- 
 piness and comfort that bless our own happy land beyond all others of God's 
 creation ! Read them in the giant energies of this youthful, yet mighty 
 empire. Behold them in a prosperous and rapidly advancing agriculture; 
 in the extraordinary growth of our manufictures until of late competing 
 with those of the oldest manufacturing countries on the globe : in the rich 
 commerce that whitens every sea and gulf and bay; in the uncommon ad- 
 vance of our navigation interest ; in the opening of mines; in the growth 
 of our population ; in the rising up of cities ; in the expansion of trade in all 
 it« ramifications and of enterprise in all its lorms ; and in those works of In- 
 ternal Improvement that, until arrested by the blighting policy of this ad- 
 ministration, were dotting over the face of our country and scattering far and 
 wide new benefits and blessings, commercial, social and political. There 
 is not indeed, an interest of the country great or small, not a branch of in- 
 dustry, however iniportant, or however insignifican* that has not been ac- 
 celerated and advanced by the vivifying impulses of the banking system. 
 
 The truth is, the utility ofthe banking policy is not a debateable question 
 except with metaphysicians and moon-struck theorists. There is a single 
 general fact that afiords arguments in its favor which metaphysician subtle- 
 ty cannot mystify, and proofs of its benificence as irrefragable as the ever- 
 lasting hills. The only two banking countries on the Globe, Great Britain 
 and the United States, are by flir the most renowned for civilization. Their 
 people are higher in the scale of moral excellence. They arc more reli- 
 gious ; they excel most in the arts that minister to the amelioration of the 
 condition of our race; in Government and Laws they are foremost of ths 
 nations of the earth ; yea they are the only free people on the globe. The 
 individual citizeri is happier, possessing in every class, more of the com- 
 
70 
 
 forts, conveniences and luxuries o^f life than tlie saMe classes in any hard 
 money country under Heaven. Aiid what renders the argument irresisti- 
 ble, is, that Ihis slate of thiTigi is peculiar to our own and the British na" 
 iion. If there is any hard mowey or sul>treasury country on the earth's 
 surface that can compare witk ours or with Great Britain, for the moral 
 elevation, the pecuniary indep^endence, or the social happiness of the pco- 
 pie, I call upon you, sir, a vSuV treasury advocate as you are, to point it out. 
 With these illustrious fruits of the Banking system, who dares impeach ifa 
 usefulness or lay rude hands upon it ? 
 
 I know the old cry of "the poor against the ricV is now daily raisedl 
 by the enemies of the system; and to excite ihe prejudices of ihe honest 
 yeomanry to M-ards it, they say its benefits enure only to the rich— that the 
 poor reap no advantage from it. This is one in the long list of deceptive 
 artifices which are relied on to mislead the people on this subject. But it is 
 the veriest error that_ ever deluded the mind, that the poor man is not 
 interested in the banking system. The poor have a special interest in if. 
 If the rich man obtains his accommodation at the bank, his poor neighbor, 
 whether mechanic, labourei: or the small planter, comes in for his share 
 of the benefit. How, indeed, can the poor man prosper without tire 
 prosperity of the rich '/ The rich man's prosperity is the poor man's good 
 iortune. Put the rich as a class in straits, and you put the poor in great-er 
 straits. Any system, then, that benefits the rich, benefits the poor, and vice 
 versa. But besides this indirect there is a direct benefit, resulting to the 
 poor man from the banking system. Credit, integrity and industry, are the 
 only capital of the poor man. The banking system, far more than any- 
 other, gives to integrity and industry, that credit which renders them avail- 
 able and raises the small dealer and the humble beginner to the extensive 
 merchant and the man of wealth. A. for example, is satisfied of the inte- 
 grity of B., and becomes his endorser" at bank, whereby B. gets a start that 
 finally places him at the top of fortune's wheel. It were impossible to e«ti- 
 matc to what extent bank credit minist«rs in this and analogous modes to 
 the improvement of the condition of the humble and poor through our 
 country. It is past computation. Still more difficult is it to reckon the a- 
 mount of benefit originally derived by the richer classes and by them trans- 
 mitted, in one form or other, to others around them. If for example,. I he- 
 come rich by a business which bank credit enabled me to carry profitably 
 on, I obtain the means of aiding my brother, or other relative, or the friend 
 who is dear to me, or the industrious poor cit-izcn who I may think deserves 
 encouragement. Indeed, view the subject as we may, the banking system 
 is the system for the poor man, and a juster sentiment was never uUercd than 
 that of Gen. Harrison's in his Dayton speech when he said : " It alone can 
 bring the poor maji to the level of the rich." And there is more wisdom in 
 this single sentiment of the old farmer of North Bend than in all the State 
 pipers Martin Van Burcn ever penned. 
 
 The vices, too, of the system are paraded in fearful array, and particular- 
 ly is It impressed upon the public mind that all the troubles of the country 
 within the last four years have been the fault of the banks. It is very con- 
 venient lor those who by wrong policy and misrule have involved the coun- 
 try in distress and ruin to lay these effects to other causes. But it is un- 
 philosophical and. unjust to charge the late commercial convulsions upon the 
 banks. These revulsions (as it has been already hinted) resulted from the 
 course of trade, from the accumulation of a large foreign balance agamst 
 us, and this was the result of a complication of causes. If the banking sye- 
 
71 
 
 tern contributed in any degree to that spirit of overtrading which was the 
 ]f)roximate cause of the accumulation of this balance, it was owing to th« 
 blind policy of the Administration in urging the State banks, after the remo-^ 
 val of the deposites, to discount largely on the basis of the govern-nent funds 
 and grant the most liberal facilities to trade. Indeed, it is very properly re- 
 marked by some of the best writers on the subject, that banks seldom if ever 
 put the ball of speculation in motion. 
 
 But what, let me ask, are the circumstances under which the party in pow- 
 er are makingtheir assaults upon the banking system^ Whyjustat the 
 moment when experience — the surest guideof finite wisdom — has develop- 
 ed its vicesand enabled us to render it an instrument of almost unmixed gooil 
 to our race; for I venture to assert that the history of the last ten years hvn 
 done more to detect the evils of the banking system than all past experience 
 put together. But such is the wisdom of this administration. It makes ex- 
 periments where none are needed. It throws down systems consecrated 
 by time and tested by experience, to put up others, that partake of barbarism 
 itself. The ample volume of history lies open before them, but they read not. 
 The admonitions of experience they scorn. "Eyes they have and see not, 
 ears they have and hear not" — and unless we put it forever out of their pow- 
 er, they will pursue this mad course of infatuation and of folly, until not one 
 green spot be left on which the patriot's eye can rest. 
 
 If these views of the banking system be correct, the man or the party that 
 prostrates it, will do incalculable injury to the country, and return it to ii 
 condition of comparative poverty and barbarism. I warn you then, my 
 countrymen, against this fatal sub-treasur3^ I once favoured it myseh — 
 <jfod forgive me for the error — under the infatuation that it embraced strong 
 State Rights doctrine, and wasa Whig measure in its origin. I yielded ita 
 temporary support ; but the first circumstancts that awakened rny distru&t 
 of the thing, was the conviction, on investigation, that it was antagonistical 
 to the banking system and would work its destruction. From the moment 
 of that conviction, I believed it, as I now most soleiinly do, to be a measure 
 fraught with ruin to all the great interests ofthe country and pregnant with 
 danger to all our free institutions. The best atonement I can make, is^ to 
 raise a warning though feeble voice against it. Rely upon it and mark the 
 prediction — it is to be the great engine under whose battery the proud fab- 
 ric of the Banking system will rock until it tumble into ruins. Some, I 
 know, declare there is no lurking hostility to the banks, while others as- 
 siduously hunt up and marshal in a body all the vices and evils of the sys- 
 tem, in order that in the deformity of the latter, the people may see by con- 
 trast more beauty in the sub-treasury, and be reconciled to it. But disgui.se 
 it as we may, it is the Trojan Horse, and if we but admit it fully into the 
 city — for as yet it is but at the gates —the fate of ruined Troy will be the 
 fate of our ruined banking system. We may take it in or not. We may 
 be governed by the advice of the too confiding 'i hymoctes and write " II- 
 lium fuit" for the epitaph of the banking system, or \vc may hearken to the 
 Avisercounselsof the more cautious Cjpys and "!eave standing Troy and 
 the lofty Citidel of Priam " We may lend ear to the guileful strains ofthe 
 lying Sinon, or take council of the distrustful Laocoon. And such is the 
 aptness ofthe illustration and thebeaaty ofthe moral, that I cannot forbear 
 quoting the admonishing exclamations ofthe sagacious Trojan, when run- 
 ning down from the Citadel he warned his countrymen against admitting 
 the Grecian Horse within the Walls of Troy. I never in all my life 
 q^uoted as much Latin before — and 1 beg pardon of my readers for this of- 
 
72 
 
 fence — but I must, to my countrymen before they finally and ful!y adapt 
 this fatal sub-treasury, address the expressive warning of Laocoon to the 
 Trojans ; 
 
 " O miseri ! qucc taiita insania, cives f 
 
 Ciedillsavectos, liostes ? aut iilln piitatis, 
 
 Donna carere dolis Danaiirn 7 sic notns Ulyssis T 
 
 Ant hoc inclijsi ligno occultautnr Achivi ; 
 
 Antlia3c in nostros labrioata est niachina nwiros, 
 
 Inspectnra donios, ventiiraqne clesuper iirbr, 
 
 jiut aiiquis laUt error : rquone credite, Teucrif 
 
 Qukquid id est : tinieo Dartaos cl dona fcrmtes.^^ 
 Surely, surely, we better know the treacherous Sinons and cunnii'ig' 
 Ulysseses of the reigning party than to permit them, if we can possibly hel^ 
 it, the use of an instrument with which they may batter down a system thai 
 lies at the fouudation of all our country's prosperity. 
 
