The pilot. [volume], April 17, 1840, Image 1

About The pilot. [volume] (Baltimore [Md.]) 1840-1840

Image provided by: University of Maryland, College Park, MD

                
Vol. 1.
THE PILOT,
EDITED T
UUFF GREEN.
Jmiblu.hedatNo. 11, Waterst. Baltimore, nearly opposite
r Cheupside.
TERMS.—DaiIy, at Six Dollars per annum, or Twelve and
an half Cents per week, payable to the cameis.
Coantry, Five Dollars per annum, payable in advance.
Extra, in pamphlet form and double Royal size, at One
Dollar, for twentv-five numbeis.
' TEEMS OE ADVERTISING.
1 square 1 insertion, $0 50 1 square 1 mouth $4 00
1 do. 2 do. 075 1 do. 2 months 700
| ,|o. 3 do. 100 1 do. 3 do. 000
1 do. 1 week, 175 1 do. 6 do. 16 00
1 do. 2 do. 275 1 square per year, $3O 00
Cards of two lines only, §S par annum, m advance.
fig-Ten lines, or less, make a square, if an advertisement
exceeds ten lines, the price will be in proportion. All .idvcr
,tecmeats are payable at the time of their insertion, except
vcarlies, which are payable quarterly in advance. All adver
tisements ordered in till forbid, will be charged fifty cents for
each subsequent insertion.
Extract from Mr. Hives's letter.
Let us now enquire whether the Pre
sident has changed his policy or practice
on any of these highly important ques
tions, on which we have differed with him.
Some of his noisy partizans have claimed
for him great credit for the lavish profes
sions of economy he makes in his late
message to Congress. But what has been
the practice, whicli we are much more in
terested in knowing than the empty pre
cepts of his administration? According
to his own statement, the public expen
diture during the year 1837, the first of
his presidency, amounted to "the sum of
thirty-three millions of dollars," —during
the year IS3B, he says this amount 'was
somewhat reduced, —and for the year 18-
39, he thinks that the public expenditure
'will not in all probability have exceeded
twenty-six millions of dollars!' But this
sum of twenty-six millions of dollars hap
pens to be just the double of the public
expenditure under -the administration of
Mr. John Q Adams which most of us
thought was so enormous and unjustifia
ble as to merit the displeasure and rebuke
of the people. What, however, are we
to think of the President's promise of
'continued reduction' of the public ex
pense- when we find on the very same
page of his message, the most earnest re
commendation by him to the favorable
consideration of Congress, of a plan of
the Secretary of War for recruiting a mili
tia army of two hundred thousand men,
one half to be in actual service, the other
half to form a 'reserve' —the term of ser
vice to be eight years, —the troops to be
armed and equipped and paid by the Uni
ted States according to a rate of compen
sation to be fixed by law,' but in other re
spects to be under the 'regulation' of the
War Department? The annual cost of
such a force, according to any conception
I can form of the Secretary's plan, under
the outlines he has given of it, could not
fail to add many millions to the public
burthens. I now speak only of the ques
of expense; but in other aspects this most
extraordinary project, emphatically en
dorsed as it is by the President, for, in his
Message to Congress, he says, 'I cannot
recommend it too strong to your conside
ration,'deserves the most serious reflec
tion of every friend to the public liberty.
Is not this militia force, as the Secreta
ry chooses to call it, or the one half of it,
at least, which is to be 'in active service,'
—'recruited for eight years,'—sanctioned
wherever the Secretary of War shall di
rect, —'armed and paid' by the U. States,
and to all intents and purposes, a stand
ing army and denominated a militia force,
only to avoid the instinctive jeealousies
which the name of a standing army calls
up in the mind of every freeman. Can
such a force be called militia in the sense
of the Virginia Bill of rights, which de
clares that 'a well regulated militia, corn
posed of the body of the people, trained
to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe
/ defence of a free State,' or in the sense of
the Constitution of the United States
which authorises Congress 'to provide
for calling forth the militia to execute the
laws of the Union, suppress insurrections
and repal invasions.' Is there at this
moment, insurrection, invasion, or resis
tance to the laws of the Union, which
would justify calling forth the militia into
'actual service,' or if they were, would it
justify embodying them as 'recruits,' for
eight years' term of service? No such
constitutional exigency exists or is alleged;
and I can view the Secretary's plan in no
other light than as a proposition for rais
ing a large standing army, without en
countering the well-founded Republican
jealousies which its name excites; or o
therwise, as a most ingenuous device for
extending the influence of the Federal
Executive, by setting apart from the mass
of the people two hundred thousand vo
ting not fighting men, receiving pay from
the United States as militia 'in actual ser-
THE: PILOT.
