Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1838-09-17

THE LATE CALHOUN FESTIVAL,

The Greeuye Mountaineer contains an oliciat
account, (embiaclog an abstract OF Mr.. Calhouns
remarks,) OF the proceedings al the Barbacue recebi
ly given to the honest Nulllfyer," in Green,le
disrie-a section Of the State, be it remembered,
which, in the great Notification struggle, was al
most unanimously opposed that hcresy, and
which, consequently, having always been preds-
posed TO support the Administration is now the more
eager 10 embrace the Apostatc, who has deserted
his late allies" for the purpose of forming
"coallion" with those whom he and ms organs pn-
I'll lately denounced as "Rogucs an, Roy aists."-
Gen. WaJdy Thompson, the able representative of
that district in Congress, was also present, and
Piled 10 the " GreH Consistent" Us Mr.. Calhoun is
sarcascalIy called But. according 10 the etfcal ac
count, he was mere Mnnow in the paws OF "A Triton
calhoun only silenced his batteries but abso
lutcly compelled Inn to cry Anen, TO his own over
throw Believe this who may, we beg leave to
doubt the accuracy OF this report Of the battle. -
Like the bulletins OF Napoleon, we doubt whether
IL gives true account Of the killed aud wounded
the rather as Mr.. Calhoun's speech furnishes wea-
pons against himself, with which one less cunning of
fence than Gen. Thompson could not have failed To
prick him deeper than The skin
Mr.. Calhoun FIRST attempted to show that Benton
Is not the author oil his own humbug lie has so-
leu the Great Expunge,s thunder and seeks ,,a,
propriatc the paternity of what his friend Gen
riu i5u,,,v st. .alized "Supeudous mposture"
to himself Hear him:
" Nj. &. made a few observations on some Of the
slang objections 10 the Sub Treasury Among OH
he spoke OF the charge Of It's beng originated BY
Col Benton, and called d" Btafon's Halnbug.''-
! This was not so. Gen. Gordon, OF Virginia. first
introduced the measure, IN 1881. He approved of
the Divorce thep, but thought it premature. Col
/ Benton introduced the measure ia the Senate in
/ 1886. Mr.. G. then voted against il, because he
deemed it impracticabte 1T The time. lie proposed
L. ). Bank for 4 limited Time ON certain coid-
tions, as better and more practicable plan to anbdnL
/ the Banks:- that Gen. Gordon, WAS The first nIin
who brought tins measure Into Congress"
No" all this is false. This is harsh laneu1gr,
we admit but it is nevertheless such lang nage and
such only as the circumstances justilv--nav de
mand. We proceed to show ii.
lst Benton broached his hard money scheme on
the 9TH January ls3i. land not $50, as stated b,
Mr.. Calhoun,) on which day he delivered a speech,
declaring the contest to be between gold onthc
one side and paper on The other aud read Of
propositions IN regard to gold currency which he
proposed 10 bring up at a future day.
2d. Gen. Gordon's proposition was not broue ut
forward in 1884, stated by Mr.. Calhoun, bu: in
February 1885
Sd. In the proposition Of Gen. Gordon, to which
Mr.. Calhoun finds IT So convenient now to refer,
there was not wo,d said about the collection Of
the Government dues in gold and silver The
specie humbug" constituted no pant of his PLAN
Even, therefore, If his proposition had prec etled
Benton's, still ii would not affect the claim of the
latter TO the honor fbeginning this upon Banks
aud paper money.
! So much for Mr.. Calhouns f4cts, and for the pa
ternity of the Hambuo which whelher it be wise or
pteposterouS, good evil, belongs exclusively to
Mr.. Benton. lie has earned the distinction, and
Mr.. Calhoun shall thus purlon it from him.
Whether, in afer-times, the author orlhe Iumbuc
be deemed worthy OF a crown Of laurel FOOLS
cap, II shall BE placed on Benton's head-and on his
alone Mr.. Calhoun and Gen. Gordon must be
content TO shine in stolen plumage. Bentan is the
Peacock they mere Jack davis, shutting in the
| eaudy feathers plutked from his tail.
But dthly, Mr.. Calhoun tells us that he opposed
the Divorce in 1884, because he 4" thought it pre-
maure"-and again in 1886, because he deemed
IL unpracticable at the time. The design of his
assertion is to lead to the inference that he was then
IN favor of the principle Of the Sub Treasury but
opposed it only because he deemed it premature at
one time and impracicabe AT another Is this true
| Why, ii was but the other day, that we copied an
extract from his speech, delivered in the Senate in
/ 53i. in which he denounced the whole project in
unmeasured terms Did he then, or at any time in
1886 avow his partiay for the principle OF this new
financial system, and express any regret that it was
premature" or " impracticable"! No. We de-
iy him his friends show any alluson in any
one OF his speeches, TO the Dirorce which is not de
predatory aud hostile IN its character. The yery
/ presented for its dccis ION then.-to VIII National
Bank or a Sub Treasury,- and we call upon him or
his friends TO show any thing in the circumstance
OF those periods, which, than this rendered it
premature impracticable 1t is a sheer after
thought. In 1884, he opposed the principle of the
Sub Treasury scheme. Ii he did not, there is no
meaning in language. Read, for example, the fol
owing paragraph from his speech:
" But there is IN my opinion q strong and ISsU-
rERABLE oGlectioa against reSoriing 10 tins measure
1.-THE Sub treasury resulting from the tact that an
exclusive receipt Of specie in the treasury would To
give II eihcacyand 10 prevent extensive specu ati on
3nd fraud, require cntrc dissemination on tic 1a,t
otHc goCenrment WiM The banking system in all its
forms, and resort TO the strong box, as the
means ofpreserving and guarding lis lunds-a means
IT practicable at all an the present state of MineS liza
BILE 10 the objection of being far less safe economical
and efficient than The present."