Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1805-08-15

j lists, ato excite civil war, aud produce 9
dis solution of the union?" Why he ap-
peals to .s,he Bold declarations OF or re-
deral orators, and rlls prints that acted IN
concert with them" naming neither me O.
rssors Ror the prints. Aud he says, 't
must be reccllected by every man, that e
the time the repeal Of the Judiciary system
was agitated, more menbers or congress
than one declared the measure nnconstItu-
.tional, and did all that eloquence could ct,
feet, TO rouse the angry passions into up
roar and rebellion. = .
y The frs, of these allegations is utterly
unworthy ofno,ice. We deny that our te-
tIerai orators and our federal printers have
attempted to excite civil war;" and We
demand proof. The other poIas may not
be passed over in silence
srrue it is, s'that al the time the repeal
Of the judiciary system was aglsated, more
members than one Gas Mr.. Smith ssates}
declared the measure unconstitutional. ~.
But was that declaration to be understood
as an Indictment 10 civil war! Was NOT
that declaration made by Mr.. Calhoun q
decided democrat, as well as by several !e-
deral members; and did he aim 10 ex.lte
civil war? When member verify believes
that a law which is proposed to be enacted,
is unconstitutional, ought he to- be charged
with the reasonable design 10 excite civil
war, for declaring that sentiment upon the
Aoor of the House This is strange
doctrine to be taught free people; and
were 1t to become an established doctrine,
we should soon have no free constitution 70
contend about.
True it is also, that several federal MEM
bers, on that occasion, "did all that eto.
quence could effect" 10 prevent the passing
of the repeating law /; but 1t is not true,
(What Mr.. Smith asserts, t.ha, they
(" s,rore to rouse the angry passions into
uproar and rebellion" They thought the
dearest interests of their country were at
stake; and they spoke with earnestness
and vehemence, but aot in seditious and
rebellious language. Indeed their speech.
es were concilaiofy, compares! with the
violent and abusive Phikhpi's, uttered the
last session by Mr.. John Randolph, who
is supposed by his adherenss. to have
meant to excite patriotic, not re5elNous pas.
stons.
Mr.. Smiths proofs are weighed, and
found wanting or rather the charges recoil
upon the party that has advanced shsm..--
Can it be denied thar the democrats actually
excited civil war in this couGuy, in TWO
instances? Can it be denied that civil war
was meditated and resolved On BY them, N
the event Of Mr.. Burr's succeeding % the
presidency? Can it be denied that during
the balloring in the House of Representa-
sives, threats of hleodshed and assassina-
zion were boldly uttered by people cut OF
+ doors? Can it be denied that the Assem-,
{ bly, of the stare OF Virginia prolaagrd It's
session to wait the issue OF that patIona!
election? Can 1t be denied that appear
ances strongly indicated that civil war
would have been the immediate conse-
quence, if Mr. Burr had been elected,
though tenstituh0nahy, to the Office Of Pre-
dent?
AS these are stubborn facts it would be
prudent in the democrats to be cautious OF
stirring subject that must necessarily
bring the opprobious facts into review
Let them lay their hands upon their mouths.
.z-sseas.s-y