Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1838-10-09
respectfully yours. &c,
ONE OF THE PEOPLE.

FOR TIE ENQUIRER.
In what we have heretofore said, have not pursued
our subject systematically. We design 10 do so
The issue made upis-air. Van Buren, and separation
of Government and Banks in their fiscal concerns on
the one part and Mr. Clay and United States Bank, as
the fiscal agent of the Government on the other. We
have now TO choose between them. For our part we
have no hesitancy in taking the former. Objections have
been urged against divorce between the Government
ana The Banks, by nearly the whole body OF the Wings,
and also by small portion Of the Republicans The
Wings see IN The adoption Of such measure, Ia.
tai stab given TO their long cherished hopes Of obtain
ing the relns Of Government; and that portion OF
them, who earnestly desire the establishment OF ano.
Their United States Bank, know full WELL that di.
voTce now, between the State Banks and the Govern
n!ent, would be deathbow TO any effort they might
make to do No wonder then, that opposition
comes from that quarter. But oug ht not those who
profess 10 belong TO the Republican ranks, and who
also profess TO be Republicans in failh, ponder we'll be-
fore they entirely the lie that binds them to-
pther, and thereby lessen the chances OF success IN
favor Of those uood bought principles which alone can
insure the peace HAPPINESS and prosperity OF our be-
loved counry' They object TO the adoption OF what Is
called the Sub Treasury bill upon three grounds: FIRST,
because it will increase the power and patronage oil the
Executive Secondly, because 1t will greatly nIure inc
Slate Banks and thirdly because II viii increase the
expenses of distributing the public funds, and render
them less secure. We believe that these are the Gully
objections that have been urged We consider them all
nnenabe. In order TO test this matter, let US look to
The plain and simple facts The case-no, as they have
sract positions and incorrect premises, but they real
ly are Now we affirm, that instead Of increasing the
power and patronage Of The Executive, It will greatly
diminish them If the Sub-Treasury scheme succeeds
the public is TO be collected aud distributed by
the officers Of the customs in commission and their
successors in Office and four Others called receivers, al
annual salary Of about twelve thousand dollars -
The only additional power them would be- the appoint
Inent of these four receivers the Banks are selected
as The fiscal agents of The Government i, will require
at least twenty fye and upon fair estimate there
will be at least Ten thousand persons brought direct
Iy within the patronage Of the President We ask,
then, if the power and patronage Of the Executive
will not be diminished in the that four bears 10
ten thousand The officers Of the customs row IN
commission not and ought not TO be taken into this
estimate, they already in Office BY virtue OF exist
ing laws and would SO continue If the Banks were
70 eced the dIsbursing agents OF the Govern
me Mt This appears 10 my mnd to be the plain and
sill ple fact regards the charge, that the Sub Trea
sur, scheme will add to the power and patronage Of the
Executve If il be 50, what then, becomes OF the first
ground of objection; II is gone. Having no founda
ton r TRUTH vanishes when applied 10 the touch stone
thereof. Let Us now examine The second objection
which is that it will njure the Slate Banks. While we
DENY this position. al The time say, that this IS
an oocc iion whether true false, that ought not 10
weigh feather. How does come about, that in le.is
atIne III Congress, they have any thing 10 do with in
suticns purely belonging TO the States: WHAT right
has to interfere for good for evil with State
institutions; What State Rights politician . consent
that banks created by their own legislation for the bene
fl Of their citizens shall s TUNED over 10 The
ton Of Congress- and the control Of the Federal Eyecu
tive: Will It not he surrendering up principle highly
priced by every real State Rights man: But vii! the
passage Of the Sub Treasury bill in ure the State Banks
This is the question We know IL has been said
and owes again, that Nr. Van Buren, is inn,cal 10
State Banks, and wished them pu. down THIS has
been rged upon him. but not TITLE OF proof has been
adduced sustain H. On the contrary. he considers
them better off when controlled by their legislatures
than when under the control Of Congress the Execu
tive In order TO ascertain whether the State Banks
will be injured by being divorced from Government, let
us recur 10 past events. The charter Of the old U ).
Bank expired in lei and the State Banks brought
under In; control Of the Federal Government, and had
the use of It's funds. What the result: In lh':
course Of years, they nearly all had TO snsp' I'd
spece paympnts and many entirely ruined, am the
Government lost muT, by them In 1881 thaI ~er9
aran selected the GisbursinI agents OF Cove
and had the use Of lis funds. In three years hey had
again to suspend paying specie and although but few
have as vet proven entirely nsolvent yet tell
how many are So Here then, two cases, in which
there has been connection formed between the Stale
Banks and the GOVERNMENT and IN both, uey have besn
injured. When acting in ihcir proper and Legitimate
sphere CONTROLLED by their egsa' ores, they have
Hourshed and soon as the competition was formed
with the Federal Government they wheIed, drcoped,
and died Facts stubborn thirgs, and when told in
plan and simple language, will always carry on2IctUn
10 the mind Of those vino, IN reality, aye III search OF
truth.
We may now, think, say with some desies Of con.
6dence IL We 10 Judge OF the future by the past:
that divorce between the Federal Government and the
State Banks will not any way inj"re them. We de.
sign 10 pursue our remarks hereafter ALliiA.
King & Queen, Sept 49,