Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-08-06

from the destruction which threatened IT, His able re-
port of 99 In SUPPORT of the resolutions of 9s
situ'on, and Frustrated the hopes OF the federal par
" forever MIR. Madison, from that time till 1917.
NAMED I'm the public service, filling the most responsible
Offices IN the government, al the time acting upon the
principles OF las report OF 99. This man, then, emil
neny utsngushedior taeus and pnri'y, recorded as The
ieauer OF t'e republican party, and uniformly conss
tent and republican in his course now eouncei as
isderGhSf ms opinions deeicd as weight
or influence Yes; he WHO has done destr0y the
principles OF the federal party than any oher urn living
aud against whoa a.! h- ,.';-;peS nnco,,ronii. " ~
was made nv that party during the Who'll. t ILL., mil;
life, is thorough going icderals, Of Tie lack cock
ade stamp according 10 The "new tights IT the present
dayM Wheu "Muiius'' aud others, who thus decry Mir
Msdison's opinions shall give such conclusive evidences
aciear l.; soH"d and Discriminating mind, aud oi lc
'ty TO the constitution James Madison has be
hopsh Wt~ opnonn may exert like extensive influence,
ana be secured from ;ae repro iches which Muus caste,
upon Mr. Madison. But Mr.. Madison - - seccder,
aud that sin sufficient Tor his exclusion
party with which he has acted Tor iv vesrs ssii no,
stop to delend Mr.. M,dons cors.ency Ta,tis yond
the reach o. MuuS" any OTHER human being: nm.
less, indeed q Mniu- has the power Il, iorr Nj M
Olson to think what lac thought and to entertain
opinions which !e never escriaiied But one thing is
very singuir, aud that - that those who live IN til. pre-
sent day, although unborn when the Constitution was
iofncl understand the views and objects Of the Aers
OF that instrument, better than iiey who omed il! The
"dnoiions aud instructions Of the aged che able and
Pe"enc"d men OF our country. Who have given couciu
s,ye proofs OF their patriotism anl sound principles should
ne received and weighed w:t! grca, reference aud
spec They speak from experience ant: efore .p..k
The lessons OF truth and soheIn-ss.
But Mr. Rives supported the "Force Bll,' so called
when his speech MAS made, aud h, given, C!a,s
oi hld ~ passed into a isw-amd the question WAS.
whether The laws o the Union shvold be executed. o.
The government quail before the res,siace uplfted
~ The STATE of Son Ca,ona. Whs il the character of
H~ nh'! hope"Muins" viii examine il, aud say IN
Whist parcuarieaure is otherwise than law 10 opey
come armed resistance 10 The execution Of the lacs nj
Nau'hofihcs any action before the officers OF the govern
en' shall be themselves assailed, aud the are actu
any resisted am Ignorant OF it. hope he will compare
it with the Force Bl eco.nnen to Congress i'm the
ipncl hy Onp Iryn Ipt.
PERSON aud point out what il harsh ~ that
is and then tell me il in this Mr.. Rives has departed
from HE principles OF that Mr. Jefferson. Nh. JET
feTsoh's bill was intended to enforce the embargo Laws
System that was much destructive the of
,he New England States than the protective system has
been TO the Interests OF South Carolina The New Eng
land States declared those laws and her
people talked loudly OF resistance aud secession but
no more south Carona OH the contrary, was MAKING
extensive military preparations She had passed her CO
rordted ordnance, an only TO resist the
Laws bn, maured the means of resistance In which
case was there The greatest necessity for acting decisve,
surely IN The case oil South Carolina; for her attitude was
n"ch more threatening AVID offensive than bad been tina,
oil the New England ederalss, whom she has selected
Tor her model am confident tia, this hill has bsen
examined by lew OF the great number Who condemn il
u na' 'hef execahons have been more the result The
nara names such as "blooIy blI,' &C. Sc which have
! the bill itself "
"Muius" says" Posterity will pronounce him a ca
lumniaor who shall call Mr. Rives the correct and ts
in eXpounerthe able and jealous supporter of the DO
liica creed Of Thomas Jefferson" This ia The cl,,r
but have searched the essay OF Muius i'm vain for the
specilcaon What is the leading constitutional opion
