Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1813-12-02
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1918.

acceptance OF the mediation and thus corroboratin
the Glamour here, have given bias public opnio
which the President might have found it extremely diff
fcnlt to counterfeit Now, it is to be observed that
accepting the mediation of Russia, it became proper
give some froof OF the acceptance, to do act b
~hich the people might hear, that the Presden
had accepted The act natural and proper, wa
the designating the ENJOYS, and issuing commissions
them For, had he not issued the commissions till tn
senate met, 1t would not have been actual accep
lance of the offer, but promise accept, which pro
mise would remain to be fulfilled the meeting of tn
Senate. And that body, consisting, at that time,
three differing parties two of them hostile to the Exc
cutipe, and equal to the that friendly, would
upon every rational estmste of It's proceedings mped
the consumuaticn of the Executive promise SO as
render Doubtful, for month or six weeks, whehe
the mediation would eventually be accepted not
The proceedings of the Senate being al tat time KEEP
secret the people might suppose the President
spcere IN his desire for peace the outcry of British par
lzans would have been thus countenanced public OPT
mon might have uctuated, and the Executive haze thu
lost the benefit which subsequent vents have shewI
that he has derived from the he pursued 1t viii
be seen that speak with frankness and presume tina
what state however unpleasant may BE to the af
tected deicacy Of some double dealing politicians is il
style that win be understood and credited by Een
PLAIN sense, who pursue, in all their Investigations,
thing more than the good of their Country do not in
deed, profess to write for pos,erity but endeavor
instii that truth, in which postgity delights into thu
minds OF The present generation. 1t FOR the Elk
ecutlye to wait ;he determination Britain before III
acted upon The Russian mediation. Ia every respect ta
would have been impotent policy Il would have beer
to follow, where had invariably protested TO Lead R
acting without knowledge ct what the enemy woulC
90 IN the affair, we went forward upon motives
showing thereby independent resolution, not b,
trcked or derived by the articles of the British minis
try 1t any inference could be drawn relative 20 in,
mediation, from what Mr. Giles calls the ASTONISHING
successes of the allies Of Great Bri am on the continent
Europe surely it be favorable the object OF tn,
emperor of Russias ofcr. Who was the principal O
those successful allies? Russia, most undoubtedly
Might not, therefore, be reasonably expected that tina
very Russia, whose alliance useful and precious
to the British. would have great influence with en-
envy IN bringing him to AN admission of the wrongs he
had done US, and 10 stipulation Tor Cessation from
them IN future? This head OF the argument might b,
push ed much further with great advantage to the e
ecutive but Mr. Giles has insisted On the part
OF his address to which it has reference as material
will pass the ph of lis structures on the nomina
ton of Mr.. Gallatin.
AS the basis of his objection to Mr.. Gaatin, Mr.
Giles states two propositions
j. Inat The appointment Of envoy, is ncompatibls
with ile post Ok Secretary Of the Treasury.
2. That the substitution of person perform the
duties ct secretary OF the Trea.u, inthe place of Mr.
Gallatip, was unlawful.
The whole amount of what Mr. Giles says upon the
first proposition is, understand it, this: That the
office OF Secretary OF the Treasury involves many i'm.
portant and delicate duties Which require Constant
tendance at the Treasury Department in Washington
and that Mr Galatn, not being possessed OF TIE power
OF ubiquity, perform the functions of envoy St
Petersburg. and those of Secretary Washington City
az one and the time. This presume, will all be
admitted and cannot conceive why MIR. Giles should
nave gone into such detail Of law and reasoning tc
prove 1t, unless proCure opehbg FOR some
OF those hard ms which, by broad inueuto he makes
at Mr. Gailatn. These Mrs IN my opinion, not per-
fecty fair, especially against an a6een. man nor are
they concrmabe to the doctrine OF Mr.. Giles himself
who streGuousy contends fer The sanctity of notVc
and their presery ton rom The rude implications of po-
litical commentaries!
It will be perceived, however that there is no force
~ the arguments III support Of this first propositions
less the second is completely established for if the
ctlng fot arfC,.
the duties of Secretary of the Treasury in tue absence
Of Mr. Galian, then, of there is no ncompat
by between the Offices OF envoy andSecretay as in
that case, Mr. Gaatin can perform the functions Of en-
yoy Petersburgh aud the substitute can perform
the functions Of Secretary at Washington. The fss
question, therefore to be examined, is, had che PTes
dent la9gfa hofper 10 ahionf substitute 10 Mr. Gallo
TN, KdcT me cbcpls;aHces2 Mr. Giles thinks he haC
not think he had.
On the 9Th Of May, 1922, Congress passed an act O
which the following is section, in force:
That in case Of the death, abscare from the sea: o.
government sickness Of the Secretary of State Sc
ereta:y Of the Treasury, of The Secretary the WA
department, or OF any ohcc OF either of the said De
parments whose appointment is in the head thereof
whereby they cannot perform The duties their said re
spectye Offices shall he lawful for the President of thu
United States, IN che shall think neceSsary to au
thorze any person or persons al his dscrenoH to per
form The duties CT the said respective rffces until sue
ccssor be appointed, until such absence or INABILITY
by sickness shall cease"
1t nnder this section Of law that the Executive
appointed William Jones, Esq. to perform the duties
Secretary OF the Treasury in the absence Of Mr.. Gal
latin The power of the President ma, be observed
in Of absence is clear aud explicit. But Mr. Gle
objects that Mr., GalIan's absence from he scar &
Government is not tile absence contemplated By tn
act OF Congress; and that Mr. MadisoR created th
absence and OF course the necessity for substitute
which he atledges is unlawful Yet he no where pro
duces any legal provision in support OF his opinion. III
makes Ions argument, is true, shey what the law
intended which, however is in any way sustaine,
by what the Law erTessesj and where The eEiressto,
Il clear il is out Of all rule to assert an fendrenf 6
! construction. NoY, in his Maxims, tells US that al
acts Of Parliament and in Ike manner acts of Com