New-York tribune., 1868-05-16
RHITHER KE TEND.

lowing private letter from Thomas Jefferson,
while President of the United States, to the
celebrated Edward Livingston, then holding
both the offices of U. S. District Attorney and
Mayor of this city
WASHINGTON, November l, 1901.
"DgAR SIR: some days ago received letter from
Messrs Dennston & Chetham, Of the most friendly kind,
asking the general grounds which the noie proSequ in
Duane case ought to be presented to the public, which
they proposed to do You are sensible must AVOID COM
mittng myself in that channel of justification, and that
were TO do in this case might be called on by other
printers in other cases where it might be nexpedien to
say anything Yet civil application, cannot
reconcile myself the iucyility OF giving no answer
have thought therefore OF laying your friendship under
contribution and asking you to take the trouble OF seeing
them and OF saying TO them that the question being in
the line Of the law had desired you to give them the
explanation necessary My text Of explanation would be
this The President is have the laws executed. He
may order an oense then to be- prosecuted If he sees
prosecution put which is not lawful he may
order it discontinued and put into legal train
found prosecution going against Duane for an oge'se
against me Senate, founded The Sediion aet AFFIRM
THAT ACT To BE 40 LAW BECAUSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE
CONSTITUTION, 1 SHALL TREAT 1T As NULLHf
WHEREVER 1T COMES IN THE WAY OF MY FUNCTIONS.
therefore directed that prosecution be discontinued dndd
us,, one 10 be commenced founded Vhdsoterer other tdr
p,ighi be erseee against the oense. This Tas done
and ire Grand JURY finding other tdo against a. de-
elned doing Gnythin0 under the b There appears to me
10 be no eak part any Of these positions or erenees
There is however in this application TO you to trouble
yourself with the question. For this owe apology and
build it your goodness and friendship Health and
happiness oaetepis Uoiis. TIL JEFFERSON
"EDwARD LIVINGSTON. esq"
This letter is brought forward in defense
of Andrew Johnson's usurpatiOns; and certainly
seems more to the purpose than most OF the
testimony which has been offered on that side.
Let us see precisely what the doctrine herein
asserted is, and what must be its tendency and
effect.
We have now Tariff which is Protective
in many of its features. We have able and
honored statesmen who sincerely believe-in
defiance of the fact that our first Tariff framed
and passed under the Federal Constitution ex-
pressly declared I" the Protection of Domestic
Manufactures to be one of its objects-that
Protective Duties are unconstitutional. Should
one of these be chosen President this Fall it
will become his duty-according to the theory
We are cOntesting-tO issue a circular, directly
on his Inauguration. directing the Collectors of
Customs to refrain from levying and collecting
all such Protective Duties, if not all the Du
ties imposed by that Tariff.
Mr.. Jefferson, it is well known regarded
the for anyl United States Bank as uncOnsti-
tutional. He ought, therefore, according to
the theory of the above letter, to have
directed his Collectors and Receivers of
Public Moneys to deposit no more Govern
ment funds in such Bank or any of its
branches. Nay: he should have removed the
Public Deposits therefrom, even though to
IL. h hoI hoo obi IN
Secretary of the Treasury and appoint
another Yet we all know that he continued
those Deposits in the U. s. Bank throughout
his eight years of power
Most of our Presidents have vetoed bills ex-
pressly as unwarranted by the Constitution
johnson has vetoed nearly all the important
bills passed under his Presidency. He ought,
therefore, according to this doctrine, To have
refused, from first to last, to enforce one of
these acts. Yet his apologists stoutly insist
that he has duly respected and enforced them.
Do they not thus prove him according to
their own theory recreant to his duty and
false TO the Constitution
We might dwell on this point, but we prefer
that each reader should revolve the matter in
his own mind. 1t will be seen that there is no
pretense of Difference to the Courts, even the
highest. The Supreme Court had affirmed the
constitutionaity the Sedition act when Mr..
Jefferson ordered his District Attorney to null
lily it. The Supreme Court, through the mouth
of Chief Justice Marshall, affirmed the validity
of our treaties with Indian tribes residing
within the limits Of States, and the consequent
right of those tribes to be governed by their
own laws, and not to have those of the States
extended over them. "Well," says President
Jackson, "John Marshall has made his decision
noc let him enforce itr This, of course, he
could not, and Jackson would not, do; so the
Indians were subjugated and driven from their
homes.
Our fathers intended to establish q govern
ment of the People through laws and adjudi-
cations. For this we are proffered in exchange
a government of Personal Win. The President
likes certain laws, and dislikes others. The
former he deems constitutional and enforces;
the latter are, in his view, unconstitutional: so
he nullifes and subverts them. How is such
government to be distinguished from an I'm |
perial DespOtismg
Sneal,ino of the misuse of the franking priv