 Having briefly vindicated the banking system, 1 propose to continue the 
 comparison of a United States Bank and the Sub-Treasury. 
 
 We have seen, thus far, that while the cflect of the sub-treasury scheme 
 will be to destroy the State banks, no such charge can be preferred against 
 anational bank. For it has been generally conceded, by friend and foe, that 
 one of the operations of the latter has uniformly been to exercise a whole- 
 some restraint upon the former, and thus to strengthen and pr(^serve the sp- 
 tem. Indeed, most of the fnendsof the State institutions came, long before 
 the expiration of the charter of the late bank, to regard it as the fast friend 
 of the former. 
 
 The banking system being overthrown, what is the next result? The 
 destruction of tliat great credit system, which enkindles industry and enter- 
 prise, and dispenses convenience, comfort, and happiness, wherever it is 
 tried. 
 
 The banks are the main pillars of the credit system — the instruments 
 with which it works — as a simple example will illustrate. The millers in 
 the Western part of New York, frequently, when a large quantity of whect 
 is in market, which they have not the means by them to purchase; go to ths 
 large capitalist, and by paying him a commission, get him to endorse for 
 them at bank. On the faith of this endorsement, the millers get the cash 
 which is wanted; and now let us see the benefit of the operation. With the 
 money obtained, the miller buys the wheat of the farmer, and thus the agri- 
 cultural interest is benefitted in finding a ready, and, perhaps, a better mar- 
 ket for its productions. Secondly, the miller makes his profit by raanu- 
 fdcturing the wheat into flour, and makes an addition to the comfort of his 
 own family, and to the active wealth of the community. Thirdly, the 
 ship owner makes his freight. Fourthly, he is enabled to employ more la- 
 bour in the manufacture of the flour, and thus the labouring class is bene- 
 fitted. Fifthly, the capitalist who endorsed for the miller, makes his per- 
 centage, and the stockholder of the bank realises his share of the profit. 
 All these classes, with their dependencies, and connexions, are benefitted 
 by this diversified operation of credit ; yet without the aid of the banks in 
 the commencement, no part of the beneficial operation could have been re- 
 alised. 
 
 Thus it seems, that there is an intimate connexion between tlie banking 
 system, and that great credit system, which sends forth life and activity to 
 industry and trade, through their thousand ramifications. Indeed, it may 
 be safely asserted, that without banking facilities to put and keep capital in 
 a ready and available shape, no country can ever reach a high degree of 
 commercial greatness, or progress rapidly in the improvement of the condi- 
 
rs 
 
 tion ofthe mass of its citizens. Individual wealth is inadequate to the pur- 
 pose of an extended commerce. It is rarely accumulated in amounts sufll- 
 eiently large, and it wants that readiness which Is an indispensable proper- 
 ty of commercial capital. It cannot be got at the exact time it is wanted ; 
 whereas the banks, loaning their funds at short dates, and having them re- 
 turned every 60 or 90 days, have them ever ready to do the offices of com- 
 merce. I need adduce no other proof of the truth of this position, 
 than the fact, that the two most commercial countries in the world, 
 are the tnosi bajiking ones, if I may so speak. I refer of course, to 
 Great Britain and our own country. They enjoy by far, the richest and 
 most prosperous commerce, and their commercial systems are most closely 
 interwoven with the banking policy. I believe the position I have taken 
 on this subject, is true in the general ; but it is indisputably true of a coun- 
 try, young as our own, in which there exists no superabundance of capital. 
 There is then an intimate connexion also between the banking sy.stcm and 
 the commercial prosperity of the United States ; and those, therefore, that 
 would put down this branch ofthe credit system, would inflict a heavy blow 
 on the commerce of our country. 
 
 And there is another reflection which I wonder has not occurred to those 
 who would destroy the banking system, and with it the foundations of com- 
 merce. It is this — that the most commercial nations of the world are the 
 freest. Where is civil liberty understood, except in the American and 
 British Empires? The effect of commerce, indeed, is to liberalise, en- 
 lighten and improve mankind. It adds to the wealth and comfort, and in 
 this way conduces to the physical and intellectual improvement, and the 
 consequent respectability ofthe human race. In fine, it places man in that 
 condition, in which he feels the dignity of human nature, and the conse- 
 quence of himself And until you do place him in this condition, he can 
 never become an aspirant for freedom. Hence it is, that those nations 
 vsrhich have been most liberalised by the civilising, elevating influences of 
 commerce, have been most imbued with the spirit of liberty. 
 
 I do not know that I go too far, in asserting that civil liberty and a high 
 state of commerce, are inseparable. I think the proposition is clearly mad« 
 out by History; and it might have been demonstrated by a priori reasoning. 
 To make any nation capable of rational freedom, the mass of the people 
 must be made to feel their respectability. Degrade the naass and you have 
 serfs on the one hand, and masters on the other. Now there is no human 
 means or policy yet developed in man's history; no agency yet brought to 
 light so energetic in improving the moral and physical character of the 
 race, as commerce. And for one, I do most solemnly declare my humble 
 belief, that the sub-Treasury policy, when in the full blast of expeiiment, 
 and made the permanent policy ofthe country, will soon throw us behind 
 the age, retard the growth of national power and individual wealth and hap- 
 piness, carry us back to an Iron Age, and change even the destiny of the 
 Union. 
 
 Why, then, this war upon Credit? Why this "Perish Credit, perish 
 Commerce," policy which the sub-Treasury is intended tosubserve? Break 
 down this credit system when you will — you sap the foundation of 
 American society, and dry up the sources of public grandeur and private 
 wealth and comfort. You stop the mighty current of trade. You turn 
 out your fields to desolation. You furl the canvass of, the ship. The ten- 
 ement rises not. The forge hisseth not. The shuttle is unsped. AgricuJ- 
 ture droops. Commerce declines. Manufactures are broken up; and 
 
74 
 
 whisre all was once the stirring activity of busy industry and thriving enter- 
 prise, there is naught but listless apathy and comparative desolation. 
 
 Yet all these consequences are to be wrought by the sub-Treasury. In 
 • word, it is to blot out the banking and the credit systems of the coimtry. 
 
 Will a Natio7ial Bank do t/us heinous mischief? No. It will cherish 
 instead of destroying the credit system, and make it the more fully fulfil its 
 destiny. Again, then, I ask you — which is worse, a bank of the United 
 States, or the Sub-Treasury ? I have not yet finished the contrast. 
 
 CAiMlLLUS. 
 
 i\o. 15. 
 
 The Sub-Treasury — continued, 
 
 TO THE HON. JOEL HOLLEMAN. 
 
 Another inevitable cfiect of the Sub-Treasury policy will be, an inordinate 
 increase of Executive patronage. In France, but a little larger than the 
 state of Virginia, it requires 500,000 officers to carry on the system. In 
 the same proportion, it will require an army of sub-Treasurers and clerks 
 to keep it agoing in the United States. It is true we are told that by the 
 late bill, but few additional officers are created. But recollect the system 
 is now but in its incipient stage. When in after times, it shall be modified, 
 as doubtless it will constantly be, no man can undertake 'to say how many 
 o(iicers will be necessary to keep it in operation. 
 
 But it is not so much the increase in the number of officers as the enhance- 
 ment in the value of their salaries, that will enlarge Executive patronage. 
 If it be true that in the operation of the sub-treasury, the price of property 
 and of the products of labor will be greatly depreciated, it is manifest that 
 the amount of each salary, consisting as it does of the standard of value, 
 (gold and silver) will be proportionably increased. This depreciation is 
 estimated by many at two thirds below the value in a paper currency. 
 Others reckon it at one half, and this latter estimate is surely within the 
 truth. Then it will follow, that every officer whose salary is $500, will 
 have it augmented under the operation of the sub-treasury policy to $1000; 
 the Secretaries of the State, Navy, Treasury and War Departments, instead 
 of 6G000 will receive $12,000 each; a foreign minister, instead of $9000 
 will bo paid $18,000; and the President instead of $2-5,000 will find his 
 per annum raised to the enormous sum of $50,000. Now just apply this 
 principle of increase to the hundreds of thousands of office holders, and 
 hold it up to the view of the millions of office seekers that are expectants 
 on Executive bounty, and you will be able to judge m the tremendous im- 
 petus that will be given to the patronage of the government. Each holder 
 o-f place will become the doubly pliant tool and craven slave of the Execu- 
 tive; and the zeal of that still more numerous class who have their eye on 
 the fat spoils within the President's dispensation, will be stimulated into 
 loud huzzas for the powers that be. I tremble for my country, when I 
 ponder on this awful subject. Let the maxims of the spoils system con- 
 tinue to be acted on,nnd then double the emolument of the almost innumer- 
 able offices within the President's gift, and if public virtue and public liberty 
 long survive, then will all the teachings of History have been reversed, and 
 hu;uan nature clianged in its every instinct and passion. 
 
