The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1836-07-13

again he must go to some other place
where he is not too much despised to
able to produce excitement.
Times relative TO the publication in IL
Republican of the 9th inst. of the ayes ar
noes on the motion of Mr.. Calhoun to r
commit the bill to the Committee on +
nance with instructions to reduce the a
preparations one half, is incorrect and it ma
not be deemed improper for US to spect
wherein. The Herald tells us to the effe
that Mr.. Calhoun's motion TO recommit al
reduce the appropriations one half, excet
ed Fort Adams-that the original 2O0, 90
reported for that work would not have bet
curlailed had Mr.. C.'s motion passet
Now what but n reckless determination
screen a faithless public servant from ju
and merited obloquy could have Undue
ihe writer of that article to make an asse
tion so absurd and Improbable and mp
4
tent and false. Fort Adams excepted i
deed Why Mr.. Calhoun himself ope,s
declared that the object of his motion W
20 reduce the appropriations for construt
i ing fortiGcations one half-not to redu
certain items of the bill only, 'as stated
The Herald but to reduce all the appr
priations for the construction of Fortific
tons, one half-the two hundred thousa
dollars appro 2riatcd for Fort Adams doy
20 one hundred thousand dollars. This
the motion for which Mr. Robbins vo.
and The Herald now upholds him for so d
ing. That Mr. Robbins voted on this oco
sion, as he has on many others, in dire
contrnvention TO the we'll known wishes 4
his constituents, il seems to US unparalle
tatuity to deny. But what cares he for /.
will of his constituents Il is not the Fl
time he has thwarted them. and bid the
defiance He holds his seat in the the Sc
ate against their wishes-by tenure of fra,
and through the unstrumc ntality of a m.
who stands superlatively blasted, blishted
loathsome living monument of drunken,
and debauchery-we mean Poindexter,
worthless, heartess Poindexter--to II
mans vilIany is Mr.. Robbins indebted
his seat.
Now let us compare the following sc
tence from the article under review, W
the ayes and noes, which we copy from Il
paper on the final passage of the Fortifie
ton Bill -
" Finding it impossible. however, fr,
the shortness of the time to correct the b
unless at the imminent hazard of LOSING
Mr.. Robbins and many other Wings wa
cd their objections, and carried the bill 4
their votes"
Carried the JM by their rotes
There's a whappe- for you Read the {;
lowing statement of the ayes and noes
the final passage of the bill, and then
us If the Federalists "carried the bill
their votes.''
"The following is The final vote on
FoRTrFrcArIoN BILL of the present year,
1t passed the SENATE, after its third readi
Thursday, June 3Oth."
YEAs-Messrs, Bayurd, Benton, Bla
Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert, Ewing,
Illinois; Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbar
Kent, King, of Alabama, Linn, Morr
Nicholas, Niles, Page, Porter, Rives, Ro
bins, Robinson, RuggIes, Tallinads
Upton, Tomlinson, Walker, Webst,
White, Wright,-2S.
NAYs-Messrs. Calhoun, Clay, Critic
den, Ewing, of Ohio, Leigh, Mangul
Moore, Preston, Southard-9."
1t will be seen by the above statemeI =
which the reader will bear in mind is tax
from the Herald, that twenty-one democn
and eight federaIists voted for the passa 5
'f the bill, and nine Federalisis, and not
single democrat voted against it. Our rec
ers will observe that there were but seye
een Federalists that voted at all on Il
question, and that had they all voted again
he bill, it would still have been carried b,
majority of four. We ask then did {.
Federalists 10y their votes carry the bill
stated in the above short extract from I
IIeraldl