The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-05-24

mond, it is but Justice to General CAss to say
that he is not the only DEMOCRATIC politician
who doubles and twists on this subject of river
and harbor improvements. If Mr.. BUCHANAN
could vote for appropriating S2,OOO,OOo to the
improvement of rivers and harbors In lo45,
we should like TO know how he can claim to be
among the abstractionists and Virginia DEMO
.cRATs in regard to the bill of 1852
We have seen that the difficulty was not
with Congress or the people in General JACK
SONS time or Mr. TYLER's How was it in
the time of Mr.. Polk? On the 20ih Of March,
1876, a River and Harbor bill passed the
House of Representatives by a vote 100 to 90.
On the Oath of July it passed the Senate by
vote Of "a to 10. On the 4th of August the
Polk had returned this bill with his objections.
General BAYLy took the floor at once in de-
fence of the PRESIDENT, and laid down, as the
platform of the ''orthodox republicans" that
Congress had no more power, under the au-
thority TO regulate commerce, to construct these
river and harbor Improvements, than it had to
furnish shipping. On the question whether
the bill should become law, notwithstanding
the objections of the PRESIDENT, the vote stood
90 yeas to 81 nays.
On the Doth of February, lS47, bill passed
the House of Representatives, by vote of SO to
u, entitled ga bill for continuing certain pub
lie works in the Territory of Wisconsin, and
for other purposes" 1t passed the Senate on
the Sd of March. Mr.. JOHN DAVIS moved to
take up the bill on that day, and explained that
it was bill from the House appropriating
about 5000, 900 for the improvement Of certain
rivers in the West, and for certain harbors. Mr..
BAGBY, the DEMOCRATIC Senator from Alaba-
ma, threatened to oppose the bill item by
item-afler the fashion, we suppose, of Mr..
CLEMENS and Mr.. SoULE at the last session.
The yeas and nays were ordered on taking up
the bill, and the question being taken, it was
decided in the affirmative, by vote of 80 to 9.
Mr.. BAGBY thought better of his threat, for we
suppose there were matters pending of in
terest to Mr.. Polk which factious opposition TO
the River and Harbor bill would embarrass,
and he knew that ''orthodox repubcanism" on
this subject was safe in the hands Of Mr.. Polk.
Mr.. BAGBY, therefore, moved as test question
to strike out $4,000 for the improvement Of
the river below the falls at Louisville; and on
that question asked the yeas and nays, without
any further remark. The question was taken,
and decided in the negative-6 yeas and 3S
nays-when the bill was read and passed
third time, without division. This bill Mr..
II III % n,
gress communicated to the House his reasons
for retaining it-reasons so little satisfactory 10
the American people, that they would alone
have been sufficient to exclude Mr.. PoLK from
the possibility of denomination by his own
party.
Down to the period of the last session, there
fore, we see that it has not been the fault of
Congress that we have been disappointed in
our River and Harbor bills. 1t has been owing
to the ascendency of the Virginia abstractionisls
and the '9S men over our DEMOCRATIC Presi-
dents. The progressive, practical Democracy
of the West and Northwest have been sacr-
feed TO the doctrines of the hair-splitting, do
nothing, voluntary principle gentlemen, who
from their seats at Richmond have too long
dictated the policy of the Federal Executive.
But at the last session of Congress different
state of things existed. 1t was necessary for
the g orthodox republicans of the Richmond
school to defeat the bill in Congress, for there
was nothing more to hope from Presidential
vetoes. If the bill should pass the two
Houses, it would become law. There
fore it was that certain - striplings" in the
lower House took the ground alluded to by
Mr.. WEBSTER; and that certain ''eminent
statesmen" --DEM0CRATIc statesmen in the
Senate--combined with them to defeat the bill
by parliamentary manauyres. There was a
clear majority in favor of the bill in both
branches; and yet to crafty Mr.. RHErT, and
to provide for his benefit and that of the alb
stradobnist, an issue of what General BAYLY
called foTthodox republcanism "a measure so
loudly demanded by the PEOPLE, and SO neffec-
tually demanded for series Of years in hume
rously repeated instances, was AGREED TO BE
sA cRIFIcED IN DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS.
We would ask the AMERICAN PEOPLE,
who represent the true DEMOCRATIC doc
trine on this questionable doctrine of. that
great MAJORITY which must constitute the
only real DEMOCRATIC power of the country
is it the WING rARTY who seek to give effect
to YOUR wILL?-or is it the self styled De-
mocracy who have been for years in this behalf
seeking to thwart and defeat YOUR will?
Letter from Charles Sumner.
In reply to an invitation to speak during the