The daily gazette., 1879-06-18
FIRST EDITION.
For the Gazette.
New York Letter.
NExv XnUH I,,po 1r 1910

deed are the liberties of the American
people in danger, and our representa-
tives-the CongreSs-must meet this
danger only to crush it out, or again
must the battles for freedom be fought
anew. The controversy batween the
Executive and Congress which has been
In progress for the past two months
savors most too much of the controversy
between the first Charles and Parlia-
ment and between the second James
and the Commons to be altogether
pleasant to the lovers of liberty. But if
the news of to-day from Washington is
reliable the language of President Hayes
reads more like quotation from a
Stuart than from the pen of a Presi-
dent of the United States. Said Charles
l., two hundred and eleven years ago, at
the opening of Parliament: "Every
man must do according to his conscience,
wherefore If you (Which God forbid)
should not do your duty in contributing
whatever the State at this time needs,
must, in discharge of my conscience,
Use the other means which God hath
put in my hands to save that which the
follies of some particular men would
otherwise hazard" Now the particular
thing in this case "which the follies of
some other men would hazard" was the
right Of the King to maintain All army,
that would be as bodily subjected to his
will either to fight his battles upon the
Continent, or to arrest and dimprison any
of his Objectionable subjects, but most
| especially to secure the election of a
Parliament, composed of only such men
| as lie or his Ministers might name. The
''duty" which he asked God to forbid
them from not doing was to vote money
for supplies without stint or without re-
stric ion to an army which he alone was
to absolutely control. If they rejected
to do this duty-that is to vote the ap-
preparations for the army and civil list
he declared she must, Ill discharge of
his conscience, use the other means
which God hath put in his hands," to do
what he, in his arrogant ignorance OF
| any other sentiment Of liberty, but the
| divine right of the Sovereign, to any lib
| erty, sensuality, debauchery, or despot-
ism, which his own arrogant nature
might conceive to be either proper or
pleasant. '.The other means which
God had put in his hands" were the col
lection of the revenue by the channels
already provided for OH the same system
of tariff that previous Pariaments had
enacted, and make such use of it as his
| arrogance may have conceived as his
duty.
Is there not a strong similarity be-
tween some of the language used in a
recent message of the President (by the
suflerance of an outraged people) of the
United States, to this speech of King
| Charles to his Parl ament, painful to the
minds ofthe libery-loving American peo-
pie? Let us see. Did not Mr.. Hayes
| inform Congress that it was their duty
| to vote supplies to the army, without
any reference to what use the army was
| to be put to. This was no more, no
| less than the "duty which King
| Charles asked God-and there is but
little doubt that he asked it sincerely,
and reverently, to forbid Parliament NOT
! to do. Parliament did not conceive itto
be their duty to vote the supplies. The
people of England did not conceive such
| to be the duty of Parliament, and now
after the brilliant sunshine of two CEN
turies free speech, free press, and fr9e-
dom of worship, no historian whose con-
trbutions to the literature of Republi-
| canism are esteemed as of value to the
world by advocates of Republican gov
| ernment expresses any other belief than
that Parliament proved their fitness to
govern, and their sympathy for freedom
when they refused to do what this King
claimed it was their duty TO do. By what
divinity does President Hayes possess
power to define "duty" better than this
King did?
| King Charles said he would resist with
all the means which God had put into his
hands. That was, that he would take
the money which had already been rails
ed and yet to be raised by the
regular governmental channels and
apply it to such uses as he might
conceive it be his duty to use it for
without any regard to what Parliament
might do in the matter. He believed
Parliament had the power to make ap-
preparations but none to withhold. Presi
dent Hayes, not possessing the boldness
of this King, but only his ideas of what
constitutes government, dares not say
he will take the other me ans, but he does
say that it will not avail anything il
Congress refuses to make appro-
priations without restrictions, as the
collections will 60 on, the esti-
mates have all been made for the
needs of the Department and the
money raised, and TO be raised
must be applied for the uses of these de.
partments. Congress is acknowledged
by him to possess the power to grant
supplies, but not to withhold them.
Has President Hayes been studying
King Charles, or is it only coinci
dence?
Charles spoke of the opposition to his
arrogant assumption Of heaven borI
powers, as "the follies of some particular
men," Sir Edward Coke, whose grea
talents shine to-day as brilliant as the
sun in the great constellation Of eminent
English jurists, Sir Thomas Wentworth
afterward the great Earl of Strafiord
John Pym ever ready to assume any re
sposibility when other men failed, tha
tended to promote the liberties Of thu
people, and John Hampden who gavt
! liberty to commerce, were the men WHOM
Charles alluded to when he spoke OF thu
follies of other men, President Haye
J that the conduct of the leaders of th'
Democratic party-the Cokes-the Pyns
, and the Hampdens of our time are no
only guilty of follies, but their follie
are revolutionary. Again does Presiden
Hayes reflect Charles Stuart-the mos
foolish king who ever sat on the thron'
of England?
. To quote from GuIzot's English Revo
lution:" "The King (The First Charles
assemble both bOnscs In solemn sit