wnch Mr. Jefferson entertained, that Mr. Rives does no
Du MT Jefferson advocate the doctrines of 1859? So
does Mr. Rves. Was Mr. Jefferson opposed to the power
OF internal improvement by the General Government? So
Is Mr kiye: Was Mr. Jefferson opposed 10 the National
BANK 50 Is Mr. Rives Was Mr.. Jefferson opposed 10
the Tariff OF ~: So is Mr.. Rives Was Mr. Jefferson
IN "vor OF strict construction of the constitutional So
Mr. Hives IL Mr. Rves agans, the re Int of secession
So was Mr. Jefferson Did Mr.. Rives vote for :. Force
b'lif' Mr. Jefferson recomne nIed and signed much
stronger one while he President How then does
90 stIsla ain hi. 81
on"i principles at with any of those of MIR J(
ierson AS to Mr.. Ryess ability, have nothing TO saw
on mat topic only that those who know him bsst
ate hs talents much more highly than &c Muus" does
THIS is part OF the subject, however which cannot be
1eheht'ed by dlcnssop and which will pursue
iae h'gh Offices which MIR. Rives has filled although
young man. is sufficient reply 10 the sneers Of MuGus
. Muius thinks, however that because Mr. Rives and
Daniel Webster voted together and because Webster
comPhmented his speech, (saying that although they diff
Tered IN their premises, they arrived same results
mr kves must necessarily have deserted his republican,
PrlHcipcs' VIII examine for the propre IL of
e'@so' IS certainly grievous sin that repubii-
can and iederss should together upon one single
question, and much more g,ieyous mai Mr. Webster
should have comptmented Mr. Rivess speech MIR
Weoser s very able and very ,is,ne man and
MS compliment i. not well calculated TO disparsge any
man--hut while Mr. Webster complimentcd Nj Rves's
speech, did he not in the BREATH cautiously abst,
irou adopting Mr.. Rivess principles He differed win,
Mr. hVess premises he saii although they agreed in The
result In what result did they agree IL, one TO hicL
me principles OF neither the republican or federal party
eo"d otherwise than come TO the conclusion TO wiz
hat the neral Government had the power 10 enforce s
laws ana That muiica,ion could nierpose between
| the government. and the volator of those laws Viii
Mullins deny that the government has a riph, 10 en-.
iorcc lis Constitutional laws! II lie does not a. ,bink lac
cannon, thcn he admits all that Mr. Rves contend.I for
ahd ne womb nave 10 precisely same
on TINS point with Mr. Webster Mr Webster voted wi IA
anu spoke with tho republican party in 1921 uyon The
tariff bill: Does Muus regard all the repnbic.ns - I'm
Voteh as he hl, AMI thought he did, upon that on
',iedera'ss hope not; but yet he must So rera rd
them, it he deals with them as he does with MIR Ryrs
nut 90 moi Mr. kvess principles and MI webser's lead
10 other very different resuts-a difference nde ed which
has heretofore formed the dividing line between c Re-
publican and Federal parties! Mi. Websiers PRINCIPLES
lead TO an extended and Unlimited construction of the Con
sluuon, aud the exercise OF nfeendl powers: such s
ne power oil internal imprOvc the incoporaion Of
National Baik aud any her power which may be hoioh
ny he 'oneTd government TO subseTve the The
common dgtHce and Tie promotion of the geue,a ,crI-
lJme Mr. Rlves's principles the other hand iubbif
he exercise oil these powers and consequently lead 10
oniefrht results Wen, them might Mr. Webster saw that
ai'hough Mr. Rvess premises the sane res,,tt a
s own, on the question Immediately under consideration
yS, ne could not cchcur IN their general application. Mr.
webster an iing advocate Of measures on the mar,
oil the General Government, which the ruth of bis prncj-
Piles Necessary TO maintains; while on the other hand
Mr. aves is, III principle and in fact most de cided on
! ponenl OF those measures. "
The United States Bank is certainly one of ,e re.uI,s
OF TIE principle oil construction contended for by the fe
deraisS although some few republicans oct with them
Mr. Calhoun Is decided advocate the Bank and 81 s
Mr. webster They are both Identified in opinion uoou
this subject; why, then, does NJ uus denounce Mr.
Calhoun as iederasl If concurrence with MIR Web.
s'er on one single question is damning to MIR Rves
now ~ ihat the same contact is equally fatal to Mr.
] nj