75 
 
 1 know t shall be told that the salaries of public officers may by law hd 
 graduated according to the new state of things. True, it may be, but the 
 important question is — will it be done? There is not the remotest ground 
 to hope such a thing. E.xpect a reduction of patronage from a cabal thr.t 
 has never reduced a single salary except that of the commissioner of Pen- 
 sions? that has several times voted down propositions for the reduction of 
 salaries? Expect retrenchment and reform from a party that has doubled 
 the expenses of the civil list, increased the number of officers in the Now 
 York Custom House from 174 to 592, in other departments in the like pro- 
 portion, and run up the public expendhurcs from 1 3 to 40 inillions of dollart? 
 Hope for retrenchment from a party that can ofler no other evidence of its 
 economy and reform but the reduction of one little salary to the pitiful 
 amount of $500? Why the idea is so ridiculous as to make even the whig 
 school boys laugh. Where are the retrenchment and reform we have 
 been so long promised — aye, from the days of early Jacksonism to this time? 
 What has become of the six bills for curtailing executive patronage, reported 
 by the celebrated Reform OommUtee of 1826? Stand forth Mr. Benton 
 and Mr. Van Btiren — ye who were leading members of that committee, 
 and cried out so lustily against John Quincy Adams for his pretended e.\- 
 travagance and enlargement of executive patronage — stand forth, I say, y« 
 political saints, and tell your countrymen wherein ye have given them re- 
 trenchment and reform, and particularly do ye tell us what has become oJ 
 those six bills you reported to restrain the exercise of that "great patronage"' 
 Avhich you then said "had l' constant tendency to sully the purity of our 
 institutions and endanger the liberties of the- country." Long years y« 
 have had unbridled rule and might have passed these salutary laws. And 
 what has become of the celebrated report of Mr. Calhoun, made in 1835, 
 on the subject of executive patronage? Why have not the suggestions 
 of that report been carried out by the author? He has the car of the ad- 
 ministration party. Why has he not used his influence with his new 
 a.ssociates to commence the work of retrenchment and reform? Alas! if 
 we eannot have these precious boons from the bestowal of John C. Cajhoun, 
 how dare we hope them from his less virtuous and less noble compeers I 
 It is tne idlest of hopes! And thererore, if the sub-treasury be carried out 
 by the present administration, we have no reason to anticipate a mitigation 
 of its pernicious effects in fearfully enlarging executive patronage and 
 power. 
 
 A further effect of the sub-treasury will be, to reduce greatly the price 
 of property and of the products of labour. This might be ensilv demon- 
 strated from well established principles of political economy. The price 
 of property and labour, it is well known, is, when there is an equilibrium 
 of supply and demand, almost in direct proportion to the amount of currency 
 or circulation. For example, the currency of a country being reduced one 
 half, the price of property, cominodities, &c., will be reduced somewhere 
 in the same proportion. Every citizen knows, because he sees and Jeels 
 the truth of the thing, that when money is plentiful, prices are high — when 
 money is scarce they are low. Now keeping in view tliissim])le principle 
 and bearing in mind the well known fact, that in hart! money countries 
 the currency is about one "bird of what it is in pjper money countrie?, it 
 is at once seen, that the result of the sul)-treasury policy uiust be a large 
 reduction of the price of property and of labor. 
 
 But I am saved the necessity of any speculitive argument on the sulijecf. 
 The friends of the Sub-Treasury themselves, and the /ed^iw^'- friends they 
 
76 
 
 ure too, concede that its effect will be to bring down prices to tlie standard 
 of hard money countries. Indeed, we need not be thankful lo them for 
 this admission, for if we make our country a hard money country, as the 
 Sub-Treasury will surely make it, we must expect to have the prices of 
 hard money countries. Let us then enquire what this standard is that 
 the friends of the Sub-Treasury policy would introduce in our country. 
 
 Italy is one of tlio hard money countries which it is said we should 
 copy. In Venice, it is computed that every tenth man is a beggar by pro- 
 fession, and thai 40,000 persons have no place to live in, nothing to shel- 
 ter them but the skies of heaven. Here the labourer is paid ubout six 
 I>ence per day! How would the American labourer relish that change 
 which should make him work the live long day for the pallry sum of eight 
 cents? 
 
 Russia is another hard money country, and there so low is the condition 
 of thejabourer, that serfs, as they are termed, are actuaPy sold along with 
 the land as so many appurtenances thereto, just as in this country we sell 
 our houses with our lands. 
 
 Egypt is a hard money country too, and there the labourer receives 
 five cents for his day's work. A boatman gets eight cents and feeds 
 himself. 
 
 In the Netherlands, another metallic-currency country, the pay of the 
 labourer is from eight to ten cents with board. Istria, Lombardy and Tus- 
 cany, from ten to twelve cents without board; and in about the same pro- 
 portion is most of the countries that have a gold and silver currency alone. 
 
 But France — hard money — happy France, is the favorite model, the 
 beau ideal of tlie advocates of ttie Sub-Treasury. One would suppose 
 from the encomiums so freely lavished upon this bank-hating country, 
 that it is an Elysium on earth, where man exists in all the dignity of his 
 nature, und lives but to revel in the good things of this life. But let us 
 see if the picture is correctly drawn. In Calais, the pay of a labourer is 
 fifteen cents per day, wiihout food or lodging; Boulogne, ten cents without 
 board/. Nanles, tcui cents per day without board or dwelling; Marseilles, 
 four peice to seven pence per day without board, and so in most of the 
 Departments of France. 
 
 And M. Dupin, one of her own and most distinguished citizens, informs 
 ns, that tlie'e are 20 millions of beings who are wholly deprived of animal 
 food, and live on corn, maize, and potatoes, and 7^- millions that eat little 
 or no corn, but subsist on rye, barley, flummery made of buckwheat, 
 chesnuts, pea?, and such like, and have no fuel but furze and stubble. 
 
 Such is the condition of this hard money people to which our wise 
 statesmen would reduce the happy, prosperous citizens of this banking, 
 paper money cout^try! Indeed, one of the friends of this Independent 
 Treasury scheme has already given notice to the working portion ot his 
 countrymen, that they may expect to give up their meat when the scheme 
 gets well to work. But, good soul ! he kindly comforts them with the 
 assurance that tlioufih they may have to give up their meat, yet they will 
 be better off", that is to say, I suppose, they will by a plain diet, keep clear 
 of the dyspepsia ! (see speech Hon. Henry Williams, member of Congress 
 from iMass , on the Sub-Treasury.) So look out, ye working men, who 
 relish a good suiloin of mutton or beef, or a good ham or middling, take 
 care how ye support this Sub-Treasury administration, or ye may find your 
 moat stopped, before yvu are aware of it ! 
 
77 
 
 Such is tlie picture of the hard money countries. Now let us draw ll»« 
 picture of those that have a bank or paper currency, or a mixture of [)aper 
 and the precious metals. In England and the United States, tlie pay of 
 the laborer is from six to fifteen times as much as in conntries possessing 
 a currency exclusively metallic. In England, I believe, the average per 
 diem of the able-bodied laboring man is about six shillings. In this coun- 
 try, it varies from one dolhir to '$2,50 per day. 
 
 Now who would bring down the working man of this country from his 
 proud condition of independence, respectability and happiness, to the level 
 of the miserable, half clothed, and half starved subjects of hard mon(7 gov- 
 ernments? Who, but the mad rulers that curse tliis people, would intro- 
 duce a policy that will doom the working classes to a state of pe petual 
 inferiority, want and degradation, while by the benign system we long 
 have prospered under, every man, the humble as well as the high-born, the 
 common laborer as well as the mechanic, the mechanic as well as the 
 merchant or the professional man, i'! enabled to improvo his pecuniary 
 fortunes, and to elevate his rank in the scale of moral being. There is, 
 indeed, this great characteristic distinction between hard money and paper 
 money countries, — integrity and industry avail their possessor and have 
 tlieir reward in the latter — in the former they are of no avail, and, of 
 course, there is no incentive to moral ambition, and in this condition inaa 
 must necessarily drag out a miserable life of licentiousness, vice and crime. 
 In the one, the working man may rise to a condition of opulence and high 
 moral elevation; in the other, he who is "born a laborer, must die a labor- 
 er." If he is born to poveily and degradation — his doom is irretrievable 
 — he must die in poverty and degradation. Why^then, if under the paper 
 system we are fiir more blest than any people on the Globe, should we 
 rashly venture the experiment of a hard money currency, when we know 
 that wherever the latter has been tried, its effects have been to introduce 
 disgusting pauperism and squalid poverty — to beget misery, vice and crime, 
 to degrade human nature, and to underrate the destiny ot our race! 
 
 But this subject has not yet been contemplated in its worst aspect. 
 Whit is to be the effect of the ru'duction of prices on the various interests 
 of the community.' If our formcn- reasoning be correct, the price of labor 
 and of property must be reduced one half or three fourths. 1 do not en- 
 tertain a doubt myself that the reduction will be, with a gold and silver^ 
 currency, at least two thirds. The result will be: 
 
 1. The farmer will obtain only one third the price he receives in ordi- 
 nary limes. Corn will be brought down to 81,50 per barrel; wheat to 
 about 50 cents per bushel, according to Senator Tappan to 12i cents; 
 oats to I2i or 15 cents per bushel; and other productions of the soil in 
 proportion. 
 
 2. The working class will receive for their labor one third of what they 
 havo been receiving for the last fifty years. The laborer who has been 
 getting 50 cents heretofore will get only a shilling, and the mechanic who 
 has heretoiore obtained $1,50 per day will get only 50 cents; and so on 
 in proportion. 
 
