Syracuse University Library
Special Collections Research Center
Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection

To the editors of the Albany Atlas, Mohawk Courier, Hamilton Reflector, and...

Smith, Gerrit, 1797-1874.

Digital Edition.

This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.

Call number: Smith 468

PETERBORO, May 12th, 1851.

To the Editors of the Albany Atlas, Mohawk Courier, Hamilton Reflector, and numerous kindred Newspapers:

I see, that you single me out, among the opponents of the Resignation Measure, for your special, repeated, and most severe animadversions. This is not fair. You should have fallen upon some other person, instead of me. No one has a weaker hold on the public sentiment than I have. There is no party, political nor ecclesiastical, to sustain me. From the press I am studiously and determinedly shut out. It does not allow me to speak for myself. And when it speaks concerning me, it is not for the purpose of acquainting its readers with my real character and real conduct, but for the purpose, by means of perversions and caricatures, of exciting, at one time, their mirth, and, at another; their indignation. I submit then, whether to obtain a victory over me can be courageous and magnanimous on the one hand, or of much value to your cause on the other. A difficult achievement is a proud one, because it is difficult: - but an easy achievement is insignificant, because it is easy. Little honorable, therefore, to yourselves, and little advantageous to your cause, will be the very easy thing of stirring up the public sentiment afresh against me. You should have let me go: and you should have fallen upon some man, who is strong in the public sympathy, and in the public confidence, and in himself.

However vain it may be for one so unpopular to attempt to ward off the popular verdict with which you threaten him, I, nevertheless, cannot forbear to examine some of the censures, which you have cast upon me.

1st. You represent, that, in my opposition to the resigning Senators, I am actuated by selfishness. It would not be strange, if I am. Selfishness is well nigh universal; and I have never claimed to be exempt from it. But what has my selfishness to do with the merits of the Resignation? And what better are the resigning Senators for my being a bad man? You have undertaken to make capital for these Senators out of the defects in my character. This is not right. This is not to employ sound logic with your readers - but to attempt to mislead them.

2d. You hold me up, as inconsistent with myself for being now in favor of a State debt, whereas I have hitherto been uniformly opposed to State debts. But, why are the resigning Senators entitled to any advantage from my inconsistency? Are you, however, ingenuous in contrasting my long standing views of State debts with the construction, which you put upon the Canal Bill? I admit, that those views do not harmonize with your construction of the Bill. But, they do with my own - for I see no State debt in the Bill. It turns out, then, that your complaint, in point of fact, is not, that I am inconsistent with myself, but inconsistent with yourselves! Now, I do not claim to be - I do not aspire to be - I do not wish to be - consistent with yourselves.

3d. A further inconsistency, which you charge upon me is, that, hitherto, I have opposed the building of canals and rail-roads by the State. Here, again, I would deny, that the resigning Senators are entitled to profit by any of my inconsistencies. Is it, however, inconsistent for me to say, that, whilst I would not have a State build rail-roads and canals, I would have it finish those it has begun, or sell them? My neighbor undertakes, against my judgment, to build a store. He gets it three quarters done. Am I inconsistent with myself for advising him to sell, or finish it?

4th. You say, that my property in Oswego will be greatly enhanced in value by the completion of the Erie Canal. I do, most fully and emphatically, agree with you. And had you known of my property in Rochester, you would, doubtless, have coupled that with my Oswego property. But, by what means do you expect, that the completion of the Erie Canal will greatly benefit property in Oswego, Rochester, Buffalo, Syracuse, Utica, &c. &c.? Undoubtedly, by the vast increase of business, which the completion of the Canal will bring to the Canal. Have you not then, in what you say of my property, furnished a strong argument for hastening the completion of the Erie Canal? You intended but to furnish an argument against my disinterestedness; and whether you have, or have not, is quite immaterial to the public. You have, however, furnished an argument, in which the public have great reason to rejoice - for it is an argument in favor of the speedy completion of the Erie Canal, and an argument, why your presses should be working to, instead of against, this end,

[2]

It is true, that this scope and this use of your argument were not foreseen by you. But, the argument is none the less valuable for this reason. If what you did has turned for good, the good is none the less precious, because you meant it for evil.

I have said enough on the topic of your personalities. But, since, my pen is in my hand, I will say something on another topic.

