Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-08-01
JUDGE JOHN S. cAsKIE.


There have been some attempts in the Con-
gressional district from which this gentleman
comes, to charge him with inconsistency in his
late course on the River and Harbor bill.
While we do not generally mingle in these local
quarrels, we feel it a duty which we owe to that
gentleman, and to the party of which he is a
distinguished member, to vindicate him from
the charge.
However plausible may have seemed the i'm
putation of inconsistency two years ago. there is
certainly no ground for such a charge now, for
he is pursuing the identical course now which
distinguished him in former Congress- and
which met with the unqualified approval of his
constituency. But we contend that he has
never, on that question, been inconsistent in
his course, and we think his opponents will
agree with US, if they look little deeper than
merely to find ground for attacking pure and
successful politician. Judge Caskie's position
is simply this That, while he is opposed to the
passage of any bill for internal improvement
by the federal government, he claims for his
own State justice even under that unjust sys-
tenn. Had he pursued any other course, and
refused for himself and his constituents the
advantage which they might possibly derive
from inecita6le evil, he would find the true
parallel to his course in a certain Miss Nor
bid, who, as Hood tells us, studiously avoided
the use Of sugar, and denied it to her domestics
because it was the result Of the oppression of
the southern slave.
The true answer to oil Of these shallow OBJ
jections, which at last are only raised for home
consumption, is, in the nature of the oppos.
ton of our party to the principle itself What
is the practical objection to the disposition by
the Federal government of the public revenue
for purposes of internal improvement? Not
alone because no such power is granted in the
Constitution-we must look higher than that's
for we presume that if it had been necessary or
proper that the Federal government should ex.
ercise such function, the wise trainers of that
instrument would have provided means for its
exercise. The reason why it was not granted,
md therefore ,oas denied, is because of the
LANCER that such power being merely local in
its effects, would be partial in its exercise. In
other words, it was designed to prevent an un-
equal distribution of patronage. Hence it was
thought better that such powers should remain
vested in the States as the proper function Of
local government. Now, with this view of the
subject can there be anything more absurd
than for a representative 10 refuse to take ad-
vantage in behalf of his State Of any benefits
which he may derive from such bill. His in
dividual vote cannot defeat it. It's passage is
inevitable; and it becomes his imperative duty
to restore and maintain, as far as he can, the
proper equilibrium of Federal patronage. By
so doing, he carries out, in the only efficient
manner which is left, the design Of the Const-
tuition to prevent an unequal distribution of
patronage. 1t thus becomes, not only con.
sistent course Of conduct, but a constitutional
duty, if the evil should come to equalize the
benefits resulting from il, and thus secures as
far as possible, the integrity Of broken Con.
stitution.
These views acquit Judge Caskie Of the
charge of inconsistency in incorporating the
provision for the improvement of the James
river as an amendment to the bill. But the
local advantage thus derived by his constitu-
ents did not prevent him from stamping with
his decided disapprobation a measure which he
believed to be unconstitutional and unjust.
His vote is found recorded against bill which
was favorable to a portion of his constituents.
And herein he not only vindicates himself
from the malicious charge of his opponents, but
establishes for himself the reputation Of pure
and honest statesman.