Peck huving caused his opinion and the reasons for the same to be published, the counsel for the claimants, Luke E. Lawless, procured the publication of a review of the judge's opinion, purporting to expose certain errors which it was alleged to contain. At a subsequent term of the court, the judge caused the imprisonment of Lawless for a contempt thereof, for one day, and suspended him from professional practice in that court for eighteen months. The judge was impeached for an alleged abuse of judicial authority, the publication of Lawless not being deemed harsh or disrespectful.

Judge Peck was defended by Mr. Meredith, of Philadelphia, and Mr. Wirt. It was shown that the opinion of the judge had been published at the request of the members of the bar, and of those persons who were interested in the case; and such publications were usual both in England and the United States. The case in question was a select and test cause, and an adverse decision would produce dissatisfaction in all other claimants. The respondent considered the publication a gross and palpable misrepresentation of his opinion. Lawless had an opportunity offered him, on his defense, of clearing himself of intentional disrespect, but had refused to answer the interrogatories of the judge, and reasserted the allegations of his publication. The cause was ably argued by Messrs. M'Duffie, Buchanan, Spencer, Storrs, and Wickliffe, in favor of the impeachment, and by Messrs. Meredith and Wirt against it. The speeches of Mr. Storrs and Mr. Wirt were spoken of as surpassingly eloquent. The judge was acquitted : 21 votes to sustain the impeachment; 24 against. A majority of two-thirds is necessary to a conviction.

The result of this trial, however, led to the passage of a law at the same session, limiting the power of judges, under the authority of the English common law doctrine, in punishing for contempt of court. The act restricted this power to cases of misbehavior in the presence of courts, or so near them as to obstruct the administration of justice; and to the official misbehavior of officers of the courts,

A revision of the tariff having been recommended by the president in his annual message, the committee on manufactures, of which Mr. Mallary was chairman, made a report dissenting from some of the views of the president. The committee contrasted the sentiments of the message with those previously declared by him on this subject. He had said, that “the power to impose duties on imports originally belonged to the states. This authority having entirely passed from the states, the right to exercise it for the purpose of protection does not exist in them; and, consequently, if it be not possessed by the general government, it must be extinct. Our political system would thus present the anomaly

of a people stripped of the right to foster their own industry, and to counteract the most selfish and destructive policy which might be adopted by foreign nations."

In the message, the president says: “The chief object of duties should be revenue :” but “they may be so adjusted as to encourage manufactures." Also, that " objects of national importance alone ought to be protected;" that “the present tariff taxes some of the comforts of life unnecessarily high ; it undertakes to protect interests too local and minute to justify a general exaction; and it also attempts to force some kinds of manufactures for which the country is not ripe:" and he recommends that each particular interest be taken up "singly for deliberation."

These, and several other points in the message, are discussed by the committee. The first they considered as being “in plain collision with the sentiments he had previously maintained.” He had admitted the power to “ foster” our industry; in regard to which the committee say: “If revenue alone is wanted, duties for that object should be imposed. If protection to domestic industry is required, let duties be imposed to foster it.' Why should the chief object be revenue? Why protection secondary, when the treasury may be full ? Then they should be ad. justed to secure protection. This should be the primary object. The protecting power having once belonged to the states, and having been transferred to the general government, it may be used as the good of the nation demands, for a primary, not a secondary object.”

The general expressions : " objects of national importance ;" "some of the comforts of life;" “ interests too local ;" some kinds of manufactures for which the country is not ripe," the committee thought, afforded no aid in adjusting the details of a protecting tariff. Little difference of opinion existed as to abstract principles; the difficulty consisted in applying theory to practical and useful purpose. In this, individuals differed in opinion. Congress had not been unmindful of these objects, and no material change, it was thought, was demanded.

The committee adverted to some of the most essential “comforts of life, as cotton goods, nails, hats, caps, shoes, boots, cheese, &c., as furnishing evidence, that, in all cases where the material is found at home, and the protecting duty had been adequate, the domestic article had become cheaper. The duty secured the market to the home manufacturer, and domestic competition reduced the cost to the lowest possible price, and at the same time improved the quality. The committee also objected decidedly to the suggestion of submitting each interest “singly for deliberation,” without reference to a general system. By such a rule, they believed, no protecting system had ever been adopted, and by it none

could stand; and they apprehended, that an attempt to disturb the tariff which had been so recently revised, would “spread alarm amoug the great interests of the country, shake confidence in the plighted faith of the government, and expose the whole country to the dangers of a most selfish policy which might be adopted by foreign nations."

a

.CHAPTER XLIII.

CONTROVERSY BETWEEN MR. CALHOUN AND GEN. JACKSON IN RELATION

TO OCCURRENCES IN THE SEMINOLE WAR.

In the winter of 1830-31, Mr. Calhoun, vice-president of the United States, appeared before the public in an address, accompanied by a correspondence between himself and Gen. Jackson, in relation to the course of Mr. Calhoun in the deliberations of the cabinet of Mr. Monroe, on the occurrences of the Seminole war. His object was to expose an attempt to effect his “political destruction” by creating a disaffection between Gen. Jackson and himself. The “secret movement" against him commenced, as he conceived, with certain letters of Mr. Crawford to different persons, representing that Mr. Calhoun had been opposed to the conduct of Gen. Jackson in the Florida war, and in cabinet council had proposed “that Gen. Jackson should be punished in some form, or reprehended in some form,” he was not positively certain which.

