Southern Argus. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1834-1842, 1840-04-07

Congress the enactlon of a special bankrupt
| law, applying to these institutions exclusively,
and intended to put an end to their existence
by an act the Federal authority measure
which but year before, he had denounced in
| the strongest terms, as an "odious and uncon-
stitutional invasion ofthe rights ofthe States"
!, (See has Speech IN the Senate of the United
States, on proposition Of Mr. Branch, Of N.
c. on the 9Th Of Feb. 1927, 81 rol Register
Con, Deb, page 256.
/ Upon all these subjects, the Conservatives
have differed, and still differ with the Presi-
dent, as well as upon his Sub-treasury scheme
These differences have been manifested by
them on various occasions, and in a variety of
] forms-speeches, votes, and discussions ofpop-
ular assemblies. In regard to myself,H have
omitted no proper occasion, in both written and
cral addresses to my felOw-citizens, to pro-
claim to them-and yet have seen with in
finite surprise, that some persons recently, to
cover their own change of position, have ale
! ged that it had been heretofore understood that
| | differed with the administration on but
single question, that of the Sub-treasury -
This allegation, too, is made in the face of the
notorious fact that have been denounced by
the administration press from one extremity of
the country to the other, for daring IN the con-
scentlous discharge ofmy public duty, to OPP
pose and expose divers other acts and meas
ures ofthe President and his party--his iligit
| innate and dangerous renewal OF the connec-
ton with the Bank of the United States.-his
alarming and anti-republican doctrine preached
| IN his message to Congress at the commence
ment of the last Session of Congress with re-
gard to the discretionary employment Of banks
in general, as fiscal agents of the Government
at his sole ac;A and pleasure, without any rule
OR limitation of IGw,--and finally, the daring at
tack made by his friends in the portentious
doctrines of MIR Walls report, on the vital
principle of representative Goyernment-the
freedom of elections. On this last occasion,
characterized the general policy of the admin
lstratlon by what seemed to me to be its lead
ing features, and declared my conviction that
on all the great questions of respect for the
rights of the States,--limitation of Executive
patronage-economy in the public expense
the independence of che legislative department
--acquiesceHce In the decisions of the majority
, and a sacred regard to the rights of election
-(the memorable land marks ofrepublicanism
laid down by Mr. Jeferson)- lit had widely de-
parted from every principle held and acllnowl-
, edged by true republicans. 1t is, moreover
well known,'that at the last session of Congress
| opposed, to the best of my ability, another
favorlte measure of the administration, COM
f monty called the Graduation Bill, for virtually
, giving away to certain faVorite States, that
common fund" of the public lands, derived II
great part from the muni6cence of Virginia
and in the benefit of which she expressly re-
served her equal right to participate. How idle
then, the suggestion recently invented that
either myself, or the Conservatives in general
whose opinions and destiny it is alike my pride
to share, have differed from the administration
on but single question.
Let US now inquire whether the President
has changed his policy or practice on any o
these highly important questions, on which we
f have differed with him. Some of his noisy
partizans have claimed for him great credit fol
, the lauish professions of economy he makes IL
, his late message TO Congress. But what ha
, been the practice, which we are much more IL
terested in knowing tllan the empty precept
, ofhis administration According to his owl
statement, the public expenditure during thu
r year 1887, the first of his presidency, amour
ted to the sum Of thirty three millions of dol
Iars:' during the year 1887, he says this a
mount was somewhat reduced , and for TIN
: year 1889, he thinks that the public expend
ture will not in all probability have exceeded
twenty six millions of dollars' But this sun
oftwenty six millions of dollars happenst to b.
Just the double of the public expenditure unde
the administration Of John O. Adams, Whic:
! most of lis thought was so enormous and I'm
iustifable as 10 merit the displeasure and re
buke of the people,. What, however, are W.
to think of the Presidents promise of icon
tinued reduction of public expense, when W,
h find on the very same page ofhis message, tn
most earnest recommendation by him to the E
: vorable consideration of Congress, of a plan c
g the Secretary of War for recruiting militI
{ army of tloo hundred thousand men, one halft
. be in active service, the other halflo form
sreserve:' the term ofservice to be eight years
n the troops to be armed, equipped and paid b
: the United States, " according TO rate {
# compensation to be fixed by law" but in othe
!. respects to be under the regulation of the Wa
!. Department! The annual cost ofSuch fore
e according to any conception can form of tn
h Secretary plan, under the outlines he has gT'
# en- Of it, could not fail to add many millions
x the public burthens. ! now speak only OF II
r. question of expense; but III other aspects th
n most extraordinary project, emphatlcaily endt
:, sed as it is by the President, for, in his messag
If to Congress, he says, 81 canhot recommend
: too strongly to your consideration" deserve
o the most serious reflection every friend OF ii
IF public liberty.
i Is not militia force. as the Secretary choose
10 to call it, or the one half fit, which is to be "
II active service''-recruited for eight years.
n Stationed" wherever the Secretary of w
shall direct. armed and paid by the Unite
:. States--to all intents and purposes a standir
- army, and denomnated militia force, OILY
! avoid the instructive iealousies which the nan
= of a standing army calls up in the uind of e
= cry freeman. Can such force be called mi
:, tia in the sense of the Virginia Bill of right
- which declares, well regulated militia, co
!, posed ofthe body Of the people, trained to arm
\ is the proper, natural, and safe defence of tr
= state" or III the sense of the constitution OF 4
~ United States which authorizes Congress
~ provide for the calling forth the militia to ca
y CUE the la0s Of the Union, suppress insure
. ton and repei inUdSiQns." Is there at this N
y ment. instruction, invasion, resistance to t
- laws of the Union, which would justify ealln
forth the militia into actual service, fifth
=, were, would it iu stify enbodyng item as 81
~ cruIts," for eight years term OF service! /
=, such constitutional exigency exists or IS al
~ ged; and can view the Secretary's plan
a. no other light than as proposition for raisI
~ LARGE standing army, without encounter
AZ the well founded republican jealousies VIII
~ its name excites; or otherwise, as most
70 renious device for extending the influence
~ the Federal Executive, by setting apart ire
81 the mass of the people, two hundred thousa
= votiag not fighting men, receiving pay iromi
pe United States as militia in actual servic'
~ looking up to the President as sstheir Corlm
Jug der In Chief" as the Constitution, IN that c;
=. u provides and directs. know of but one p
" cedent for so profound contrivance and +
siy was IN the DAYS of the " English Comm