The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-09-18

made to the public, on retiring from Mr.. Madl-
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
twas this, and corresponds almost precisely
with the views we expressed, which have Occa-
stoned the Apologize comments of the Intelli-
| gencer: aa ia r.s. ..r.... ..,.
! " The publication in question" said the lnteli-
gencer "is reprehensibe ina variety of respects as
shameful breach Of official and personal confidence
an underhand insdious recurrence TO circumstan-
in locih he cannot be chastised by contradiction
| the facts being known only to the party attacked
whose official station forbds reply for the refu
tation of calumny; a malignant though feeble at
tempt to pull down the Government and Con stituton
| which he was bound by every tie Of honor and ho-
nesty to support. MAT. Int. July 2, 1911.
But the Integencer of subsequent dates en-
tered more fully into the merits of the question,
and we quote from one of its articles as COM
plete a refutation Of its present views, touching
as well the principle of Mr.. Ewing's pubica-
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, forgetfulness, circum-
Stances or wilful party blindness, has wrought
in their moral and political principles. The In
tegencr of 1S41 thinks the doctrine Of Execu-
tive unity and responsibility an "odious Jack
sonism." In 1911, the Inelligencer declared
that the Constitution had concentrated all the
responsibility" in the President-that she alone
IS responsible for the acts of the Erecutiue."-
This is now the "modern heresy"-the "strange
doctrine !" The Intelligencer of 1941, thinks
Secretary may publish Executive secrets
"without a betrayal of confidence" The In
teligencer Of 1911, pronounced such conduct
ga CRIME THAT FINES AND HALTERs WILL NOT
REAcHw Witness the following extract, to the
force of which as applied to the present case we
need not add word: ... t.. ... "....
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
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
of the essential provisions of the Federal Constitution
necessarily involved in the principle Of publishing the
| secrets of the Cabinet The question here is not
whether his statements are true false nor do we
inquire whether they are important or unimportant;
| but can such statements be made without crime
Should they be made by clerk in the same Office Of
Stale, it would be perjury such clerks being under
oath Of secrecy But the head Of the department,
the Secretary whose very title signifies depository Of
lized society went from its commencement to the
days Of Robert Smith, before tn tie in exalted
station, was found to be insufficient. .,rr, 49,. ..
elbow precious the advantage of free press, how
august the tribunal of public opinion Here is a
crime that fines and haLers 1oM not reach not be-
cause it is too small but because it is too great it is
like parrcide escaping the code of Scion; the law
has not provided for it. What, then, Mr.. Smith is to
hinder your example from being followed by your
successors in Office ! will tell you: your example
itself will hinder it, and the of your coun-
try which must now attend you, until you will con-
| sent to be forgotten ~. r...
| The defects in human laws have usually been owing
to some defect in the knowledge of human depravily
Your publication will have contributed to enlarge the
sphere of such knowledge; and the method you have
taken to njure your beneactor will have rendered
real service if not to him. least to the government
he administers.
But to judge of the atrocty of the principle Of d.
vulging the secrets of the Cabinet ought to reflect
| on the consequences to which it must lead. The
Constitution of the United States has vested the SUI
preme Executive power in the hands of ONE MAN
called President ofthe United States and ii has con-
centrated ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY IN HIM. The laws
have distributed the labor of the administration into
several departments, over each of which they have
placed chief called Secretary, keeper of secrets
The President dominates these Secretaries and re-
moves them at pleasure he assemblies them in his |
Cabinet for consultation he consults them separate
y he obtains their opinions either in conversation
L. Al.
for it must not be forgotten that ALONE Is
RESPONSIBLE for the acts Of The Executive, he |
alone is the Executive. Now consultation supposes |
discussion doubt, different points of view various
degrees of information, change of opinion ex-
istence of error and search after truth. Ali this
process confidential between him and his Secreta-
ry and for any of these heads of Departments to d.
vuge these discussions, without the consent of the
President is ceasing to be his Secretaries. 1t is
breach of the most sacred ties of honor and of trust
it demolishes the whole fabric of constituted au-
thorities on which the nation had relied as a means
OF aiding its Chief Magistrate in managing its high
concerns in their vast variety of details. IT, them his
ministers have right to publish his secrets the con-
sequence is he can trust them no longer he must do
so much Of the work himself as his faculties will ad-
NIT and the rest must be left undone
But Robert Smith has asserted this as a right and
his acted upon in most hcentious manner in the
pamphlet now before us. HIS conduct is breach of
official and personal confidence, much more crimi-
mol than common perjury as breach Of parol in a
prisoner Of Dar, is than breaking prison.
And what IL sufficiently singular, he has committed
this rhine for the express purpose of proving to his
fellow czens that he a of talents and worthy
of his place. How unlucky for him that it proves the
reverse of his own proposition %
IMPRISONMENT OF MR.. CROSS.
1t is stated in several papers that an outrage has
been committed by the Spanish authorities of Cuba
on Nathaniel Cross, who has been enormously repre-
scented to be U. S. Consul at Matanzas.
MIR. Cross is not Consul of the u. S. at that or
any other place the error has arisen from the cir