0 141 6
1
• (rligiii
BY JAS. CLARK.
SPEECH OF THE
HON. J. M. CLAYTON,
thi the Presidential Question.
Mr. Foote having concluded an dab
orate address to the Senate against Gen.
Taylor, and .called upon the Whig Sen
ators, and especially the Senator from
belaware, to explain the principles upon
which Gen. Taylor was to be sustained
as a candidate for the Presidency :
Mr. Clayton rose to reply. Mr. Niles,
of Connecticut, immediately called Mr.
Cittyton to order, denying his right to
reply, as the whole subject introduced
by Mr. Foote Was irrelevant, and Mr.
Dallas; the Vice President, refusing to
hit any debate upon the call to order,
decided the debate to be out of order.
Aut the Senate, on a rote taken imme
diately alter this, gave leave to Mr.
Clayton to proceed, notwithstanding the
decision of the Vice President.
Mr: Clayton then addressed the Sem
ate as follows ;
The decision
.of the Chair was indeed
unpreCedented, and directly in opposi
tion to his own solemn decision on a
case similar to this, made by him only
a few weeks ago. Neither I nor my
friends originated this political debate.
We were content to leave General Cass
and General Taylor in the hands of the
people, and the Senate will unanimous
ly bear me witness, that I have never
introduced an irrelevant topic into any
debate here. The political friends of
the gentleman who occupies the chair
began this discussion. They attacked
General Taylor and his character, and
scoffed at his claim to the Presidency.
They were allowed to proceed without
interruption from the ('hair, through a
debate which extended through the
greater part of two days. The Vice
President was, by the rules of the Sen
ate, bound to call his own political
friends to order, if he thought the de
bate was out of order. Hut not a word
about order was heard from his lips till
I took the floor to reply, and then he ar
rested the debate, and put a seal upon
my lips. The Senator from Mississippi
had charged upon me and my friends
that we wished to evade the discussion
—that Gen. Taylor had no principles
which we dared to avow—and said that
he had, on consultation with his friends,
resolved to provoke us to a debate on
this subject, and to see that we should
"dodge no blows which in chivalry and
honesty we were bound to take ."He
even charged us with a design to pass
the resolution for a speedy adjournment
of Congress in order to avoid and dodge
this very dissussion. He went further,
sir. He called upon me personally to
meet him in debate on these questions.
Yet, after he had been permitted to in
dulge in this strain of attack on me and
my friends, his own party associates
seize the occasion, the moment I rise to
take up the glove he has thrown at my
feet, to dodge the encounter. These
are the circumstances under which
twenty-one Democratic Senators have
this day voted to deny me the freedom
of speech. They have a large party
majority, but such and so gross was the
injustice of this attempt to stifle a dis
cussion which they themselves provok
ed, that a majority of the Senate has
overruled their purpose ; and to that
majority, and especially to the chival-
Twig Senator from ilississippi, (Mr.
Foote,) who has expressed his own deep
sense of the injustice done, I tender my
thanks.
have already stated to the Senate
that I have no means of access to the
opinions of General Taylor which are
not in the possession of every member
of this body, and every citizen of the
country. Honoring his character, as I
sincerely do, I have never yet had the
pleasure of an introduction to that dis
tinguished man—l have never addressed
a letter to him in my life, nor received
one from him. I have formed my opin
ions of the principles of the man from
his writings and actions, and what any
other may have seen in the public prints.
To these means of information all have
equal access, and all can form an opin
ion as well as I can, on the whole sub
ject of debate.
