The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1840-05-16
LETTER of JAMES GARLAND,
C0ntinued.)

LIZ j EN- UT JhM
TO HIS CONSTITUENTS,
(Continued)
That these measures, il acquiesced in, tend to
break down the powers Of the States, destroy
their resources, and build up great central
power in the Federal Government, to be WELD
ed by the will of single man, is too obvious to
need any argument to prove. In place OF any
reasoning or speculation OF my own, here sub
Join an extract from the Republican Address OF
1893, to which have before referred, which APP
plies with irresistible force. These venerated
PATRIOTS say:
The acqucsccnce of the States under infractions
Of the Federal compact, would either begct speedy
consolidation, by preciptating the State Governments
into impotency and contempt or prepare the way for
revolution, by repetition Of these infactons until
the people aroused TO appear in the majesty Of their
strength 1t is to avoid these calamities that we ex
hlbit to the people the momentous question: whether
the Constitution Of the United States shall yield to
construction which defes every restraint and
whems the best hopes Of republicanisn."
Exhorations to disregard domestic usurpation
until foreign dangers shall have past, is an artifce
which may be forever used; because the possessors Of
pocer irho are the advocates for its extension car
ersr create national endorsements to be success
sreiy employed to sooe the people into sleep uhiis
that poner smelling silently, secretly and Totally
fthe character insinuatons Of foreign in
huence which seize upon a laudable enthusiasm
tura application, to blind your eyes against
danger at home
also subjoin the following extracts from Mr.
Madisons immortal report Of '99; o report
which should be the textbook of every republic
can, which applies with as much, if not more,
force to the measures of this administration,
upon which | have animadverted than those
against which il was directed. 1t says:
That the obvious tendency and inevitable result
Of consolidation Of the States into sovereignty,
would be to transform the republican system Of the
United States into monarchy is point which
have been sufficiently decided by the general
tment of America In almost every instance Of dis
cussion relating to the consolidation in question: its
certain tendency to pave the way to monarchy seems
not to have hccn contested The prospect Of such a
consolidation has formed the only topic Of controversy
would be unnecessary, therefore, for the committee
to dwell long on the reasons which support the posi-
ton Of the General Assembly. 1t may not be mpro-
per- however, to remark two consequences evidently
flowing from extension of the federal power to
every subject falling within the idea of the general
welfare
:" One consequence must be- TO enlarge the sphere OF
discretion allotted to the Executive Magistrate Even
within the Legislative limits, properly defined by the
Constitution, the difficulty Of accommodating legal
regulations to country great in extent and
in its circumstances had been much felt and has
led to occasional Investments of power in the Execu-
tive, which involve perhaps rs large portion Of dis
creon az be deemed consistent with the nature
OF the executive trust.
" In proportion as the objects of legislative care
might be multiplied would the time allowed for each be
diminished and the difficulty of providing uniform and
particular regulations for all be increased From these
mould necessarily greater latitude 10
The agency Of that department apich is airays in
istcnce and lrhch could best mould regulations of
general nature, TO suit them TO the diversity OF
particular situations And it is in this latitude as a
supplement- the deficiency of the laws that the de
gree of executive prerogatve materially consists"
These, felow-citizens, are the grounds Of my
objection to the reelection of Mr.. Van Buren,,
and which have determined me to oppose it by
all fair and honorable means. You will perceive
that all have arisen since his election, and dur
ing the progress Of the administration. They
are founded on principles which maintained
in common with you, when | came into Con
gress-principles which | believe sound, and
which have not changed and will not change
have, admit, changed as to my support Of
Mr. Van Buren,; but il is because he has chang
ed his principles, and cannot change with him
If, for the reasons which have assigned,
shall have justified myself in opposing the re-
election of Mr.. Van Buren,, having heretofore
supported him, the next question is, whether
can justify myself in supporting General Harri-
son, with the objections which heretofore made
TO his election, and the advantage of principle OF
expediency, which expect to be derived from
his success? This will answer.
he nrSl ODJectlOn 10 Icneral f1aTrISOn Is
that he was a federalist Of the school Of '9S.-
This charge has no foundation but the make,
assertion Of John Randolph, made in the Senat,
of the United States, without scrap of record
ed history to sustain it, The charge was M
sooner made than promptly repealed by Genera
Harrison His denial is sustained by the test
mony of Judge Burnett, of Ohio, who ha.
known General Harrison intimately all his life
and by the fact that Mr.. Jefferson had great con
fdence in him, and, after his accession to tn,
Presidency, appointed him to several Offices o
high importance and trust There is no trutl
in the charge
The second objection is that he is the fren,
Of a protective tariff. That Gen. Harrison wa
the friend of protective tariff cannot be doubt
ed, for his speeches in Congress, and votes TO
the tariffs Of 1924 and Of 1923, all prove that
But not only did Mr. Van Buren,, but the pre-
sent Vice President, and Mr. Buchanan, an,
Mr. Benton prominent friends of the Admins
tration, all did the same thing and, so far a
these opinions and these votes constitute an oh
lection to General Harrison, they equally con
sttute an objection to Mr.. Van Buren,. T.,
shield Mr.. Van Buren, from responsibility 70
these votes, the instruction Of the New Yor
Legislature to vote for the tariff Of 1928 is re
hed upon Was Mr.. Van Buren, instructe
when he voted for the tariff of 1927 Does no
his obedience to the instruction of 1928 prov
hs acknowledgement of the constitutional pow
er of Congress? and does not his ALBANY speed
IN 1927 prove that he favored il on grounds O
expedency2 The mystery why Mr.. Van Blu
rem could vote, rithom instruction, for the ia
mi of 1924, and required the force of an in
structon TO vote for that of 1928, is perhaps 4
De found in the fact that, in 1924, he had nc