 3. A corrollary from these propositions, is, that the whole debtor class 
 of the Union will be involved in hopeless ruin. For example, a f.irmcr 
 who has purchased a farm at 8 1 5,000 on the faith oi^ good li:;)es, is com- 
 pelled to put his land in market to make his other payments, for the low 
 jjrice of grain will enable him only to support his family, and leaves him 
 of course no supplies to devote to a payment on his land. At sub-treasury 
 
78 
 
 fsrlces, his farm, tliougli costing $15,000, will brl'ng' only $5,000, He 
 Uierefore loses the $5,000 originally paid, and is $5^000 in debt, and to 
 raise this iast sum, it will require three times as R?ach property or labor in 
 hard money limes as it would have required in periods of banking circu- 
 lation. A debt, indeed, of $5,000, contracted in a period of paper cur- 
 rency, would require a lifetime of labor, exertit?n and saving, to discharge 
 it in times of hard money currency. 
 
 And so with the working man and mechanic. If he has contracted a 
 debt which lie expected to defray by a year'^a- labor, it' will req^iire threer 
 year's toil to liquidate it. And if to meet his^ obiigations, he is forced to 
 sell what little property he has accumulated, it goes off under the hammer 
 el one third of the original cost, and he is ruined unavoidably. And so 
 of every class. 
 
 The human imagination, with all its boJ^nesff, can scarcely picl4ire the 
 distress, ruin and desolation, which will over-spread this countVy in the 
 t'vent of the full execution of the sub-treasury policy. There is a vast 
 amount of debt in this country. 'I'here are millions of debtors. This vast 
 debt was contracted in good times and by a paper currencj' stand'ardt But 
 according to the sub-treasury policy, they must pay in a specie currency or 
 by a hard money standard.. It will require, therefore, three times as mueli; 
 property to pay this debt as the amount of the debt originally purchased. 
 E\'ery man, in fine, who owes a thousand dollars will have in effect to raise 
 $3000 to pay it; or what is the same thing, it will require three thousand 
 dollars worth of property or labor to discharge die debt of one t'housand 
 dollars. To make the proposition yet more palpable — take this- example: 
 In a period of paper currency, say I owe $1000 — and I have $3000 worth 
 of property. I am forced to soil, and receive the real worth,, say $3000. 
 1 pay the debt and have §2000 left. But suppose the sii^-freasury goes 
 into operation, and brings down prices to the hard mon-ey standard. My 
 property is sold and brings tRe only enough to pay the 8J0OO and leaves 
 ine witliout a cent. This is the real operation of the thing, and we have 
 but to apply the reasoning to the whole debtor c]a«s of the U. States to 
 see the wide-spread ruin and misery of which thssub-treasury system will 
 be the fruitful sourer. If our ruhrs are resolved, at all hazards, to fasten 
 this system upon us, they shtuld have introduced it in the most gradual 
 way. Its operation should be impercejitible. Thus, and thus only, can the 
 country be saved the convulsion, ruin and despair, which will otherwise be 
 the effect of the policy. 
 
 But to reconcile the people to this new policy, they are told that wliile 
 i he- price of land, negroe.«, wheat, corn and laliour, &c. are reduced,, the 
 ])iice of all other coimnodllks is reduced in proporlioji, and therefope m 
 the end the same result is produced. 
 
 Of all the humbugs of this humbugging administration, lhi« \icff far the 
 most daring and pernicious — it aims a blow at the welfare, the comfoff, the 
 liappiness, aye, the very n:eat and bread and raiment of every citizen -of 
 this broad Union. The argument is, that the farmer who gets 50 cents per 
 bushel for his v. heat, and f;l,50 per barrel for his corn i:i as well off as if 
 ho were to get ^1.50 per bushel for his wheat snd ^4,50 lor his corn! 
 And so it is argued, thiit the working man who gets 50 cents per day fcr 
 his labor, can r.s well sup[)ly hir.nself with the comfoits of life as if he were 
 to receive 8 1, 50 per day — because forsooth, he can purchase as much with 
 &0 cents in hard money, as he can with $1,60 in piper currency ! ! This 
 reasoning is an msult to the understandings of the people. It is hypocrit- 
 
leal, dishonest and villainous. And I propose to refute it by a vcrysim. 
 pie and irrefragable arguoient. 
 
 Corn, wheat, oats, &c. command in market little more than one lialf lh« 
 price they did three or four years since. This fact the farmers wtll know, 
 because they feel it. But when they go to the grocery or dry good or 
 hardware store, do they find that because they get less for their grain, they 
 buy the articles they want from the merchant at a less price than they usually 
 gave? Do they find broad cloths, linens, muslins, silks, farming utensils, 
 sugar, cofTee, tea, &c. fallen in price in proportion to the fall in the price of 
 grain? I appeal to every farmer to answer this question for himself. H« 
 must answer it in the negative. And why.? Because the price of all goods 
 of foreign manufacture is independent entirely of our system of currency. 
 Whatever be our system of currency, whether paper or metallic, sugar, cof- 
 fee, tea, silks, muslins, &c. will come to us at the usual prices. The man- 
 ufacture of them took place without regard to our system of currency, and 
 tl\<3 price thereof must be regulated without regard to our currency. Away 
 then with the preposterous notion that is intended to beguile the people of 
 this country into the support of a system which will abridge their comforts 
 by abridging the means of purchasing these comforts, and put them in u 
 condition, comparatively speaking, of semi-pauperism, if not of semi-bar- 
 barism. It is delusion, palpable, undisguised delusion. And I warn th« 
 planter — I w^arn the mechanic — I warn the laboring class in all its modifi- 
 cations — to beware of this wicked, want-begetting, misery-making, spirit- 
 breaking system. And what shall I say to the citizen who has had (he 
 misfortune to become insolvent in debt.? Shun it — shun it — as you would 
 a tornado that carries destruction in its awful sweep. To you, it will be an 
 engulfing vortex which will draw in the already shattered bark in which 
 you are navigating life's stormy ocean, and dash it into fragments. You 
 may scufHe to the shore, but you can never refit. You will not be able, 
 like ^neas and his comrades after their shipwreck in the Tuscan Sea, to 
 huiid up another Troy. Weather beaten, heart broken, and ruined, you 
 v.'i 1 have neither the 'spirit nor the means to venture another voyage. 
 
 1. have not room nor time to discuss this important question in the man- 
 ner it deserves. If the countr}'' bo so unfortunate as to have its d(slini<s 
 another four years in the hands of the prestnt party, 1 may resume the sub- 
 ject and discuss it in aJl its bearings. 
 
 I have only to ask, will a U. S. Bank thus reduce the price of property 
 and ot labor? and bring on the disastrous consequences of the sub-lrcasury 
 system? 
 
 I am now to demonstrate that the sub-treasury can never answer the pur- 
 poses of a fiscal agency. There is no proposition more undoubted than 
 this; that the individual exchang(s of this country cannot be carried on to 
 any advantage without the intervention of bank agency in some form or 
 o'.her. If our cotmtry were a small one, it might be done without. Or if it 
 v/:yfc an older one in which there was a super-abundance of capital, bank- 
 agoncy might perhaps be dipsnsed with. Capital, if highly abundant, in it? 
 loarch for investment, would seek the channels of Exchange; Exchnngc 
 dealers would be located in all the principal cities of the Union, and bills 
 ofi xchange would to a great extent answer the purposes of individual or 
 commercial remittance. But this state of things cannot arise in our country 
 for centuries to come. Now if bank agency be necessary to ccrry on in- 
 dividual exchanges, a forliori, it is necessary to perform the exchangfsof 
 trovcrnment: for while individuals deal in iiundrcds and th<?usand5, govern- 
 
80 
 
 mmt deals in its millions. Government, indeed, is the largest dealer in 
 exchange, and most requires an easy medium for its performance. 
 
 But we need not refer to theoretical reasoning. We have already prac- 
 tical examples of the adaptation of the sub-treasury to the purpose of trans- 
 mitting the public funds from point to point, which is one of the chief 
 functions of a fiscal agent 
 
 I find in Doc. No. 1 IG of the last Congress, that there was paid to J. De 
 Selborst and Wm. B. Slaughter for transporting specie from St, Louis and 
 Wilwaukie to the capital of Wiskonsan, the sum of $2,595, the whole ex- 
 ]>ense of the Territory for the year 1838 being $58,975. Now if under 
 this new financial scheme it required $2,595 to transport $58,975, what will 
 it require to transport the w'hole transferable revenue of the U. States? It 
 is a question of simple proportion which each one can solve for himself 
 
 But how was it with the late U. S. Bank? The $58,975 would havg 
 been placed at the capital of Wiskonsin in the shortest possible time and 
 without a cents cost to the government. In fact, the late bank transferred 
 and disbursed several hundred millions ot dollars for the government without 
 (h doUar^s cost and tvilhoui tvcr lonng a single cent! Can you promise 
 tliis, sir, for your boasted system of finance? Which, sir, is the better finan- 
 cial scheme? 
 
 You laboured hard to create a prcjudice.against a U. S. Bank, in order 
 that you might the better reconcile your hearers to the sub-treasury. Par- 
 ticularly )'on s.rid it had never given a uniform currency. And you made 
 quotations from tables of prices current to prove the fact; but you confined 
 your quotations to early periods after the bank went into operation. Why 
 did you not draw your examples from the palmy days of the late bank, 
 when, having gotten into successful operation, it actually reduced the price 
 oi exchange to a nominal amount? I could demonstrate, had I time, that 
 U, S. Bank notes were actually better than specie; and surely if the late 
 bank furnished a currency better than specie, you, a hard money man, ought 
 not to grumble. If, sir, you had been ofTerea seven years ago $1000 by a 
 debtor, in which would you have preferred to take the debt, in silver dollars 
 or U. S. Bank notes? You would have taken the notes and so would any 
 sensible man. 
 
 i could as easily answer all your other arguments against the baiiiC. 
 And if ever you accept the challange I gave you in my 7th No. I pledge 
 myseK to meet you on every point. By the v/ay, why have you not taken 
 up the glove I threw down? Are you afraid? Oris vour cause indefen- 
 sible? 
 
