Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1826-05-16

nate, Ia confidence II has not been published by the
Executive Now, the alleged inconsistency is that
ing tins letter the President has interCered
10 dssuade Mexico s. Colombia from attacking Cuba
That finding thinking that those mcditated such
purpose 'hS government has urged c,n iesist from
it, Sir, any thing more unreasonable than
ths Charge Was 1t not proper, that, to produce the
desired result ot peace government should address
different motives 20 the different parties in the war;
Was It not It's business to set before each party It's dan
gers aud It's difficulties in pursuing the war; And it.
now, by any thing unexpected, these respective cor
responsiveness have become public, these different
addressed thus to dcren, parties and witt df
rent objects 10 be relied proof inconsistency?
II IS the strangest accusation heard Of No CO.
vernmen not wholly destitute ofconmon sense would
have acted otherwise. We urged the proper motives 10
both parties.
To Spain, we urged the probable loss of Cuba---we
showed her the danger OF IFS capture by the States
anu we asked her u inform what ground 1t was
that could interfere TO prevent such capture, since
she was al war with these states, and they had
questions Die right attack her other territories
aud especially she asked how she could expect good
offices from u.s. this OCCASION since she fully under
stood QUE opinion 10 be- that she persisnC in the
war without or beyond all reason, aud with Il sort OK
desperation This was the appeal made to the good
sense o Spain, through Russia. But soon Afterwards.
having reason 10 suspect that Colombia and Mexico
were preparing 10 attack Cuba and knowing that such
an event would most seriously affect US, government
demonstrated against such medated attack aud TO the
present time IL has not been made. In all this who
any thing either improper or inconsistent For
myself, confess the course pursued showed watchul
regard 10 interest, and is wholly free from any
imputa;ion, either of improperly or inconsistency.
There are other SUBJECTS, sir, the Presidents mes.
sage, which have been discussed in the debate but on
which shall not dctan the Committee
1t cannot be denied, that from the commencement of
our government, it has been its object improve and
Simplify the principles OF national intercourse. II may
well be thought lit occasion 10 uge these improved
principles, al q moment when many new States are
coming unto existence, untratnmeled or course, with
previous and long established connexions or habits
Some hopes of benefit connected with these topics are
suggested in the message.
The abolition of private the ocean, is also
among the subjects of possible considerations This is
not the first time that that subject has been mentioned
1heIate President took occasion 60 enforce the consde
rations which he thought recommended it, For one
am not prepared to how far il ought be pursued:
butthere views belonging the subject which have
not been any degree, answered nor considered in
this discussion
Sir it is not always the party that has the power Of
employing the largest military marine that enjoys the
advantage by authorizing privateers War It is not
enonh That there are brave and gallant Captors there
must be something to be captured Suppose, sir war
between ourselves and any of the new States of
Sonh America were now existing, who would lose most
10y the practice Of prirateering, such war? There
would be nothing orus to attack; while the OF
attacking us would How 10 enemies from every
part of the world Capital, ships and men, would be
abundant IN al! their ports and commerce. spread
over every would be the destined prey So arain
IL war Should unhappIy spring up among those States
themselves might not be for interests as being
hkey 10 be much connected by intercourse with all par
lies, that our should be free from the vista
lion aud search of private armed ships; one of the
greatest vcxatons to ncutra! commerce in time of war;
these SIR are some OF the considerations belonging TO
tins subject. have mentioned them to show that they
well deserve serious attention.
have not Intended TO reply TO the many observa-
tons which have been submitted to U.S. the message
o the President to this House. that to the Senate
Certainly of opinion that some of those obserya
tions inarted answer and they have been answered
ny others On two points only will make a remark
It mas been SAID and often repeated that the President
IN MS message 10 the Senate, has spoken of his own
power IN regard 10 missions in terms which the Con
suuton does not warrant. If gentleman will turn
10 the message of President Washington relative TO
the MISSION to Lisbon in the 10th vol of State Papers
they VIII Soc almost the exact form of preston used
IN this The other point on which would ma lxo
remark the allegation that unfair use has been made
IN the argument of the message of Cen Washinron's
Farewell Address. Ihcre would be end sir, to com
TeDts CRITICISMS OF tins sort they be pursued.
only observe, that it appears to me- the argument
Of the message, and its Of the Farewell Address arc
not fairly understood II is not attempted to be infer
red from the Farewell Address, that according to the
opinion OF w asfIngtOD, ought now to have allan
with foreign States. No such thing The Fare.
well Address recommends u.s. to abstain as much as
possible from all sorts Of political connection with the
states OF Europe, alleging, the for this advice
that Europe has set of primary interests of her oTD
connexon. Now the message argues and argues truly
that the new American States not having a set of in
feresls OF their groBiDg ont of the balance pow
err family alliances, &c. separate from ours i the same
manner, aud to the same degree the primary inte
rests OF Europe were represented to be- this part Of the
Farewell Address, aimed at those separate interests
Pressy, did not apply III this But does the mes
sage infer from this, the prOpriety Of alliances with
those ne" sa'es' Far from it. 1t nfcrS such thing
On che contrary it disClarns all such purpose
There Is one other point, sir on which common JUS.
tiCe requires word to be said. 1t has been alleged
that there material differences as 10 the papers
respectively to the two Houses. All this as il seems TO
me- may DE easily and satisfactorily explained In the
hSt place, the instructions OF May 1928 which, is
5aj not sent to the Senate were instructions on
which treaty bad been subsequently, ratified by the
Senate X may be presumed, that when the treaty was
sent to the Senate the instructions accompanied IT, and
II SO t'ey wero actually read before the Senator and
tbs accounts for OF the alleged differences In the
next place, the letter to Mr. Middleton in Russia not
sent to the House, but published by the Senate IS
such paper possibly the President might 10, think
proper TO make public There IS evident reason for