The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-09-25

.
( mliG t. %uuaua MtL llEZnI va Fra - va
\ t-E% d.. 1TEEaa'1 hpE FOR THE MADIsoNiAN.
rE''#2 Aa MR.. EwINGs LETTER. 1f' #r,a
4 As imprecations and charges Of grave character
have been avishly hurled upon President Tyler, for
the exercise Of the veto but particularly as they say
in the Wing Address, In that ercessipe use of the
Veto power" Gas if he not bound by his oath to
use it often mperious necessity might demand }
it becomes the duty of those who believe in his ho-
nesty to present the points in Mr. Ewing's letter in
their true light; showing therefrom, that the ine-
not true of Inconsistency on the part of the
President but that the contrary, every line of his
letter goes to establish the most perfect consistency
and honesty. ...
Mr. Ewing first sets FORTH that, to "
"Avoid misunderstanding, distinctly declare that
do not consider difference Of opinion as to the
charter Of a National Bank sufficient reason for
dissoving the ties which have existed between U.S."
Here there is an express ayowal that the loss Of a
Bank BILL not sufficient to estrange him from the
President. If, therefore, Mr.. Ewing, who is the
Wing, around whom or through whom faction of
of the Wings rally in this emergency, neither should
they consider difference Of opinion to the char
ter of National Bank sufficient reason for dissolv-
ing the ties which have existed between them" But
where there is desire to do any act there always
be found pretext. IT. then, the Wing press, previ-
ousy to the receipt of Mr. Ewing letter, wrong
in the issue, and it was not the difference of opinion
on National Bank" that President Tyler was OBJ
noxious to2-what was it Why, since Mr.. Ew-
ings letter. they have discovered it was his "want OF
candor;" betrayal of his party" and any thing and
every thing. Let US examine this letter, and then
to whom these charges will best apply. That the
President entertained and expressed but one view,
Mr.. Ewing clearly shows, for he says: I'd adt @a@#
" is but just you to say that the bill which first
passed the two Houses of Congress, and which was
returned with your objections the 10th of August
did neUer its progress as far as know or believe,
receive at any Time either your erpress or implied
sent" ya yjNr g W. ID lraggf 4 rqnrsty df 4- .a
81 knew the extent to which you wero committed
on the question knew the pertinacity 10 which you
adhered TO your oppressed opinions" @f.G4@et' s&
These require no comment, they conclusively show
that the first bill received an assent express or
implied. s,, G,,rs, .f N, ,;t...H.t Ft T.. .-. has,
% Yet, in the next paragraph following he says g,s
You may not is true, have read the bill through
out and examined every part of but the 10th fun
damenal article, which became the contested question
IL
was understood and uncquivocally sanctioned by
yourself The last clause in the bill, also, which
contained reservation of power in Congress, was in
serted on the 9th Of June in your presence and with
your APPRECIATION though you at one time told me
that in giving your sanction the BILL you would ac
company it with explanation Of your understand
ing Of that first clause" ..,, y; ,j.. # 81 -,.,,
d Now, here is papabe contradiction, for ifit ne
yer received the Presidents assent "erpress or inn
u - H.
pocaliy sanctioned" But will any honest man read
the above and say the President would give his
equipocal sanction to BILL (about the details Of which
he was SO scrupuously pertinacious) if it so
biguous and Of doubtful construction that he had to
accompany it with an explanation of his under
standing of itsendng it forth as the painter did his
horse, with the inscription written beneath "this is
the horse, that they might not mistake it for an ass
No, Mr. Ewing will have to tell another story to be
credited for this is ncredulous to be believed He
then closes that portion of his letter relative to the
i, st bill, thus: .... -........
=" could not find in that act enough to disturb the
confidential relations which existed between us. !
was disposed to attribute this to pure and honora
Bile motives, and to conscientious conviction your
part that the BILL in some of its provisions conficed
with the Constitution"
Let us pause here before proceeding to the remain
der of the letter. and review the foregoing for the bet
ter understanding ofthat which follows. Mr.. Ewing
says he does not consider the first Veto sufficient
reason for dssoving the ties between them because
the bill received the consent Of the President,
express implied but that he adhered to his ex-
pressed opinions with pertinacity and exercised the
Veto from conscientious conviction that the bill con-
ficted with the Constitution. Now, let any honest
man read this and what must be his conviction that
the President throughout acted consistently and from
pure and honorable motives, under the awful RESPONSE
bility of an oath--to those who believe in mans ho-
nesty and responsibility this will be enough But
many will say, what could have induced Mr.. Ewing
to have published such evidence against himself
"Quem deus vult perdere, prius demented." In my
next will review that part Of the letter relative to
the second Veto. ... -F-.st.ai E. -s. e..
81. , NEW JERSEY.