I see, that you are all busy to blind the people to the true issue in the approaching Election. You abound in arguments to prove, that the Canal Bill is Unconstitutional. But you know - at least you ought to know - that the Unconstitutionality of a Bill is not a question to carry to the people. The demagogue will plead, that the people are honored by having such a question submitted to them. But, in truth, they are dishonored and insulted by it - for the submission supersedes, and treats with contempt, the people's own arrangement for disposing of such a question. As well call on the people to thrust aside their Sheriff and serve a Writ, as call on them to thrust aside their Judiciary, and pass upon the Constitutionality of a law. The fact, that they are the creators of their Sheriffs and Judges neither authorizes, nor inclines, the people to despise and shove aside their Sheriffs and Judges, and usurp their functions. But this fact does require us, by all the respect, which is due to these creators, and to the popular sovereignty, to leave to the Judges and Sheriffs to do what the people have assigned to them to do, and what the people have created them to do.

So far then from the Unconstitutionality of a Bill being a sufficient ground for appealing to the people, it is of all objections to a Bill the least entitled to such appeal. For there is a tribunal, whose work it is to pass upon the Constitutionality of laws: and this tribunal is created by the people and expressly for this work. But, in respect to the other errors in a law, there is no corrective tribunal between the Legislature and the people. Perhaps, however, you will say, that the Unconstitutionality of a law is the gravest of all possible objections to it; and that, therefore, the people, and not a mere Court, should pass upon it. To this I have two answers - lst, that the people have otherwise ordered, and that, in their distribution of powers, they have seen fit to give this power to a mere Court. 2d, that many a law has features far worse than would be its Unconstitutionality. A certain School law and a certain Assessment law might not be held to be Unconstitutional; and yet, they might be a thousand fold more unequal and oppressive in their operation than the vast majority of Unconstitutional laws.

Taking it for granted, then, that the resigning Senators have sufficient intelligence to be Senators, they must have known, that they had no right to appeal to the people on the question of the Constitutionality of the Canal Bill. On what question, then, have they made their appeal? Why, necessarily, on the question, whether legislators are not at liberty to gratify their dislike of a Bill, and to prevent its passage by turning anarchists, and blocking the wheels of Government. And, strictly speaking, the Unconstitutionality of the Bill must not be one of the grounds of their dislike: - for they know, that an anti-revolutionary remedy is provided for Unconstitutional laws.

Be frank, then, Gentlemen, and confess to the people, that the only question, on which they are to vote, is "Resignation or Anti-Resignation?'' - "Law or Anarchy?" - "Submission to the majority or contempt of the majority?" Be brave and manly, Gentlemen, and abide the issue, which your resigning Senators have made; and suffer not yourselves to be driven by the storms of popular indignation, which are bursting upon the heads of the resigning Senators and upon your heads, to the disingenuousness of substituting another for the true issue.

The question for the people to pass upon; at the coming Election, is, as you know in your hearts, what I have stated it to be. It is, moreover, the only question, on which you and your coadjutors act, or mean to act. You and they nominate no persons, and you and they mean to nominate no persons, to fill the vacancies, but such, as believe in this Resignation Caper. For instance, you will nominate Mr. Charles A. Mann, who is, I take pleasure in admitting, a very intelligent gentleman - and you will nominate him, though you can hardly doubt, that he will be defeated; - whilst, should you nominate Judge Beardsley in his stead, you could hardly doubt, that, if supported by the friends of Mr. Mann, he would succeed. Why then, not nominate Judge Beardsley? No one doubts his capacity. No member of his party impeaches his democracy: and he is as decided as Mr. Mann is, that the Canal Bill is Unconstitutional. I ask again then - why not prefer to nominate Judge Beardsley? The answer is at hand. Mr. Mann justifies this revolutionary arrest of legislation; and Judge Beardsley does not. Mr. Mann believes it to be a proper measure, and Judge Beardsley ridicules it for its absurdity, and loathes it for its factious, fanatical, and anarchical character.

[3]

I close with saying, that the question of the Constitutionality of the Canal Bill is comparatively unimportant. Moreover, I take pleasure in admitting, that as wise and good men are to be found on one side of it, as on the other. Let me, however, add in this connexion, that it requires the skilful and ingenious reasoning, so characteristic of lawyers, to convert Certificates into debts against the State, when, on the face of them, they are expressly and absolutely no such thing: - and let me, further, add, that I greatly prefer the habit of the plain men, who take things according to their appearance, to that of the astute men, who delight to search below the surface for something contrary to the surface, and who are very apt to mistake for discoveries what are, in fact, but their own creations.

I said, that wise and good men are to be found on both sides of the Constitutional question in this case. It is cause neither of wonder nor alarm, that it is so. But on the question of "Resignation or Anti-Resignation" - "Rebellion against the majority or submission to the majority?" - it is unspeakably important, that all wise and good men should be found on the same side. Thus important is it to the end, that the resigning Senators may be most effectually rebuked; that the regular operation of Government may, afresh, be clothed with respect; and that there may be a deeper sense of the value and sacredness of our form of Government.

GERRIT SMITH.