Mr. Crawford, in a letter to Mr. Forsyth, April 30, 1830, gives as an apology for disclosing what passed in this cabinet meeting, that an ex. tract of a certain letter had been published in a Nashville paper, alleging that he (Mr. C.)“had proposed to arrest Gen. Jackson, but that he was triumphantly defended by Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Adams;" and Mr. Crawford expresses the belief, that the letter had been written by Mr. Cal. houn, or by his directions. Mr. Crawford farther says:

“ Mr. Calhoun made some allusion to a letter the general had written to the president, who had forgotten that he had received such a letter; but said, if he had, he could find it; and went directly to his cabinet and brought the letter out. In it Gen. Jackson approved of the determination of the government to break up Amelia island and Galveztown, and gave it also as his opinion that the Floridas ought to be taken by the United States. He added, that it might be a delicate matter for the executive to decide; but if the president approved of it, he had only

a

to give a hint to some confidential member of congress, say Johnny Ray, and he would do it, and take the responsibility upon himself. I asked the president if the letter had been answered. He replied, no; for he had no recollection of having received it. I then said that I had no doubt that Gen. Jackson, in taking Pensacola, believed he was doing what the executive wished. After that letter was produced, unanswered, I should have opposed the infliction of punishment upon the general, who had considered the silence of the president as a tacit consent. Yet it was after this letter was produced and read, that Mr. Calhoun made his proposition to the cabinet for punishing the general.”

The above having been placed in the hands of Gen. Jackson, he immediately wrote to Mr. Calhoun, (May 13, 1830,) expressing his surprise at the course taken by him in the cabinet, so contrary to what had been indicated in his correspondence at that time, and referred to the letter of Mr. Calhoun, as secretary of war, to Gov. Bibb, of Alabama, of the 13th of May, 1818, saying : “Gen. Jackson is vested with full power to conduct the war in the manner he may judge best;" and also to his letters to him (Gen. J.,) in one of which he had said: “I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 20th ultimo, and to acquaint you with the entire approbation of the president of all the measures you have adopted to terminate the rupture with the Indians.” The general desired to know whether he (Mr. C.) had made the proposition imputed to him by Mr. Crawford.

As will readily be seen, there was involved in this controversy a question of veracity between Crawford and Calhoun. The former had represented the latter as having attempted to get the general punished. Gen. Jackson, on the strength of this statement of Mr. Crawford, accuses Mr. Calhoun of duplicity. Mr. Calhoun denies the truth of the charge, and in his reply to the letter of Gen. Jackson, endeavors to prove that neither himself nor Mr. Monroe considered him authorized to occupy the Span. ish posts. He says: “ To save you the trouble of turning to the file of your correspondence, I have inclosed extracts from the letters, which clearly prove, that the decision of the cabinet on the point that your orders did not authorize the occupation of St. Marks and Pensacola, was early and fully made known to you; and that I, in particular, concurred in the decision.

“Mr. Monroe's letter of the 19th of July, 1818, the first of the series, and written immediately after the decision of the cabinet, enters fully into the views taken by the executive of the whole subject. In your reply of the 19th of August, 1818, you object to the construction which the administration had placed on your orders, and you assign your reasons at large, why you conceived that the orders under which you acted authorized your operations in Florida. Mr. Monroe replied in the 20th of October, 1818; and after expressing his regret that you had placed a construction upon your orders different from what was intended, he invited you to open a correspondence with me, that your conception of the meaning of the orders, and that of the administration, might be placed, with the reasons on both sides, on the files of the war department. Your letter of the 15th of November, in answer, agrees to the correspondence as proposed, but declines commencing it, to which Mr. Monroe replied by a letter of the 21st of December, stating his reasons for suggesting the correspondence, and why he thought that it ought to commence with you.” Mr. Calhoun also refers to the message of the president to the house of representatives of the 25th of March, 1818, and his annual message

November following, as containing evidence of his having considered the occupation of the posts unauthorized. And he proceeds in attempting to show, that in his letter to Gov. Bibb, saying that the general had power “to conduct the war in the manner he might judge best,” he could not have meant that he had authority to occupy the Spanish posts. Nor could certain other letters be justly interpreted into such authority.

Speaking of the letter of Gen. Jackson to Mr. Monroe, mentioned by Mr. Crawford in his letter to Mr. Forsyth, Mr. Calhoun said it was not received till several weeks after the orders to the general had been issued, and could not, therefore, have had any influence in drawing them up; nor could the general have supposed so, as he had not referred to it as forming a part of his justification. Mr. C. adds: “You rested your defense on what I conceive to be much more elevated ground-on the true construction, as you supposed, of your orders, and the necessity of the measures which you adopted to terminate the war, and not on any supposed secret wish of the executive in opposition to the public orders under which you acted."

The reply of the president to the letter of Mr. Calhoun was brief. He said it had been intimated to him many years ago, that it had been he, (Mr. Calhoun,) and not Mr. Crawford, who had been secretly endeavoring to destroy his reputation; but he had repelled the insinuations upon the ground of his professed friendship, and upon his letters approving entirely his conduct in the Seminole campaign. He adds: “When I was presented with a copy of Mr. Crawford's letter, with that frankness which ever has, and I hope ever will characterize my conduct, I considered it due to you, and the friendly relations which had always existed between us, to lay it forthwith before you, and ask if the statements in that letter could be true. I repeat, I had a right to believe that you were my sincere friend, and until now, never expected to have occasion to say to you, in the language of Cæsar, Et tu Brute. The evidence which has brought