The Charlotte journal. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1835-1851, 1839-02-01

Can these men he truly called reyubli.
cans according 10 the sense IN which Sir.
Giles understood The term? Certainly not
They would have been federQhsts ~ his day.
10 complete the parallel, We will call
the attention of the reader TO another par.
agraph in Mr.. Giles speech, which We arc
sure will strike every one as very extra.
Ordinary coincidence.
Another circumstance Says hs,l peculiarly
favorable to the advocates OF exeeusi>e patronage
was that during the two first Presidential erIus.
the chief executive magistrate POSSESSED gieat.
er degree of popularity and the confidence Of tie
people than ever was or perhaps will be again at.
tached to the person occupying that dignlied stu.
ton"
/, would be impossible to state the ccse
Of Gen. Jackson and the present advocates
Of executive patronage, with greater pre-.
cision OF language. There is a dftrttcr,
but It is degree only. As Gen. Washing.
ton never welded 1.-THE of The patronage
possessed by Gen. jackson, SO he never
possessed 1.-THE of the portr. He may
have possessed universal popularity, but he
was too great and too good man ever TO
have abused il. Furthermore, the federal.
lists Of his day would have blushed, We
might say they were too honest ard path.
otto TO desire the fragrant abuses Of patron.
age that are now pracllsed. The repuJa.
cans Of his time would not have permitted
1t. But " hat the former, with oil their
soliciude 10 see the executive clothed wHh
his due apportlonment Of authority, never
dreamed Of advocating, our soft sly led JET
fcrSonian republicans of the present day
unbIushingly assert, maintain and practice
upon. ln the case of executive patronage,
from DIVISION respecting which Mr.. Giles
tells US, sprung what is called party IN the
United States, the party now in power are
as far ahead of the federalists OF 90, as The
latter were ahead Of the republicans Of that
period. la fact federalists is too good a
name for the leaders of the present domin.
ant party. Mondrchist is the more appro.
pirate eplthet.
What fyderalist of '99 ever advocated
indirectly, or avo~ed openly, the monsrous
doctrine, in reference 10 parties under The
government, that 10 the yictors belong the
spoils.
What federaIist in the olden time advoca.
ted the open interference in elections by
officers of the federal government.
What federalst of '9S ever desired the
President TO WELD the vast patronage OF his
office to secure the election of successorf
We repeat, then, that the self styled re.
pubIicans Of the present day have extended
the patronage system TO point infinitely
beyond what the federalists OF '9S, who are
charged by Mr. Giles with having been the
authors Of The system in all the struggles of
party, ever thought of resorting to. Ii may
be presumed that Mr.. Giles stated the facts
of the case as strongly as he could against
his opponents, but how do those facts sink
into insigniGcance when compared with the
acknowledged acts ofthe party now in power?
A Wolf may rut on sleeps clothing
and succeed for time in decelyiDg, but his
trolfh propensities are sure 10 belray him.
Our opponents may assume the republicans
and humbug the people for a while, but
their principles, their practices, and their
objects will in the end make manifest not
only their federalism, but their monurchism.