Madison Whig advocate. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1839-1841, 1839-08-17

4 In turn let me ask these seIf-stvIed
/ Democrats, which of these great princi-
pies have not been abandoned by them
Instead of amending the Constitution we
have President using his utmost exer-
tons TO procure his reelection, and we
have had one. in substance, nominating
his successor, and through his power aud
Influence, having him elected. With the
exception of removing the Indians.
cannot think of one single principle
maintained by the party to bring Jack
son into office, which is not discarded by
his successor, who has promised gene
rally to follow in his footsteps.
What footsteps did he mean to follow
lst those of 1928 or those Of 1886?
| These prints of different dates conduct
US upon most points in directly opposite
directions. If the present Chief Magis-
trate will take the footsteps of 1893, Che
Is not taller than | am, though in every
other respect my superior in point Of
appearance,) am ready to do lealty 10
him; will go with him step by step, and
to the extent of my ability, aid him in re-
deemng the promise made in 1923.
My opponents say they have evidence
that have abandoned my politics, that
now vote with the opposition.
Will they be so good as to tell me how
] can do otherwise, if they now vote diff
ferently from the principles we all avow-
ed formerly. | am sometimes pretty
much alone, and would once have been
entirely SO, had il not been for the tai
ented and independent John P. King, of
Georgia.
Let them beware how they make such
charges. | challenge them to produce
the vote with opposition, which is con-
trary 10 my avowed principles.
They say they specify the vote at the
last session on Mr.. Crittenden's bill,
which they kindly denominate the Gag
| bill
Ny specification could be more unfor-
tunate for them. If had voted against
the bill, could not have come home and
looked any one of you in the face, who
might have chosen to interrogate me on
the subject.
The object of this bill was to prevent
certain class Of Federal officers from
any interference in elections, either
State or Federal, further than to give
their Oacn DOteS.
If the bill had passed, every man, as
well those specified in the bill as others,
would have been left free to vote as he
might choose.
The bill was not 10 operate on any
officer elected By the people, or their rep
reSenlatjres.
Its operation was confined exclusively
TO that class of Federal officers who are
either appointed by the President and re-
| mr., To yF Efe nil
of grade inferior, and appointed by
such as | have described. And as to all
these, repeat, the bill left them full lib
erty to vote as they might choose, and
only forbid them % influence the votes
of others.
1t is said that this bill is unconstitu-
tional, because it prohibits the freedom
of speech.
This, think very erroneous view
of the subject. Every civilized society
is necessarily divided into two classes.
Those who hold offices, and the great
body of the people who do not hold any
office.
Under our government, officers them
selves are again divided, into those who
are created by the Constitution, have
their qualifications and the tenure Of
their offi ,es specified in that instrument;
and those who are created by acts of
Congress. and have their qualifications
and the tenure Of their offices pointed
out by statute.
This latter class of officers only were
embraced in the bill. Congress had the
power to create these or not, as they
chose. They had power tie fix their
qualifications and prescribe their duties.
1t was Congress that gave the President
POWER to remove them at his pleasure.
If they had chosen, they might have
made them officers for life, or for term
of years, or reserved to themselves the
power of removal. If, then, Congress
could give the President the power to
remove at his pleasure, they can specify
the causes for which he shall remove, if
they choose to exercise it.
1t is great mistake to suppose that
the President may remove at pleasure,
under power given by the Constitution.
His power is given by statute, and that
statute, or any other, may well specify
the cause for which he shall remove.
In the way the matter now stands, it,
one of these officers votes against the
wishes of the President, or influences
others 10 vote in like manner, he may be
removed. because, by dct Of Congress,
the President has power to remove at
his pleasure. Is it not, then. absurd to-
say that Congress has not also the power
10 direct, that. ii such officer interferesI
further than to give his own vote, the
President shall remove him.
This clause in the Constitution was
intended TO secure people not in office, IN
their right to speak of their servants as
they pleased; but was never intended to
secure offices in the right, by either pro-
misses, brides or threats, 10 induce per-
sons TO vote contrary to their Judgment.
Upon principle, ii has appeared to me.
Congress had full power to pass this bill
In addition. we have had in substance
the opinion of enlightened men IN favor
of this power
Mr.. Jefferson, in his letter to Gov Nc