Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1834-06-10

bodv which gives up these rights and duties,
gives itself up. 1t is representative body no
longer. It has broken the tie between itself and
its Constituents, and henceforth is mt only to be
regarded as an inert, self.sacrIlced mass, from
which all appropriate principle OF vitality has
departed forever.
The first object of free people is the preser-
walton of their liberty and liberty is only to be
preserved by maintaining constitutional res
traints and Just divisions Of political power
Nothing is more deceptive or more dangerous
than the pretence of desire to simplify govern
ment. The simplest governments are despo-
tisms; the next simplest, limited monarchies;
but all republics, all governments of law, must
impose numerous limitations and qualifications
of authority and give many positive and ma
nv qualified rights. In other words, they must
be subject 10 rule and regulation. This is the
very essence of free political institutions. The
spirit of liberty is, indeed, fearless sprl but IT
is also sharp-sighted spirit; it isaa cautious
sagacious, discriminating, lar-seeingg intellience
it is Jealous OF encroachment, jealous OF pow
er. Jealous of man. 1t demands checks, it seeks
for guards it insists on securities; 1t entrenches
itself behind strong defences, and fortifles, with
all possible care, against the assaults Of am
btion and passion. 1t does not trust the anna
BILE weaknesses of human nuture, and therefore
it will not permit power to overstep It's presclD-
SoON
patriotic purpose, come along with It, Neither
does it satisfy itself with f1ashy and temporary
resistance to illegal authority. Far otherwise.
1t seeks for duration and permanence. 1t looks
before and after, and, building on the expert
ence of ages which are past, it abors diligently
for the benefit of ages to come. This is the ma
ture of constitutional liberty; and this is our IL
berty, if we will rightly understand and pre-
serve it. Every free government is necessarl-
ly complicated because all such governments
establish restraints, as well on the power OF
government ITSELF as on that of individuals II
we will abolish the distinction Of branches, and
have but one branch; if we will abolish jury tri-
ais, and leave all to the judge; If we will then
ordan that the legislator shall himself be that
Judge; and if we will place the executive power
in the same hands-We may readily simplify 60
vernment We may easily bring it to the SIM
plest of all possible FORMS pure despotism. But
a separation of departments, SO far as practical
BILE, and the preservation OF clear lines OF dlvl-
sion between them, is the fundamental idea in
the creation of all our constitutions; aud, doubt
less, the continuance of regulated liberty de-
ponds on maintaining these boundaries.
But, sir, there is, in this paper something
even vet more strange than these extraordinary
claims Of power. There is, sir, strong dispo-
stion, running through the whole protest, to re-
present the Executive Department of this Co.
vernment, as the peculiar protector OF the pub
lie liberty, the chief security on which the peo-
pie are to rely against the encroachments OF
other branches of the Government. Nothing
can be more manifest than this purpose. To
this end the protest spreads out the Presidents
official oath, recitng all its words in a formal
quotation; and vet the oath Of members OF Con
gress is exactly equivalent. The President is
to swear that he will preserve, protect, and de-
fend the constution;" and members of Con.
gress are to swear that they will support the
constitution" There are more words in one
oath than the other but the sense is precisely
the same. Why, then, this reference to his Off
cial oath, and this ostentatious quotation of it?
Would the writer of the protest argue that the
oath itselfis any grant OF power; or that be-
cause the President is to "preserve, protect
and defend the constitution" he is, therefore, to
use what means he pleaSes, or any means, for
such preservation, protection, and defence, eX-
cept those which the constitution and laws have
specifically given him? Such an argument
would be preposterous; but if the oath be not
cited for this preposterous purpose, with what
design is it thus displayed on the face of the
protest, unless it be to support the general idea
that the maintenance of the constitution and
the preservation Of the public liberties are es-
pecially confided to the safe discretion, the
sure moderation, the paternal guardianship, Of
executive power? The oath of the President
is, that he will preserve, protect, and defend the
constitution. The oath of members of Con-
gress is expressed in shorter phrase; it is, that
they will support the constitution. If there be
any difference in the meaning of the two oaths,
cannot discern it. and yet the protest solemn
ly and formally argues thus: "The duty of de-
Tending so far as in him lies the integrity of the
constitution, would, indeed, have resulted from
the very nature Of his office; but by expressing
it in the official oath or affirmation which in
this respect differs from that of every other
functonary, the founders of our republic have
attested their sense of its Importance, and have
given to it peculiar soemnity and force"
Sir, l deny the proposition, and dispute the
proof deny that the duty of defending the in
tegrity of the constitution, is, in any peculiar
sense confided to the President; and deny that
words of his oath furnish any argument to make
good that proposition Be pleased, sir, to re-
member, against aohom 1t as that the President
holds it has peculiar duty to defend the integri
ty of the constitution. 1t is not against exter-
nal force; tits not against foreign foe; no such
thing; bit 1t as against the Representatives Of
the People and the Representatives Of the States.
1t is against these, that the founders Of our re-
public have imposed on him the duty of defend
A.