 Put as you laboured much to prove that the bank is a most federal meas- 
 ure, let me inform you that it was chartered each time by the vote of two 
 thirds of the Republican part\' in Congress in its favor — two thirds of the 
 Federalists voting against the charter. And Mr. Ritchie himself once 
 Avarmly supported Elbridge GJerry as Vica President of the United States, 
 who was a decided bank man: and at anotlier time, Wm. H. Crawford for 
 the Presidency, than whom there was no more zealous advocate of a national 
 bank. 
 
 And to stop your mouth from ever hereafter representing the Whigs as the 
 exclusive Bank party and arrogating for yours the crcd't of being exclusively 
 anti-bank, let me furnish you a list of some of the leaders of your party who 
 have been warm advocates of a national bank. Here they are — Mr. 
 Forsyth, Mr. Grundy, Mr. Lumpkin, Mr. Cuthbert, Mr. Dallas, Mr. Wil- 
 kins, i\Ir. Poinsett, Mr. Paulding, Mr. Woodbury, Col. R. M. Jolinson, Mr. 
 Dickcrson, Mr. Calhoun and Judge Tucker of Va. 
 
81 
 
 I have thus contrasted, in a very imperfect way, the two rival schemes 
 for collecting and disbursing the revenues of the union, and shewn, I hope, 
 that the sub-treasury will be attended Vv'ith consequences most disastrous, 
 which cannot be charged against a national bank. 
 
 Recollect, I have not admitted that Gen. H. is an advocate of a U. S. Bank. 
 My argument has been to shew that even if he is, he supports ;i plan infinitely 
 less objectionable than the favorite scheme of Mr. Van Buren, the sub- 
 treasury. 
 
 hi my next and last, I shall compare the two candidates on the subject of 
 State Risfhts. 
 
 CAM1LLU3. 
 
 ]\o. 16, 
 
 State Ri'srhts. 
 
 c5 
 
 TO THE HON. JOEL HOLLEMAN. 
 
 I am now, in conclusion, about to compare Gen. Harrison and Mr. Tan 
 Buren, on the subject of State Rights, regretting that the near approach of 
 the day of election will leave me no time to consider the alarming corrup- 
 tion of public morals, of the elective franchise and the press, which is 
 every day depressing the standard of morality in our country, and under- 
 mining the foundations of the public libert)'. 
 
 You pronounced Gen. Harrison a black cockade, alien and sedition law 
 federalist; and the proof you adduced was, the naked, unsupported asser- 
 tion, that he was a supporter of the administration of the elder Adams. 
 Your premises, sir, as they very frequently are, were wrong, and your con- 
 clusion must necessarily be so. I pledge myself to prove beyond the reach 
 of controversy, not only that Gen. Harrison never sustained the claims of 
 John Adams, but that he warmly advocated the election of Mr. Jefferson in 
 opp'rtion to Mr. Adams. And when I shall have exhibited the tcstiir.ojiy 
 — testimony which has all the time been within your reach, and which I 
 doubt not you have both seen and read — a blush of conscious shame must 
 crimson your cheek, unless, indeed, the bile of party prejudice has obstructed 
 entirely the process of suffusion. 
 
 Of the territorial legislature north-west of the Ohio River, for the year 
 1799, only three members now survive, Judge Burnett and Gen. Darlington 
 of Ohio, and Judge Sibley of Michigan. 'I'hey are, therefore, the only 
 witnesses that can testify of their ow/i knowledge. Now, all these witnesses 
 concur in falsifying your statement. We will put them on the stand sepa- 
 rately, and you may catechise them to your heart's content. 
 
 Come to die stand, then, Judge Burnett— what say j'ou? What oppor- 
 tunity had you of knowing Gen. Harrison's opinions in the year IT'ts' and 
 thereabouts ? 
 
 Answer; "My personal acquaintance with Gen. Harrison commenced 
 in the year 1796, under the administration of Washington. The intimacy 
 between us vms great, and our inttr course was constant, and from that time 
 till he left Cincinnati, I teas in the habit of arguing and disputing icith 
 him on political subjects.^' 
 6 
 
82 
 
 What think 3'ou of the charge made against GJcn. Harrison, that "he was 
 a federalist of the black cockade order, in the time of the elder Adams'?" 
 
 Answer: "A more unfounded falsehood was never invented. I can speak 
 with certainty on this subject, and I affirm, most solemnly, that under the 
 administration of Washington, and the administration of the elder Adams, 
 William Henry Harrison was a firm, consisleiit^ ujiyielding Republicav, 
 of the Jefferson school. He advocated the claims of Mr. Jeff'crson^ and 
 warmly maintained them against Mr. Adams.'''' 
 
 The above answers are the very words of Judge Burnett, and, in a subset 
 quent letter to the Hon. William Southgate of Kentucky, he reiterates this 
 testimony in the following language : '• I supported Adams warmly, and he 
 (Gen. Harrison,) with equal warmth, supported Mr. Jefferson. During 
 the controversy from 1798, inclusive, I conversed and argued with him 
 times without number — -he sustaining Mr. Jefferson, and I Mr. Adams. 
 You may assure your friends that there was not a more consistent, decided 
 supporter of Mr. Jefferson, in the North- Western Territory, than General 
 Harrison." 
 
 I presume, sir, you will take no exception to this witness, either on the 
 score of competency or credibility. He is a gentleman of exalted talents, 
 of the most elevated character, and an ornament to his country. 
 
 The next witness, Gen. Joseph Darlington, of West Union, Ohio, bears 
 testimony equally unequivocal. In his, letter to William Creighton, Jr., of 
 July 15th, 1840, he says: "I was a member of the first legislature which 
 assembled at Cincinnati, in September, 1799, under the ordinance of Jul}', 
 1787. By the provision of that ordinance, the legislature then assembled 
 were to elect a delegate to Congress. The political parties were, at that 
 time, designated as " Republicans and Federalists." The candidates were 
 Arthur St. Clair, then Attorney General, and William Flenry Harrison, 
 (now General Harrison,) who was then Secretary of the said Territory. 
 Arthur St. Clair was then declared a firm federalist, and taken up by that 
 party in the legislature as their candidate. General Harrison Avas then 
 declared to be a firm republican, and so understood by all at that time, and 
 ioas Jahen np by the Republican parly, and by them elected a delegate to 
 Congress over the Federal candidate. During that session, I was wtll 
 acquainted with Gen. Flarrison, and well know that he was believed by all 
 the republican members of that legislature to be a firm republican, and a 
 supporter of Mr. Jefferson's political principles, and under that impression 
 was elected a delegate to Congress, by the republican members of the leg- 
 islature of 1799." 
 
 And the third witness, Judge Sibley, in a letter to Judge Burnett, dated 
 17th August, 1840, says of Gen. Harrison's election in 1799: "I was present 
 and aided, by my vote, in the election. I learned on my arrival, that the 
 candidates for the office Avere Gen. Harrison, at that time Secretary of the 
 Territory, and Arthur St. Clair, Attorney General. * * It was well 
 known that Gen. Harr'so 1 was professedly of the Virginia school of politics, 
 at the head of which Mr. Jefferson was placed by his political friends, 
 and teas i 71 favor of his being placed in the Presidency. Mr. St. Clcdr 
 was /tic raZ, and in favor of Mr. Adams' re-election. * * The Virginia 
 interest, so called, gave their support to Gen. Harrison, supporting him on 
 the grounds of his being a Repiiblican conti adisiinguished to Federalism.'^ 
 
 Here, then, are three witnesses, unimpeached and unimpeachable, all 
 concurring in the declaration that Gen. Harrison was not a supporter of 
 the elder Adams' administration, but, on the contrary, a republican of the 
 Jefferson school. 
 
What proof have you to the contrary? Nothing' more than the naked 
 charge made by John Randolph, in the Senate of the United States, in the 
 year 182G. It were enong-h to say, on this point, that Gen. H. promptly 
 denied the justice of the imputation thrown out by IMr. R., and that the 
 denial of Gen. Harrison is any day equal to the unsupported assertion of- 
 Mr. Randolph, or any body else. But if there were any doubt about Mr. 
 Randolph's being mistaken, it would be at once removed by the positive 
 and unimpeachable testimony of Judge Burnett, Gen. Darlington and Judo-c 
 Sibley. 
 
 And as for your "cock-a-doodlc-doo" story, that "Gen. Harrison wore the 
 black cockade as an emblem of federalism," tell it to the marines, the sailors 
 wo'nt believe it. The Whig schoolboys will inform you that Gen. Har- 
 rison wore the black cockade while he was an officer in the North-Western 
 army, and on no other occasion. Here, loo, the evidence of the three wit- 
 nesses already named, comes in to disprove your reckless a.ssertion. Strange, 
 indeed, if a Jcflersonian republican had worn the federal badge of tho 
 black cockade. I reckon, my dear sir, you were thinking of Richard Kush, 
 who was the first man in our country to mount the black cockade of federal- 
 ism, but who nov/ is a patent democrat of the brightest water. 
 
 I propose, now, briefly to follow Gen. Harrison in his political course, and 
 to shew that he has been as consistent in the republican laith as any of our 
 distinguished men, even John C. Calhoun hitnself 
 
 In 1809, we find him congratulating Dr. Brownley on the success of the 
 republican ticket in Maryland. "I rejoice, (says he,) sincerely in the 
 triumph of the republicans of Maryland." Had he been the federalist he 
 is said to be, would he have had any sympathy with the republicans of 
 IMaryland? 
 
