Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1834-03-14
Tue psc.mbl, /. IN ,h,., norI.

The preamble Is la these words;
Uhereds, The General Assembly OF Virginia deem
oil the utmost Importance that the power 10 co"ol the
public revenue should be made to abide ia practice, where
has heen vested by the Constitution, in the immediate
representatives. oil the people, aud tho States ia Congress
assembled" SC.
Now confess have been loss to understand
precisely whatits that the legislature to sihrm
DO they mean TO assert merely that Congress, in the
su,ionai sense, with the approval OF the President
without his appreciation, by vote OF woths OF both
Houses, are vested by the Constitution with authority to
make laws conre ming the public revenue, or Tor .ihe
control OF the public revenue'' after il is raised p?
IL so. then they affirm what human being ever
eonUoVeted or questioned; but it seems to be wholly
immaerid 10 the present controversy, especially "a II
proposition equally OF every oiher subject OF ie
uerai 'egisiaioh aud after all, amounts 10 nothing more
nan mat Congress have right TO pass all laws within
the scope oil their legislative authority under the Cons
tuition To suppose this TO have been their meaning,
would be TO impute TO the legislature degree oil solemn
uiilng, only equalied by that OF member OF Par
lament. who rose in the House Of Commons, in
great indignation, some supposed msconst, tio,
OF law, and said, "Mr. Speaker: We have laws
or we have not laws IL we have laws, and they
a ere not obeyed, TO what purpose have lave"
10 whieh MT Sheridan promptly and very wildly re-
Piled as follows: "Mr Speaker: The gent e,sn has spo
Ken 10 the purpose, or he has no, spoken the purpose
ne mas not spoken to the purpose to what purpose has
the respect which sincerely entertain Tor the Wis
uom anu gravity OF the Legislature OF Virgnia 10 sup
pose that they assert OPPOSITION so general
aud irrelevant. Then there are only two other ineipre.
'a'ions which can be put upon their language.
Does the Legislature mean TO affirm, that control
the public revenue can be exerted by law passed
the concurrence OF the Executive and by less than
joy oil two thirds OF each House of Congress- that
control over the public revenue be exerted by Con-
gress IN some other way than by legislative joint
resolution? Surely the assertion that any such control
IN practice, or vested by the constitution in the
immediate representatives OF the people, aud Of the States
Is wholly uniounded There nothing in the Cons,
a' nave been able TO perceive which gives the
conntenance 10 the opinion.
Can the Legislature mean TO say that the control of
me puohc revenue in relation TO the execution Of the
Jaws concerning revenue after it is raised belongs to the
LEGISLATIVE Department. to the exclusion Of the Execu-
i've Department. II this be what is then il is oh.
yousi that so tar from such control being vested by the
CONSTITUTION Is directly in conflict with the expires pro
visions OIL Tie Constitution, by wbic!, the OF
iawsis committed 10 the Executive Department. The LIE.
gsiaure has the power and The right TO make what laws
II may Judge best concerning the revenue as as
~ other matter within the sphere OF federal
ihey may alter and amend these laws pleasure but il
devolves on the executive power to them faithfully
executed and to exert all the powers which belong TO him
TO ensure their faithful execution.
One or the other of these three propositions mus, be
embraced by the preamble which was intended, do
not Know IL the hrst then appears be wholly imua
eria TO any question in controversy; and if either of
me Two last they seem TO be entirely unsound and fai.
licious ~ "
In the outset, them seems TO me the Lesisau, bav
ia''en into error Having begun with wrong premises il
natural to suppose that their conclusions should be
equally "nsound The foundation OF their reasoning
ing upon assumptions, not OF power but OF principle il
Is not 10 be wondered at if the should be
unsteady anu unable 10 stand the touch stgaon
ne hrs two resolutions, according to my understand
ing oil them, affirm, substantially, the same prnciple
hey inter In only one feature, which, although not at
s' view very sking, gives an inportan, expression
The whole But at present have TO do with the general
principle maintained in both these resolutions viz that
the act OF the President, in causing be withheld and
wtdrawn "the public deposes from the Bank the Unit
ed States by his inter ference with the Treasury
Department OF the Federal Government has been guilty.
IN the Judgment OF the General Assembly of
anu alarming assumption OF power, which be too
strongly condemned.
The act OF the President in interfering with the Trca-
sry Department. is what is denounced. The act of the
PRESIDENT was the removal OF Mr. Duane from Office; and
am willing TO take it f,r granted that his removal from
oice took place because he would conform his official
acuon as 10 the deposites, to the of the
dent ast what was justified by the rre pretaon of
the law and required by due regard the public nte-
ress And moreover, that his chosen be-.
cause among oher reasons his opinion know
IN accordance with those OF the Il esiaen as 10 the neces
sty and Proprieiy OF the removal OF the deposites.
ITO be continued