vice,' and looking up to the President as I
'their commander-in-Chief' as the Consti
tution, in that case, provides and directs, j
I know of but one precedent for so pro- j
found a contrivance, and that was in the I
days of the 'English commonwealth,' so j
called, when that wily statesman, Oliver
Cromwell, divided the kingdom into
'twelve military jurisdictions,' just as the
Secretary now proposes to divide the Uni- j
ted States into 'eight military districtsj'and j
under cover of organizing the militia, ,
caused them to be 'enlisted,' or recruited j
under the proper officers, and regular pay j
distributed among them; which, the histo- j
rian says, the Lord Proctor found to be {
a most effectual, resource' for repressing
his political enemies, but which all reas
onable men considered 'as throwing aside
the mask of liberty,' and parcelling out the
people in so many sub-divisions of slave
ry.' 1 have no disposition to question
the originality of the Secretary, but insin
uating that he may have derived the hint
of his plan from so celebrated an author
ily: . ....
Let us now see what are the public j
principles and opinions, the life and char- ,
acter, of Gen. Harrison, the sole oppo !
sing candidate for the Presidency, and if
they do not present a better guarantee for
the safe republican administration of the
government. It has been the singular for
tune of Gen. Harrison to have been more
misrepresented and consequently misun
derstood, particularly in his native State, j
than any other distinguished citizen ofj
our country. The reason of this is, doubt- [
less, to be found in the circumstances that
for the last twelve years of his life he has
been withdrawn from the scenes of active
political employment, and that, while his
name was before the country for the last
Presidency, exposing him of course, to
much denunciation and misrepresentation
from his political adversaries, the attention
of the opposition party of the south was
mainly directed to a distinguished citizen
of their own section, so that there A\as no
party interest felt at that time in the south
in detecting and exposing the numerous |
and gross misrepresentations of which he:
was made the subject by an unscrupulous |
press. From this state of things it has a-;
risen, that in the south generally, and in
Virginia particularly, the most unfounded
charges have been widely propagated in
regard to his public principles and con
duct, and 'till lately without efficient con
tradiction and exposure—thus imposing
on many good citizens, who will be ea
ger to repair the injustice they have done
him. The most prominent of the charges,
which is still wantonly repeated, is that
Gen. Harrison is an abolitionist. I have
recently investigated with care, all the ev
idences of his principles and conduct on
this, as well as other important public
questions, and I am convinced that if there
be one man who has entitled himself to
the gratitude of the south beyond all oth
ers, by the noble and disinterested zeal he
has at all times manifested, the sacrifices
he has feely made, the single heartedness
with which he has exposed himself to per
secution and political proscription in de
fence of the constitutional rights of the
south, and the peace and safety of their
fire sides, against all interference whether
of fanaticism or political ambition, that
man is William Henry Harrison, of Ohio.
You have doubtless read the speech
made by him at Vincennes in the State of
Indiana, in 18-35, in which, in the face of
a non-slave holding audience, he gallant
ly volunteered to defend the rights and in
terests of the south, Where can be found
even in the productions of any Southern
statesman, a more energetic and unspar
ing denunciation of the schemes of the
abolitionits? He pronounces them to be
"weak, presumptuous and unconstitu-j
liuiial'—'illegal, persecuting and dan- j
gerous," and after depicting in glo
wing language the jfatal consequen
es to which they must lead, he calls
upon his audience with indigaant earnest
ness, to 'frown upon measures which |
are to be deprecated." He lays down in !
the broadest and most uuequivocal terms, I
the fundamental principle that the subject
of slavery is under the sole and exclusive |
jurisdiction of the states in which it exists, j
that neither the general government norj
the non-slave holding- states have any j
right whatever to interfere with it; and he
moreover contends that discussions upon
the subject in the non-slave holding states!
tending in their consequences, as they do,
to jeopard the peace and impair the rights ;
of the slave holding states, are an abuse
of the freedom of speech and of the press,
in violation of the spirit and prevading de-
"POWER IS ALWAYS STEALING FROM THE MANY TO THE FEW."