 Ill 1815, he assured Mr. Madison, that liis resignation of Iiis command 
 in the army was not prompted liy any "want of interest in the success of 
 hij (Mr. Madison's) admnistralion." Tliis (says he) can only take place 
 "when I forget the republican principles in which I liave been educated." 
 And here let it be marked, that while it is doubtful, to say the least, 
 whether Mr. Van Buren gave the late war a hearty support, Gen. Harrison, 
 on tha field, was consecrating himself to the service of iiis country. 
 
 In the Senate of Ohio, Gen. Harrison, on the 30th December, 1320, 
 reported and voted for tl)e following resolution: 
 
 "Resolved, by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, that in respect 
 to the po»vers of the governments of the several States that compose the 
 Aii.e-ican Union, and of the Federal Government, this General Assembly 
 do recognise and approve the doctrines asserted by the Legislatures of 
 Kentucky and Virginia, in their resolutions of November and December, 
 1793, and January 1800, and do consider, that their principles have been 
 recognised and adopted by a majority of the American people.'' 
 
 And in 182 2, in his letter io the editor of the Inquisitor, he again 
 declared himself a "Republican of what is called the Jeffersonian school," 
 and ndo[)ted t' e Resolutions of '9S as contiiniug his political creed. 
 
 Indeed, he las taken higher Slate Rights ground than any public man 
 in this country. In the Senate of Ohio, when the Missouri-restriction 
 Resolutions of Mr Thompson were under discussion, Gen. Harrison, in 
 opposing them, took the bold position that it was unnecessary to impose 
 restrictions ipon Missouri; that if Congress should impose any prohibitions 
 touching slavery, they would be ino[)erative and useless, for that the mo- 
 ment Missouri became a State, slie could, by virtue of her Sovereignty, 
 
H 
 
 repeal the restriction through an amendment of her constitution, and thus, 
 despite of Federal authority, permit the introduction of slavery. Higiier 
 State Rights ground than this lias never been tnken. 
 
 Here are tlie evidences of Gen- Harrison's republican failh. Can you 
 present as fair a picture of Mr. Van Buren? 
 
 But say you. Gen. 11. voted for Internal Improvements by the Federal 
 Government. So did Mr. JefTerson. He favored the Cumberland Road. 
 So did Mr. Calhoun. Federal Internal Improvements never had a warmer 
 or abler advocate than Mr. Calhoun. And so has Mr. Van Buren given 
 to Internal Improvements the most ultra sup])ort ol any politician in thi? 
 country, as was shewn in the 12th No. of this scries. 
 
 He is in favor of the Tarifi'. So was Mr. Calhoun in 1816. So have 
 been all our Presidents, more or less, from the foundation of the Glov- 
 ernment.;^ I believe in every administration, laws have been passed recog- 
 nising the discriminating principle of protection. And Mr. Van Buren 
 himself voted for the Bill of Abominations — the Tariff of l'828,and de- 
 clares^ himself in 1 840, to be in favor of the Constitutional power of Con- 
 gress to pass a protective Tariff. 
 
 But, cry you, he is in favor of a National Bank. Admit it — and so were 
 Mr. Madison, Elbridge Gerry, Gen. Sam!. S/niih, Wm, H. Crawford, Mr. 
 McDuffie, and many distinguished members of the republican parly. He 
 is no more a federalist then on tliis account, than the men just named. 
 But wc have already demonstrated in preceding numbers that Gen. Har- 
 rison's opinions on the subject of a U. S. Bank are devoid of objection. 
 Not so with Mr. Van Buren. While he is opposed to the Bank cf the 
 United States, be is in favor of a Bank, a sub-treasury, government Banky 
 which, on every possible account, is far worse, more corrupting, more dan- 
 gerous, less useful to the people, and a most bungling, ill-contrived, fiscal 
 machine. If Gen. H. is a federalist, for being in fa^or of a bank of the 
 U. S., Mr, Van BH.vren is as much so for being in favor of a government 
 or sub-treasury bank. 
 
 But Gen. H. approved the proclamation, and Mr. Webstei's e.xpositfon 
 thereof. Yes — this is the favorite song of yourself and your democratic 
 friends. But pray, my good sir, stop and tell us, quo jure — by what right 
 it is you or any friend of the "Follower in the footsteps" dare breathe a 
 word about the Proclamation? Step lightly, sir, you are on ticklish ground, 
 and if you do not mind, you will find your candidate tossed heels over 
 head over the yawning precipice of federalism ere your weak arm can be 
 reached out to save him. Why you remind me of Arno'd abusing a traitor, 
 — of Tom Paine reproving an infidel, or of a man living in a glass house 
 pelting every thing around him with stones. 
 
 I marvel much that so sagacious and cute a gentleman as yourself, docs 
 not bear in mind the excellent precept of the Holy Scriptures, that '"wiih 
 what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye 
 tnele, shall it be measured unto you again." And excuse me for referring 
 you and all state-right supporters of Martin Van Buren to tlie 5lh verse 
 of the 7th chapter of Matthew, where you will find these words : ''Thoi? 
 hypocrite ! first cast out the beam out of ihine own eye, and then shah thou 
 see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Whenever 
 y-ou feel prone to charge Gen. II. with being a Proclamaiionist, remember 
 the textsof Holy writ which f have just quoted, and be rebuked and abashed. 
 
 But is Gen Harrison a Proclamaiionist? Clearly not. He gave the 
 V'rocLa-'nation a temporary support, as did many of the firmest state rights 
 
republicans in tlio land, and was led into the error as many otiiers wore 
 by the peculiar circumstances which called forth I hat celebrated paper 
 Nullification was at the time a new doctrine, and was regarded in tho 
 practical form it had assumed in S. Carolina, as equivalent to a dissolution 
 of the LTnion. And many, under their fears that the Union would be in- 
 stantly dissolved, without a minute examination of the document, regarded 
 it with approbation. I know of my own knowledge that the late (ien, 
 Severn E Parker — the best state rights man I ever knew — after a cursory 
 reading of the Proclamation, approved it, though after he examined it 
 maturely, iio becams its bitterest denouncer. So it was with Gen. Hanison. 
 He approved it at its first issuing, but upon belter examination of the paper 
 lie "denounced it and renounced it as containing the very quintessence of 
 Federalism, ■"' and "regretted his hasty appfc val of it ns tlie greatest politi- 
 cal error of his life." The evidence of this recantation may be found in 
 the 3d No. of the Yeoman, in a letter addressed by a member of Gen. 
 Harrison's family to a Senator of Virginia. 
 
 That S.-nalor is James B. Thornton, Esq. of Caroline, and the writer of 
 the letter published in the Yeoman, is Dr. John. H. F. Thornton, a near 
 relation of Senator Thornton, and a son in law of Gen. Harrison. In d. 
 letter from Senator Thornton to the writer of these Nos. there is the fol- 
 lowing sentence: 
 
 '' The opinions which it (the letter from Dr .Thornton, published in tlie 
 3d Yeoman) attributes to Gen. Harrison, were so attributed tcilk the. 
 Jcnoivledgc and approoation of Gen. H.; and T know ihcy arc nisy 
 
 Thus it seems that Gen. H. has recanted his support of tiie Proclama- 
 tion "as tlie greatest political error of his life." Just allojy him the same 
 l)rivilege of recantation which Mr. Van Buren so often exercises and 
 without which the political character of the latter would be the worst 
 imaginable, and the candidate of the Whig party is rectus in curia on the 
 subject of the Proclamation. 
 
 Let us see, now, how Mr. Van Buren stands on the subject of the Proc- 
 lamation. There is the strongest suspicion that he was one of its very 
 authors, for bo then resided in Washington, and was the right, hand man, 
 the fidi's Achate!- of Gen. Jackson. But let that pass. We have the 
 authority of the Hon. R. M. T. Hunter that he is a Proclamationist. In 
 liis letter to a Committee in N. York, he said the "Administration of Gen. 
 Jackson would be looked to, in future limes, as a golden era in our history,'' 
 and in his letter accepting the nomination of the Baltimore Convention, 
 he said "I shall, if honored with tlie choice of the American people, en- 
 deavor to tread generally in the footsteps of President Jackson— happy if 
 I shall be able to perfect the work which he has so gloriously begun." 
 
 Here is an endorsement of the Proclamation, and, be it noted, of the 
 other leading measures of C4en. Jackson's administration, many of whic'i 
 were monstrous enough, God knows. But the Extra Globe, as was asserted 
 by Judge Upshur in his address at York Town on the 19th inst., has 
 recently dcchircd that the Proclamation contained the principles of the 
 Democratic party and of Mr. Van Buren as its head. Here is authority 
 which the faithful cannot gainsay. 
 
 But why need I arg-ue this subject when the acts of the administration 
 party, as well as their omissions, so plainly declare the hollow insincerity 
 and sickening hypocrisy of their state riuhts professions? 
 
 Having a majority in both houses of (.'ongress — why do they not repu- 
 diate the' principles of the Proclamation? They cannot plead wa*ht of 
 
time — they had time to debate and to pass the abstract Resolutions against 
 the assumption of state debts, or ratiier tliey had time by proclamation to 
 destroy state credit. 
 
 Why have they not repealed the Force Bil^tliat practical instrument for 
 the destruction of state rights? ^V^liy do these tender lovers of state rights 
 permit this *'bloody bill" as \vc state rights men used to call it, to disgrace 
 ttie pages of the nation's statute book? If they have the power, what 
 want they but the inclination? I will solve the difficulty for you. Your 
 party are the Proclamation and Force Bill party still; so says your 
 'Heaven born Amos;" and so you will be until the "Leopard change his 
 spots and the Ethiopian his skin." 
 
