Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 182?-183?, 1832-02-24

| u.
IN consequence the req sensations of Mr.
! Van Buren, The objectionable crime OF
TINS gentleman has always heen, that the
President has great confidence in his talent.
ana abilities, which all will admit he possess
es IN an eminent degree
The Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
w EBsrER) says, that instructions show
| ing difference of opinion in the dominant
party, had never been given by any govern
ment ask, MIR. President, on what
ground does the Senator make that assertion!
Few nations if any, except our own, have
ever published the instructions TO their Mi
nisters. We, therefore, cannot know what
mas been done. But, hardly think it pos
slole that such instructions have never been
gwen. They are natural, and were for Mr.
McLane alone, and never shown by him 10
any person. But, infer from MIR. Hart
iey'S language to our Commissioners at Par
Is when treating for peace, that he must
nave had some administrations, as he would
not otherwise have talked ola change of Mi
nlstry as holding out fairer prospect of I'LL
timatelv leading TO general peace
hr. Van Buren, has also been charged
with being the father of what has been i'm
properly called the proscriptive system; or
IN other or more appropriate language, ''the
removal from office" Where is the proof /:
None can be produced all is surmse and
conjecture. L act on no such ground
w hen an assertion such as this is made, |
want proof of lis being well founded. But
absolutely deny the charge, and will offer
unquestlonable proof of the correctness of
The denial. The charge cannot possibly be
substaEtiated, unless the Senator who made
II, Can satisfy this Senate that Mr. Van Blu
rem could be at Albany and Washington at
one and the same time. will simply state
the facts, Mr.. Van Buren, was at Albany
acting as Governor of the State of New
ork, when the extra session ofthe Senate
met on the 18th March, 1929. think he
MIR. V. Ii. was nominated on the 9Th of
March. Atthis extra session oft the Senate
seventy live officers were appointed, princi-
pthy TO fill vacancies occasioned by remov-
ais from Office. OF these officers MIR. Van
Buren, could know nothing The advisers
10 This course, if there were any, were the
members OF the Cabinet then present. MIR.
Van Buren, could know but few Those re-
moved, or those appointed. Iwell remem-
Der that | saw Mr.. Van Buren, in Baltf-
more alter my return home, and therefore
conclude that il must have been at least a
month between the time Of his appointment
and hls arrival Il; Washington. think,
Mr.. President, that have proved that Mr..
Van Buren, could not have been the father of
what is improperly called the ''proscriptive
SYSTEM, a system adopted hy some of the
States OF this Union, both before and after
this administration came into office For
myseltf am opposed to removal from office
for opinions declared. But, Sir, | would
remove any officer, who made use of his of
ilce TO force interiors TO act contrary TO their
wishes. would remove every postmaster.
who had been known 10 frank the coffin
handbills, or any other abusive papers of
either of the candidates Few removals of
consequence have been made in Maryland.
| think four in Baltimore, where the most
important Offices are. One Of these remov-
ais regretted. proceeded from the best
feelings of the heart.
Before finish my remarks, Mr.. Presi-
dent, will notice what passed between the
then Secretary of State, (Mr. Clay and
myself, in relation TO the act of Parliament
of July, 1925. first saw copy of that act
in Baltimore, and mentioned il 10 the Secre-
tary. He said that he had the act in his
possession, & handed it 10 me. asked him,
whether the terms proposed were satisfacto-
ry. He said that he considered they were
all we would ask. l then observed, why not
issue proclamation under our acts, and
thus open the trader lie replied that he
would prefer negotiation. | asked-why?
for what will you negotiate? We have
nothing TO do but to give our assent, and the
trade IS at once opened. / had the act print
ed, and handed copy TO Mr.. Adams, who
had never seen il before. He agreed that the
terms ,cere satisfactory | then pressed him
to Issue his proclamation, and told him that
if he did not, | should be compelled to in
troduCe bill. He remarked, that he wish
ed | would dose, and that he would not only
sign it, but sign ii with pleasure. | did pre-
pare bill under the order of the Senate.
and, doubtful whether it might be correctly
drawn, so as to effect my object, | sent il TO
the then Secretary of State (Nlr Clay /
with request that he would correct it if ne. |
cessary. He replied in writing, to this eff
feet: "that the bill was drafted TO meet nv
object, that it was so doubtful whether il
were best TO act by law, or by negotiation
that it was Indifferent which course sbould
be adopted" The bill was opposed by NJ. (
Lloyd, who, it was believed, had the conf
dence of the Executive. Ii failed TO become
a law, believe from want of time TO act I'M
on it, The Senator, (Mr. Clay,) has said, |
Mr.. Canning had observed, that even if the
bill had passed, it could not have been ad- I
milted as satisfactory. This observation
may have arisen from lis being imperfecuy /
drawn, or from some other cause. Perhaps
the British Minister expected thai the Pres
ident would have opened our ports by proc
lnmation, as he, (Mr. Canning knew, that
the President possessed full power 10 do so,
under our acts of 1923 and 1924, both of
which we knew had been drafted by Mir. |
Adams when Secretary of State.
have deemed il necessary, Mr. President,