ItAIiTIIOUE, FRIDAY) APRIL 17, 1840
sign of the Constitution. The same de-1
claratiotis were made by him, and with
greater emphasis, if possible, in an address
delivered to an assembly of his fellow ci
tizens at Cheviot in Ohio, on the 4th ol
July, I83S; from which an insolated pas
sage, (in which the author admitting sla
very to be an evil, says he would gladly
see the surplus revonce ol the Union de
voted to its progressive extinction in the
purchase and colonization of the slaves,
"with the sanction of the states holding
(Item,) has been artfully culled, and given
to the public, carefully suppressing the
context, in which Gen. Harrison main
tains, in the strong language I .am about
to cite, that "the slave population is un
der the exclusive control of the states
which possess them," and that "neither
the general government nor the non-slave
holding states can interfere in any way,
with the right of property in slaves," and
at the same time denounces the schemes
of the abolitionist as fraught with "horrors,
upon which an incarnate devil only could
look with approbation."
But even if the incidental and abstract
suggestion above noticed in the Cheviot
speech of Gen. Harrison were to be look
ed at, disconnected from its context, how %
ever we might differ from him both as to
its practicability and some of the princi
ples involved, justice and candor would
still require us to bear in mind that, but a
few years ago similar sentiments were
freely expressed both by the press and
public councils of Virginia, and that a
plan for effecting the same object, almost
identical with that thrown out by Gen.
Harrison was developed and earnestly ad
vocated by Mr. Jefforson, in a letter ad
dressed by him during the last years of his
life to Mr. Sparks, which you will see in
the 4th Vol. of his writings, page 388—
391. But I again repeat, where is the
man, whether of the south or of the north
who in the practical assertion ofthe rights
of the south and in energetic and decisive
reprobation ofthe projects ofthe abolition
ists, has gone farther than Gen Harrison.
A just people cannot forget the noble and
self-sacrificing devotion with which he
stood alone, out of all the representatives
of the western non-slave holding Slate and
in a little band of but two or three from the
whole non-slave holding region of the Uu
ion, in steadily resisting, on behalf of the
south, the memorable Missouri restriction
and the kindred proposition made at the
same period te restrict the introduction of
slaves into the Territory of Arkansas —a
patriotic self devotion, by which he lost
liia seat in Congress, and incurred popular
odium and proscription for a season in his
own State. All this Gen. Harrison did
freely, from a sense of duty to the Consti
tution of his county, and to the rights and
interests of the Southern States, and at a
time when he had nothing to ask at their
hands. What was the course of the pre
sent Chief Magistrate, in whose behalf
Gen. Harrison is now sought to be stig
matised as an abolitionist, under the same
circumstances? He then as a member of
the Senate of New York, voted in favor of
instructions to the Senators and Repre
sentatives of that state, in Congress to
support the Missouri restriction, and a
year or two afterwards, as a member ofthe
Senate ofthe United States, voted in fa
vor of a proposition to restrict the intro
duction of slaves into the Territory of Flo*
rida. Well, therefore, might the south
require of him some pledge of fidelity to
their rights, when he became a candidate
j for their suflcrages to elevate him to the
! station lie now occupies. But what farther
or higher pledge can Gen. Harrison have
to give than his conduct, and opinions,
uniformly sustained through every person
al sacrifice, coupled with that just and re
publican definition ofthe true province of
the Presidential veto in hi letter to Slier
rod Williams, Esq., in which lie says "it
is a conservative power intended only to
be used to secure the constition itself from
violation, and to protect the rights of the
minority and weaker members ofthe Un
ion"—a definition obviously framed in its
last clause particularly with the reference
to that vital interest ofthe South, of which
he has proved himself, through good and
through evil report, the disinterested and
patriotic champion.
