Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1848-07-20

From tie National Intolligeucer.
SPEECH
HON. ANDREW STEWART,
OF PENNSYLVANIA,
ON THE PRESIDENTIAL CANVASS.
DELIVERED IN THE House OF REPREsEN-
TATIvEs, JUNE Doth, lS4S

TATIvEs, JUNE Doth, 1913.
The House being in Committee of the
Whole on the bill making appropriations for
the civil and diplomatic service, and MIR.
Gas already published)-
Mr.. Stewart, in rising, said he did not
propose to answer the remarks Just made by
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Fea,h-
erston) upon the subject of slavery-a SUBJ
ject on which he never had made, and per-
haps never would make speech on this
floor. 1t was an evil, and an evil without
u remedy, in that portion of the country
where it existed but it was an evil which
he was opposed extending to any country or
territory now free. He thought the discus
sion of this question had the tendency to
give rise to geographical lines" which
would divide the great parties of the coun-
try, and might in the end subvert our hap
ply Union. lie regretted the drawing of
such lines he thought them dangerous to
the harmony and perhaps the integrity of
this great confederacy. They were divis-
ions against which we were warned by that
great and good man, the Father Of his Coun
try, in his farewell address to the people of
the United States whose voice he could
never hear with Indifference, and to which
=, he trusted the people of this country would
never turn deaf ear.
There had however, been introduced in
to the present discussion another great ques-
tion-the Presidential question; question
which he regarded at this time as more i'm
portant than any question of the kind which
had ever been presented to the decision of
the American people, involving momentous
consequences to the welfare of the country,
present and prospective. 1t involved this
question, among others Whether, under
the Government as it was now administer
ed, all power was to be concentrated in the
hands of one man. or whether, under other
auspices, under the administration of an
other llustrious man, whose name was be-
fore the country, we were to be brought
back to purer and better principles and pol
icy of the fathers of the republic! 1t was
question whether all power-the power of
the purse and the sword, the power ofpeace
and war, was to be exercised by the Presi-
dent. whether with the ueto power in his
hand, he was to become supreme in this
country more arbitrary and despotic than
of Russia, and Congress and the people
were to dwindle into perfect insigniicance;
or whether, under the policy of that other
great aud good man, Gen. Taylor, the peo-
pie and Congress were to be restored to
their legitimate powers, just rights, and prop
err influence; whether the voice of the peo-
pie was to be heard, and they to be treated
with respect or whether we were to be con-
trolled and governed by "One man ?" Was
it to be tolerated that, when across the wa
tiers, in Europe, the old world was engaged
in putting down the "one-man power" we
were to be putting it up here, by giving all
power to the Executive and that, whilst
Europe was engaged in building up and es-
tablishing republics, we were to be employ
ed in tearing down our neighboring repub-
lies Of the South He trusted that we
should take different course; that, under
the auspices of that llustrious man whom
the Wing party had presented to the coun-
try, we should give an example to the world
not of war and of conquest, but of peace
of a people united, prosperous, peaceful,
happy. That was the example we owed to
the world and that was the example which
we would soon set to the world under diff
}
$ on, as we now were, under the lead of the
zone man power" party, we must soon be-
| come warlike people, going on conquer
ing and to conquer. Not only Yucatan and
Cuba, but Canada, too, and all other terri
: tory we should happen to fix our avaricious
r eye upon, must be conquered and swal-
q loved under that great cheftain whom the
$ Progressive Democracy had selected as their
leader
, Was this to be the policy which was to
1 be sustained by the people! No, never i
[ A different result was approaching the
misnamed Democracy had selected leader
: aud so had the Wings the former gener-
r al that always surrenders, the latter a gener-
$ al that never surrenders. Under such lea
ders could the result be doubted No, il
a was certain the contest had, in fact, been
r given up. The Union, the "organ" of the
5 Administration, Father Richie himself, had
r given it up. What did the Union tell US
$ 1t headed recent article with "Will the
! people endure the cheat ?" He went on
= through half "a column, telling how they
\ were cheated by the Wings; and in other
4 columns it was cheated, cheated, CHEATED
+ Now, he would like to know what man OF
n party ever cried cheated" that was not
!. beatenl Cheat meant beat" In 1910
o when the Wings beat the Locos, they cried
o out " cheated )" in 1874, when the Locos
e beat, that was the cry of the Wings and
l. so when the Union cried cheated" it adj
= mitted they were beaten. "Cheated" was
h the language Of the loser, never of the win
It ner.
J. Mr.. Hammons wished to PROFOUND I
= question to the gentleman, but
e Mr.. Stewart declined to yield for want o
y time. He proceeded to read from one o
" the articles referred to in the Union, il
= which it was said that it was unfair for tn,
Wings to take Taylor. If they had taker
Clay, Webster, Scott, Mclean, or any othe
IS known Wing, he would have been satisfied
e but they had selected Old lack, "no-par
At ty man." and they (the Democracy coule
1t not keep their men in the ranks; that they
,r would not stand fire that, like the Mexi
s. cans, they were not only retreating, but go
n ing over to Taylor, in companies and regi
e ments that they had not only Barnburner
II in the North, but Barnburners in the South
n i NJ