The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1839-06-15
From a. Richmond Wig, aoA March, 1889.

the 18th Of February wishes 10 know il the Conserve
iises hAve aihered TO MIR Kves Tor he causeior The
sake oi senatorial Independence, against Executive
po~er-beeanse he Is 10 be prescribed account Of
his opposition 10 the Sub-ueasury scheme Mr. Richie
knows full well the Conservatives have said So and yet
he says. rs deny the fact
II is not my present purpose TO demonstrate as NAV
he doae by consulting recent events, that friends OF
Mr. Van Buren, seek TO proscrit,e MIR Riyes solely on
account Of his Independence aud his powerful OPPOSE
ton 10 the Sub-lreasuTy scheme bot, purpose
show that the editor Of the Enquirer has Just
of oppo.ition 10 Mr. Ryes' reelection, unless. indeed
he has reasons for such opposition, as yet unassigned
The venerable editor anti Bank, anti Internal I'm
proyeneal 10y the General Gosernmen) anti Tariff,
anti Abolition, aud all that and so 10 MI hises MI
Richie is friend To the right Of Instruction, ana MI
Ryes has given Iusrous exemplihcsonoi ME devotion
10 the doctrine. IL Mr. H. differs at all from Mr. H.
about the delegated powers Of the Gent r Government
or the reserved rights Of the States, the difference has
not been pointed out by Mr. Rhche. u either 10 less
friendly than the other TO economical Administration
Of the General Government II Is not Mr. hsesrshd
IL either favor Of reforming our state bahks
than the other, il is MIR Rives.
In what, then, do they differ, that MI kiiche should
labor zcslously in opposition 10 Mr. Hives fe-eiec'
ton Viii Mr.. Richie contend that measures ought
not be adopted, Iar as The Constitutional poofrs
Of Coaeress uiH aao,r 10 prevent interference OF Fe-
dersl officers in State elections II 80. then they dil-
fer aud the friends Of Mr. Rves submit 10 the coun,
Try, which that adheres TO the Republican creed Of
the fathers Of the X, public
But must let Mr. Richie speak for himself 10
the Enquirer Of the 9Th January, 1889, he holds this
language:
1--WE disagreed with Mr. Rives about the substitute
he had proposed for The Subreasury system but we
IN hopes. that might be able TO meet on some
common ground TO settle The whole question
. II is precisely because Mr. tyes late course seems
calculated defeat these objects, thstwe are compelled
dissent from the spirit oil his speech We subscribe
fha Suh .tFan and
10 the force Of his abstract objections Against the ex
tension of Executive discretion We would have voted
for his resolutions But why make charges when he is
calling for proofs !"
Thus il will be seen considering the Enqurer's uni
form avowals Of hostility to the Sub.ireasury scheme
that Mr.. Richie not oly concurs with Mr.. Hives IN
opposing that scheme, but actually subscrIbes to most
Of his arguments. IL may be. (ior wish 10 state these
matters fully and fsry,) Mr.. Richie only admits,
that he subscrbes mast Of Mr. Riyes' arguments on
this SUBJECT and leaves be inferred, that he dissents
from some of them--t may be- say, that the argn-
ments urged by Mr. Rves, frem .>hich Mr. Richie thus
implicitly dssents Of such character, as TO con-
srtute Just Of opposition 10 Mr. Rlyes re-eec-
lion to the Senate II SO, is obviously due 10 fairness
aud candor. that Mr. Richie shall specify those excep
iiolable arguments
"Mr Rlv.s late course" referred to in the Enquirer
on the 9Th Of January, consisted ~ his introducing ceI
tain well remembered resolutions of inquiry, touching
The conduct of the Secretary OF the Treasury under
the law Of the 7h Of July, 1888, auhorising him to
SELL for money in hand !" the two bonds against the
Bank Of the United States Ct Pennsylvania, which
were payable IN 1899, and 1S40 and IN his making
speech. The occasion, which Mr.. William H. Roane
himself admits strictly parliamentary
II must answer my purpose as intend 10 he sue
cinci, and write TO be read 10 invite Mr.. Riches at
tenlion 10 a single view Of that Transaction.
In Mr., Wrights speech, which is said TO be . able
ard conclusive" alter the facts connected with the
negotiation and the sale Of the third bond set FORTH
the following rected being, coniessedy. the
only evidence Of The payment Of the purchase money
by The bank for the third bond, to wit =
"BANk OF THE U. STATES, Aug. l, 1888.
hereby certify that Charles Manchester, Esq, has
this day deposited the credit Of the Treasurer OF the
United States in special depos,te, the sum Of two
millions hundred and tyio thousand eight hum
bred and dollars and thirty cents, sub
ect TO the drafts of the said Treasurer.
J. COWPERTHWAIT, Cashier"
The point on which ask to be informed, is this
What Kind Of money did Mr. Manchester deposiie 10
the credit Of the United States Treasurer in payment
Of SAID bond Was it Treasury notes. gold or sill
yer, or partly Of each IL neither and in The kind
Of money deposited, the notes Of The baak will it be
said that the Secretary complied with the law requiring
him sell said bend for "money in hand" that is, for
cash. when, Mr.. Wright shows, the deposiie was
made the st Of August, 1888, while the bank denied
specie for its notes, and until thirteen days
after the purchase money for the bond thus paid,
that the bank resumed specie payments!
If these questions be only answered truly, by an
~ledgment that the kind Of money deposited in
payment Of the bond the notes Of the suspended
bank will Mr. Rltchle contend longer, that Mr. Rives
conduct otherwise than proper tracing the trans
action and exposing legnl,y Is j, in this part Of
Mr.. Rivcs representative conduct, that the Enquirer
has found jnst OF opposition 10 MIR. Rves re-
election! When, TOO, it has turned out as Mr. Rives
had strong to suspect, that by the Intimate con-
| L.lI
ton. BY its Practice admits what its theory dsnes that
State Banks the saessor, at least, most Convenient
agents for conducting It's fiscal affairs
Bot Mr.. Richie 'dissenls from the spirit Of that
speech I" If in that consists Mr. Riches Just
Of opposition to Mr. Rves' re election, ! am touched
with feeling Of pity for its hrmty. why make the
charges asks the Enquirer "when calling for proofs "
IT. indeed, Mr. Rves erred at all in this matter, was
IN making charges when calling for proofs; Tor in do
ing, he closely inflated the example Of Mr. Richie,
Who when asking Mr. kves If he is the friend Of this
Administrations has, often and for effect framed
his questions TO charge him with being It's enemy.
proceed now, in conclusion, to the only other
assigned, expressly or by implication in the En-
qurer, for its opposition to Mr. Rves reelection;
less, indeed, that opposition is TO the man, which will
not charge looking, as am, for light.
The Enquirer disagreed with Mr.. Rives about his
substitute aud hoped 10 meet some ground!
That substitute, will he recolected. proposed REIN
state the State Bank deposite system, with i'm
porant improvements Did the Enquirer lend its aid
to perfect that substitute, any wise, beyond its sug
gestion Of system Of special deposscs
That project Of special depos,es comprises g the
common ground" which the Enquirer has hoped TO
meet his dissenting bretheren and settle the whole
question
Mr.. Rives dsagrees with Mr.. Richie on this topic,
and is not friend Of permanent scheme Of special de-
posi,es Is il this disagreement that constitutes Mr..
Riches just Of opposition 10 Mr. Rves re-elec
|
not h equal justice, encrcle the Administration and
grapple with independent esprit" Of opposition
Ian Administration which 1t may be. 10 conciliate the
widely circulating Enquirer, has merely limited that