Hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1843-1845, 1844-04-18

INV and consolation. His attacks on MIR
Cay have been so thoroughly repealed,
and their falsity and injustice, SO satls;ac-
torily proven, that. he knows not what to
do. nor where to turn. He is lost and be-
wildered, and difficulty and danger on all
sides, bcset him. His weapons nre handed
and his blows struck without aim or eau
ton, and the first intelligence he has OF
their execution, is the shrek Of some wound
ed locofoco, whom he has smitten in ms
wild and misdrccted warfare. Does nc
cry out against protection; the votes Of
JACKSON and VAN buren,, and JOHNSON and
BENTON, for the highest tariffs the country
ever had, rise up to rebuko him. Does he
denounce distribution the messages OF
JACKSON, and the speeches Of VAN BUREN,
tell him to beware. Does he hold up led
eralism to berate it; VAN BuREN's support OF
CLINTON in opposition to MADISON stares
him in the face In fine, no matter what
subject he touches, he wakes up u locofoco
whose 'misdeeds might otherwise have
slept in obscurity.
AS last resort, he charges US with
garbling the record,--a statement winch
we aver, and will prove to be false. de
says we garbled the record in not stating
that Messrs BUCHANAN and STURGEON were
instructed 20 vote against the distribution
act land that they obeyed their instructions,'n
voting to withhold the ten per cent bonus
from the new States. And he further
says that they voted as they did, CONTRARY
to their own personal and political opin-
IONS" We did not state that they were
instructed. because we contend that they
were not bound by their instructions to give
any such vote. Again on reference to the
vote on the final passage of the BILL
Thursday, August &c, lS4l, we find the
names of JAMES BUCHANAN and DANIEL
STURGEON recorded in the negative. Why
then, we ask. if their instructions concluded
their acts, did they not vote for the bill,
and if they Gid not, why were they SO
anxious to sacrifice the interests Of the
of this diffculty' Now here isthe resolu,
ton Of instruction and no man of sense can
or will say, that they were bound by it, to
vote to deprive the new States of the ten
per cent, given them by the distribution
act:
"Hssolpsl ks tie Senete and Heass Of
REPRESENTATIVES, of the CemMsa&eattA 81
Pear ssleeais, IN Geasfal AsseeeAts eset>-
That cur Senators in Congress be. and they
are hereby instructed, and cur kepresea'
tatives requested to resist any and all al
tennis, under what preteaee seever taS
same may be made, te &egFsee tAs people q
skss State Of their .fass sresefessa St az
eaassss Sskesss1aee ~ the ssAeSe sSsSs, ans
that they be- and are hereby FARTHER IN
s,raesea aud requested 10 Introduce and aa
veeate tAe passage eta bill providing tor
the distribution oil the proceeds Of the same
among the several States in the ratio o.
their federal representative per@lasien an
de, the census one thousand e'ga' "a"ase'
aud forty"
Again MIR Buchanan made speech Il
favor OF the amendment in question, an
entered into figures and statistics TO prov
that it was unjust under the distribution
act, TO grant such grataity to the nc,
States. But admit it for moment
that these two "isolated democrats" wer
bound by their instructions to vote as the
did, that will not excuse their eight com
peers, John c. Calhoun, Alfred Cuthbert
A. o. P. Nicholson, Franklin Pierce, Ben
jamin Tappan, Ruel Williams, Levi Wood
bury and Silas Wright, all voted for III
same amendment. They were not in
structed. even that plea, poor as it is, il
this instance, will not avail them. Henri
Clay and "a Wings voted against it, an
only one whig-Mr Archer-vo.ed for it
Why did not the enemy of the West
Henry Clay--vote with the locofoco friend
OF the west, to take away from the ne,
States, that gratuity Of 10 per cent? VIII
did only ten locofocos vote against it, o
rather why did not all these fast and faith
full supporters Of western interests, discoun
tenance the movement Of the two s'isolate
democrats?" These are things we shout
like to know, these are fit questions for tn
locofoco press to answer.
Another evidence Of our garbling, as SC
forth BY the Gazette, is that we attempte
to misrepresent the position of Mr. Wake
Of Mississippi, in regard to giving the TEE
rltorlcs proportionate share of the publ
lands. In this We are charged with ha,
ing attempted to show that he voted AGAIN.
an amendment to tthat effect, when in fac
he voted for it. II is false; we did M snc
thing. We did not state how Mr. Walk.
voted, at all, nor had We any such obiet
in view, as will readily be seen on refe
ence to the article on the outside of =,
paper Of April the 4th. We quoted N
Walkers remarks, which speak for them
selves. In them he does not saw that n
Territories should be excluded, but goes O
to argue with how much justice the Di
trict of Columbia might be included, who
the Territories were not. His reasons "
thought, indicated Mr. Clay from III