Cheraw gazette. [volume] (Cheraw, S.C.) 1835-1838, 1836-06-14


the important subjects ofthe session. we
agreed on the question of Executive pat
ronage, on the propriety Of amending the
Constitution, for a temporary distribution
of the surplus revenue, on the subject OF
regulating the deposites, and in support OF
the bill for restricting the power OF the
Executive in making removals from or
flee. We also agreed in the propriety OF
establishing branch mints in the South
and West-a subject not little contested
at the time.
Even at the present session we have not
been so unfortunate as to disagree entire
". We have, it is true, on the question
of receiving abolition petitions, which re-
urct, as must consider their reception,
on the principle on which they were re-
ceived, asa surrender of the whole ground
10 the abol,ionists, as Gar as this Govern
ment is concerned 1t is also true that
We disagreed in part in reference to the
present subject. The Senator has dlvi-
xIed, in relation to it, between myself and
General jackson. lie has gwen hts
speech in support Of his message, and an-
nounced his intention of giving his vote III
favor of my bill. certainly have no right
no complain Of this division. | had rather
have his vote than his speech. The one
will stand forever on the records OF the
Senate (unless erpungsd) in favor of the
bill, and the important principles on which
1t rests, while the other is destined, at no
distant day to oblivion.
/ now put to the Senator from Georgia,
two short questions. In the numerous and
simportant instances 10 which We have
agreed, nusthave been either right or
wrong. If right, how could he be so an
charitable as to attribute my course to the
low and unworthy motive of inrcterate
;hostiI,ty to Gen. jackson? But If wrong,
in what condition does his charge against
me place himself, who has concurred with
Inc in all these measures! Here MIR.
King disclaimed the imPutatiou of improp-
'er motives to Mr.. c. l am glad to hear
the gentleman's disclaimer, said MIR. T..
hut certainly understood him as assert
ing that such was my hostility to General
jackson, that his support of measure
was sufficient to insure my opposition; and
this he undertook to illustrate bv all anec-
.dote, borrowed from O'Connell and the
pig. which | must tell the Senator was
snuch better suited to the Irish mob to
which it was originally addressed, than to
The dignity of the Senate, where he has re-
peated it.
But to, return from this long disgression
i saw, as have remarked; that there was
reason to apprehend 1lsat the principle.
embraced mlhe Message might be reduced
to practice-principles whinh ] believed to
be dangerous to tie South, and subversive
of the liberty of the press. The report fully
.states what those principles are, but it may
mot be useless to refer to them briefly on the
present occasion.
The Message assumed for Congress the
right of determining what publications are
inccndiary, and calculated to excite the
slaves TO insurection, and to prohibit the
transmission Of such publications through
the mail: and, Of course, it also assumes
g1he right of fdeciding what are not incendiary
and Of enforcing the transmission Of such
through the mail. But the Senator from
Georgia denies this interference, and treats
1t as mons.rous absurdiy. l had lsaid
Mr. C. considered it so intuitivc, that had
not supposed it necessary in the report to
add any thing in illustration of its truth
but as it has been contested by the Senator
] will add in illustration single remark.
The Senator will not deny that the right
Of determining what papers are Inccndiary
and of preventing their circulation, implies
that Congress has jurisdiction over the sub
ject; that is, Of discriminating as to what
papers ought or ought not to be transmitted
by the mail. Nor willie deny that Con.
gress has right, when acting within its
acknowledged Jurisdiction, to enforce the
execution of its acts; and Yet the admis-
sion Of these unquestionablc truths admits
the consequence asserted by the report and
SO sneered at by the Senator. But, lest he
Should controvert so plain deduction, to
cut the matter short, 1 shall wepound
plain question to him. He believes that
Congress has the right to say what pahcrs
are incendiary, and to prohibit their circula-
lion. Now, | ask him he does not also
believe it has the right to enforce the
circulation of such as IT may determine not
10 be inccndiary, even against law of
Georgia that might prohibit their circula.
iion? If the Senator should answer in the
affirmative then would prove BY his admis.
sion the truth of the inference for which |
contend, and which he has pronounced to
be so absurd; but if he should answer in
the negative, and deny that Congress can
enforce the circulation against the law of,he
State, | must tell him he would place him.
I