The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1837-09-02
From the Richmond Enquirer.
THE ALTERNATIVES.

The Washington Globe copied at length
the article signed Camillus" from the En-
aurer and at the same time announced its
| intention sf " offering some remarks on II
hereafter" This was on the 18th inst On
the l4th the Reply to Camillus" was COM
menced with the following:
/" Shall the Treasury or he Banks hare the custody
! of The public money !"
A correspondent Of the Richmond Enquirer using
the signature OF Csmllus elaborate essay, argues
the proprety Of continuing the trust Of the National
Treasure with the State Banks The direct reference this
communication makes TO the Of this prih in
gard the subject discussed invites reply We shall,
therefore, successive articles opportunity permits,
recur the paper Of Camlllus, (Which we have pub
shed at full length) and respond to such portions
| npcaie tho views taken by the Globe Preliminary to
the discussion, must set right some statements Of
| facts assumed by Camillus. This writer says:
BY recurrence the columns Of the Globe, will
he found, that when this proposition making the Trcasu.
ry the public depository was submitted to the House Of
Representatives by Mr.. Gordon it most violently
sailed by that journal
'sWe have REQUIRED to the columns Of the Globe at
the date referred to, and find nothing like attack
Mr. GordoHs proposition, which It IS said tods most
pioienty assaiied by that journal We have carefully
examined the editorial notices throughout the two
sons which tho proposition made and have not
been able discover any passage that be relied on
To answer present arguments by the charge that
they inconsistent with those previously advanced by
US
I'VE call upon the author OF Camillus, therefore,
the Richmond Wing, which has repeated the charge, to
point the paragraph which have 'rtoeHiiy as
sa,teG Mr. Gordons proposition We had no recoilec.
ton that Mr. Gordon had made such proposition, until
| the journal was recently shown by friend II
appears from his printed speech in the Register of De-
bates that first introduced by him on the 10Th OF
june 1884 The journals show that he again submitted
the It'll of February, 1885 but at neither OF the
epochs, when this proposition was submitted TO the
House of Representatives, do we find that II pas
mast p,oienty assaited by that journal (the Globe)
We do not find, after the closest search that We even
mentioned Mr., Gordon or the proposition
:" But do fnd that which satisfies us we never
could have taken objection to such proposition
upon grounds which render inconsistent in to ad
vocate it in the presen, state of things We find that
we suggested it before Mr. Gordon himself proposed 1t
in Congress"
1t will be seen by the foregoing, that the
Globe calls on Camius, to point out the para
graph in which it has assailed :" Mr.. Gordon's
proposition" | have TOO high an opinion of
the fairness Of the conductor of that paper to
believe, that he could resort to a shallow sub
terluge to parry Off the charge made by Ca
millus. Indeed, there is proof in the above,
that he had no such intention; for, he says,
referring to his search through the columns
of the Globe, for the alleged attack on Mr..
Gordon's proposition, but we do find that
which satisfies us, neuer could haze taken
an objectioa to such a proposition, upon grounds
rhich m0uld render At Inconsistent an us to adj
p0cdte u in the present state OF things" This
declaration, it will be perceived has reference
altogether 10 The proposition, whether emana-
ting from Mr.. Gordon, or from any one else.
1t will also be perceived, that the Globe
claims the credit of having suggested il before
Mr.. Gordon himself proposed it in Congress-"
On the 18th inst. the Globe, in noticing an
article in the Charlottesville Republican, says:
1--WE have examined our files twice for the de-
nunciaton Of the scheme alluded to, and have not been
able find it. We satisfied, for already
given to the public that could have expressed
the views imputed to us If however. such sentiment
uttered the editorials Of the Globe, matter from
what hand. should be glad if the Charlottesville Re-
publican would give reference to it. We think the
author Of Caniins has been m,sinformcd on thus point
and toH do us jusnce."
Fortunately, after much enquiry and trou
BILE, have obtained access to a file of the
Globe, for the year 1884. In examining lis
columns but once "over," | have found that
which view as an overwhelming denun-
citation of the scheme alluded to y and which,
in my humble judgment, renders the Globe
/
guments are " Inconsistent ruth those previous
iy adoanced,"
In September, 1884, twenty-six citizens Of
Richmond, addressed to Mr.. Leigh letter.
enquirng "Me hme meaning" of certain
passage Of one of his speeches in the Senate,
and his future course" towards the Bank of
the United States.
On the 3Oth of September, 1874, the Globe
commenced its structures on the letter which
Mr.. Leigh wrote in answer, from the first of
which, make the following extract. 1t was
! headed thus:
WHAT is HE ATT
Senator Leigh has written letter for publication
which has been ushcrcd forth in the Richmond Wing
with OF explaining the awful alternatives of sup
| porting unconstitutional bank, something
unconstitutional presented to Virginia by ono of his
speeches IN the Senate If any one on reading it, can
10 any other conclusion, than that this dgnltary
intends to vote ultimately for the rc-establshmen Of the
United States Bank. organized essentially now
depository OF the public moneys and for no other
pa# substitute whatever, his perceptions different
from ours. Mr. Leigh does indeed say
4" : In my opiron, the trainers of the Constitution had
thought OF any bank agency whatever State Fede
raj either for facilitating the operations of the Treasury
or for regulating the currency and that administer the
Government IN the spirit OF the Constitution, and
according to the intention Of its founders the Treasury
ought to be divorced from all connection with banks State
| or Federal
What then ! Why the public moneys, from the
time Of their receipt to the time OF their disbursement
amounting they often do, to ten Twelve millions
Of dollars must remain in the hands OF individuals /;
appointed By The President and remorahe Al his mjH,
/ And this comes from man who has leagucd with
OF others to dcnouncc the President usnrper
and contenner of the Constitution and Laws because
he claimed for the Executive the custody OF the public
money much more limited sense He has never
claimed that should he IN the actual keeping Of Exc
cuvo officers, but only that he their credit
and within their control uaCr such restrictions as Com
gross mdy impose, in some bank or banks, or other