I think it is also due to Gen Taylor to
say, in the outset, that the position
which he has assumed before the coun
try, as a candidate for the Presidency,
has been entirely misapprehended in the
course of this debate. He has been
held up here merely as a %% big candi
date, bound to sustain every \Vhig prin
ciple with which that party has ever
been identified. It has been alleged,
that he is bound to carry out all the dic
tates, and obey all the behests of a mere
party—that be runs merely as a party
man—that he is bound hand and foot
by party pledges—and, that he must
carry out at all hazards, and under all
changes of time and circumstances, ev
ery ancient known measure proposed by
the Whig party. Now, undoubtedly,
Gen. Taylor is a Whig, but I do not un
derstand him as occupying any such
position as that which I have just des
cribed. He, himself, has repudiated it
in every letter having reference to this
subject. It is true that he has been
nominated by the Whig party ; but it is
also tru#, N that he was originally nomina
ted by a meeting composed both of
Whigs and Democrats. Thousands of
Democrats had nominated him for the
Presidency before he was nominated by
the Whig party. Naturalized citizens
and Native Americans, in all sections of
the country had nominated him before
lie received the nomination of the Phil
adelphia convention.—And now, "the
great objection urged against him is,
that the Whig patty of the Union has
confirmed the nomination which Gen.
Taylor had previously received. He
was nominated by the Whig Convention
at Philadelphia, with the assurance that
lie was aNA hig. In every letter that he
wrote on that subject, lie declared that he
was a whig, but he uniformly took the
bold and manly ground, that if elected
President of the United States, he should
not consider himself the mere servant
or tool of a party, not even of the party
to which he had been attached, but that
he should be the President of the Amer
ican people. Under these circumstan
ces, the honorable gentleman front Mis
sissippi can find no difficulty in answer
ing the questions which he has propoun
ded with regard to the principles of
Gen. Taylor. If he will examine the
principal letter which Gen. Taylor has
written with reference to this subject,
the letter to Capt. Allison, he will see
the ground on which he places himself
as a candidate before the American peo
ple. Before I proceed further, permit
me to read the following extract from
that letter :
‘ , l3.vroN ROUGE, April 22, 1818
„ First.-1 reiterate what I have often said—
lam a Whig, but not an ultra Whig. If elected
I would not be the mere President of a party.
I would endeavor to act independent of party
domination. I should feel bound to administer
the Government untrammeled by party schenies.
“Second.—The veto power. The power giv
en by the Constitution to the Executive to in
terpose his veto, is a high conservative power ;
but in my opinion should never be exercised ex
cept in cases of clear violation of the Constitu
tion, or manifest haste and want of consideration
by Congress.—lndeed I have thought that for
many years past the known opinions and wishes
of the Executive have exercised undue and in
jurious influence upon the legislative department
of the Government ; and for this cause I have
thought our system was in danger of nndergo
ing a great change from its true theory. The
personal opinions of the individual who may
happen to occupy the Executive chair, ought not
to control the action of Congress upon questions
of domestic policy ; nor ought his objections to
be interposed where questions of constitutional
power have been settled by the various depart
ments of Government, and acquiesced in by the
People.
Third.—Upon the subject of the tariff, the
currency, the improvement of our great high.
' ways, rivers, lakes and harbors, the will of the
people, as expressed through their representa
tives in Congress, ought to be respected and car
ried out by the Executive.
“Fourtle.—The Mexican war. I sincerely
rejoice at the prospect of peace. My life has
been devoted to arms, yet I look upon war at
all times, and under all circumstances, as a na
tional calamity, to be avoided if compatible
with national honor. The principles of our
Government as well as its true policy, are op
posed to the subjugation of other nations and
the dismemberment of other countries by con
quest. in the language of the great Washing
ton, 'Why should we quit our own to stand on
foreign ground.' In the Mexican war our na
tional honor has been vindicated, amply vindi
cated ; and, in dictating terms of peace, we may
well afford to be forbearing, cud even magnani
mous to our fallen foe.”
