the writings-2-第15部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



Attorney　general。　　Hamilton's　opinion　was　for　the　power；　while

Randolph's　and　Jefferson's　were　both　against　it。　　Mr。　Jefferson；

after　giving　his　opinion　deciding　only　against　the

constitutionality　of　the　bill；　closes　his　letter　with　the

paragraph　which　I　now　read：



〃It　must　be　admitted；　however；　that　unless　the　President's　mind；

on　a　view　of　everything　which　is　urged　for　and　against　this　bill；

is　tolerably　clear　that　it　is　unauthorized　by　the　Constitution；

if　the　pro　and　con　hang　so　even　as　to　balance　his　judgment；　a

just　respect　for　the　wisdom　of　the　legislature　would　naturally

decide　the　balance　in　favor　of　their　opinion。　　It　is　chiefly　for

cases　where　they　are　clearly　misled　by　error；　ambition；　or

interest；　that　the　Constitution　has　placed　a　check　in　the

negative　of　the　President。

〃THOMAS　JEFFERSON。

〃February　15；　1791。〃





General　Taylor's　opinion；　as　expressed　in　his　Allison　letter；　is

as　I　now　read：



〃The　power　given　by　the　veto　is　a　high　conservative　power；　but；

in　my　opinion；　should　never　be　exercised　except　in　cases　of　clear

violation　of　the　Constitution；　or　manifest　haste　and　want　of

consideration　by　Congress。〃



It　is　here　seen　that；　in　Mr。　Jefferson's　opinion；　if　on　the

constitutionality　of　any　given　bill　the　President　doubts；　he　is

not　to　veto　it；　as　the　gentleman　from　Kentucky　would　have　him　do；

but　is　to　defer　to　Congress　and　approve　it。　　And　if　we　compare

the　opinion　of　Jefferson　and　Taylor；　as　expressed　in　these

paragraphs；　we　shall　find　them　more　exactly　alike　than　we　can

often　find　any　two　expressions　having　any　literal　difference。

None　but　interested　faultfinders；　I　think；　can　discover　any

substantial　variation。



But　gentlemen　on　the　other　side　are　unanimously　agreed　that

General　Taylor　has　no　other　principles。　　They　are　in　utter

darkness　as　to　his　opinions　on　any　of　the　questions　of　policy

which　occupy　the　public　attention。　　But　is　there　any　doubt　as　to

what　he　will　do　on　the　prominent　questions　if　elected？　　　Not　the

least。　　It　is　not　possible　to　know　what　he　will　or　would　do　in

every　imaginable　case；　because　many　questions　have　passed　away；

and　others　doubtless　will　arise　which　none　of　us　have　yet　thought

of；　but　on　the　prominent　questions　of　currency；　tariff；　internal

improvements；　and　Wilmot　Proviso；　General　Taylor's　course　is　at

least　as　well　defined　as　is　General　Cass's。　　Why；　in　their

eagerness　to　get　at　General　Taylor；　several　Democratic　members

here　have　desired　to　know　whether；　in　case　of　his　election；　a

bankrupt　law　is　to　be　established。　　Can　they　tell　us　General

Cass's　opinion　on　this　question？



＇Some　member　answered；　〃He　is　against　it。〃＇



Aye；　how　do　you　know　he　is？　　There　is　nothing　about　it　in　the

platform；　nor　elsewhere；　that　I　have　seen。　　If　the　gentleman

knows　of　anything　which　I　do　not　know　he　can　show　it。　　But　to

return。　　General　Taylor；　in　his　Allison　letter；　says：



〃Upon　the　subject　of　the　tariff；　the　currency；　the　improvement　of

our　great　highways；　rivers；　lakes；　and　harbors；　the　will　of　the

people；　as　expressed　through　their　representatives　in　Congress；

ought　to　be　respected　and　carried　out　by　the　executive。〃



Now　this　is　the　whole　matter。　　In　substance；　it　is　this：　The

people　say　to　General　Taylor；　〃If　you　are　elected；　shall　we　have