Another denunciatory charge against
General Harrison, and alike destitute ol
foundation, which has been extensively
propagated, is that he was "a black cockade
federalist and an advocate of the alien and
seditjon laws" during the administration
of the elder Mr. Adants. This charge has
been most decisively met and refuted by
Judge Burnet, a distinguished citizen, and
lately one of the Senators in Congress, ol I
the State of Ohio, and who from an inti
mate personal acquaintance with Cen.Har-|
risen at the period alluded to, declares |
that"he was a firm, consistent, unyielding (
republican of the Jeffersonian school, and
warmly advocated the election of Mr. Jef
ferson against Mr. Adams." Geri. Harri
son himself in a debate in the Senate of I
the United States in March, 182(1, in re
plying to some observations of Mr. Ran- i
dolph, importing a similar charge, explicit i
ly declared that, while in common with his j
constituents, the Legislature of the North |
Territory, whose delegate in Congress he j
then was, he approved the course of Mr. j
Adams's administration in the controversy 1
with the French Government, and had a |
great personal respect for Mr. Adams as
an honest man and a patriot, "his opposi-:
tion to the alien and sedition laws was so 1
well known in the Territory, that a prom
ise was extorted from him by his friends in 1
the Legislature, that as he had no vote in j
the proceedings of Congress, he would not j
unnecessarily compromise the local inter-'
ests of his constituents, by the expression j
of his political opinions. But whether Gen.
Harrison has been or is a federalist, must I
depend on the chatacter of his politica
principles, and not on the arbitrary classi j
fication of personal or party prejudice j
Now, it so happens that we have an au
thentic and most lucid exposition of his !
political principles by himself at a period
of life when they must have been fully |
matured and thoroughly settled, in an ad->
dress to the voters of his District, before j
whom he was then a candidate for a seat 1
n Congress, which was published in the j
Cincinnati Inquisitor under the date of the j
17th Sept. 1822.
In that admirable address, he declares j
that he is "a Republican of the old Jeffer-i
son school,'' and derives his principles of ,
constitutional interpretation "from the cel
ebrated resolutions of the Virginia Legis- j
lattire of '99--'99" that he therefore, "de- :
nies to the General Government the exer
cise of any power but what is expressly j
given to it by the Constitution, or what is
essentially necessary to cany the powers 1
expressly given into effect—that "he be- i
lieves the charter given to the Bank ot the
U. S. was unconstitutional" —that "he be
lieves in the tendency of a large public
debt to sap the foundation of the Constitu
tion by creating a monied aristocracy
whose views and interests must be in direct
hostility to those ofthe mass ofthe people,"
and that he is therefore "in favor of every
practicable retrenchment in the expendi
tures of the government"—that "he be
lieves in the right of the people to instruct
their representatives, when elected''—arid
finally that he believes "upon the pre
servation of the Union of the States, de
pends the existence of our civil and reli
gious liberties —that the true cement of
this Union is the brotherly love and regard
which the citizens of the several States
possess for each other, and that as the
Union was affected only by a spirit of mu
tual concession and forbearance, so only
can it be preserved.'' A polical creed more
truly Republican and patriotic than this, I
think you will agree with me, has never
been submitted to the American people,
and as it was delivered to the world, when
the experience and reflection ofa life then
but little short offifty years had impressed
heir seal upon his opinions, it must in
candour; be presumed to form a basis of
his public policy and conduct.
But, it is said that Gen. Harrison has
voted for a protective Tariff, for Internal
Improvements by the General Government,
and is in favor of a National Bank. In
regard to this last allegation, I think 1 shall
be able to show you presently that it is
wholly gratuitous. As to the others, what
more has Gen. Harrison done than Mr.
Vanßuren? Mr. Van Buren voted for
the worst of all the Tariffs, the Tariff of
1828, commonly called the bill of abomin
ations. Very gross and wanton injustice
ha? been done Gen, Harrison, by pervert
ing a passage in an address delivered by
him to an agricultural society in Ohio in
1831, so as to make the impression that lie
would not be willing to relax or abandon
the Tariff policy "til! under its operation
the grass was found to grow in the streets
of Norfolk and Charleston." The truth
is, that thi3 expression was quoted by Gen.
