Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1834-03-11

w IN
explanation with the President, do not kno a.
but when was requested to state nv sentimeu%,
in writing, did SO in letter, dated Senteroh,nSS
9th, of which the following is an extract.
MY conviction has been and is, that mn nm.
for change of the depository does e,riat a'St
as warrants the exercise of the power con ""V,
on the secretary OF the treasury; that, until nJe
quate cause to change shall arise it will be HE S
ty to deposite as at present, unless congress ~
otherwise direct. So that | can Give M a 5,iai
RANGES but these; will change the depositor,n'
soon as congress shall direct me to do So ny @S
soon as such cause shall arise as will in a.
judgment, justify the act but if congress en- NY
not sanction the removal of the depostes Tt tai
is, do SO previous to removaD am not at Iibon'
to say, that will act at given time; forT dor:
know that at that time there will be anv mns.
reason than there is now for change
"This is the result of reflection. I will -.
pectfully and without bias listen to what NAV.
said hereafter; but have no expectation of W
rying in the least from my present position
| am willing, and ready, and anxious 70 o.
home, as soon as the President shall saw snsg
is his preference, rather than do what Shout
ever after regret and condemn"
Thus 1t appears, refused to fix day, cor
sented to remove the deposites in case cong re".
desired it, and stated my readiness to retro ..
soon as he expressed his preference for tba.
course. Here might rest my defence. bur CON
slider it d duty to proceed.
In my letter Of the 10th Of July said ths,
to justify my own act inremoving the deposits
must rely on my own reasons and not on thoss
of others, obviously abiding to the offer MAD,
to me by the President of his reasons. in case
should not consider my own sufficient The m
fetal paper, however says, refused to act even
upon reasons Legislative" or " executive" TE.
is not only contradicted by the proposition above
quoted, but by the whole course Of my written
and oral discussion with the President; it's aso
controverted by what stated to the legal ADV
ser of the President. my successor in office. atar
interview had with him by the desire of the Pre-.
sident himself. And to show more precisevtbe
nature of my argument, | quote the FOLLOWING
passage from paper drawn up on the 18th OF
July for the purpose Of meeting the Presidents
statements
"You the President are Of opinion that there
is radical error in my view of that part Of the
subject discussed, which relates to reference
of the question Of the depositeS to the next Con.
gress. In order to demonstrate my supposed
error you ask, whether the depositeS can be re,
moved except by the Secretary OF the ITeag.
~? to which there can be no other reply than
that the Secretary alone can remove them
GU, then however, inquire whether Congress
lie money before its removal? 10 which you re.
ply it cannot, and that a removal, Therefore
must be the first step. In this, however, can.
not concur; on the contrary, | am satisfied thai
Congress may control the whole matter. You
conclusions are that the existing grounds FORE.
moving the depOSites are sufficient, and that 50
far, Congress have nothing to do with the que:
ton; that it would be throwing on them re.
sponsibility, not belonging to them but 10 anO'
Their branch Of the government that when
change shall be made, 1t will be time enoug0@
submit it to the revision of Congress, but TIA.
until the change be made they cannot act BO.
Sir, cannot concur in this view Of the subject
the positions assumed, | humby conceive, are
untenable The bank charter reserves TO Con
gress the right to decide after removal, Whether
the removal was proper or not, So that he
spectfully contend that Congress have rgbtD
decide whether a removal should or shouldn't
be made at a future day, for they are TO judge
of the reasons Nor do admit that the respoI'
sibity rests upon the executive branch OF he
governments; on the contrary you grant, inyou
letter of the 18th Of June, that the SecretaYd
the Treasury has by law discretion, whcnG
may use independently. Independently
whom? Surely Of every authority but thaio
the law, and of Congress to whom his condIU
is to be submitted. | may, indeed, be in error
DliI IL WOuII appear W ii'C w 10 " 'N'D'
lar, that the Secretary Of the Treasury shoua
be clothed with a power, which his supeHo'
could not exercise, guide, or control wihouIa'
previous action; that if they should think %.
public funds in danger, they could not Wofu
them, if he thought otherwise. According 10
my impressions, the power of Congress muSl|
wholly unsuited to its Objects if il may h0.|
exercised to instruct its agent to do, or 10"
do, or not to do, the act for which, If done, hyR
obliged to give them his reasons. SothaI ID y,
absence Of all necessity | desire to suDhit u.
question Of the removal Of the deposltes a. r'".
to those who are to decide upon il at IaSI' -,
Whether was correct or not, those were =.
positions, which maintained in discussion W.,
the President, and with the then attorney sG,'
raj, as they must both remember. 30 qS' T.
wholly fallacious to pretend either that w.
ed to be governed by the will OF ConSle n
that the President had the least IncIlllaIDOrz
await their action. On the contrary, Il WS S,sr
cial paper is to be credited the PresdeIH' ~, J' l.,
mined to break down the bank ere ne na or
Tennessee, and of course long before an, GnI he
those occurrences took place, upon S'. no.to,
rested the proprety of removing the .S az corl
And will here remark, that his lloS!II2, .rrr.
not have been founded on cOnstltulionIaa'o rsfr
pies as when introduced into the lnSII 5,t va:
his agent, declaration that the PIeSu.i his
opposed to any national bank, he sub no va.
out and substituted declaration, tH"l rr0g
only opposed to an institution ofga15"1.Iorsion
k,.,r1l