Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1822-03-26

iSh'oiitOi' 1lcl 10 QOQOt QlQ SO live,
OF thereabout."
EXTRACT TO THE EDITOR, DATED
Washington, Feb. 90, 1892.
" | send you paper containing let
ter said to have been written BY Gen.
Lacock, formerly senator from Penn
sylvania, who is one Of Mr.. Crawford's
road commissioners, at SIS per day
throughout the year. II is thought to
have been written under Crawlord's su-
pervision, and intended to influence the
select committee appointed on tina, SUBJ
Ject. How the committee would have
acted, or will now act, cannot tell but
the effect OF the letter in the House is
bad as regards Crawford. You will see
II looks alone to the constitutioeel OBJ
lection, whereas ! look most to the law
OF 1908. The very cases the letter puts,
we're among the reasons for passing tho
law and tits surely strange reasoning to
say, that evils which produce law TO pre-
vent them in future, are good as prece-
dents to justify violation of the law after
it is passed. All these cases are of that
sort except that Of Worthington and
Morrow, which happened after the law
passed; and Mr.. Madison afterwards ad-
United that their acting was contrary to
law, and refused to do the like again,
when it was proposed To him.
i'he subject, however, will be freely
examined, and you will then see that 81
is not cleared by this letter.
Ersracs u d letter fam ne Hon u. p. Cook to
his correspondent in this io1sn, dated Wasiiag-
ten, Fee. d, 1922 3*e
=" While engaged this day in distract
ing tebate on the subject ofsome OF The
Florida proceedings, Mr.. Randolph came
in and announced the deaiho Nj. PINK
NNy, olMaryIand. The sudden and melan-
choly fate OF a man who stood SO high III
the estimation OF the public, (for be died
OF an apopleyy) shut the mouths OF POI
lit1cal disputants, and hushed to silence
at least the angry feelings, which but the
breath before had almost convulsed the
representaliye,body ofthc people. Thus
are the sympathies OF human nature un-
der the despotic influence oil crcun-
stances. As forensic orator, his fame
was unyiyalled in America. Ills anbi-
ton to surpass in his profession had ex-
cited an emulation IN his competitors,
that was raising the bar of America to a
zenith beneath none OF ancient or mo-
dern times--an emulation which, Ike
the impulse Of freedom, hope will not
cease TO be fell by the loss OF Mr.. Pink
ney." "
/ From the National Intelligenccr, Feb. 90
Extract ofa letter from gentleman tn
this city to his friend in South Caro-
Tina.
K Communicated for publication.]
Washington, February %, 1922.
ny DEAR sIn-I have not seen the Columbia
paper to which you refer, aud, therefore, do
not know in what terms its Washington COR
respondent has spoken of the affair to which
you ailude. But, from an extract copied into
q North Carolina paper, which one of the mem
bers showed me, perceive that the Writer
eitherfeels or processes to feel more sensible
ty on the occasion than any body else have
spoken with, and perhaps than any one in Con-
.gress, not excepting the agitator Of the ques-
ton himself. The subject has, to be sure, en-
cited some conversation here but that may be
attributed rather to the political circumstances
Of the moment, and to the character OF the IN
dividuals concerned. I'M ITSELF however, the
matter is considered as one OF but little inn
Portance; and you may make yourself quite
easy that it can have no injurious effect in re-
gard to our friend Nothing can be more alb
surd and unfair than the prejudice which has
been attempted to be excited against the Sc,
cretary of the Treasury for his share in the
transaction. Even if the employment of M.
Thomas could be considered (which it cannet)
as an Office under the Unitea States, in the
sense recognized by the constitution, still it
would be perfectly lawful for the Secretary of
the Treasury to have given it to Mr.. Thomas,
iIlasmuch as il was not an Office created or in
creased in emolument during the time for.
which Mr.. T. was elected This being the on
ly description Of Office to which MIR. I, could
not be constitutionally appointed. and his APP
pointment, even if considered an Office, not be-
ing one Of this description, the affair is one
which cannot in any way affect Mr.. Crawford.
The true question, and the only question,is,
not whether the employment Of Mr.. IT. was
lawful, but whether it was consistent With his
senatorial character. But this is an Inquiry
which belongs not to Mr.. Cook, but to the Sc
nate; the constitution having made each house
Of Congress the judge Of the qualifications ct