Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1840-03-30

g. ron,icd 10 such opinions as were advanced
+, ornenred to me that the evil complained OF WIS
10 in,ynnnsion of the currency, ana the reme"!
,ronosed u reduction to thls stnndaIu VI p'ces
ihr,,ivbout the world. know the senator mas
sno.en much of his friendship for laborers but
n il Ills practical views OF policy, his means to ne
.employoI TO secure prosperity, thar examined.
I did not consider the pnr of his speech rom
which nc has read, and considers the foundation
c ur;ust remark elsewhere, as an Important or
n,,terinl portion of his reasoning Such is the
Joctrine contained in the printed speech. IL is
L,fore the world, and let them Judge Of it, and
soa whether have brought the member nearer to
bninu friend of hard money than he brings him
self
But the Senator pointed out two paragraphs IN
nv reply which he says do him injustice. II so,
il was not my purpose. On the hrst page ne al
lepes that Ia n general summary when MAKE
(not of his exclusive views, ms tie paragraEh
shows0 impute to him an opinion that Vle SUP
Treasury will have greater Influence over oa'Ns
and banking and reduce the currency beyond
what he ever thought or has commended II wouu
do, Notwithstanding ! expressly state, IN announcer
place, whea speak of him alone, that he declares
himself the friend of well regulated banks and
mixed currency. On this point, shall only say
il is the last on which | could have anticipated
complaint after all the reasoning OF the Senator 10
prove the expediency Of reducing the currency,
because of the evils of banking But the effect
orthe bill is matter that never entered my mind
ms of any moment. IL was not the measure OF
influence which il would have TINT discussed, or
thought Important, as alluded TO ii only in sum
mary way. 1t was the opinions and doctrines adj
vanced IN the argument, the general scope OF pol
lev advocated by the member. upon Which com
nented, and TO which | replied. could not
misunderstood him in expressing the opinion that
the bill would have its influence as corrective,
aud am Indifferent what degree of influence is
or may be ascrbed to it.
The Senator laid hold Of another isolated para
graph of my reply at the thirteenth page, and sup
poses meant to assert that he and his friends
commended that the bill would reduce the value OF
property and wages one half. l assured him The
other day. and now do it again, that such ie ho
NV meaning, nor docs it seem 10 me TO be The
iust or fair construction of the languague The
language is thus: ~ do not mpnte this power to
ihe b but it is enough for that its friends do
What power? He alleges the power 10 reduce
wages and property one-half say the power
10 reduce wages and property, aud to improve our
relations to foreign trade, without assigning any
particular proportion of reduction. The senator
draws the proportion from n hypothetical case
stated by me in illustration OF the general propose
lion under considerations that reduction of wages
would be beneficial 10 The laborer. This com
haed, and in the hypothesis assumed case III
which wages we're supposed 10 he reduced one
half Having gone through with this which aiI
peared on lie face of it to he. what it is, hypothe-
tical, and not founded on propostisns intended to
he imputed to any ore ms u. ell in argument return
by new paragraph to the bill, aud Use The Ian,
gusge have read, not intending To refer 10 the
hypothesis, or the proportion of reduction IN IT,
but to the general proposition under consideration.
He therefore gives meaning 10 my remrks new
er designed or thought ufby me until | heard
his construction. He does not read the speech as
understand it, and meant it should he under
stool. This explanation is the same gave the
other day, and is what the Senator called dis.
clamer. 1t is disclaimer of nothing but his con-
srucion Of my language and meaning. II this is
what he meant by disclaimer, / am content with
it, but ! wish TO be rightly understood. If you
take the paragraphs alone which the Senator read,
it may lie understood as he represents but that
is no; the inference us it appears to me from the
whole text.
But the Senator went further, and read from
my speech the next sentence, which is, "What
response will the farmers mechanics, rnanufac-
turers make to such fagitious proposition - and
Selling upon the word f1agitious, used in no sense
extensively, moi having the remotest personal ap
plicatlon to him, but applied TO the general prop
osition TO reduce wages, &c. and not to the hyp
ohesis or my thing contained in it, inquiries Of
the Senate II he might not pronounce this state
ment fngitious representation OF his remarks ,
wish him now to state whether in employing tina
language he meant TO reflect on me personally
lMr. ID. paused moment, and the Senator no
making an auswer,) he added, If he did then
hurl back the imputaton with the scorn and con
tempt language uumerited and unprovoked de
serves, and suspend further remarks ill heal
the member