Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1834-01-20

| scire fncias, in case o! Hlisounus 80 rsovern.
fluence which the appontileiie. "a &c tho now
,ant directors gives us; and, hnaiiy, II tiie po
or which we have of appointing cohiimit.oos ~
oI-",,;na into its condition. are not sutnclent 70
| bo1d the institution in check; II, IN splte VI az
those il has, from the innate corrupuoh VI suol
institutions, been guilty OF the enormous aoosos
.nd crimes charged against II, Wnat may we
aA ovnect from the associated banks the favor
ties off he Treasury. over the renewal OF whose
| charter the Government has no power; agallis'
which II can issue no Scire tdctdS; IN whose Oh
rection il has not single malVloud, anu nv
whose conduct Congress can appoint no III
! nittee To look? With these checks all VIII
49,, What would be the condition OF the pup
! lie funds! .ho o,tsat of nv
ran,arks that AS broad as was the power Wiil VIZ,
the Secretary had assumed IN relatlol W 80.
denostes that there was portion OF tie ian5
action of highly important character ~
he has not alluded, and IN reiatloii ~ wiz
he has not even attempted Justlncation.
will now proceed W iAi"N0 So
the letter ,.a,oo be+ween 1rith-
L. money from going into the bank, ana
,,jtbdrn1rine it after it has Deen piaceu to i
The former is authorized in the manner "ilion d !
have stated, under the sixteenth secuoh, WIZ 4Sn
directs, as has been ifequelltly s5"; *; ,ha hank
pubic money shall be deposited IN tne o etha
unless otherwise ordered by the Secretary y. tiie
Treasnrv But neither that section nor any Poi-
tion of fhe act incorporating the pahk, hol, III
truth. any other act, gives the oecIetaly any a."
thoritv. of himself to aoithdraW puDlic money ue-
nosited in the bank. There is, repeat d mate
rial difference between u'thhot0"g puoliT W, ~
10. 10, fer, denosite and loithdra ping IL When
nsid into the place designated by law DIS the de-
posite of the public money itpasses TO the credlt
ppf tho Treasurer and then is in the treasury
of the limited States, where it is placed under
the protection of the constitution itself, and from
which, by an express provision OF the cohstitu-
ton, il can only be withdrawn by an approprla-
tion made by law So careful were the trainers
of the act Of 1916. to leave nothing to implica-
ton, that express authority is given to the Sc
cretary of the Treasury, in the fifteenth sec
ton. to tranfer the deposites from one place
to another, for the convenience OF olsOuISe-
ments; but which, by strange perverson, IS
now attempted to be so construed as 10 confer
on the Secretary the power to Withdraw tne
money from the deposite, and TO loan 1t to Ia
vorite state banks | express myself too ia
vorably: should say, TO his favOrtes, without IN
terest with view to sustain their credits, or en-
large their protits-a power, not only far oeyono
the Secretary but which Congress itself could
not exercise without fragrant breach OF the con-
stitution. But it is said, IN answer 10 these
views, that money paid In deposlte lilto tlle
bank, as directed by law, is not in the treasury
7 will not stop, said Mr.. c., to reply to such an
objection. IF it be not in the Treasury, where
Is the Treasury? lift be not money IN the lfea-
surv. where is the money annually reported 10
be in the Treasury? Where the eight or nine
millions which, by the annual report OF the pc
Cretary. is said TO be now in the TreaSuryF Are
we 70 understand that none of this money IS, IN
truth. in the Treasury?-that it is floating ABOUT
at large, subject to be disposed OTTO be gwen
away, at the will of the Executive, to tavorltes
and partzans? SO it would seem; tor 1t ap-
pears, by a correspondence between the Ired,
surer and the Cashier of the bank, derived
through the bank, (the Secretary not deeming
il worth while to give the slightest information
Of the transaction, as matter of course,) that
he has drawn out two millions and quarter OF
the public money, without appropriation, and
distributed il at pleasure among his faVortes!
But is attempted to vindicate the conduct OF
the Secretary on the ground OF precedent
will not stop to notice whether the cases cltea
are in point; nor Will aVall mysen OF the glea'
and striking advantage that ght have on the
Question of precedent; this case stands alone
and distinct from all others There is none 81
nnilar to it in magnitude and Importance. /
waive all that; place myself on hlgher GROUNDS
i stand on the immovable principle that, on
question of law and constitution, IN dehDera"
tive assembly there is no room-no place Tor
ingredients, To admit them would be to make
the riolQtion of today the ld1o and Constitution
of to-1norroao; and to substitute IN the place OF
the loritten and sacred acH Of the people and the
LEGISLATURE, the infraction Of those charged ruth
the erecution of the lau. Such, in my opinion,
is the relative force of law and constitution on
one side, as compared with precedents on the
other. Viewed in different light, not in refer
ence to the law or constitution, but to the con-
duct of the officer, am disposed to give rather
more weight to preCedents, when the question
relates to an excuse or apology for the officer,
in case of infracton 1.-THE infraction be trl-
vial one in a case not calculated to excite at
tention. an officer might fairly excuse himself on
the ground of precedent; but in one like this OF
the utmost magnitude, involving the mghest IN
terests and most important principles, where the
attention of the officer must be aroused to a
most careful examination, he cannot avail him
self of the plea of precedent to excuse his con-
duct. 1t is a case where false precedents are 70
be corrected and not foll0lced. An officer ought
10 be ashamed in such case, to attempt to VIM
dictate his conduct on charge OF violating la"
or constitution by pleading precedent The
principle in this case is obvious If the Secreta-
RVS right to withdraw public money from the
Treasury be clear he has no need OF precedent
to vindicate him. Ifnot, he ought not in case
of en- much magnitude to have acted.