The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-11-21
The Radical Monarchy Men.

ETOf1 inc ~. = WOTCts
els it possible for the Tribune to argue hon
estly 1t lodges but never meets an issue.
The Democratic dislike of Hamilton was
founded upon something. What? Personal
feeling No. A want of appreciation of his
wonderful intellect No. A belief OF want Of
patriotism? No. What then A conviction
that he did not feel that the ordinary obga-
tiOp of bargain in private life applied to
political bargain. Mr.. Stewards "bigher law"
is a modern expression OF Mr.. Hamilton's
political creed.
Let us take the case of bank Of the United
States A power to incorporate corporations
was sought in the Convention to be given to
Congress. 1t was denied. A power to emit
bills of credit and make them a legal tender
was also sought to be given. 1t was denied by
nine States to two A power TO emit bills of
credit without the legal terder clause was
equally denied, with the avowed object to lock
and bar the door against paper money. The
ratification of the Constitution was opposed
10y all the paper money men, because it was
understood to exclude the Federal Govern
ment from becoming the tool of spectators.
One of the early measures of Haull ton was q
paper. money machine. Hamilton was the
great leader of that party which proposed to
make the Constitution piece OF putty in the
hands of a majority. His own justification
was this:-''The Federal system is poor,
own weight unless prOPped and buttressed
1t is the duty of a patriot to prop and buttress
ito do for the United States what the United
States had not the wisdom to do for them
selves"
What Hamilton thought he said; therefore
lie was frank. That Hamilton was trusted
and relied on by Washington is true; the
habit was an old one. That Washington at
one time felt that the true guide in our Gov
ernment was experiment, not bargain is also
true. But that Washington learned wisdom
by experience is also true; and his Farewell
Address warned his couutrymen against at
temp's to change the Constitution, for even
the best object by irregular means.
The difference between Mr.. Jefferson aud
Mr.. Hamilton was simply this:-JeffsrsOu
said, this Government may be bad or may be
good, weak, or strong; it is my duty to ad-
minister it only. If it is insufficient, the
defects must be corrected under its amend
ment power if il cannot stand till then, it
must tumble down. | have no right to make
myself one of a committee of public safety.
Experience has shown that the plainly
written powers are ample, that bank is not
necessary, that paper currency is not neces-
sary, and that every attempt to make a new
general government is attended with dangers.
Mr.. Greeley has been all his life engaged in
attempting to abridge the liberties of his fel
low -oitizens and make redistribution of pro-
perty; yet Mr.. Greeley would not steal, nor
cheat an individual. Mr.. Greeley has frankly
avowed his objects. To his mind political
honesty and private honesty must be different
things. So they were in Hamilton's. They
are MT in ours. That is the reason why the
II orId is Democratic and the Tribune Rspubli.
CAM that is the reason why We revere JsGer
son, and Mr.. Greeley, Hamilton. But about
Hamilton being victim TO Democratic envy
and haGed-can the Tribune pettifog on tha
DOiut