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 es