Gen. Taylor, then, stands before the
country not merely as a Whig, but as
THE GREAT REPRESENTATIVE
AND CHAMPION OF THE PRINCI
PLE OF 'THE RIGHT OF MAN TO
SELF-GOVERNMENT. He maintains
the principle that the majority have the
right to govern. He stands precisely
upon the ground on which Thomas Jef
ferson originally made a party differ
ence with John Adams. Let me quote
a passage from the letter of Thomas
Jefferson to John Adams, stating the
grounds on which the Republican party
of 1798 commenced its opposition to the
encroachments of the Executive power,
and to which it owed its true origin. In
the 4th volume of Jefferson's Memoirs,
page 202, we find the letter to which I
refer. It is dated June 27, 1813, and
contains the following passages :
, ‘The terms of Whig and Tory be
long to national as well as civil history.
They denote the temper and constitution
of mind of different individuals. To
come to our own country and to the
times when you and I became first ac
quainted ; we well remember the vio
lent parties which agitated the old Con
gress, and their bitter contests.—There
you and I were arrayed together ; oth
ers cherished the MONARCHY of England,
and we the rights of our country.
"But as soon ns the Constitution was
put into motion, the line of division was
again drawn.—We broke into two par-
ties, each wishing to give the Govern•
HUNTINGDON, PA., TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, I`B/.
ment a different direction ; THE ONE
(the Republican party,) TO STRENGTH
EN THE MOST POPULAR BRANCH,
PCongress,) THE OTHER THE MORE
ERMANENT BRANCHES, AND TO
EXTEND THEIR PERMANENCE.
Here you and I seperated for the first
time, and one party placed your name at
their head—the other selected mine."
Precisely upon that principle, Lew
is Cass and General Zachary Taylor
now differ, and stand at issue before the
country. Gen. Taylor places himself
upon this just principle, laying at the
foundation of all republican forms of
Government—the right of the majority
to govern. He holds that the popular
branch of the government possesses
rights, and that he, if elected President,
would be bound to respect them. He
says, therefore, in reference to all these
great questions which have heretofore
agitated the country, and which are
properly within the powers of Congress,
that he will be guided by the will of the
people, as expressed by their Represen
tatives. On the other hand, what says
Gen. LewiVass 1 He denies that the
will of the people shall govern. He
maintains the high federal doctrines of
ancient days, that the President of the
United States, with his veto power shall
control the will of the people. He
stands up as the champion of Executive
power, and has received his nomination
from a party convention, under circum
stances which I think, when carefully
examined by the American people, will
seal his fate as a candidate before them.
What were these circumstances 1 The
very first rule adopted by the conven
tion asssembled at Baltimore was, that
the will of the majority should not gov
ern—that the vote of two-thirds should
be necessary to nominate the President.
They have laid down that doctrine be
fore on a memorable occasion. I refer
to the Baltimore nomination in 1844.
IThe result reminds me of one of those
games at cards which is called "Soli
taire," in which you know a man plays
against himself. Did you ever see a
man sit down to play that game who did
not cheat himself 1 The democratic
leaders, on this occasion, undertook to
play "Solitaire"—the Whigs were not
present to be cheated—and the very
I fist net or decree was one Amounting,
in my judgment, to a most flagitous
fraud, not only upon the country, but
upon the party itself. It ordained that
the will of the people should not govern,
and that no man should be nominated ,
for the Presidency ' without the vote of
two-thirds of that convention. Well,
now, what must be—(every body knows
what was the consequence in this case)
—the necessary consequence of the es
tablishment of such a principle by any
party I We can all very well estimate
the power of one hundred thousand
office-holders, many of them anxious to
perpetuate their dynasty. They can
pack a Democratic convention with more
than one-third of its members, though
they might not be able to control a ma
jority. They can send on their rela
tions, their friends and dependants, as
delegates, and, under the operation of
this two-thirds rule, govern the conven
tion. It was so on this occasion. All
the gentlemen who composed the con
vention went to Baltimore, bound to
nominate some candidate for the Presi
dency. To fail to nominate by a con
vention would be to dissolve the party.
