The Daily Union

Franklin Pierce

Somewhat more than one year ago Franklin Pierce was unanimously nominated by a democratic convention, composed of delegates from every section of the party, as their candidate for the presidency, and almost as unanimously chosen by the electoral colleges.

In his response to that body previous to his nomination and more especially in his inaugural address, he laid down certain principles on which he pledged himself to conduct his administration.

He declared his adhesion to the Compromise and the great principle of non-intervention on which it is based.

He declared his intention to conduct his administration on the "eternal principles of right and justice."

He declared his adhesion to a strict construction of the constitution, and consequently to the great democratic creed of State rights.

He pledged himself to an adherence to the Washington policy of non-intervention in the affairs of Europe; to the protection of the rights of his fellow-citizens wherever assailed; to a strict observance of the rights of neighboring nations; and at the same time he declared that so long as the United States performed their duties and fulfilled their obligations to other nations, "they had a right to expect, and would under all circumstances require, prompt reciprocity."

On these principles he based his foreign policy. In reference to his domestic policy, he pledged himself to an economical administration of the government, at the same time distinctly intimating a determination to call all those delinquents, whether private citizens or public officers, who should unlawfully appropriate the public funds to their own purposes, or commit any species of fraud on the treasury, to a strict account. In speaking of appointments to office, he said: "They (the people) require at my hands diligence, integrity, and capacity wherever there are duties to perform. Without these qualities in public servants, more stringent laws for the prevention or punishment of fraud will be vain; with them, they will be unnecessary."

Such is briefly the substance of the pledges made to the people in the inaugural of President Pierce. Has he violated any of these pledges, or has he redeemed them whenever the occasion presented itself? Has he violated the Compromise of 1850? Has he violated any of the eternal principles of right and justice in the conduct of the government towards foreign nations, or attempted to stretch the constitution beyond either its letter or spirit by construction? Has he, on any occasion, departed from the Washingtonian principle of non-intervention? Has he not fully acted up to his declaration, that so long as the United States fulfilled their duties to other nations, "they had a right to expect, and would under all circumstances require, prompt reciprocity?" Has he not fully sustained Captain Ingraham in vindicating the rights of American citizens? The appeal may be confidently made to the brief history of his administration. Whenever the occasion presented itself he has redeemed his pledge. He has sustained the great fundamental principle of the Compromise; he has held out protection to our citizens whenever they are justly entitled to it; he has refrained from all interference in the politics of Europe, or the internal affairs of foreign powers; and, thus far, acted on the cardinal principle of a just reciprocity among all nations. Finally, he has prosecuted and brought to judgment the principal in one of the most stupendous frauds ever perpetrated on the government, and, it is earnestly hoped, will eventually succeed in exposing and punishing the secret aiders and abettors through whose instrumentality alone the fraud could have been consummated.

With regard to an economical administration of government, which ought to be a cardinal principle, the period for redeeming this pledge has not arrived, but is fast approaching. When that vast accumulation of projects for dissipating the public lands and public revenues shall come before him, and the option of giving or withholding his assent is presented, we shall then see what stuff he is made of, and whether he is a staff from the Old Hickory tree. I neither know, nor profess to know, what course he will pursue; whether he will yield to the torrent of prodigality, which seems every day acquiring additional force or arrest its course, and appeal to the people to justify him, remains to be seen. I am no prophet; but I venture to predict that he dares, and that he will, so act as to convince the people of the United States that there are other Presidents besides Andrew Jackson on whose firmness and virtue they may take refuge from legislative extravagance.

I will not give it a harsher name, because I have too much respect for the constituted authorities of my country to employ even the language of truth in characterizing their proceedings.

Thus stands the President before his constituents, the people of the United States; and thus has he stood since his inauguration. Yet, scarcely had he assumed the exercise of his functions, and before an opportunity offered for the performance of a single act by which his pledges and professions, or his foreign and domestic policy, could be fairly tested in any one single point, or from which either could be inferred, this gentleman was assailed with a shower of poisoned arrows, not from his enemies, but his professed friends. The man who, a few brief months before, had been elevated to the highest station in the republic with an unanimity only second to Washington, all at once became the object of unmeasured and immeasurable obloquy with the very men who had given him their support a few months before. They appear to have assisted in putting him up only for the pleasure of pulling him down, as children do houses of cards.

