Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1841-10-07
HON. JOIN MINOR BOLTS.

HUN. JUN MINOR B0TIS
1t will be recollected that Mr.. Ewing in his
statement of the reasons which induced him
to resign his place in the Cabinet, intimated a
belief that the President had been greatly in
fuenced in the course he took on the Fiscal
Corporation bill by Mr.. Bots Coaee-house
letter.-An intmation of the same kind was
also given by Mr.. Webster in his letter to the
Massachusetts Senators in Congress. We
deem it but an act of justice, therefore, to Mr..
Bolts, to publish the following note on the
subject which we find appendedto his speech
on the second Veto, as written out by him
self for the National Intelligencer:
NorE.--l perceive by Mr.. Ewing's letter
resigning his situation as Secretary of the
Treasury, that he ascribes the loss of the
bank bill to my letter; by which / suppose
sOnian; and which the ex-Secretary very I'M
tremendously, and think unnecessarily, if
not unkindly, takes occasion most 'unequivo-
cally to condemn" If he could not approve,
| do not see that his condemnation" was par
ticularly called for nor can exactly see what
there in that letter to justify his 'sune-
quivocal condemnation" if the one-half that
he says of Mr. Tyler is true, and | do not
doubt the truth of all he states as matter of
| fact. His inference to the effect of that
| letter do not concur in; and if the Hon.
Secretary had paid little more attention to
dates and facts he would not have been so
prompt to throw responsibility on me, that
was not entitled to bear.
The letter was written on the 10Th August;
it was copied and sent to the President, and
reached him on Thursday evening; it was in
his possession all of Friday, and the second
bill was presented to the House with the
appreciation and sanction of the President on
the next day Saturday, andt was on the Mon
day following that the President said to two
members of Congress, 'he would lose both
his arms before he would sign the bill.'-
| Now do not condemn the Secrctary's letter
because he has only done what did my
self, to tell the truth in relation to public af-
fairs, which the public were entitled to know;
but surely there is much reason for me to
condemn the Secretary as there is for the
Secretary to condemn me for if my letter
was calculated to produce mulish DISPOSE
ton in the President and prevent his signature
to that bill, the Secretary's letter is equally
calculated to make him still more stubborn,
and defeat any other bill that may be prepar-
| ed in future.
I Again Was the Secretary aware, at the
time he was endeavoring to throw upon me
the responsibility of the loss of the bank, that,
( while that bill was under discussion in the
! House of Representatives, the President had
prepared for a member of Congress an amend
ment with his own hand, to be presented to
| the House, with which amendment lac said he
would be perfectly satisfied to sign the bill,
| This amendment it was deemed unadvisable
to offer in the House, as the bill was Just then
about to pass from the committee and before
| it could be decided whether it was advisable
to offer it in the Senate or not, MIR. Tyler sent
for the member of Congress into whose hands
he had put ii, and said to him that he had chan
ged his mind again, and hoped no bill would
be sent to him. All this trafiicking was sub
sequent to the publication of my letter.
The amendment prepared by Mr.. Tyler is
as follows, and to come in at the end of the
18th section:
'And provided, further, And it is to be ex-
pressly understood that before any such a.
gency shall be authorized to deal or trade, as
is in this and the 9th section of the bill provi-
ded, the assent of the State i'll which any such
agency is established shall be first had and
obtained by an express resolution of the Leg
isature, or in some other form of usual legis-
lative proceeding"
Now assert as fact susceptible of proof
that Mr. T'yler's change ofopinion and equiv
ocation OH this subject has arisen from de-
termination from thefirst not to sign any bank
bill. Did not Mr.. Wise say on the day the
last veto was under discussion, in reply tc
Mr. Thompson, of Indiana, thathe could have
told him at any time ''that John Tyler neve
intended to sign any bill establishing Ma
tional Bank 7" And did not Mr.. Tyler say
in the first week of the session, to gentleman
of the highest responsibility, when speakin.
of bis standing in Virginia, ~Let them give mt
an opportunity to exercise the veto power
and will have the whole State with mei ''-
thus manifesting a fixed purpose and design t,
exercise that power, and that, too, for the pur
pose OF securing personal popularity to him
self
Il II all this does not remove the impression