They Were compelled, therefore, to make
a nomination, and when they entered
the convention, they were met with a
rule declaring that the vote of •two
thirds wits necessary to nominaie their
Democratic candidate for the Presiden
cy. They knew that within the walls
of the convention there stood a packed
minority, of more than one-third, rep
resenting the office-holders of the conn
try, who could veto or negative the nein ,
ination of any man not subservient to
their views, or who would not perpetu
ate their dynasty and continue them and
their friends in office. The candidates
all understood this beforehand, and on
such occasions he who makes the most
satisfactory bargain with this clique or
faction—constituting more than one
third,but not one-half of the convention,is
sure to receive the nomination. No oth
er man can get it. I say again, every
candidate understood this, and every
future candidate will, in all future Dem
ocratic canventions, understand it-
Each of them will knots it is impossi
ble for him to procure the nomination
unless lie can secure the services of
those who come there for the purpose
of sustaining themnelves in office. He
is bound then to lend himself to all their
views. If they desire to establish a
platform of political faith, he must sub
scribe to it: He has no option. He
must either relinquish all hope of the
nomination, or subscribe to every dog
ma that this clique may choose to lay
down. Under these circumstances, I
ask, what is the inevitable tendency of
the party which has nominated General
Lewis Cass '1 Does it not directly tend
to the rule of a (mover the ninny, end e ,
ventually to a monarchy'? It tends to the
establishment, in the first instance, of
an oligarchy, or an aristocracy of office
holders--able to dictate the nomination
of any man they please. They have a
veto on the acts of the convention as
absolute and effectual as that which the
President of the United States, whom
they may nominate and elect under the
magic name of Democrat, may have
upon•the laws of Congress and the will
of the people.
Undoubtedly the great mass of the
Democratic party is honest and patriot
'
' lc. We who are Whigs, and opposed
to them in politics, are entitled to a free
exyression of their opinion in making a
party nomination ; and Whigs, as well
as Democrats are defrauded by this po
litical ledgerdemain—this hocus pocus,
introduced by some political magicians
into that party within a few years past,
which compels that party to accept a
nomination made and forced upon them
by the minority. Such were the cir
cumstances, such was the fraud, such
was the established rule and iron law
under which Gen. Cass received his
nomination.
Let us inquire, in connection with
this, what are some of the other dec•
trines of the party to which Gen. Cass
has been compelled to subscribe. Among
other things, there stands prominently
the assertion of the great right and du
ty of the President of the United States
to exercise the Veto Power, without ref•
erence to the limitations prescribed by
the fathers of the constitution. Every
one who has perused the "Federalist"
knows that Mr. Madison and his asso
ciates uniformly maintained, that the
great object of the veto was to enable
the Executive of the United States to
defend the Constitution and the Execu
tive power within its limits. No man
of their day pretended it was designed
that the veto power should be extended,
as it luts been, to every net of ordinary
legislation, and every instance in which
a party might by the aid of it elevate or
sustain itself against the interests of the
whole country. It never was imagined
by any member of the convention which
formed the Constitution that the veto
clause in that instrument could be so
construed by the most latitudinarian ex
positor, as that the President of the
United States should be enabled, by the
force of that clause, to become a part of
the legislative power of the country.
Now, however, you find th. doctrine
laid down by this party boldly in their
public prints, that the President con
stitutes a part of the legislative power
of the country and that the veto power
is unlimited, and was so intended to be
by those who made the Constitution.
Let me call the attention of the Senate
to a consideration of the principles upon
which this veto power was asserted in
the American Constitution. 'rite first
sentence of the Constitution declares
that "all legislative powers herein
granted shall be vested in the Sen
ate and House of Representatives."
