{"newspaper_name": "The Litchfield County post.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 4618, "word_count": 798, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9919000267982483], "ccnet_perplexity": [613.2000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
imOsity, towards those who have no fault, but their greater favor with the public, he did not perceive, how our free and pOpu- {aE-institutions were to be maintained. CDtxainly he thought the present President

 was entitled to somewhat kinder treatment than that which he had received. He was

 citizen of Massachusetts, State not un- known nor undistingHished in the history of the country. She had manifested no exclusive regard to those who belonged to herself. She had at no time withheld her vote or her support from distinguished in- dividuals, citizens of other states. Vir- gipia for example had given four Presi- dents to the Union, and for three of these, at least Massachusetts gave her vote, and when she had not given her vote, as in MT. Monroe'S first election, her support of the

 President was sincere and zealous because she found no reason to complain of his measures 1t was not therefore unnatur- al to expect, that when a citizen of Mas sachusetts had been elected in constitu- tional manner, to fill the same office, he might at least have experienced the com mon candor of being judged by his acts.

 He wished to speak with great respect of

 Virginia. He remembered that there was a time when she and Massachusetts had stood together, shoulder to shoulder, the leading champions of independence and liberty. But it could not escape observa- ton, that during the whole period now near 40 years, in which the present government had existed, Virginia had never once giv- on her vote for the office of President, to any but native of her own State. There was another thing not altogether unwor- thy of observation. The ground of objec- ton to the election of the present Presi- dent was, that he was not the leading candidate before the people-that another

 received more votes than he, and that oth- CT, as approaching nearer to the choice of the people. ought to have been elected. N0% it is somewhat curious, that this com- plaint should be most loudly made, by

 those who supported not the highest, but

 the lowest candidate by those who gave their OWE votes for him who came with the least recommend dation fromfhe people, and who have endeavoured in vain to elect him to the presidency, now charge disre- spect for the public sentiment, an absolute effrontery on those who voted for candi- date, who had received twice as much sup- port, in the popular elections as their own.

 The President had received the vote of the people of this State, and the vote also of the Representative in Congress. He had been chosen principally by the north- ern and the western States, and since an organized and extensive opposition had been raised, for no reason that he(Mr. w knew of, except simply that he had been chosen, it seemed the duty of those who had placed him in office t, give him fair and just support.

 lift were the general sentiment then, as he believed it to be, that the adminis- tration ought to be supported, against per- sonaF or groundless opposition, the ques- ton was, how should that support be rem dered. Spcaking.in in reference to parties that had hitherto existed in the Common wealth, were these parties to unite, and to act with concert and effect, or were they still to preserve towards each other an att titude of coldness and distance, if not of hostility, although their sentiments and ob- jects were now acknowledged to be the same For his own part, he thought such a question answered in the stating of it. Could there be case, in which union was more pecessary,o ,or disunion more senselessl It was said indeed that parties had existed in the Commonwealth for thiry years that they had differed on leading questions that these differences had gone deep and wide-and that therefore il would be im- practicable now to feconcile them. If the permission be true, let not the conclusion be too hastily admitted. What was the nature of these differences On what did this distinction of parties rest They were not distinct orders in the state. with sep- perate and unequal privileges. They were not the Palrician and Popular part ties of Rnme, nor the feudal or landed in- terest, arrayed against the mercantile and industrious classes, as in some modern states. In these last instances, there were permanent grounds of difference, arising fron opposing interests. Cur differences on the contrary have been mere differen- ces of opinion upon questions of govern ment, and on its public measures The rich and the poor, the learned, and the un- learned. the powerful and the feeble, were found on both sides of the question. Now if the subjects which caused these differ