 Why, sir, does not your "great Democratic Republican State Rights 
 party" disavow the ultra monarchical doctrines of the Protest — principles 
 which carried out in practice, would make the Executive of this Union a 
 despot ? Why — ah! why, does it not wipe off' from the nations name, the 
 foul stain of the Expunge? Why does it not rescind the black, damning, 
 villainous resolutions which to this hour desecrate the records of the 
 nation! 
 
 Alas! it is because you and your political associates are Protesters and 
 Expungers yet; and so ye will be until a nation's vengeance sshall do for 
 you and your whole party what you sacriligiously did for the pages of the 
 Senate's Journal. 
 
 Let us now test the State Rights of your party by its acts of recent com- 
 mission. Mr. Van Uuren proposed in '37 a Federal Bankrupt law to apply 
 to the State Banks, in other words, to place the whole money power of 
 the States underthe control of the Federal Executive. What can be more 
 consolidating than this or more insulting or degrading to sovereign States? 
 What would genuine State Rights men think of a Federal Commissioner 
 of bankruptcy proudly striding into a State, shutting up the doors of her 
 banks, and handing the Keys over to the President of the U. States? Only 
 think of tliat my State Rights friends! 
 
 And look at the Assumption Uesolutions! A more impious attempt has 
 never been made to render the States insignifiant. And what makes the 
 matter worse, there was not the remotest necessity for the passage of those 
 Resolutions. It had never entered the head of mortal that the General 
 Government should assume the debts of the States; and none but a trait- 
 orous mind has ever conceived a doubt of the solvency of the States. 
 Yet this State Rights admini^^tration wantonly degraded the American 
 States in the eyes of all the civilized world ! God save me from such 
 State Rights! 
 
 Look too at the army bill. The Constitution expressly reserves lo the 
 States the training of the militia. Yet our State Rights President impu- 
 dently proposes to transfer that power to the Federal Government, thus 
 removing the only barrier to military despotism. Tlie Constitution puts 
 it out of the power of the Federal Government to march a single militia 
 man from the territory of a State except "to execute the laws, rei^ol invasion 
 or suppress insurrection." Yet the President proposes to take them 
 beyond the limits of the States to become the drilled soldiers of the Ex- 
 ecutive instead of the "militia of the States." Concede the military power 
 of the States to the General Government — a thing so cautiously and 
 jealously guarded against by the framers of the Coiisliliition — and I should 
 like much to know how long these Stales can be free and independent 
 sovereignties? 
 
87 
 
 And lastly do but contemplate the N. Jersey outrage. You, sir, Ijad 
 the impudeace to pity myself and Dr. Mallory, for being found on the 
 side of an old federalist like Gen. Harrison — yes — you who helped to per- 
 potralo this black atrocity — this damning, daring outrage upon Stale 
 Rights — you who ridiculed the great Seal of a sovereign State, and helped 
 to disfranchise her of her representation in Congress! I scorn ycur pity 
 as I abhor your impudence. And from my inmost soul 1 do detest the 
 hypocrites, who in the holy name of State Rights, committed an outrage 
 which has no parallel since the horud drama of the French Revolution. 
 Rogues may prate about honesty, but this administration, I mean its leaders 
 and directors, should never blaspheme ihi sacred name of State Rights 
 by taking it upon their polluted lips. 
 
 You said agreitdeal about the Whigs having all the federalists on their 
 side. Allow me to tell you, that we have among us no Buchanans to let 
 the Democratic blood out of their veins; no Ingersoils who would have 
 been tories in tha Revolution ; no Williamses to burn .Tames Madison in 
 effigy; no Cushmans to wish defeat to our soldiers when fighting the 
 battles of their country ; no Ghittendens to lunder our militia f/om 
 marching to the defence of that country; no Prentisses, Walls, Hub- 
 bards, or Harkers. Nor, sir, have we in our ranks, any Butt ender?. Huge 
 Paws, Indomitables, Ringtail or Seventh Ward Roarers. And permit me 
 to tell you moreover, that there never was an honester party than the old 
 federal party, and it is honest men that we want to displace a corrupt and 
 dishonest administration. And for one, I do not scruple to say, that I can 
 "grapp'e to my bosom with hooks of steel,' the good old honest federalist 
 who will assist me in putting out an unprincipled dynasty. And if I may 
 choose my political associates, give me the honest federalist a thousand 
 times in preference to the professing, faithless. State Rights Democrat of 
 modern times. 
 
 I am a state rights man myself — believe in the doctrine of state interpo- 
 silion to arrest the unconstitutional legislation of Congress; and it is 
 because I prize the sacred doctrines of state rights, that I scorn association 
 with the administration party. I cannot kneel at the holy altar of state 
 rights with Protesters and Expungers and with the wicked doers of the 
 N. Jersey outrage. I would as soon go to the Communion table with 
 the Atheist and Deist — with Tom Paine, Hume and Voltaire. And 
 the extraordinary coalition between Mr. Calhoun aiil Mr. Van Bui en — tlie 
 strange union of the nullifier and the Procbin4iionisl — has done the cause of 
 state rights irreparable harm, and filled with inoriifiration a large portion ol the 
 lionest disciples of the state rights faith. I cannot iliiiik of it willi the least for- 
 bearance. I recur at once to the coalition between old Ralph Nickleby and 
 old Arthur Gride; aad I could as well stand by and see the young, beautiful and 
 accomplished Madeline Bray, transferred to llie arms oi" the haggard, mis- 
 shapen, fiendish, shrivelled okl Arthur Glide, as I could the fair form of state 
 right:> turned over to the embrace of Martin Van Buren! Those who trust to 
 Mr. Van Buren as a state-rights man, nourish an adder wiihm their bosoms 
 that may nestle for a season but will apply its fatal siing in the end. They 
 bug a delusion — they pursue a senseless phantom — they follow an ignisfatuus 
 which will mislead and bewilder its (olloweis, until they land in the deep bug 
 of consolidation. 
 
 God only knows what the advocates of Stale Rights are to gain by association 
 with the Van Buren party. For ten long years iliis hypoeriiioal clan has been 
 on the side of Federal supremacy. It lia's stood np"(or usurpation in ail its 
 forms. It glorified and to this hour glorifi;^s, ilie anihor of the Pr'-clamanon. 
 And it cheered and huzzaed hina ihroughuui his long and daring carrier of 
 Execmive assumption. 
 
88 
 
 Ser.rcli the whole history of this party, and shew me one single act to attest 
 the sinceii'y of its state rights professions. Take for example the biancli of 
 it in Virginia. A few years since, the profcssins^ donocrcds ol the Virginia 
 Legislature, to maUo room for an Expunger, expelled from the Senate of the 
 U. States, John Tyler — a name synonymous with state rights — a man who 
 sf;md3 "solitary ?,nd alone" in the high glory of having voted against th.e Force 
 BiW. The gallant and virtuous Leigh shared the same fate, because he would 
 not stoop to the degredaiion of the Expunge; and no longer than last winter, 
 tiie party to a man voted for James McDowell, a Bank, Tariff and li'uernal 
 Improvement man, and once an abolitionist, when a candidate was presented 
 them by the Whigs in Thomas W. Gilmer, who was sound to the core on all 
 th;>se questions. Miserable delusion to expect practical state rights from such 
 a faction! 
 
 Equally strange is the hallucination of those who are seduced from their 
 allegiance to the Whig cause, by the hope that in the event of Mr. Van Buren's 
 te-election, the influence of liimself and his paity, will be cast in favour ot Mr. 
 Calhoun. for the succession. When, I crave to know, did lliis miscalled dem- 
 ocratic party, give its preference to a state rights man of the true faith? And 
 when did their love for the gteat Nullifier commence? Whom have they 
 more villified than John C. Calhoun? Why, when he was exposing with 
 fearless intrepidity the impudent assumptions of Andrew Jackson, and dedi- 
 cating the energies of his giant intellect lo the rescue of the Constitution and 
 the public Liberty, he was denounced as the very Cataline of the Whig party. 
 It was even said of him that he "never told the truth when a falsehood would 
 si^rve his purpose." Verily, he is the last man the Locofoco party desire. 
 They require a man who, line Jackson and Van Buren, will unscrupulously 
 administer the spoils for the benefit of a political party, and this they do not 
 hope from i^Ir. Calhoun. With all his inconsistencies and errors, he is not 
 the man to lead a party, whose motto and whose governing maxim is — "to the 
 victors belong the spoils." 
 