a　national　bank？〃　　He　answers；　''　Your　will；　gentlemen；　not　mine。

''　　What　about　the　tariff？〃　〃Say　yourselves。〃　〃Shall　our　rivers

and　harbors　be　improved？〃　〃Just　as　you　please。　　If　you　desire　a

bank；　an　alteration　of　the　tariff；　internal　improvements；　any　or

all；　I　will　not　hinder　you。　　If　you　do　not　desire　them；　I　will

not　attempt　to　force　them　on　you。　　Send　up　your　members　of

Congress　from　the　various　districts；　with　opinions　according　to

your　own；　and　if　they　are　for　these　measures；　or　any　of　them；　I

shall　have　nothing　to　oppose；　if　they　are　not　for　them；　I　shall

not；　by　any　appliances　whatever；　attempt　to　dragoon　them　into

their　adoption。〃



Now　can　there　be　any　difficulty　in　understanding　this？　　To　you

Democrats　it　may　not　seem　like　principle；　but　surely　you　cannot

fail　to　perceive　the　position　plainly　enough。　　The　distinction

between　it　and　the　position　of　your　candidate　is　broad　and

obvious；　and　I　admit　you　have　a　clear　right　to　show　it　is　wrong

if　you　can；　but　you　have　no　right　to　pretend　you　cannot　see　it　at

all。　　We　see　it；　and　to　us　it　appears　like　principle；　and　the

best　sort　of　principle　at　thatthe　principle　of　allowing　the

people　to　do　as　they　please　with　their　own　business。　　My　friend

from　Indiana　（C。　　B。　　Smith＇　has　aptly　asked；　〃Are　you　willing　to

trust　the　people？〃　Some　of　you　answered　substantially；　〃We　are

willing　to　trust　the　people；　but　the　President　is　as　much　the

representative　of　the　people　as　Congress。〃　In　a　certain　sense；

and　to　a　certain　extent；　he　is　the　representative　of　the　people。

He　is　elected　by　them；　as　well　as　Congress　is；　but　can　he；　in　the

nature　of　things　know　the　wants　of　the　people　as　well　as　three

hundred　other　men；　coming　from　all　the　various　localities　of　the

nation？　　If　so；　where　is　the　propriety　of　having　a　Congress？

That　the　Constitution　gives　the　President　a　negative　on

legislation；　all　know；　but　that　this　negative　should　be　so

combined　with　platforms　and　other　appliances　as　to　enable　him；

and　in　fact　almost　compel　him；　to　take　the　whole　of　legislation

into　his　own　hands；　is　what　we　object　to；　is　what　General　Taylor

objects　to；　and　is　what　constitutes　the　broad　distinction　between

you　and　us。　　To　thus　transfer　legislation　is　clearly　to　take　it

from　those　who　understand　with　minuteness　the　interests　of　the

people；　and　give　it　to　one　who　does　not　and　cannot　so　well

understand　it。　　I　understand　your　idea　that　if　a　Presidential

candidate　avow　his　opinion　upon　a　given　question；　or　rather　upon

all　questions；　and　the　people；　with　full　knowledge　of　this；　elect

him；　they　thereby　distinctly　approve　all　those　opinions。　　By

means　of　it；　measures　are　adopted　or　rejected　contrary　to　the

wishes　of　the　whole　of　one　party；　and　often　nearly　half　of　the

other。　　Three；　four；　or　half　a　dozen　questions　are　prominent　at　a

given　time；　the　party　selects　its　candidate；　and　he　takes　his

position　on　each　of　these　questions。　　On　all　but　one　his

positions　have　already　been　indorsed　at　former　elections；　and　his

party　fully　committed　to　them；　but　that　one　is　new；　and　a　large

portion　of　them　are　against　it。　　But　what　are　they　to　do？　　The

whole　was　strung　together；　and　they　must　take　all；　or　reject　all。

They　cannot　take　what　they　like；　and　leave　the　rest。　　What　they

are　already　committed　to　being　the　majority；　they　shut　their

