Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Wayne County, Ind.) 1831-1837, 1836-02-13

| We will also observe that, by the
publication of Mr.. Livingstonss cor
respondence, the Government of the
United States had excited against him
such feeling Of irritation, that il
would have been out of our power.
even supposing that we had consider.
ed that correspondence as containing
nothing but was right and proper. to
avail ourselves of document bearing
his signature. to repel. in one or the
other of the Chambers, the amend
ment under consideration.
Twill now proceed to the eXamina-
ton of the explanations which have
been offered to Us.
Mr.. Livingston is right in thinking
that our obiec tons to the message OF
the President are confined to these ,wo
points:
1st. The message impeaches the
good faith Of his Majesty's Govern
ment.
I'd. 1t contains a threat TO secure
the execution of the treaty by the fear
VI lCPIIsdiSe
1t is, indeed. under this double
point of view that the message Of Pres
ident Jackson excited in France the
greatest indignation. The Cabinet
of Washington will readily admit that,
if the allegation were true, the in
dignation would be just. No Gov
no people, would for one
moment bear either the direct or indi-
rect imputation of a want of good
faith. or the idea of another govern
ment. or another people, endeavoring
to obtain from it through menace,
what could only be granted by it to
Justice. 1t must equally be admitted
that. when the impression produced
10y the appearance of any document
is general when that impression is felt.
not only by the whole nation whom
the document concerns, but even by
foreigners, by disinterested people,
by persons the least disposed to take
part in the contest, the very univer-
salty of that impression is sufficient
evidence against the general tenor OF
the document.
five examine in detail the message
of the President Of the United States,
q mean that part of it which relates
to the relations between the United
States and France.) it will possibly
be found that, passing successfully
from phrase to phrase. none will be
met with that cannot bear interpreta-
ton more or less plausible; none of
which, strictly speaking, it cannot be
said that it is simple expose of such or
such fact true in itself, or the asser-
ton of such or such a right which no
one contests, or the performance of
such or such an obligation imposed
upon the President by the nature Of
his function. There will certainly be
found several in which the idea of inn
peaching the good faith of the French
Government, or of acting upon 1t
through menace or intimidation, Is
more or less disavowed.
Yet, when the whole succession of
facts is taken into view; when we
perceive the care which seems to
have been taken to present them in an
unfavorabIe light, without making al
loWance for circumstances which eX-
planned them. without paying any re-
gard to considerations which the
Government of the United States it.
self admitted: when we see at the end
of this uninterrupted series of allega-
tons. which have the appearance ot
wrongs. for the sole reason that they
are made to rest on isolated and IN
complete statements, the unexpected
proposition. the extreme proposition,
to say the least. to seize upon French
property. it is impossible at first view.
it is even difficult after reflection. to
escape the thought that all this part
of the message had been written for
the double purpose stated above.
1t is not so. however; at least we
hope it Is not.
But to Danish entirely such an idea
what would be necessary! Nothing
but what is very simple. We do not
here contend about this Or that phrase.
this or that allegation. this or that ex-
preston: we-contend about the Inten-
ton itself, which has dictated the last
part of the message. If it be true
that the President Of the United States
in presenting to Congress statement
Of the facts connected with the trea-
tv of the 4th Of July. had no inten-
u