The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-09-16
MR.. EWING AND THE INTELLI-
GENCER.

eENCEN.
The National Intelligencer Of Yesterday, to
our great SURPRISE apologies for the conduct Of
Mr.. Ewing in making public, Cabinet secrets.
We quote the following from its editorial CO.
lumns
How, then, can it with any Justice be said that
Mr. EWING improperly discloses Cabinet councils,
when he merely states what he had already been
quesied 10 state for the information of Members of
Congress, and as the basis Of their. action
II the President changed his mind in regard to the
second bill, Il was not the fault Of Mr.. EwNo and
how could hi Justify his resignation unless he should
be able to state to the public what he had already
been authorized by the President to state to Members
OF Congress- II was no secret II was never in
tended nor regarded such by the President his
Cabinet The facts before the public, without
violation Of confidence. Let the public judge Of
them"
The first interrogatory put by the Intelli-
gencer involves question Of fact We affirm
that Mr.. Ewing disclosed more than he pre-
tends in his own letter he had been requested
to state for the information Of Members of Con-
gress." He details the conversations of the
Cabinet with nearly as much particularly as a
stenographer would employ purposely engaged
TO report them. He was not authorized to be-
tray all these conversations and acts TO any
body. If Mr. Ewing had confined himself to
what he had been authorized TO state to Mem
bers of Congress, his letter would have been
brief one, but il would still have been offence
which the Integencer, from its opinions in
former similar case, ought to be the last to at
tempt to excuse.
The Intelligencer asserts that "the facts are
before the public, ,cithout a violation OF conf
dence" Can this be so? Did the lntel-
gencer, did the public before know the alleged
facts put forth by Mr.. Ewing? II did not. Nor
did the President intend his private communl-
cations with his secret aries to be made public
nor can il be made to appear that facts intended
for Members Of Congress, are intended for the
public 1t is absurd, therefore, to pretend that
what was confdentially entrusted with the Cabi-
net, could be made public to all the world,
without betrayal OF confidence"
The views the lntelligencer expresses of this
case are wholly inconsistent with the language
il applied TO Robert Smith in 1911. An inn
portani portion Of the ad dress which Mr.. Smith
made to the public, on retiring from Mr.. Madi-
sons Cabinet, related to differences OF opinion
about bills The cases are therefore parallel.
And what was the indignant and scornful Ian
guage of the Intelligencer upon that occasion
1t was this, and corresponds almost precisely
with the views we expressed, which have occa-
stoned the apologize comments Of the Intelli-
gencer:
"The publication in question:" said the Intelli-
1 - Is
shameful breach Of official and personal confidence
as an underhand nsdious recurrence to circumstan-
in ,ohcih he cannot be chastised by contradiction
the facts being known only to the party attacked,
whose official station forbds reply even for the reiu-
lation of calumny; a malignant though feeble at
,em,t TO pull down the Government and Con stuon
which he was bound by every tie Of honor and ho-
nesty to suppor,."--Nat. Int, July 2, 1911.
But the Intelligencer of subsequent dates en-
tered more fully into the merits Of the question,
and we quote from one of its articles as COM
plete refutation Of its present views, touching
as well the principle of Mr. Ewing's publica-
ton, as the doctrines that paper recently avow-
ed in its controversy with us in relation to the
Executive power, as we could possibly desire.
The extract we shall quote from the National
Intelligencer of 1911, when compared with the
recent views of the same editors, will show how
great change time, forgetfuness, circum-
stances, or wilful party blindness, has wrought
in their moral and political principles. The In
tellgencr of 1S41 thinks the doctrine of Execu-
tive unity and responsibility an "odious Jack
sonism." In 1911, the Intelligencer declared
that the Constitution had concentrated all the
responsibility" in the President-that "he alone
is responsible for The acts of the Executive" =
| This is now the "modern heresy"-the Strange
doctrine !" The Intelligencer of 1871, thinks
Secretary may publish Executive secrets
without a betrayal of confidence" The In
telligencer Of 1911, pronounced such conduct
"a CRIME THAT FINES AND HALTERs WILL NOT
REAcnp, Witness the following extract, to the
force of which as applied to the present case we
need not add word:
eve will begin with notice Of its principle, the
gross immortality Of coming before the world with such
publication. II Is not possible that Robert Smith OF
| any other man, however coarse and clumsy the tex
ture his mind may be- should not perceive the shock
that must be given TO public morals, the stab into the
vitas OF Executive government, the violation OF one
of the essential provisions OF the Federal Constitution
necessarily lnvolVed IN tue PinciP'e VI Puphshs VIC
secrets of the Cabinet. The question here is not
whether his statements true or false, nor do we
inquire whether they are important or unitDportant
| but can such statements be made without crime I
Should they be made by clerk in the same office of
State it would be perjury such clerks being under
an oath of secrecy. But the head of the department
the Secretary whose very title signifies depository of
secrets, is supposed to be bound in honor And civil
lied society went on from its commencement 10 the
DAYS of Robert Smith, before III tie, in SO exalted
station, was found to be insufficient.