The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-02-08


close to-day at two o'clock.
Mr.. Walker and tho Collection OF the
Revenue.
The Union is surprised at the freedom
with which we have brought in the name
and authority of Mr.. WALKER, in con-
nexion with the application of Mr.. MERE
DITH for the funds necessary for the col
lection of the revenue. 1t accuses us of
stating by implication that we have au-
thority to speak for Mr.. WALKER, and
call him as witness in defence of Mr.
MEREDITH. We have not undertaken to
defend Mr.. MEREDITH, because his conduct
requires no defence. He has done only
what the law has compelled him to do.
We have not called Mr.. WALKER as a
witness. We found Mr.. WALKER on the
stand, and we challenged the Bitter
Enders to put question to their own wit
ness. For the better understanding of
this matter, it is necessary that we should
copy "a portion of the Union's article. That
journal says:
"The language of the Republic implies that it has
Mr. WALKERS personal authority for making this
statement. We do not believe il has had any such
authority, or permission of any kind from him to
make such statement, or thus to represent him;
and until it shall appear that has such authority
from that distinguished gentleman, we shall not
hesitate to pronounce the statement to be totally
false and unfounded. and made with an express in
tent to impose as true upon the American people
that which is not true. We do not believe that
MIR. WALKER has thus been contradicting his past
course, and putting arms into the hands of the
enemies of the Democratic party, and Of the late
administration, in order that they may more effec-
tually assail both. We believe that the para
graphs which We have quoted from the cabinet
organ imply a libel upon the distinguished ex-
Secretary of the Treasury, which we do not hest
tate TO repel. And under such circumstances the
public will expect that the cabinet organ will sus-
~tain itself by producing Mr.. WALKER's personal
authority for its statements. We look upon the
practice Of thus bringing before the public the
names Of distinguished gentlemen in support of
mere newspaper assertions, without their author
ity or permission, not only reprehensible, but
dishoporable in the extreme
What the sole organ calls Z" state
ment" is an interrogatory. What the
sole organ calls an " assertion" is chal-
lenge. When this matter was first dis
cussed, the bill Of the Sd of March, 1S4s,
limiting the expenditures in collecting
me revenue to 81, $780, 900 a year, was
claimed by the Opposition as Mr.. WALK
ER's bill. 1t was averred that Mr..
WALKER had recommended it as long ago
as 1916. The letters Of Mr.. WALKER
were produced by General BAYLY, and
printed in his speech. General BAYLY
stated that subsequently to that period
Mr.. WALKER recommended the passage
of the bill. 1t was the Chairman of the
Committee of Ways and Means who
brought forward Mr.. WALKER from his
retirement The Union was the party to
his production as witness in this matter,
and the party appealing to his authority.
Finding Mr.. WALKER thus before the
country, We looked into his reports. We
found that in December, 1S47, he in
formed Congress, in his annual report,
that he had retrenched all unnecessary
expenditures, and had dismissed every
officer or agent not absolutely required for
the public service. We showed that, in
that fiscal year, Mr.. WALKER expended
81, 132, 900 in the collection of the reve-
nue.. We knew, therefore, that il was
impossible that he should have been at
that time urging Congress to limit him to
81 $50, 900. We knew this to be impos-
sible, from the fact that Mr.. WALKER
would not have put himself officially upon
the record as squandering some $500, 900
per annum, at the very time that he had
informed Congress he had reduced his ex-
penses TO the last farthing, and dismissed
every unnecessary officer. 1t required no
great sagscity TO sec that these two things
were so inconsistent that an honest man
could not be involved in such contradic-
tons.
In this view Of the matter we wrote the
following paragraphs, which we reprint
and reaffirm, and again challenge the Onion
and General BAYLY to put the interroga-
tories therein contained to their own wit
ness-to gentleman whose name they and
not ve have introduced into this contro-
versy:
"Mr. wALKsa, when he was expanding in this
service s2,l32,Ooo told Congress that he had
made every possible retrenchment in expcndi-
ture. L. IL possible that he could have advised
Congress to deprive him Of some 100000, and
thus leave him with force confessedly inadequst,
operform the duties required,
mot only do refuse credence TO this allega-
ton, but we challenge the Union or Gen. BArL,
10 call upon Mr.. wALxsR for his opinions 10 th,
present exigencies Of the Treasury Department
We haze no doubt that Ne ,oiu say that Mr.. Mar.
DrTH requires epery dollar that he has asked, ana
thai he public service must necessarily srfsr II ana
portion Of Il 10 wi0,hed We haps no doubt that a,
sciH say haiti Is IN The last degree unreasonable and
facfious 10 ,cifhhoid a."
We diaclain all nreience of sreaL;no