No part of the legislative power is given
to the President of the U. States. In the
judgment of the fathers of the Repub.
lie the Executive power constituted an
essential component part of the legisla
tive power. A qualified pOwer or revi
vision was given to him, but it never
was intended that he should exescise
any legislative power. In order that
we may understand this subject, which
enters largely into the great questions
now before us, let me read a portion of
the debate on the adoption of the Con
stitution. lam particularly desirous of
the attention of the Senate to this point
because I wish it to see by whom these
extreme notions in relation to the veto
power wore originally advanced. Du•
ring this session of Congress, we have
heard the honorable Senator from Ohio,
(Mr. Allen,) utter very strong denunci
ations against Colonel Hamilton as the
intentional advocate of kingly and mon
archial doctrines; (Ind rt traitor to the
cause of liberty. Ido ndt stand here
for the purpose of branding one of the
greatest men the country ever produeed
with ignominious charges—but 1 desire
to show that the great leader of the
Federal party when this subject was first
first presented to the consideration of the
old Continental Congress, was the very
man to press this veto power upon the
convention, and to insist upon its being
made absolute and unqualified. In Mad
ison's state papers, page 151, we read :
"Mr. Gerry's proposition being now before
the committee, Mr. Wilson, (then called a 'con
solidation federalist,') and Mr. Hamilton moved
that the last part of it be struck out, so as to
give the Executive an absolute negative on the
laws. There was no danger, they thought, of
such a power being too much exercised. It was
mentioned by Colonel Hamilton, the King of
Great Britain had not exerted his negative since
the Revolution." (i. e. 1688.)
That is the argument in favor of the
absolute veto made by one Who has
been represented in this chamber, as
the great aristocrat and monnrchilt of
that day. Mr. Gerry, a Democrat of
that day—
Mr. MANGUM, (in his seat.) Re•
publican.
Mr. CLAYTON.—I thank my friend
for the word. Republican is a mach
better name,
"Mr. Gerry said he saw no necessity for so
great a control over the legislature, as the best
men in the country would be comprised in the
two branches of it.
"Dr. VitAxstix said, he was sorry to ditibr
from his colleague, for whom he had a very
great respect, on any occasion, but he could not
help it on this. He had had some experience of
this check in the executive on the legislature,
under the proprietary government of Pennsyl
vania. The negative of the Governor was con
stantly made use of to extort money. No good
law whatever could be passed w•ithouta private
bargain with him • ' If the executive was to
have a council, such a power would be less ob
jectionable. It was true, the King of Great
Britain had not, as was said, exerted his nega
tive since the revolution ; but that matter was
easily explained. The bribes and emoluments
now given to the members of Parliament render
it unnecessary, every thing being done accord
ing to the will of the ministers. He was afraid,
if a negative should be given as proposed, the
more power and money would be demanded, till
at last enough would be got to influence and
bribe the legislature into a complete subjection
to the will of the executive."
Then comes the Republican shoema
ker, Roger Sherman. What did he sayl
"Mr. SIISASIAN was against enabling any one
man to step the will of thewhole. No one man
could be Mini so far above all the rest in wis
dom. Re thought we ought to avail ourselves
of his Wisdom in revising the laws, butnot per
mit him to overrule the decided and cool opin
ions of the legislature."
Mr. Wilson said in his speech for the veto,
"there might be tempestuous mdments in which
animosities may run high between {he execllti+6
and legislative branches, and in. which tile for-
Ines ought to be able to defend itself."
"Mr. BvrLen had been in favor of a single
executive magistrate ; but could he have enter
tained an idea that a complete negative on the
laws WAS to be given him, he certainly should
have acted very differently. It had been ob
served, that in all countries the executive pow
er is in constant course of increase. This was
certainly the case in Great Britain. Gentlemen'
seemed to think that we had nothing to appre
hend from an abuse of the executive power.
But why might not a Cataline or Cromwell arise
in this country as well as in others !"
"Mr. BEDFORD, of Delaware, was opposed to
every cheek on the legislature, even the council
or revision first proposed. He thought it would
be sufficient to mark out in the Constitution the
boundaries to the legislative authority, which
would give all the requisite security to the rights
of the other departments. The representatives
of the people were the best judges of what was
for their interest, and ought to be under no ex
ternal
, 1
control whatever. The two branches
would produce a sufficient control within the
legislature itself."