 But dismissing all other considerations, let me ask the state rights men, if 
 tliey were not in the Whig-ranks in 1836? Why were they with the Whigs 
 then? Is there less cause for opposition now? Have not new deeds of outrage 
 been perpetrated in the interim? Did you not in 1836, spurn Mr. Van Buren, 
 because he was the dictated successor of Andrew Jackson? Will you lose 
 this occasion to reprobate this dangerous innovation upon the elective ptinciple 
 and this gross outr.ige upon the feelings of the American people? Did you 
 not in '3G contempLite iNIr. V. B. with unmixed disgust because he was the 
 author of that most debasing sentiment, "it is glory enough to have served 
 under such a chief"? Is he. whose vassal soul was capable of this slavish 
 sentiment, fit to be entrusted wiih the destinies of a great, chivalrous and free 
 people? Again : Flave any of those great common objects whichjnduced you 
 to merge for a season in the great Whig patty of the country, been accom- 
 ])lishjd? Is Retrenchment or Reform consummated? Are abuses coirected? 
 Is Executive patronage reduced? Is Executive Power curbed? Are the mon- 
 arciiical pretensions of the Executive disavowed? Is the Removal of the De- 
 pi;sites rej)udiated? or the kingly doctrines of the Protest? or the infamous 
 Expunge? Are the broken-down barriers of the Constitution re-erected? Are 
 the grand Departments of the Federal Government lestored to their oiiginal 
 independence? Is the extraordinary claim of the Executive to be considered a 
 part of^ the Legislative power, to pass uncondemned and unreversed? Is the 
 sireat fundamental maxim of civil Liberty, that to the Representatives of the 
 People belongs the custody of the people's treasure, now stamped upon our 
 (xovernment? Have we at this moment Civil Liberty in its Saxon sense and 
 purity? Does not tlic President of the U. States, by destroying Representative 
 fiJtdity and responsiljility, as effectually exercise legislative power as if he were 
 t';e Congress itself? Aljove all, is that fruitful source of corruption and 
 demoralization, the spoils system, broken up? Is the moral standard of the 
 country redeein.eJ? Is the Press now what it should be.— the hand maid of 
 
89 
 
 Liberty and tlie'iniuisiering agent of inor;ilJty? Is the Elective Franclils,' 
 rescued from impurity and degradation? Is not the p;.ironage of the Govetii- 
 Hient every day "m conHicl with the purity of Elections'-? And is this the 
 time to war about doctiine — wiien the Gauls are in Home — when a ^rcat 
 question of pubhc Liberty is c,t liand? 
 
 Let no such reproach rest upon the Slate Rights p-uty, Tiie stru.TcIe we 
 are engaged in, is the identical struggle of the Revolution. — a contQst Ijetweeo 
 the people and their oppressors — a war between Liberiy and Power. Now, 
 as then, it becomes us to practice Union and Concession, until the great battle; 
 for Liberty and the Constitution shall have been fought and won. Then, and 
 not till then, will be the proper occasion to stickle for doctrinal opinions, and 
 moot questions of subordinate import. 
 
 y\fter all, the danger to state rights is more, vastly more, from Executive than 
 from Legislative encroachment. What acts of the Legislative usurpation can 
 compare with the Removal of the Deposites, the Proclamation, ihe Protest, 
 Expunging and the N. Jersey disfranchisement? Executive power has done 
 tuore in the last ten years to weaken the rights of the states than the Legis- 
 lature has done in the whole of our history before, and far more than it will lb r 
 a century to come. All absorption of jjower by the Federal Executive, is so 
 much subtracted from the rights of ihcStates, and once taken, it is next to im- 
 possible to recover it back. Yet men professing devotion lo state ligh s. while 
 they watch with jealous eye, the legislative dejiartinent, stand by and permit 
 the executive to run away with all the powers of the Government. This day, 
 out government, by the accumulation of executive power, is become a practical 
 monarchy. The jilain truth is-— that the salety o( state rights is lo be found 
 only in the reduction- -radical reduction of executive power and patronaae. 
 And if the present parly continue in ofhce four years longer, executive po«er 
 uill have become irresistible— -too strong for state righs— too strong for the 
 people — not to be broken.but by the strong arm of Revolution. Give execH:ive 
 power but four years more lo guard, strengthen and entrench iisi If, and state 
 rights r/ill not be worth protecting-— aye, there will be none left lo be protected. 
 They will all have been swallowed up in the sweeping vortex of executive pre- 
 rogative. 
 
 (Jen. Harrison, we all know, has not only promised us to administer the gov- 
 ernment on the principles o( Jefferson, but more i articuiarly to do all ui his 
 power to bring down the immense power ol the executive departinent. This, 
 after all, is the great reform the country requires. There Vus the root of all 
 the evils we are suffering under, and there must the axe be applied. If we 
 have not a reform Lased on the reduction of executive patronage and inthience, 
 /evolution cannot come too soon to prevent the rivetting of our chains and the 
 conversion of our country into one disgusting, putrid mass of corruption. 
 
 Such, sir, are the |)retensions of your President, to be considered a stale 
 rights President; and of your parly, to be considered the state rights pnrty of 
 the Union. The claim is ridiculous enough, in all conscience, but not mort 
 absurd ihan the title of your party to be regarded the Dkmucracy of the coun- 
 try. And in conclusion of these Nos. I cannot resist the teinptaion to express 
 my unmitigated contempt for that unscrupulous etirontery which prompts yon 
 and your associate leaders, lo put forth this extraordinary pretension for your 
 J-'aity. Democracy, indeed, it is with a vengeaiiCe!! You jn'ostrite the whole 
 business of ihe country ; rum its currency ; permit the open plunder of the 
 |)ublic treasury; adininisicr to the corruption of the press, the elective Aanchise 
 and the morals of the country; concentrate all power in the hands of the 
 Executive; appoint men to office who have been thrown off by the people; 
 place in high trusts the unfa and dishonest; keep defaulters in office. You 
 war upon banks, credit and commerce; pull down systems tested and con-ecraied 
 by time and experience; propose to reduce the wag( s of the laborer and the 
 l)rice of the productions of the farmer, to the standard of hard money countries, 
 the inevitable effect of the sub-iieasury S( heme; curiatl the comforts of lie 
 laboring class, by reducing their means of obtaining those comforts; you pursue 
 
a policy wliich will inevitably reduce the Amcricnn laborer from a condition of 
 comfort and respectability to one of squalid poverty and moral degradation; 
 you trample the constitution under foot; persist obsiinttely in measures, time 
 after time condemned by the people-— and then have the tfTrontery to tell us 
 Vou are the Democracy of Ihc land, and on that account entitled to the support 
 of the peoplel It is not the first lime that licentiousness, crime and Tyranny, 
 have been prrctised under the garb of Dnmocracy. All the enormities of the 
 French Revolution were perpetrated in the name of Democracy. Anarchy, 
 blood, and murder— -crime in all its forms, and its blackest hues, were justified 
 under the pretext of Dem^crany, The guillotine was fed for Democracy'' s S7i\ie. 
 li.ibespieire, Danton, and Marat, were Democrats, and committed their hellish 
 atrocities in the name of Democracy. The party that originated and carried 
 out this appalling scene of violence, carnage, blood and death, styled themselves 
 Democrats, friends of Uie People, lovers of freedom, while they denounced those 
 who opposed their mad schemes, as Aristocrats and Royalists! May 1 warn 
 you, my countrymen, agamst this false democracy, "/ft cedilis jjcj* igncs 
 ••itqjpositos cinerc doloso. It is the Democracy of the French Revolution which 
 you are asked to embrace. Foi he who does not recognise in certain destruc- 
 tive doctrines of the day, a ruthless Jacobinism which is working a fital revolu- 
 tion in the poliiics and morals of our country, his paid but little attention to 
 passing events. And that the same result will be produced in our country, is 
 as sure as that the same causes are at woiU. A militaiy Despotism, as it was 
 in France, or a bloody revolution to recover the lost principles of social order 
 and constitutional freedom. 
 
 And afrer all, the true is5ue before the country is a great moral issue, and 
 when a nioral issue is presented, political tests cannot come in to supplant it. 
 Morality is the basis of all human iustitutions, establishments and associations, 
 great and small, from tlie highest to the lowest, hut more especially of that 
 ijrand association we call Government, whose example is universal, whose in- 
 fluence all pcrvi'ding. We do not so much want state rights or any paiticuiar 
 iiolicy as integrity, honesty in our rulers. It is the f lir form of virtue we should 
 first impress on our Institutions. Let virtue's bright image be first reflected 
 from our redeemed institutions---for no people were ever yet free who had not 
 a rigid morality as the grand pillar of theit political institutions. Elect Gen. 
 Hariison--t!ie wise and virtuous Harrison — and we shall hear no more of 
 defaulters--of incompetent and unworthy men being promoted to office-— of 
 Swartwouts, Prices, Linns, Harrises, and Boyds— the primeval simplicity of 
 by-gone days will return to bl ss the country---the pure days of the republic 
 ivill be upon us once more--a new era springs up--- 
 
 " Magnus ab integro soeclorum nascitur otdo." 
 
 CAxMILLUS. 
 
TABLE OF ERRATA. 
 Time not being allowed to examine the proof sheets closely, tne following eiTors 
 have occurred in the print, which the reader is requested to correct: 
 Page Line For Read 
 
 .30 hand, hands. 
 
 6... 
 7... 
 
 9... 
 10... 
 12... 
 
 13... 
 25... 
 
 28... 
 35... 
 46... 
 43... 
 50.., 
 54... 
 
 sy... 
 
 ..18., 
 ..33. 
 ..40. 
 .. 5., 
 ..29., 
 ..50., 
 ..27., 
 ..24., 
 ..31.. 
 ..11., 
 .. 6., 
 ..40., 
 ..26.. 
 ..20.. 
 
 • intimate intimated. 
 
 . Democrat, Democratic. 
 
 , ungerous ungenerous, 
 
 .and the fact nnd from the fact. 
 
 . forbid, forbids. 
 
 .sand, sano. 
 
 .this his. 
 
 .routed, roused. 
 
 . philisliiie Philistine. 
 
 . indoctriued, indoctrinated. 
 
 .1818, 1808. 
 
 .nncautious nncourteous. 
 
 .was, were. 
 
 .me, us. 
 
LiBRfiRV OF CONGRESS 
 
 ■■■. 
 
 011 895 517 1 m 
 
Conservation Resources 
 Lie-Fred* Type I 
 
^"'V- 
 
 fl 1119 96S VIOO 
 
 iiii;iiii<i III 'm 'iImI 
 
 SSBHGNOOdO AHvnan