Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, IA [i.e. Ind.]) 1839-1854, 1842-08-20

but humble follower; aI4 - L4i9 as Silatt
have the honor OF seat here, 50 help me God,
vii be their follower, IN every attempt, especiai>
v. 20 reduce tito military force Of the country 10
tune Of peace, whether IN army or navy, GhJagh
adm, that did not support the attempted re-
ductIon Of tIe navy.
Now what has been the comparative action Of
tie Executive IN this matter Of retreuehmcat?-
/, has been the incfese Of both navy and army
The heads OF the War aud the Navy Departments
have recommended appropriations 10 the amount
of twenty millions Of tullars--Tropasng al the
same time additions in both ID .plrtnen:s, which
mus, have cost a, least fifteen millions more
When this subject of retreuchmcn; IS pr9fcsse1
hy the Executive, what have We from that gar
ter? Words, words, words ana Recommendations
10 Inciease both army aud navy
Here then, Is the contrast between the tso
opposite parues--iho Executive and the l.egis!s.
ture-wh, a re to be marshal!ed IN this fo5mlda.
BILE and .ertlfi: war before the People, far
this matter Of rctreachmcnt is concerned
And here INST ~ render due acauosleds
meni to the honest portion of the Democracy IN
this House cor the lead they have taken and the
aid they nave afforded III all our efforts this
subject.
Mex, came tho Appointment biz; and in that.
ioo must do justice 10 the Democratic party
In all bu. Of its parts. that bill was extremely
against my will. thU't the standard number alop.
ted most improper and % jast enc, and one which
III itsescts directly agalnst The popular Prln-
cipIe Of our Government, and Of this House par
tic liar but here was one redeenin9 feature ln the
bill 0 excellent as to cover multitude OF SINS;
and that he single district principle. That teG.
turewas introduced by leading gentleman Of
the Democratic party from South Carolina, Mr..
Campbell1 and admit that without his etlactual
aid, aad that Of some of his friends and assori-
ates 1t could not have been carried. The bill Is
in fact supple ment 10 the Constitution, and con
tains what sheu!d have been, and what ylstuajly
now is IN the Constitution itself. For what says
the Constitution? That the People Of the Uni
ted States shall be divided IN representation
that there shall be one Representative for such
number; not that there shall be four Representa-.
ives for four times that number. That Is not one
from every mass OF the given number; and II IS
not in the Constitution. Ests inexpressby
great are liable 10 TCsaIt from adopting and act
lag on such construction: that one State should
be represented by the district system and enc hy
the general ticket stem, Is OF things not
to be tolerated for any length Of time. This blll
renders the rule and prmcIPlo OF representation
uniform and universal, and carries the popular
principle of tho Government into fall practical
effect.
Now on this subject what mas the Executive
toae? He has approved the I'LL, and annexed 4
BANJO TO the autIdote, which IS calculated, If not
intended 10 destroy II. And what DO already
see brewing? The ms tFi'y see many who op
posed the bill from party feelings, or because,
their States having adopted the general ticket
system, they felt The strength which sach an ar
angenen, gave her N the national cqnne5, DC
nying the bill with his reasons, aud placing both
file together, which was il fact veto under the
mask Of an approval.
Then came the ;asiti, and this completed the
system of measures proposed by the Whig party
IN the tHO Houses. THIS was t 9 measure by
which II intended to make the revenue Of the
country equal to It's expenditure. W;h infinite
pains and labor, and IN the face # the mos deter
mined opposition, this measure has been carried
twice through bo,l branches Of the Legislature,
and the Executive, for rcasons no doubt satsfac-
tory 10 himself has vetoed both bills. What else
has he done?
| say-your Judiciary Committee say--cyefy
lawyer who las spoken say5--oycu a very dis
tingaished lawyer from Charleston, (uho mover,
the!ess, defended the Executive in thc case, Ia.
king speciai care, however, to dIsclQjtn all con
currence with him in opnon) even he says-that
the revenue cannot legally be collected. II is i'll
truth the British case Of ship money--a case in
which The President has assumed to raise revenue
from the People without warrant Of law. And
10, ouly this; bui in raising revenue without
law, has undertaken to fix regulations by hich
the value Of goods shall be ascerlained, although
the law expressly declares that these regulations
shall be made by Congress. That he has denr
And how wall he stand before the people? We
are told that this Is question of law, and must
be settled by the United States Supreme Court.
or by jHries of the country. | trust IT viii be
ilfies who T. decide whether the President
shall shall thus levy hundreds Of thousands, av,
millions Of dollars, on the people without author
~ Of law. If their defence against such an eX-
action is 10 depend solely and exclusively upon
the Supreme Court, shall feel little hesitation
10 the course that tribunal may take; for well
remember that when the question ship money
was tried in England against John Iamp1e ,sho
haj refused n tho t.plyp H~4Ff.h Ift-ps
decided that the power 10 levy II the
King, and fine Of { 20 600 was LAID upon iIamp-
den, for which be was imprisoned. | have not,
confess. the n 81 entire confidence 10 what the
result tnay be. Tie Court may possibly consider
here, as the Culc considered 10 England, that il
Is case where stern necessity supercedes all law.
Bot. If | am not mistaken, 1t IL question which
will be settled By the jures Of the country ] am
wiling TO wall the issue.
But ask on " hun W Ii rest The resnanslhliiN1