Harrison from an agricultural address of
Mr. Jantes M. Garnett, of our own State;
who had argued that such was the actual
j effects ofthe Tariff on the South; and Gen.
: Harrison, responding to the argument, de
clared, if such were really its effect, then
j "he would insiantly give his voice for its
; modification or entire repeal." The senti-
l ments of Gen. Hairison are known to be
those of distinguished liberality on this sub
ject, for in his Cheviot speech he declares,
with as much justness of thought as ele
gance of expression, that "even in cases
where the injurious operation of a measure
of the general government is confined to a
few, and it is beneficial to a large majority
of the States, it would be evidence of as
little foresight, as of moral rectitude in the
latter, to countenance the injury."
On the subject of Internal Improve
ments, General Harrison, I apprehend,
never gave so strong a vote in affirmation
of the power of the Government, as Mr.
Van. Buren's vote for the erection of toll
gates on the Cumberland road, according
to his own admission, was ; and if you
look into the recent report of the Secretary
of War, .you will find that officer, as the
organ of the administration in this branch
public policy, distinctly asserts ihe
constitutional power of Internal Improve
ments in the federal government, "in re
ward to such works as are of general utili
ty," while his statements and remarks shew
that appropriations for works even of a dif
ferent character have received the official
approval and signature of the President.
Gen. Harrison," in his letter to Sherrod
Williams, Esq., declares his opinion that
• no money should be taken from the trea
sury of the United States to be expended
on Internal Improvements, but for those
wheh are strictly national," and inculcates
with great force, the propriety of "for
bearance and conciliation in regard to a
power, lhe exercise of which, had pro
duced, and would, doubtless, continue to
produce, jealousies and dissentiou."
Let us see what foundation there is for
the assertion that Gen. Harrison is in fa
vor of a National Bank. We have already
seen that, in his address to the voters of
the Cincinnati district in 1822, he express
ly declared that "he believed the charter
given to the Bank of the United States was
unconstitutional '' In his letter to Sherrod
Williams, in answer to the query, "wheth
er, if elected President, he would sign a
bill with proper modifications and restric
! tions, for chartering a Bank of the United
'States, he replies in the following very
I specific and guarded terms —"1 would, IF
' it were clearly ascertained that the public
interest in relation to the collection and
disbursement of the revenue would mate
rially suffer without one, and there were
unequivocal manifestations of public opin
ion in its favor. I think, however, the ex
periment should be fairly tried to ascertain
whether the financial operations of the
government cannot be as well carried on
without the aid of a National Bank. If it
is not necessary for that purpose, it does
i not appear to me tiiat one can be consti
tutionally chartered. There is no con
struction which I can give to the consti
; tution which would authorize it, on the
j ground of affording facilities to com
-1 merce."
It is to be remarked that Gen. Harrison
here speaks, not of what he would recom
mend, or is personally in favor of, but what
he would do, in the event of a bill for char
tering a Bank, under proper modifications
and restrictions, being passed by Congress
and presented to him for his signature;
and even in that case he says he would
sign it only under the special contingen
cies he enumerates, to wit, that it had been
clearly ascertained by experience to be
necessary for carrying on the financial
operations of the government, and tha
there were unequivocal manifestations o
public opinion in its favor, and, he adds
emphatically, that unless it should be
shown "to be necessary for conducting
the financial operations of the government,
he does not think one can be constitutional
ly chartered." Connecting what Gen. Har
rison here says with the declaration in his
address to the voters in his district in 1622,
it is evident that his own leanings are de
cidedly against a National Bank. While
this is Gen. Harrison's position on the
question of a National Bank, Air. Van
Buren is, we know, actively exerting all the
influence of his high office to force upon
the country a great Government Bank,
(under the disguise of his sub-treasury
scheme) controlled entirely by execut ve
agency, and thus affecting in the bauds of
the President that union of the moneyed
and political power of the government,
which has ever been held fatal to the lib
erties of a free people.
This question of Executive power is, af
ter all, the great and paramount question
of the day, threatening, as it does, the ex
istence of that civil and political freedom
on which all our institutions repose. Wo
(Concluded on the fourth page.)
No. 7