"Col. Meson observed, that a vote had alrea
dy passed, he found , --he was out at the time ;
for vesting the executive power in a single per
son. Among these powers was that of appoint
ing to offices in certain eases. The probable
abuses of a negative had been well explained by
Dr. Franklin, as proved by experience, the best
of all tests. Will not the same door be opened
here 1 The executive may refuse its assent to
necessary measures, till new appointments shall
be referred to him, and, having by degrees en
grossed all these into his n }digs, the Anieri
can executive, like the British, will, by bribery
and influence, save himself the trouble and
odium of exerting his negative afterwards. We
are, Mr. Chairman, going very far into this
business. We are not indeed constituting
British government, but a more dangerous mon
archy—an elective one. We are inducing a new
principle into our system, and not necessary, as
in the British Government, where the executive
has greater right to defend. Do gentlemen
mean to pave the way to hereditary monarchy
Do they flatter themselves that the people will
ever consent to such an innovation 1 If they
do I venture to tell them they are mistaken.
The people never will consent. And do gen
tlemen consider the danger of delay, and the
still greater danger of rejection, not for a mo
ment, but foreder,of the plan which shall be
proposed to Die? Notwithstanding the dp
pression and injustice experienced among us
from democracy, the genius of the people is in
favor of it, and the genius of the people must
he consulted. Ile could not but consider the
federal system as in effect dissolved by the ap
pointment of this bonVention ai•Sise lidtet
one. And do gentlemen look forward to the
dangerous interval between the extinction of an
old, and the establishment Of a new government,
and to the scenes of confusion which may ensue?
He hoped that nothing like a monarchy would
ever be attempted in this country. A 'litre(' VI
its oppressions had carried the people through
the late revolution. Will it not be enough to
enable the executive to suspend offensive laws,
till they shall be cooly revised, and the objec
tions to them overruled by a greater majority
than was required in the first instance ? He
never could agree to give tip all the rights of
the people to a single magistrate. If more than
one had- been fixed on, greater powers might
have been intrusted to the executive. lie hoped
this attempt to give such powers would have Its
weight hereafter, as an argUmeni for increasing
the number of the executive."
After this, Or: Franklin again spoke
itgainsf the veto power, treating this
questititi its if it, involved that of mon•
archy or republicanism ; and tine pas
tsage of his speed' contains a prophecy
so remarkable that I must read it to the
Senate :
•
"The first man put at the helm (of party) will
be a good one. Nobody knows what sort may
come afterwards. The executive will be al,
ways increasing here, as elsewhere, TILL IT
ENIS IN A MONARCHY."
Thus, then, it appears that the opin
ion of six out of nine vho participated
in the debate, was that an absolute and
unqualified veto would introduce a great
moorarchical feature in our free institu
tions ; in other words, that the Exe6u
' tive would be converted into a monarth
VOL. XIII; NO, 8a
. . ,
by Its adoption. :That seas the opinion
of ,Franitlin, of Meson,, of Sherman, of.
Bedford, of all except the ultra Federal
ists of the day. Now, where are we I,
What is the party which now maintains
this. ultra veto powec,l, The putt tat.
arrogates to itself 'the titiffte• tff. .Defno
crntic I Thnt is the party which places.
in the foreground of its political plat
form, the doctrine of the absolute and
unqualified exercise, 4f. the tcto,petiver.,
That is the party which sustained the.
absolute and unqualified veto on the
land hill in 1833. That bill to distrib
ute the nett proceeds of all the public'
lands among the States, which pa,lied
both Houses in March, iiM, *as ii,bill •
which would have given the People of
each State in this Union the means of
educating all their children without tax..
ation, and of improving their, harbors'.
and rivers. These funds have heen since.
wasted upon land-jobbers & tinny faVor
ites, on Government contractors and
office-holders, ti not a dollar of all these
unnumbered millions have been given
to those who owned them, as rightfully
as any man on earth, ever owned his
own house. By an absolute veto--..a .
pocket veto"—a vile trick and a fraud
open the peeple and their Representa
tives, this bill was defeated after the .
