The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1831-03-17

4 YucO VI hin1 uc privilege W nopecuun
Documents touching the missiop? And
why was this privilege ektendsd 10 shv
honorable gentleman from Virgins? atn
not disposed 10 asrsign the conduct Of the
gentleman from virginis, or the ,Secretsty
ofStste, for this--i will Ind fault wishnS
one, but sir, whatever 10 presented TO Tho
House for their action, ought To be 90 pro.
sented, that all msy have the benefit OF tho
same testimony, Perhaps the honorable
gentleman from Virginia is satisfied wi,h
the information which has been cop6den.
TALLY impasted to him; but how il would az.
feet us We could beet Judge when we had
IL ! have adverted 10 the disclosure madu
by the Chairman ofthe Committee on For.
eign Affairs, to show that he hss thought.
In reference to this Mission, thefo might
be some few things "out Of joint" Now,
sir, what are the cases referred to, show
that the case ofmr, Randolph ID not with.
out a precedent? Tho cases of mr.. King
mr. Brown, and mr. Barlow. When mr.
King was, from sickness, rendered unable
10 discharge his duties ss Minister to Eng
land, he made that known to bis Govern.
ment and asked TO be recalled not 10 70
from kingdom TO kingdom in pursuit. Of
health, and at the same time draw his pay,
as our Minister residing at the Court or 81.
James. He was not sent to England cloth.
ed with the privilege Of leaving the kingdom
when he pleased, and ss long 10 he thought
proper. He never did leave the kingdom.
or the Island OF Great Britain, until he EN-.
barked for his native country, whom he vic.
tied the watering places, it was 1t the timo
oil the members Of the English Court wero
In the habit ofdoing il and when, if he had
remained at his post, no business could
have been transacted touching the cuncerns
of the two countries. This, sir, is the case
OF Rufus King, referred to, 10 justify tho
Government in its conduct towards hr Kan.
dolph. How close the resemblance--how
striking the analogy! Sir, ifmr Randolph
could, and who would have complainedf
He might then have rendered his country
all the service that could be rendered at ST.
Petersburg; but he has left the dominion
OF Russis-hs has crossed kingdoms and
seas, TO reach the place he has selected for
his residence as our Minister TO the Court
Of Bt. Petersburg. Mr. Kings cnse can ba
compared to that ofmr vaughn's the Brit.
ish ministerresident here, who psssss HE
summers, ora part ofthcIn, At Long Branch
or Newport, Rhode Island. Mr Brown
never left the kingdom Of France, a any
one .ime, nor Paris but once, and then, al.
ter he had made application to his Govern.
nent to be recalled. Mr.. Barlow, X 10
true, did leave Paris, but how did he lsavo
il? in pursuit of health or pleasure? No.
sir, in pursuit ofihc Emperor ofthe French
nation, and in the discharge Of the duties
he was by his country deputed TO ischarge,
and to accomplish objects at that time Of
primary importance to his country. He
lost his life not in running from his duties,
but in endeavoring to perform them. Tho
case Of John II. Pleasants has been REFER.
ed to within the last Elk years, perhaps ono
hundred times. Tho sum Of money re.
ceved by him was small, compared with
that which we are now required 10 vote TO
mr. Randolph. The service required fmr
pleasants, il will be remembered, was per.
formed, and the nature oft was such that
it could DO as well performed by one man
as another. Not so in regard 10 the seryi.
ces expected OF mr.. Randolph. Mr. Pleas.
ants pay ceased when his services were al
an end; inr Randolph's services long since
censed, as the President Of the United
States has informed US, but, neverth eless,
a years salary is required. But mr.. Pleas.
ants was distinguished newspaper editor
and he was employed, a. is said, 10 satisfy
him for his political services; mr. Randolph
was the principal man. Il has been said,
who pulled down the last administration,
and erected the present on It's ruins: then
he has been employed, and is TO be paid
| for those services. will not run the par.
allcl further. But, Mr.. Speaker, suppose
the cases Of mr. King and mr. Plsassn,s
were in point, what did gentlemen think
Of them three years ago, and for what pur.
pose were they then referred TO? To show
the extravaganza Of the then existing nd.
ministratioD, and now, these same gentle.
men, TO justify the President and mr. Ran.
dolph, refer 10 those very acts Of the late
administration by them condemned N lilo.
gal, unaccountsble, and UNJUST lie, ll,cm
reconcile these inconsistencics If they cam
! il appears to me that II 10 only despenis q
case which requires such arguments OF
such references to support H.. Compare Z
purt of mr.. Monros's claim with Mr., Ran.
dolph's requisition; thai part which grew
out of his detention ip Europe aesS he waa
recalled, and before he could embark,- =.
Yet, but q few gentlemen from Virginia
nave vOteo 70 uuUW um veneIaUIo Puuioe
any part Of bic claim, while oil who have
} addressed the House. seem to think, that
the objection 10 this appropriation. 10 made
because mr.. Randolph 10 . citizen Of Vir.
rinia. do not believe thst any man who
& opposed TO this appropriation, has fos Z
moment thought Of the State to which mr.
, Randolph belongs, sss csuse Of, Or induce
ment 10, the opposition. Mr.. Speaker, "a
show ihst the course takcn would not Be
novel, in England. | would refer The Chair.
!, man Of the Copmlttse Of Foreign Affiirs,
to what took place not many years ego in
the British Parliament. Mr. Canning had
been on Mission to Lisbon--hs waG
charged with receiving pay when bic ser.
vices had ccapsd. Did he set vp throry ol
persecution, In which his friends j"inedl
No, cir, he boldly end Fcaflessly met ,hs
charge-hs coorietl investigation, and he
- n..a u. Ss