eyes；　and　gulp　the　whole。　　Next　election；　still　another　is

introduced　in　the　same　way。　　If　we　run　our　eyes　along　the　line　of

the　past；　we　shall　see　that　almost　if　not　quite　all　the　articles

of　the　present　Democratic　creed　have　been　at　first　forced　upon

the　party　in　this　very　way。　　And　just　now；　and　just　so；

opposition　to　internal　improvements　is　to　be　established　if

General　Cass　shall　be　elected。　　Almost　half　the　Democrats　here

are　for　improvements；　but　they　will　vote　for　Cass；　and　if　he

succeeds；　their　vote　will　have　aided　in　closing　the　doors　against

improvements。　　Now　this　is　a　process　which　we　think　is　wrong。　　We

prefer　a　candidate　who；　like　General　Taylor；　will　allow　the

people　to　have　their　own　way；　regardless　of　his　private　opinions；

and　I　should　think　the　internal…improvement　Democrats；　at　least；

ought　to　prefer　such　a　candidate。　　He　would　force　nothing　on　them

which　they　don't　want；　and　he　would　allow　them　to　have

improvements　which　their　own　candidate；　if　elected；　will　not。



Mr。　Speaker；　I　have　said　General　Taylor's　position　is　as　well

defined　as　is　that　of　General　Cass。　　In　saying　this；　I　admit　I　do

not　certainly　know　what　he　would　do　on　the　Wilmot　Proviso。　　I　am

a　Northern　man　or　rather　a　Western　Free…State　man；　with　a

constituency　I　believe　to　be；　and　with　personal　feelings　I　know

to　be；　against　the　extension　of　slavery。　　As　such；　and　with　what

information　I　have；　I　hope　and　believe　General　Taylor；　if

elected；　would　not　veto　the　proviso。　　But　I　do　not　know　it。　　Yet

if　I　knew　he　would；　I　still　would　vote　for　him。　　I　should　do　so

because；　in　my　judgment；　his　election　alone　can　defeat　General

Cass；　and　because；　should　slavery　thereby　go　to　the　territory　we

now　have；　just　so　much　will　certainly　happen　by　the　election　of

Cass；　and　in　addition　a　course　of　policy　leading　to　new　wars；　new

acquisitions　of　territory　and　still　further　extensions　of

slavery。　　One　of　the　two　is　to　be　President。　　Which　is

preferable？



But　there　is　as　much　doubt　of　Cass　on　improvements　as　there　is　of

Taylor　on　the　proviso。　　I　have　no　doubt　myself　of　General　Cass　on

this　question；　but　I　know　the　Democrats　differ　among　themselves

as　to　his　position。　　My　internal…improvement　colleague　＇Mr。

Wentworth＇　stated　on　this　floor　the　other　day　that　he　was

satisfied　Cass　was　for　improvements；　because　he　had　voted　for　all

the　bills　that　he　＇Mr。　Wentworth＇　had。　　So　far　so　good。　　But　Mr。

Polk　vetoed　some　of　these　very　bills。　　The　Baltimore　convention

passed　a　set　of　resolutions；　among　other　things；　approving　these

vetoes；　and　General　Cass　declares；　in　his　letter　accepting　the

nomination；　that　he　has　carefully　read　these　resolutions；　and

that　he　adheres　to　them　as　firmly　as　he　approves　them　cordially。

In　other　words；　General　Cass　voted　for　the　bills；　and　thinks　the

President　did　right　to　veto　them；　and　his　friends　here　are

amiable　enough　to　consider　him　as　being　on　one　side　or　the　other；

just　as　one　or　the　other　may　correspond　with　their　own　respective

inclinations。　　My　colleague　admits　that　the　platform　declares

against　the　constitutionality　of　a　general　system　of

improvements；　and　that　General　Cass　indorses　the　platform；　but　he

still　thinks　General　Cass　is　in　favor　of　some　sort　of

improvements。　　Well；　what　are　they？　　As　he　is　against　general

objects；　t