MISCELLANY.
{"newspaper_name": "The Portland gazette.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 2397, "word_count": 417, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9812999963760376], "ccnet_perplexity": [1908.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
From the Boston Repertorg.
The Patriot says that the advocates of Gen.
Kings resolutions in the Senate g contended that
the adoption of these resolutions would be such
disarowal Of those principles and measures pur
sued by Gov. Strong as a0ould induce The general
government 10 alloW The greater part afnot all the
cIainan of the Commonwealth for militia services
during the war. And again :" The correctness
then of the resolutions is virtually admitted, and
The adoption # them acoald IN all probability be The
means ofheipg to million of dollars, and yet,
they were rejected, because forsooth the feder-
alsts are pledged to support Governor Strong
and all his measures


What is the nature Of the claim proposed to be
aided by these resolutions 1t is claim presen-
ted by a federal legislature, that money actually
expended from the state treasury for the common
defence, may be refunded to the state. It is ac-
knowledged by Gen King the mover Of the res
olutions, that the expenditure was necessary
that part of it in particular was the sole means
of preventing the District of Maine from falling
into the possession of the enemy,--that a large
part of the expenditure was made under his par
ticular observation, and that it was done with
discretion and economy, and was the means Of
defending that part Of the country at one tenth
part of the expense at which it could have been
done by the general government.


Ifthen the money has been actually expended,
economically and discreetly, and in service ac-
knowledged by all parties to have been necessa-
ry, why has it not been long since refunded?
Simply for this reason-therc was dispute be-
tween the President and the Governor on the
question whose right it was to determine when
militia services were necessary; and therefore
it Is contended the president ought not TO pay
for them, when both thought them necessary.


Hence arise two questons-i. Whether the
governor was right in his Interpretation Of his du
ty under the constitution? 2. Whether, if he was
wrong, bis error weakens the claim Of the state
for services rendered when both agreed.


|. The governor was right in his opinion, the
federalsts say, and maintain it by powerful ar
guments He was right the Supreme court Of this !,
State hare said. He was right the Legislature |
and people of this state have said, and therefore
the claim is good. We do not see the force Of