Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1831-07-25

| The u 5. Telegraph of Wednesday, comment,
on the custom of the " malign influence in a bold
and nervous strain:
| " And is it possible that the editor of the Enou;
r,r does not see that he admits the hole CHARGE
| He admits that there a want of harmony: and
that the President told the members of the Cabinet
| that there mast be harmony, and that he would
| have it. What prevented harmony7 Tho Eooui-
tells that the President told his cabinet tina,
they should hold intercourse ,oith each other The
| want of intercourse, then, produced the want of
harmony; and when the President told his cabinet
that he must and mould have harmony, he told them
in TERMS that, unless they would hold intercourse
with each other, no would dismiss them and an
| point cabinet who would.
Thus take the statement of the ENQUIRER and IL
proves the fact which it labors to deny. But the
statement in the Enquirer, strong and conclusive
it Isl is weaker than the TRUTH but, admit it to
be true and the whole TRUTH in what light does it
represent Gen. Jackson? He admits thatthe dis
missed Secretaries performed their public duties
ably and Faithfully. Gen. Jackson makes no COM
plant of the manner in which their public duties
performed. 1t is not pretended there was any
want of harmony in their public relations 1t pro-
ceeded from the fact, that the families of Mcssrs
Ingham, Branch, and Berren, did not visit Mrs
Eaton. The Enquirer makes the President say,
al have no right to Interfere in your private rea
tons; disclain all such prctensions; but you
should hold intercourse with Mrs. Eaton; YOU
must hold an intercourse with Mrs. Eaton, and /
,oiH hare it," Mrs. Eaton the sole ostensible
| cause of the want of harmony. She complained
that she was not visited and it expressly un-
derStood that to visit her, rather, perhaps, to
''leave card for her, and to invite her to large
PARTIES" was the only means of preserving harno-
ny. This was the condition. The condition was
rejected, and the President declined to press it
Why did he do so? Because he knew, as he admit
ted, that to press it would be interference with
the private relations of his cabinet, which he had
no right to exercise. But did he afterwards press
it2 He did; and this we condemn, and the Enquirer
palliates. How? Not by giving any other salts
factory reason for the dissolution of the cabinet:
but by quoting the Presidents disclaimer, not of
his intention to interfere with the private relations
of his cabinet, but of his right to do so; although
that disclaimer was, according to the Enqurer's
own showing, accompanied by declaration that
he must, and ''loOuld hare it"!! For who does not
see that, inasmuch as the want of harmony arose
from the fact that the families ofthc dismissed men,
bers did not visit Mrs. Eaton the only way to pro-
duce it was for Mrs. Eaton to withdraw her claim
to be invited to ''large parties," else for the re-
cusant members TO yield to her demandl One or
the other were required TO yield. The President
admits that Mrs. Eaton had no right to make the
demand, and that he had right to enforce it.
Yet she continued her demand; and because it was
not conceded, the cabinet was dissolved.
But, says the Enquirer, this excitement arises
from ssme dirty gossiPping stories about Washing
ton, in which the character of lady is concerned,
who has two or three children to raise and educate.
Do the opposition printers believe that
all the manly feelings of our fathers have departed2
We would ask the venerable Editor if he suppo-
ses that those who expelled Messrs. Adams and
Clay from Office intended to set up dictator, who
should, in the breath, declare that he had no
right to interfere with the private relations of soc
ety-with the dearest and most sacred obligations
which we owe families-and vet, that he Unjust
and toould' do t7
Does the Editor of the Enquirer think that Gen.
Jackson's popularity will sustain him in doing that
which he himself condemns, and disclaims his
right to dot We entreat that able and influential
print to bear III mind that tho question before the
public is not what Gen. Jackson claimed the right
to do, but what he did do? The fact that he pos
sesses, in high degree, the confidence and af-
lection of tho people, imposed on him higher obi
cations to regard their will. The editor of the En-
quirer must that the liberty Of the citizen will
never be endangered by the usurpations of an un-
popular President. None but who comes into
power riding the irresistible impulse of popular
favor, can set the popular will at defiance with i'm
Punity. There are editors, and able editors, and
statesmen too, who find it convenient to fawn,
and ator the chafed lion: point TO tho bars, the
strong barriers Of the Constitution, and the intel
ligence of the people, which put limit to and
control his power.
at is the especial duty Of those who advocated
the election Of Gen. Jackson to prevent an abuse
Of his high prerogative; and the more so, as his
abuse Of power will be drawn into precedent, and
tend to impair tho confidence of the people in their
own capacity for selEgovcrnment. No President
should he permitted to consider himself the State.
No President should set himself above public opin.
ion. No President should administer the govern
ment for tho qualification Of favoritc, male or fe-
male. The case of the dissolution CT tho late cab
met, therefore, is not the of lady, ht Of the
American people, and the removal of Messrs. Ing
ham, Branch and Berrien, because they refused to
compel their families TO visit Mrs. Eaton, is not
question between the President and them, but be-
tween him and his constituents. It is an attempt
to crafty favorte in violation Of tho individual
rights Of these gentlemen, and directly in the face
Of his admission that he had right to inter
ferc in their private relations.
"But, says the Richmond enquirer, the opposi.
ton playing tricks upon the public, and keeping
out OF sight all the great measures of the Govern
ment. And how the great measures Of the
Government driven out of of sight7 Is it not by
forcing this private matter-by attempting to Co
cree the oprivate intercourse Of socIetyT' AND
who brought this matter forward Was it done by
either Msssrs. Ingham, Branch, or Berrien? or wa
It done by the opposition? Was il done by the Te