The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1823-07-11

ins lesul "ouiu ofing INTO operation,
what is certainly the most faulty part OF
the letter of cur constitution. According
TO the true theory of free government, the
executive ought in noease 10 be- appointed,
BY The legislative department. hui the besi
chance for reforming this evil is to encoun
ter it. The only exercise of this ponr- =,
congress, produced the only amcud lneui of
the constitution which has been made since
the government has bern couplriely or.
ganiZed. That amendment reInedied thu
evil ~ part--and II is most probable thai
every exercise Of this odious bat consiiiu-
| tional power will strengthen fhe opinion
that the remedy should be made complete
II - To be feared, that this power will ne
yer be taken from congress, while is evils
are kept out Of sight, ny resorting to what
- much worse, caucus il IS worse, be-
cause while il is opposed 10 both the letter
! aud the spirit of the constitution, it is ms
eiIectnalIy an election of the president, by
the congress-. And that we may avoid the
Que evil, which must necessarily he Of rare.
occurrence, leven il its occurrence would
not produce the amendment desired we
resort on every occasion To n caucus, aud
entail on ourselves a necessity Of the same
course, forever. 1t is true that the people
are not absolutely bound by the recon
mendaton of acaucus--hut when we see
how numerous aud strong are the advo-
Gates Of that mode of selection, and cons-
der the effects of former decisions, it can
not be doubted that a caucus will be resort
ed TO, and that the caucus candidate will be
elected. But even If what you deem the
worst result should occur the election of
president by congress, as directed by the
constitution, the evil will not be sufficient
excuse for the people to avert il by dis-
honest vote. If good choice was within
Our reach, ii would afford serious ground to
complain, that the vote Of Virginia should
weigh no more than the vote of Delaware:
but for the reasons before stated, that the
evil will be small indeed, If we must choose
president from Adams, Crawford, Clay
Calhoun and Jackson. At no possible
lunctufc can we meet this dangerous part
of the.conslitution with lrsSin sonY cnience
and but little harm and great ultimate be.
neiit, may be expected from the exercise
Of power so deseryedly odious.
A. FARMER.
POSTSCRIPT.
Since the above was written, have re
celved the Enquirer Of June cath, contain
ing my second letter, with your remarks
thereon, arranged alphabetically from "a
10 ~ | shall not so with you regularly
through n, b, c, of political cconomy, {for.
which, however, as metho1ical beginning,
you deserve commcndation) and am vii
ling to abide by the contents ofthat letter,
ms "A sufficient answer to what you intended
for itsrefutaton.
congratulate you on your timely escape
from the perllous manufacturing ground
which you incautiously and boldly assun-
Cd, in your zeal for Mr.. Crawford's de
fence. Though l limited my belief that
you would retreat from that position, ra-
ther than wait To be- driven out Of it, I did
not suppose that il could have been per
formed in such very quick time. Howe
ver-yonr recantation is as full, and its
tone rs subdued, rs could have asked for.
and | am glad to see that you are again as
fierce as Bobadi against the bounty system
But you will again find yourselves unable
10 defend Craw ford, while you denounee
protecting duties and your last remarks
prove this truth, when you twice mantain
the honesty of his intentions, ut the expense
of his understanding.
You still persist in mistaking my mean
ms us TO the moderate tone" of one Of
Mr.. Crawtord's former reports, after your
error was plainly pointed out when you
contend that 1920 Is later, or nearer the
presidential election, than 1921. am al
most tempted In suspect your mistake TO
he wilful. But us nothing can be gained
for Crawf ord's defence, from this unmpor-
tant passage, even as you interpret il,
dismiss the suspicion and the subject to-
gether.
You eompiain tlla asserted, without
furnishing Al atom of proof" that the
revenue would be increased by reducing
all duties which now operate - wholly or
partially as beauties for manufactures. y
1t is true that no proof was offered, or con
sidered necessary, for a truth of which no
one is ignorant who knows any thing of the
general effects Of protecting dulles, or
Incorporation in this country. AS you re-
qulre it, | will state All example. The
cotton manufacture is by no means com
pletely established by the present high
duties, as a great proportion of what we
consume, is still obtained from Europe, and
the manufacturers continue TO cry out for
higher duties. This manufacture there
fore is not independent of the duty, but
derives the full benefit of the menopo.y
which was granted-or otherwise, our
manufacturers could undersell the import
ers, even it cottons were duty free. The
duties on low priced cottnns from India,
formerly yielded about 100000 annual
ly but since they were increased 10 the
prohhitory mark in 1916, the treasury has
lost the whole, that the manufacturers may
receive il in indirect houniies. Would not
the reduction of this single duty have been
as elfecfual a mode ofrecovering the annu-
al million, as al Mr.. Crawford's augmen-
tations"? Precisely similar benefits, would