The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1844-01-26

a m0MehtdFy delay on their part ia paying =
They ptH pay, but can she ererpay?
The language upon the subject Of Oregon is
'qually Objectionable. Is ii an evidence OF a
want of 'moral tone" in the President to have re-
commended mere precautionary measures 10 pro-
tectthe People oflhe United States emgrating to
the Oregon, from the tomahawk and scalping-
knife OF the savage The country, by the con-
vention existing between the two nations is
open 10 the joint occupancy of both Do we
violate any principle of national faith when, BY
the adoption OF proper measures, we make avail
able 10 our citizens this right of Joint occupancy?
Is this 10 show " an Oper-re0ching animuS 2"
Or does this right of Joint occupancy mean
The erciusiee occupancy Of Great Britain Has
she no forts, no armed men, in the Territory
Has Fort Vancouver been demolished has
her other fort, al the mouth Of the Columbia,
been annihiaed No such thing. They are
there, still brslng with their cannon aad small
arms. And vel, with this fact before them, for
the editors of the English press 10 talk of an
orer- reaching animus on the part Of the Presi-
dent, who proposes merely TO afford safe escort
10 American emigranls, must be regarded as
supremacy ridiculous. We cannot but hope
that this boundary question may be settled in
peace. We hope that the new Deputy Of the
British Government may be entrusted with the
olive branch. We want no war with Great
Britain. She is our best customer, aud we are
hers. We want peace, therefore, lpr the ben
eft Of both. But we augur nothing very favor
able from these ourgivings Of the British press
and if they reflect the sentiments Of the Bri-
fish Ministry, it may prove much better in the
end that no new Minister should have been de-
spatched to the United States. Mr. Fox would
have answered quite as well 10 larry on a CORE
spondence as Mr.. Packenham. He has great
ability, and it would have been quite as trouble
some for the American Secretary to have an
swered his notes for that iumtionary TO re-
spond to Mr.. Packenham. We indulge the
hope, however, that the new Deputy will bring
with him views very different from those ex-
pressed by the "Times."
But, in the estimation of the English press,
the President has exhibited ga rerylor stand
ard Of moral feeling" in his remarks upon
Mexico. What course would these sublimated
moraists desire 10 have pursued? A low stand
ard of moral feeling, 10 desire an enc TO be put
TO such war as exists between Mexico and
Texas Is il TO this that the moralss of Eng
howed2 Has not suffering enough yet been
enrailed 10 satisfy the high morality Of Eng
land Does she take delight in those border
wars, the traces of which are TO be found in
burning cottages-in prisoners dragged into the
ylest capiivity-in industry paTalysed, and in
hopes blasted? Is an American President 10
be abused and insulted by the leading journal
Of her Government for desiring 10 put an end
to such scenes OF desolaton and sorrow ? l.
this England's morality-her boosted philan-
thropy Out upon such crocodes Can they
think that they can by such tears deceive the
world II would much better have become the
| English press TO have spoken out more fully
and freely. They would then have told the
world, "we deprecate the policy of the Ameri-
can Executive because a prolongation of hos
uliies is what we most desire Texas and
Mexico will exhaust each other, and Great Bri-
| The world would then have given her credit, at
least for sncerty-BUT TO MOUTH ABOUT MORAL
rTY!
| We have but one more remark TO make, and il
is this. The English public are cvermore deal
ing out philippics against the President Of The
United States. The American press, on the
contrary, treats their sovereign with for
bearance. Whether their King be King
Log or King Stork, we take no cou.
Germ about it. Queen Victoria and Prince
Albert may roll in luxury while the great mass
Of their subject, are crying out for bread. Their
gorgeous palaces may be scenes Of festivty
while their beggar-people may be at their gates
| picking up the crumbs which fall from their ia
! bes. The Times may chronicle the daily air
ings ia the park, and may dwellin what raptures
it may please on the apdogs aud terriers and
fox-hounds Of the royal pair. 1t may sing wha
notes it may please in lsudation Of bloaleC
arislocracy-but we protest against lis elevatinl
standard of morality for America. Our boas
| is that our Government is made for the People
and not the People for The Governmf nt-tha
here he People are the only sovereigns, aud tha
we pay no worshipat any shrine but that ofpub
lie freedom and public happiness As to III,
President of the United States, whom il has sery
ed the purposes Of the English editors TO abuse
we have only 10 say that he is Republican. il
theory and in practice. His name is not unfa
miliar 10 British history. He is descendant o
that same Wat Tyler who raised the common
OF England against the arbitrary exact ons o
Rishard II. Aud, although Wat Tyler fell sac
riice to perfdy in the contest, the symbol o
which act of perfidy, the MORALITY of Englant
has quartered upon the arms of the Mayor o
London; yet that uprising of the PeopI
which he headed was attended by an enlarge
ment of the privileges Of British subjects, ant