And what was the pretext or cause—I care not by what name it is called—of this sudden and extraordinary flip-flop, which would do credit to a jumping sturgeon or a veteran trading politician? Simply the appointment of one man to office, and the disappointment of another. This was the spark that set the brush-heap on fire and occasioned such a furious crackling. As a firebrand smokes most when out of the chimney, so is a patriot the most noisy when excluded from office. Without undertaking to investigate the claims of the candidates for the high station alluded to, I will take leave to observe that I see no reason why the great democratic party should be prostrated at the foot of its adversary because any single man, let him be who he will, has been disappointed in obtaining a "situation."

The second great transgression of the President was that of displacing a public officer partly on the ground of having employed his extensive patronage to the prejudice of the administration, and partly for want of due respect for the government by which he was appointed. If such was the fact—and with regard to the latter charge there is no doubt from his published letters—in my opinion the President was fully justified in superseding him, although unquestionably a man of eminent talents and great respectability. I cannot assent to the theory that a public officer should be at perfect liberty to employ that patronage which he derives from the pleasure of a Chief Magistrate to the purpose of undermining his administration; still less that he is justified in throwing the gauntlet to his superiors in office. If he wishes to do either one or the other, he should not accept office, and thus preserve his independence. Respect and a proper degree of subordination are quite as essential in a civil as in a military organization, and no government can maintain a harmonious co-operation of all its functions without a respectful deference, on the part of those whose duty is to obey, towards those whose province is to direct. The citizens of the United States are all free in their private capacity, but the officers of government are not free. They are simply ministerial, and their functions are subject to the supervision of the Executive, whose political discretion is only limited by the constitution and the laws. If the President has any power whatever, it certainly is that of nominating and displacing civil officers in discretion, in all cases where their term of service is not prescribed by law. Even then, palpable neglect, incapacity or corruption would justify him in at least suspending the exercise of those functions, which had been grossly neglected or abused.

Appointments to office are among the most delicate and unpleasant exercises of the Executive power—always more applicants than offices and the task of discrimination is eminently difficult—sometimes painful. The President cannot personally know every applicant and must necessarily be governed by the recommendations of those in whom he has confidence. If they themselves are deceived or wilfully deceive him it is manifestly unjust to lay the blame on his shoulders; and if occasionally an improper appointment is made under such circumstances, it is no just ground for an indiscriminate assault on his administration. If, in these appointments, he prefers those who are attached to the great principles on which he conducts his administration to those who are opposed to them, I see no special reason for condemning him on that score, since, though we are commanded to forgive, there is no precept of religion or morality that makes it our duty to reward our enemies. But be this as it may, I cannot help thinking that the clamors raised on the occasion of these appointments to offices confer little credit on any party. With the leaders it may sometimes, if not always, happen that personal considerations more or less influence their conduct; but with the people at large, I trust it is not so.

With them, party contests are not for offices, but for principles, and they take little interest in appointments to those offices to which they have no pretensions, except so far as respects the personal character and political principles of the persons selected or rejected. Those, therefore who base their opposition to the administration on that ground alone, will, if I am not mistaken, find the foundation altogether too weak to support them. The people are contending for great principles, and not merely for the loaves and fishes.

Here I intended to close this article, which is perhaps already too much extended for the limits of a newspaper. But at this moment the veto of the President to the bill appropriating ten millions of acres of the public lands to the erection and support of insane hospitals has fallen into my hands. It is what I hoped, and what I anticipated, so far as it goes.

But I confess that it does not go as far as I wished. It seems, at first view, to recognise principles with regard to the disposal of the public lands which I very much fear will admit of that latitudinarian construction which is rapidly converting this limited government into one of unlimited powers, and rendering legislation in a great measure independent of the restraints of the constitution. It shuts one door, but leaves the key in many others. However, it is one great step towards a return to the path from which we had so widely strayed. There are many things which ought to be done, but are opposed by such insuperable obstacles as to render them morally impossible. Had the veto covered the whole ground, there is great reason to apprehend it would be nullified by the constitutional majority in Congress. One of the most important qualifications of a wise man is the capacity to distinguish between things difficult and things impossible. The President has probably accomplished all that was possible in this instance, and I confidently predict the people of the United States will manfully sustain him.

SUUM CUQUE.