The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1849-07-25
MIR. CALHOUN'S REPLY.


There is besides. a fact which shows
that there had been considerable change
Of views from the 4th 10 the 6tl, ot
March !; / aliude to to the fact, that The draft
Of The letter intended for Gen, Jackson was
never sent. 1t is inferable from the fact,
that there are no such letter to be tcund
among his. papers, after the most dlIigent
search. 1t rs not improbable that the same
change OF circumstances which caused the
striking out and inserting, and which induced
HIM, not 10 finish and tranmlt the lei'lc to
General Jackson as Intended, induced him,
also, finally to dispense with written "p"n-
ion, and will account why no such opinion
is found on file.
>sig But suppose the case 10 be as Col. Ben
ton contended of what Importance Is IT, or
: how does it enable him to make out his
charge, ,that the resolutions which he SO We
benen,lv denounccs, were introduced for The
purpose of disunion The opinion OF the
cabinet, whether for or against, whether
unanimous or divided, whether written or
unu rittea. were given under circumstances,
which would enti,le them to but little weight.
Inthe first place, there was no time tor con-
sideration. But one day elapsed from The
time The questions were put and sent TO The
members of the Cabinet, until a final eeclsion
was mode. In the next .place,5 5'he subject
s,was little understood. and had at that time
received little consideration, The great
point in tho discussion of the Missouri ques'
.iiois whether Congress had a right to IN.
pose anvsoiher limitation on the admission "i
a State into The union, than that prescribed
by the constitution. The question OF It's
power over. the territories did not come np
;..,n,jI Incar The end of the discussion ana,
according to niv recollection, was scarcely
inofjced much less discussed. So loose, III
deed, was the prevailing OPT llon at the tlme'
that the power of legielatIng over them was
believed 10 be derived from that portion OF
the constitu,ion, which provides "tha, Con.
saress shall have power 10 dispose OF, and to
make alineediul rules and regulations re-
snec,inp The territories aud other properly
Belonging to tue United State" Such It
would seem to have been the opinion OF Mr..
Monroe, Judging from his manner OF pro-
Bounding The custom. He puts 1t IN Ian
e,,ape borrowed from the provision "to maize
q regulalion prohibiting slavery in The terri
tories" and not 10 make law 10 ft"''o"'
But since then, more careful examination
has established beyond all reasonable a""o''
',hat ff,is provision was intended TO be limit
cd 10 the Disposition and regulation ol the
,erri,orics. regarded simply as land or pro-
per,y. and that il conferred no power what
ever beyopd, ~uilch less, that "t Pr"h'b''ns
slavery under such circumstances, even II II
,opM he made out beyond a shadow OF
doubt that the cabinet was unanin"us, and
that its a,cmbers gaze wr'ien Opinions "''"'
affirmative, it coul have little right II, SCI
ling the constitutional question; ana !c,
f,oi BENTON iu his zeal to strike a, me, and
,brouoh me al you and your cause, insists
that the opinion of Mr.. Mm,roe's cabinet
forever fyrecIose the question against The
Sou,h. TO establish doctrine so absurd,
nv ,mplication. lays down rule, that the
opinion of Congress, or any department OF
the government, once expressed on con.
stitutioral question, settles it forever ana
this too when il is well known that 1t was IN
direct contradiction to the course he pursued
Interference to the Bank of the U. States.
Tie right ofConsrcss to charter such bank
lad again and again been sanctioned oy
Conoress. and every department ot The gov
eminent. That he did not consider all this
assetilinc the constitutional question. the
iona war he waged against the Insltnt'"h
proves conclusIyely.
II is his fate to involve himself in dIlcm-
mas al every step he takes, and which he is
either too blind TO see, or too reckless to re-
gard. He has labored through many col
Inans 10 prove, that The cabinet of Mr. Mon
roe was unanimous in favor Of the power OF
Congress TO exclude slavery from tho terri
tories, and that they gave written opinions
,o that effect, in order 10 prove, that am
the real and responsible author OF the Wll-
mot Proviso. without apparently percc'Vms'
that if he couldIsucceed, ii would destroy his
conclusion; for lfthe cabinet was unanimous,
how could | alone be responsible lie
seems to have felt the dilemma alter he got
into il. and has made desperate effort to
escape. from it. For that purpose he had to
Ealsify the Constitution, and to assert, that
the veto power was vested in the cabinet,
and not in the President, when that lnstru-
mer,t expressly provides, that "the Executive
power shall be vested in the PRESIDENT and
That every bill shall be presented TO the Pre-,
s.;,.t Tor his approval or disapproval; and
.h.,r If he approves oft, shall become law
a.. # he disapproves it, shall not, unless
T.. sod by two thirds ofboth houses OF Con
p,r.s, He follows up this false assertion By
auo,her., that / had one-flth of the veto
oower in nv hands, when, in fact, had no
bart, and when the paper, on which he re-
lies 10 make ont his charge, shows on Its
face.that the cabinet consisted OF SIX and not
FIVE. and of course, if it had the veto power,
hut one sixth part was vested in me. But