Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1837-01-05

The speech Of Mr.. Webster, on thc'Trea-
sury order, in support of Mr.. Ewng's resolu-
tons, is thus spoken by the Correspondent
oftbe N. Y. Express
"f hesitate not to affirm that Mr.. Webster,
among the thinking men of the country,-a-
mong all lawyers and all Legislators, among
all men who value wisdom and appreciate
Justice, among all men who can think for
themselves, who dare do so and who will do
so,-dmong all such believe that the splen-
did display of Jurisprudence which MIR. Web.
ster has exhibited in the debate to-day, will
place him. if possible, in higher rank than
( he now holds. In England such an argument
as ] have listened to would Mt once have CIV
EN- Mr.. Webster reputation unequalcd IN
the best days of Burke, Fox or Sheridan.-
"Mr. Webster has outdone himself" was the
honest declaration of one OF his warm potl-
cal Toes. ellis argument is powerful was
another such declaration from distinguished
Van Buren, man, who is q member OF the Ju-
dietary Committee, and that it was powerful
you might have seen in the close attention Of
the crowded multitude in the galleres-in
the impossibilty to keep quorum of members
within the House, so. anxious were they to
hear Mr.. Webster, and in the eager attention
Of almost every member Of the Senate. There
was no brilliancy, no studied effort to please
or elicit applause, 10 interrogatlons or excla-
nations, no burst OF passion or forced decla-
nation. II was the voice of wisdom, the cx-
perience of years, the judgment Of mind and
thought, so clear, so convincing and so decl-
sive that all must have been made converts
to all that he asserted.
Mr.. Webster's argument was altogether Of
a legal character. He looked upon the 1'rea-
sury Order as both illegal and unwisc. lie
denied that the President had power to issue
such an order and contended that its promul-
cation was the direct violation of an act Of
Congress wholly different in its character and
yet having an immediate reference to the
same object. The resolution of April, 1916,
was no authority for this resolution, as had
been contendcd. Tha. resolution was an act
of fCongrcss-this was an act Of Executive
Power-that Resolution expressly allowed
United States Bank notes, Treasury Orders
and the notes Of specie paying Banks in pay
nent for the Public Lands. The Treasury
Order forbid it and made gold and silver and
that only legal payment. There was no a.
nalogy between that Resolution and This or
der. The one gave no authority for the 9TH
CT. The Executive had no power to issue
such an order. The Senator from Missouri,
said Mr.. Webster, argues that be has. but if
he had, why, continued Mr.. Webster,d did that
Senator introduce a Resolution in the Senate
contemplating the same thing? II the Exec
utve possessed, legally possessed the power
he had exercised, why did he ask n similar
action at the hand Of Congress.
Mr.. Webster also spoke upon the cbarac-
ter Of the Order itself. lie wished to know
whether il was to be permanent and prospcc.
ve,--whether it was to be an Admi nis,ration
measure. The Order itself contemplated 40
termination. In the outset Of his remarks he
drew an effective parallel between the Prcsi-
dents Message Of 1895 and Of 1896. In the
one Message the President congratulated the
country upon the sales of the Public Lands
upon the amount of these sales and upon
the general prosperity Of the country. In the