Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1823-09-09
RCHMOND, SEPTEMBER o IEa3
FOR THE ENQUIRER.
PRESIDE.NII.9L ELECTJON-No I

l.
The peculiar and conflicting objections ur.
ged against MIR. Crawford, if collected and
embodied, would excite astonishment, while
the FOLLY or malice which dictates them, would
he condemned by every unprriudced man
The sources too from whence these obirctiops
spring, the pertinaci,y with which thew ar,
repeated and pressed, and the trick and man.
asement with which they are presented. are
better calculated to produce disgust, than any
serious injury To- man of merit and well
established reputation. One writer fearing
the continuance of his ESSAYS with the same
name may tire and satiate, assumes a new
guise, and gives us four ESSAYS with the varied
signatures of Wythe" and " Pendleton. -
Another, 1t IS said, as occasion requires, gives
the public his reflections with the names ot
A Republican of '98" and " Cincinnatus'
and third presents hmseIfunder the impos
ing character of Roanoke" aud wishes to
pass for u Virginian either by birth or in prn-
ciple while he is a spy in the camp, and can
claim no such distinction upon either ground.
Ii is only necessary to detect such subterfuges.
and an intelligent and inquirng people will
revolt at the idea of giving countenance To
such an attempt TO nislead them
III, as Is stated by Roanoke, il is the singular
good fortune of Mr. Craw ford "to be urged
in each particular state on precisely the grounds
the most popular therein" it is equally his
bad fortune To be objected to in each state
on precisely the grounds the best calculated
10 defeat him thus in Virginia, he ia denoun
Ced, for giving tao much power TO the federal
government, and favoring manufactures in
Pennsylvania, he IS objected to because he is
unlriendly TO the encouragement of manufac.
lures by high tariff; in New York and Ohio.
that he is against internal improvements. In
Massachusetts he is too democratic, nd i'm
south carolina he was iederaIist in '93
On our sea coast, he is opposed az parsimon-
GUS and narrow in his views of national ex-
penditures and in the western states he is
charged with extravaganza and the waste of
public money. To meet these opposite and
irrecOncieable arguments, Mr.. Crawford's
friends have, in different parts of the country.
been under the necessity tO remove objections
which did not elsewhere exist; and thus one
citizen on our sra coast would deny that Mr..
Crawford was opposed 10 iudicions and
measured expenditure Of the public money in
erecting i0r'ihcatiIns; and another, on the
hanks OF the Mississippi, would combat the
charge oi waste and extravagance
The part which those friendly 10 MIR. Craw-
ford have hitherto had tn act has been De fen
sive. They have cOntented themselves so far
with resisting the Zaalous and pertinacous
attempts TO sully hi. reputation, or detract
from ms merits. How long they will adhere
To ms course, II IS presumed viii greatly de-
pend on those devoted 10 his competitors.
"hnanokt" has urged in temperate tern
some objections 10 Mr. Crawford vi ch how
ever oiien repeated are presented in new
and imposing manner; he therefore deserves
attention, and to reply 10 him as corcisely as
possible IS my object. Among the first causes
&. Il
sentiments ON the subject of Internal Improve
ments, and the powers of Congress under the
constitution 10 execute them have been pur-
pose'y withheld and as proof Of the charge,
reference Is made TO a resolution of congress
adopted during the session of 1888, calling
on the secretary for Information ard To which
no response, as is alleged, has as yet been Civ
en-. And this is ALI the proof shall not
stop to enquire, how far it was proper that a
call for information on such subject should
be directed to the treasury department, ~ hiie
similar call WAS al the same time made on
the war department, to which it would appear
most appropriate 10 apply. The resolution
was one information, and for nothing more
III does not call on Mr.. Crawford, and surely
ought not to have called on him for his views
ana opinions as to the power of congress to
construct roads or cut canals. No diversity of
opinion has ever existed as TO the prOpriety
ana expectancy of adopting some general and
national system of Internal improvement but
IL has been denied, and truly denied, that the
constitution hestOws on congress any authority
10 adopt such system. The resolution does
not require Mr.. Crawford to enIighten con-
sress on this mooted point, or 10 instruct them
as 10 Their legitimate rights. Where then was
Tue motive for concealment Where the in
uucement for this Janus policy" None
couih exist. Mr.. Crawford could we'll have
Itpl'ed To the resolutions, if he had so chosen
"!hout giving his opinions on the disputed
point and some other than the motive attri-
outed must have induced him to fail in re
Po'ung.-ln fact, hat business would the
house ~ OF representatives have to call upon the
executive Secretaries To pxpeuDd for them
me Constitution ofthe L. States ?
=, Ihe second cause OfcOmplaint against Mr..
crawford Is his opposition To the navy and
quotation from bis speech delivered in the
stenate IN 1910 is relied on TO sustain the objec-
t'on 1t is not 10 he concealed, because it is a
. .t connected with the history of the nation,
'la' most oithe republicans ofthe u. S in 1910
~, ",,u TO much later time, nay up TO the period
men the victories of Hull, Decatur, War
,mg'on, BainbridgP. Lawrence, Jones, and
o'ueF gallant men changed the tide ofopinion,
ill ~" 'chuly 10 our navy, ana 10 us con-
:ueraOle increase, that it was viewed with
yfgalousy and distrust, as an arm Of national
aS'eRce from is very nature too well cacuat-
eu' toembroiI us with other nations, TO involve
70 IN war and all IFS consequent evils The
,.uucuon of the navy was therefore promi
"eu' feature in the administration of Mr. Jeffer.
5uu' and even before his election the prepon-
IIe,snce which the republicans had acquired
Goh IN the senate and house of representa-
u'es' had produced a considerable dlpninuiion
NJ, 'he number and size Of vessels employed
:, We only difference between the opinions upon
,uIs subject and the policy nursned from 1900