The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-05-17

He would have had a president for
life-he is elected every four years.
He would have senators during good
oehavior-they serve a fixed and def
mite term of six years
He would have the executive armed
with an absolute veto-you can by two
thirds majority annul that veto.
He would have muzzled free speech
jefferson opened the deliberations of
did criticism of a free and untrammeled
press.
He defended the alien and sedition
laws-they are repealed
He founded national bank-it is
demolished.
"All his cherished and Wanted
schemes are gone gIimmering in the
dream of things that were exploded
fallacies, they litter the debris of his
tory
Il challenge the gentleman from
pennsylvania 10 give me one single
solitary policy of Hamilton which was
ever crystallized into law that lived.
His policies are gone. his followers are
dead. There are only left his apologists
and his eulogists.'
If jefferson had not come back from
France when he did il is more than
possible that the colonies would have
sought the protection of England, and
that would have resulted IN a return of
allegiance TO the British flag. When
the French revolution came il was
hailed with approval by the best of
the intellectual world, including Ed
mund Burke, Charles James Fox
Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine
II was the revolt of liberty against des-
potism. the lOng-delayed triumph of
light over darkness; but i'm the compen-
sations of human affairs the atrocities
of the Terror We're commensurate with
the centuries of enOTmities that privi-
lege had perpetrated in France, and
there was revulsion of public opinion.
Even Burke became the most fOrmid-
able of all the adVersaries OF the revo-
luton he had applauded. Hamilton
agreed with Burke, and so did a far
greater than HamiltOn-even George
Washington.
There was actual war between France
and the United States. and numerous
battles fought on the water between the
two powers. Washington was again ap-
pointed cOmmander-in-chief, and chose
Hamilton as his chief lieutenant. Eng
land and France were in a death gra p
pie. Had war been declared and Waged
for a year il is morally certain that
DiiilSu lulC NOulu nave lr-t0lduilHlltu
in our country, and by that act he
saved the Union.
Mr. Dalzell had the temerity to
challenge the conduct Of jefferson in
the acquisition of Louisiana and as
serted that the thing was accomplished
i'm spite of Jefferson. And now it was
that the Lord delivered the accom-
plished Pennsylvania into the hands
., 49,,
A. Douglas, i'm reply to Seward. did not
tower above his adversary more gigan-
tically than did Stanley over Dalzell.
1t was this part of the speech that
showed what a genius for research is
possessed by the gifted orator from the
Second Kentucky district. 1t is too
long TO quote. One must read it en-
tiTely to get a proper conception of it.
It is not at all remarkable that Mr.
DalZen was content TO allow that the
debate is a closed incident. Every in
telligent onlooker in our political Wen
ma should read Dalzell's speech and
then read Stanleys reply.
When Stanley came to discuss the
duel between Burr and Hamilton he
put an entirely new phase on the con-
troversy. Hamilton was a believer in
the code He was on the field as Lau-
rens' second in the duel with General
Charles Lee. He sought a quarrel with
John Adams that could have been set
tied, according to his ideas of personal
honor, only on the field. He challenged
James Monroe, and would have fought
him if Aaron Burr had not lent his
good offices and composed the differ
ences without a hostile meeting. On
the field of Weehawken, he delay the
giving of the word" till he COZ Id wipe
his glasses to make his vision clearer,
and yet We are told that his intention
was 10 fire i'm the air. For years he
had assailed Burr. and for years Burr
held his peace. HamiltOn's eulogists
tell us that he accepted Burr's call to
the field because the standards of those
days made il imperative that he should
do so. To that Stanley made this in
eXorable retOrt:
Il agree that we should not Judge the
duelist of that day by the standard of
this. But there is no logic by which
you can pardon the acceptor of a chal-
lenge and condemn the sender BY
that barbarous code he who was
charged with an Infamous offense
could not clear his skirts by proving
his falsity. To prove the charge false
and fail to resent it was to aggravate
the imputation of cowardice, i'm that
day than vice or crime. The same per-
verted public opinion which necessi-
tated the acceptance forced the send
ing of a challenge"
Could a retort be more conclusive?
If Hamilton was a martyr of the bar
barous code when he accepted, it nee
essary follows that Burr was also
martyr when 1t required him to send
the challenge.