Bepresriitatives of the nation had pass
,ed it by yeas 95, nays 40—more than
two:thirds ! The bill passed within the
last ten days of the session, as three
fourths of all the laws of Congress aP
ways have, and always will pass. Ex
perience shows us that the labor§ Or
clingress are consuinfnated within the
I t ten days of each session, and that
ii Which have bec fi discussed or ma-.
ti for months are generally signed at
th lose of the session. lf, therefore,
th resident can, for the want of ten
days, ieithlit whitli the Constitution al
,' lows him to' retain ri bill for his signs-,
ture, withhold his sanction and refuse to
return the bill, lie can defeat it; although
two-thirds of each branch should he dis
posed to pass it as the constitution, au•
thorizes them to do. The Senate, ii.{:
well as the House, in March, 1833, stood
ready to annul the veto on the land bill.
—The Senators from North and South
Carolina, (Mr. Marmon and Mr. CAW,
nouN,) as well as myself were present
at the time in the Senate, and we are
all here now ready to attest this to be
erne, •
t,f a trelitEn't Oitttiiiiiif hiittitt,f6tOr:
ffintiOti of the spirit of the Seriate .
I .
against his veto power, and pocketed
' the bill, in defiance of the whole spirit
Of the Constitution. This was a gross,
ease of the exerthe of the absolute and,
unqualified veto, Wlijeli has never been.
condemned, but alWays approved, by ;
your pseudo democra i sy ;*jittid is a fatal
precedent, which may viaudity annul
the whole power of .C,oneess: The un
qualified rule or power of revision rec
ognized by the Constitution, subject to•
the Will of iiio.thirds of each branch of
Congress, has been exercised in the Ca:
see of the bill to pay the interest due
the States for expenditures in the last
war, the various bills for improvement
Of rifera ttnd hdrbors, the bill triiiichar
ter the Bank, the bill, td,e'qedllie the
sessions of CongreiS, the Frefieh spoihi
tion bill; - and in so many ether eases that
it is difficult to enunierate them! These
vetoes have been sustained by Execuz
tive influence. Congress hai fallen be
neath the Executive arm, strengthened
as that is; and always will be, by a ye
nil and subseri'ient press and the ready
aid of the Post-Office Department, with
a hundred thousand office-holders; Hitifiy
of whom will always “Crook the preg
nant hinges of the Ttriee where thrift
may follow fawning." This *hole veto
power, as thus exercised, is now Sus;
tamed by the Baltimore platform, and
promptly adopted by Gen. Cass, in his
acceptance of the Baltimore nomination.
It is part of his established creed.
On the other hand how stands the
man we support on this great and vital
subject"! He denounces the kidgly pow
er—the power for the exercise of *hich
a Stuart and a Bourben lost their heads
—confides the eet6 tti the Cases in *hick
the fathers of the. Republic intended it
to he exercised. He treats it as a "high
conservative power." So did they.
They declared by their etpoiition in the
"Federalist," thtit tts thief objeot was
"to enable the executiVe to defend him
self when attacked." They meant it to be .
a shield not a sword: "In my opinion,"
says Gen. Taylor in his letter to Capt.
Allison, "it should never be exercised'
except in casts clearly in violation of
the Constitution, or of manifest haste:
and want of consideration by contra's,"
HO modestly adds, " Indeed r likye'
thought that for many years paet,' thee
known opinions and *itches of the il:
ecutive !lab(' exercised undue and 1111,ii:
riourinfluenee upon the legislatibediz
par , l.ment of the Government: a*d frost
this :cause I have thought our syst.ns was
LCONTINLED ON 101.1tTli rAGE.I