Southern patriot. (Houston, Chickasaw County, Miss.) 18??-18??, 1849-08-15

he had not the knowledge nor expert
ence to fit him for the high duties of
the Presidency, and that he must,
from necessity, rely upon others for
their execution,
In confirmation Of this conclusion,
we have the testimony Of positive
facts. We first cite the rule by which
for all kinds Of Offices were
refused a hearing by the President,
and referred in all cases to the Secre-
taries. This is an undeniable fact,
and can be proven BY thousands Of
witnesses. The President has uni
l'ormly refused Feceive applications
not only for subordinate Offices, but
for those EXCLUSIVELY within his own
gift, and referred the applicants 10 the
Secretaries. They have been com
PEELED TO dance in attendance upon
Secretaries. We understand il also
to be fact, that the Secretaries have
selected and designated the persons
who were subsequently, appointed.
1t was proclaimed in the whignews>
papers, and wing letter.writers, that
the whole matter ofappointmets was
referred to the Secretaries, and that
they nominated, and the cabinet con.
filmed, the appointments. Such, al
so, has been the common talk in this
city among wings and democrats.
Butwe have coroboratiye proof of
this fact from the declarations of
Gen. Taylor himself, which first made
their appearance in the wing news
papers. In the case of Peter Sken
Smith, it was publicly stated that
Gen. Tayler excused himself for not
appointing Mr.. Smith, on the ground
that he was voted down in the cabi
net The vote in the cabinet in this
case was also published, and never
vet has been categOrically contradic
ted, although we put questions to ;
late organ Of the cabinet with view
TO draw out the truth in relation &c
that very case. Also in the case o
the appointment of Lathrop TO tn
office of navy agent in this District
Gen. Taylor told the friends of Mr.
Linthicum-aS stated in the cores
Ipondence Of the Baltimore Clipper,
Taylor paper-that he had appointed
him, when the fact was that the com
mission was then ordered 10 issue Il
Lathrop. Many other facts of thi
kind could be adduceds all showinl
that the cabinet, and not Gen Ia lor
make the appointments.
Besides, it stated in the wing pa
pers that the cabinet to satisfy Gen
eral Taylor, had adopted rule tina
no persons should be removed excep
for a specific cause alleged agains
them. That rule was afterward
rescinded on accounted its inconveni
ence; and, as authority for its reels
ion, we cited a paragraph from tn,
Boston Atlas quoted from the New
York Express. That article in sub
stance stated that the cabinet haC
adopted, and the cabinet were gtins
TO rescind the rule. If the Who'll,
power of appointment had not beer
vested in the cabinet, why shoulC
that conclave adopt and resciDd rule
concerning them?
But we have other facts going e
colroborate the conclusion that Gen
eral Taylor had delegated the duties
of his office to the cabinet. In IN,
first place, we believe, when he camt
TO this city, it was his honest deter
mination honorably to redeem hi
pledges, and 10 be the President no
of a party, but Of the people. Unfor
tunately, he was persuaded to sur
round himse lfwilh ulta, artful, an,
inscriptions wing politicians. They
we have no doubt, forced upon hin
the policy of removals. And lha
he for time resisted, we have NJ
doubt, from the facts that the rul,
was adopted that no democrat SHOULD
be removed except for cause. Tha
rule was for short period nominal,
Regarded in the action of the cabinet
but was in fact virtually and dali,
violated. Then came the Just am
natural denunciations of the demc
cratic press for the dishonesty an
perfdy involved in such acts. Thes
denunciationS were artfully mad
use Of as pretexts to incense Gen
Taylor into more extensive proscrip
ton, until it has exceeded that O
all former administrations put to
gether, 1t has been remorseless an
lindiScriminatinr. Il has evtapde