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

be worthy sons Of our fathers, were we SO 10
regard great questions affecting the general
freedom Those fathers accomplished the
Revolution on a strict question OF principle
The Parliament of Great Britain asserted a
right to tax the colonies in all cases whatsoever
and it was precisely on this question that they
made the Revolution turn. The amount OF tax
alton was trifling, but the claim itself was IN
consistent with liberty, and that was IN their
eyes, enough. 1t was against the recital OF an
act of Parliament, rather than against any suf-
fering under its enactments, that they took up
arms. They went to war against preamble.
They fought seven years against declaraton.
They poured out their treasures and their blood
like water in a contest, in opposition to an as
sertion, which those less sagacious, and not so
well schooled in the principles OF civil liberty,
would have regarded as barren phraseology, or
mere parade of words. They saw, in the claim
of the British Parliament, seminal principle
of mischief the germ of unjust power: they de-
tected it, draggedit forth from underneath It's
plausible DISCUSSES; struck at it; nor did 1t elude
either their steady eye, or their wel.dlree5ea
blow, till they had eXtirpated and destroyed it,
to the smallest fibre. On this question OF prln-
ciple, while actual suffering was yet afar off,
they raised their flag against Power to which,
for purposes of foreign conquest and subJuga-
ton, Rome, in the height OF her glory, is not to
be compared Power which has dotted over
the surface of the whole globe with her posses
beat, following the sun, and keeping company
with the hours. circles the earth daily with one
continuous and unbroken strain OF the martial
airs of England.
1t is vain that the protest attempts to SHIFT
the resolution on to the judicial character OF the
Senate. The case is too plain for such an ar
gument to be plausible. But in order to lay
some foundation for it, the protest. as have
already said, contends that neither the Senate
nor the House of Representatives can express
its opinions on the conduct oil the President,
except in some form connected with lmpeach-
ment; so that, if the power of Impeachment did
not exist these two Houses, though they be re-
preventative bodies though one OF them be hlled
by the immediate representatives Of the people,
though they be constituted like other popular
and representative bodies, could not utter
SYLLABLE, although they saw the Executive Ell
Their trampling on their own rights and prlvlle-
ges, or graSping at absolute authority and do
minion over the liberties of the country! Sir,
hardly know how to speak of such claims of
impunity for Executive encroachment. am
amazed that any American citizen should draw
up a paper containing such lofty pretensions;
pretensons, which would have been met with
scorn in England, at any time since the Revo-
luton of 1858. A man who should stand up,
in either House of the British Parliament, to
maintain that the House could not, by vote or
resolution, maintain its own rights and privile
ges, would make even the tory benches hang
their heads for very shame. There was, indeed,
a time when such proceedings were not allowed.
Some Of the kings Of the Stuart race would not
! tolerate them. A signal instance of royal dis
pleasure with the proceedings of Parliament,
occurred in the latter part ofthe reign of James
the First. The House of Commons had spo-
ken, on some occasion, "of its oOn undoubted
rights and privileges" The King thereupon
sent them letter. declaring, that he aoouLd not
aiLow that they had any qndoubted rights; but
that aohat they enjoyed they might still hold by has
| 01on royal grace and permission Sir Edward
Coke and Mr.. Granville were not satisfied with
this title to their privileges; and, under their
lead, the House entered on its journals reso-
luton, asserting its privileges, as its oVn un-
doubted right and manifesting determination
to maintain them as such. This, says the histo
ran so enraged his majesty, that he sent for
the Journal had it brought into the council, and
there, in the presence Of his lords and great of
icers of state, tore out the offensive resolution,
with his own royal band. He then dissolved
Parliament and sent its most refractory mem
berS to the Tower | have no fear, certainly,
sir that this English example will be followed,
on this occasion, TO its full extent; nor would
insinuate that any thing outrageous has been
thought of, or intended, except outrageous pre-
tensions; but such pretenSionS must impute to
the author of this protest, whoever that author
is.
When this and the other House shall lose the
freedom Of speech and debate; when they shall
surrender the rights Of publicly and freely can
wasting all important measures of the Execu
tive; when they shall not be allowed to main
tain their own authority and their own prvile
ges by VOTE declaration, or resolution, they will
then be no longer free representatives of free
people, but slaves themselves and fit instruments
to make slaves Of Others
The protest, Mr.. President comedies what it
1nr, dc Hhn<ol I0rhf 0f6 Icnr
sion to the people themselves. But its Ian
guage, even in acknowledging this right of the
people to discuss the conduct of their servants,
isqualifed and peculiar. The free people ofthe
United States it declares, have an undoubted
right to discuss the official conduct of the Presi
dent, in such language and form as they may
think proper, subject only to the restraints Of
truth and justice" But, then, who is to be judge
of this treth and justice? Are the People to
judge for themselves, or are others to Judge for
them? The Protest is here speaking political
rights, and not moral rights; and if restraints
are imposed on political rights, it must follow,
of couse, that others are to decide whenever the
case arises, whether these restraints have been