The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-05-29

1 pr0vemeMts.
1t is contended by the DrMocRArIc organs
that the recommendations Of President FILL
MORE, in his annual message, On the subject Of
| river and harbor improvements, was broad
enough to cover every item of the River and
Harbor bill OF. the last session The Union,
indeed, AYERS that Mr.. FILLMORE was in favor
of The bill Of the last session; that he would
have sanctioned and approved it in its details
| as well as in its general principles We are
not aware that Mr.. FILLMORE has ever had
occasion to express any opinion of favor or dis
favor as to this particular bill, though we have
no doubt that he would have given it his APP
prevail with pleasure. The country has been
too frequently disappointed by the interposition
| of Executive vetoes in this behalf Mr.. FILL
MORE would hardly have followed in the foot
steps of Mr.. Polk.
But assuming that the Union is authorized
to say that Mr.. FILLMORE approved this perry
bill, in all its details, what was the character
of that bill2 We shall vouch no Wing wit
nesses to this point, for there is abundance of
credible DEMOCRATIC testimony.
Mr.. HowARD, of Texas, DEMOCRATIC repy
resentative in Congress, in letter addressed
| to his constituents since the close of the last
session, AYERS that 'sthe late bill did not 90 in
principle beyond those signed by General
JACKSON nearly every year Of his administra-
| tion." This is pretty substantial authority.
/ If Mr.. HowARD. is correct, Mr.. FILLMORE
you'd have had very good DEMocRArIc pre-
cedsnt for approving the bill in all it's details.
But MIR. HowARD. is not the only authority
| to this point. In recent speech to his con-
| stituents, Mr.. STANTON, of Tennessee, adopted
and advocated this very bill in all its details;
and maintained not only the constitutionality,
but the justice and expediency Of the system
which it embodied. Mr.. STANTON is q DEMO
oRAT of the strictest sect, one of the most sor-
+ thodox" among the practical republicans; but
he is man who does not believe in the hair
splitting, withdrawn doctrines Of Mr.. RHErr
and the abstractionists.
If our contemporary will refer to the Con.
grsssional Globe for the last session, page 557,
he will find that Mr.. JAMES THOMPSON, of
Pennsylvania gentleman who weighed his
words, and never spoke without due considera-
tion-averred that in 1882 General JACKSON
signed and approved" an appropriation bill
''more ertrauagant in the system it projected
vastly more so-than the present 1t con-
tanned ifty-six specific appropriations, and
commenced all the works on Lake Erie to
which appropriations are now proposed to be
made. But, after this great number of spe-
citic appropriations, that bill contained an au-
6 ~ D.,
ments and expenditure of money on the Ohio,
the Mississippi river above New Orleans, the
Missouri up to the Kansas, the Mississippi
below New Orleans, and the Mononga-
hela from Pittsburg to Brownsville. These
were general objects without specific appro-
priations. In 1883 bill somewhat similar
was passed." Though not directly pertinent
to the point under consideration, we will add
that Mr.. THOMPSON on the same occasion
avowed distinctly, that while Mr.. MADISON,
Mr.. MONROE, Mr.. ADAMS, General JACKSON,
Mr.. VAN buren,, Mr.. TYLER, General TAY-
LoR, and Mr.. FILLMORE were all of the opinion
that the improvement Of harbors and rivers was
constitutional. the only one tcho belscved and
acted on a contrary principle ,cas Mr.. Polk.
One word more as to the "details" of this
bill, which are alleged to have met the appro-
baton of Mr.. FILLMORE. We have shown
that Mr.. HowARD, Mr.. STATION, and Mr..
THOMPSON, all good DEMOCRATS, would have
sustained Mr.. FnLMoRE on that point. But
what says Mr.. McLANE, the DEMocRArIc
chairman of the Committee of Commerce,
which reported the bill? In the debate in the
House Of Representatives Of February Is, Mr..
McLANE said, in reference to this very bill:
"When report bill which, IN its phrascology,
as weH as in its details, is almost fac
sinsiIe Of the bill sanctioned By the De-
mocracy Of the country prior to and pend
ing its canvass in 1886, 40, al IA,
may be allowed to express some surprise at
the heat of the opposition, which has become
so clamorous-I might almost say SO facti-
ous--in view of the political elements involved
in this question. When hear gentlemen in
dulge in bitter explanations of what consti-
tute, in their eyes, republicanism and de-
mocracy, may be allowed, hope, to ex-
press some surprise at their want Of candor,
or at their want of information"
In addition to all this, there were some TWEEN
ty DEMOCRATS, more or less, who coted for the
bill in the House of Representatives in call its
details" 1t would have been odd enough if
Mr.. FILLMORE had been moro scrupulous with
regard to these details than SO large section
of the Democracy. And still more strange it
appears to us that in consequence of these de-
tails, or on the pretext Of these Details the DE-
MocRATIC Senators, who assume to be friendly
to tho policy of river and harbor improvement,
should have deliberately consented in caucus
to the sacrifice of this bill, in order to 'draw
the party lines deeper"-to repudiate prin-
cpe and policy that were known to be SO long
favored by Mr. CLAY, and to propitiate that
wing of the Democracy which, with Mr..