The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-09-30
FOR rHE MACEDONIAN.

Washington from the meeting Of the extra session OF
Congress up to this period, must have perceived the
studied design which has been conceived by certain
political clique 10 destroy the President Why did
not Mr. Clay accept Mr. Riyes's amendment TO the bill
which he introduced as chairman OF the Finance Com
mtee which amendment he had every TO believe
at that day would have with the appreciation Of the
President Why did he turn cold shoulder on Mr..
Ewings projei, and strenuously endeavor to pass a
bank bill through Congress, which he must have
known the President would veto If Mr.. Clay had
have been checked in his by the refusal of
certain Senators to vote for bill which they knew
would disrupt the patty believing as they did that the
President would veto bank bill on the old bass) the
bill of the Finance Committee reported TO the Senate
by MIR. Clay, leould hare been urged through Con-
gress by that Senator. Does this fact speak vol
umes explanatory Of the Of the factous
Wings in Washington Is il not fact to show con-
cusvely that Mr. Clay had desire to preserve the
integrity OF the Wing party2 Yet these men will
have the insolence say to the People that the Pre-
sident has been guilty Of reachery and that his ad-
herence to the Virginia doctrine has distracted the
party. They forget that when honorable man is
accused of perfdy there is double necessity to show
proof OF the act for which they would condemn him.
Has any evidence been adduced any satisfac-
tory evidence be shown to justify these accusations
against the President No. In this wicked at
tempt to load the character of an honest with
ignomny, they have only added to the catalogue of
their crimes. 1t is said that those who in the
habit Of acting criminally Especially in the political
wori) gradually lose just appreciation of the crimes
they commits and by analogy, it is but fair to presume
that they lose just appreciation of the enormty Of
the charges which they may prefer against others On
this principle the charity Of our nature may enable
us look with pity upon the offences which these
hacknied politicians have committed, at the same time
that justice compels to condemn them When they
accuse a gentleman and especially the President Of
the United States Of the basest acts Of treachey and
perfdy they must prone the charges should them
selves be cond emned to nfamy Have they succeed
ed in furnishing satisfactory evidence, is bold
sertion to be mistaken for facts mans reputation
is dearer to him than money or property, and in a
court of law to deprive Of his property you must
prone the right to be in another.
Does Mr.. Ewing's letter. admitting every thing
which he has derived from a betrayal Of Cabinet
cets demonstrate the fact of perfdy in the Presidena
Does rather its malicious weakness and its admit
ted inconsistencies consign its author to the lowest
position among political charlatans2 Does he not him
self admit that if the President at one moment thought
he could conscienciousy sign the BILL that after reiec-
ton and before the passage QfthebH he had changed
his opinion in respect it, of which change Of opinion
Mr. Ewing was cognizant? Will he deny the fact that
he was sol He dare not Because individual at
moment beholds proposition in view and after
atiou from n instrumentation of
its character, TO change his opinion to its merits,
does that change prove perfdy? This is the sum
and substance of Mr. Ewing's charges, even if what
he says were true. Does Mr.. Badger even attempt to
prove perfdy on the part of the Chief Magstrate7-
Mo- he does pretend to say that the President did
not change his opinion about the character of the Elk
change Bank BILL but the offence to him was that the
President did not tell him Of it, Does disrespect to
Mr. Badger form perfdy the part Of the President
to the Wing party2 Unless MIR. Badger is the Wing
party, we humbIy conceive not and Heaven forbid
that the spirit or the Of any party should be
centered in the person of individual who poll
tcian 1--WE have understood has expressed and in
his most recent act has evnced the utmost contemp
for the intelligence and virtue of the people, and has
even protested doctrines Of the most ultra Federal
character
In addition to the two letters of which we have
spoken above, the only testimony which has been
brought forward sustain these wicked and unjust
charges against the personal honor and political in
tegrty of the President, be found in Mr.. Bells
letter. and in Mr.. Bolts speech. Every with
whom we have conversed seems to think that if Mr.
Bell will only write another letter ola similar chaiac-
ter to that which he has lately addressed to the public
that the most nJubitable and straightforward evidence
will be furnished by this gentleman that the President
is entirely guitess Of all charges preferred against
him. Certainly he declares emphatically that the
President said, in Cabinet council, he would ne
yer sign any bill which gave to the Institution
either openly by construction the power Of dis
counting Now the very first objection urged by the
President in his Veto message to the Fiscal Corpora
ton u.s. that the Institution would have the ability to
deal in discounts of the very worst character. So
much for Mr.. Bells letter.
When we come to refer to Mr. Bolts speech, we
find the most conclusive proof furnished by this per-
son, that the President committed to the
bill reported by the committee of the lower House
and passed in three days by that body. He furnishes
the written proof circumstances and facts cant lie
though men rnay) that the President, with his
hand wrote an amendment to the BILL (see the latter
part of his specify recognizing the assent principle
which was to have been incorporated IN the bill when
before the House but which was Withdrawn from the
gentemsn's hands in which il placed for that
purpose, Prerious 10 the passage of The BILL The
adoption OF this amer dment was of course with the
President, sine qua to his approval Of the bill
If so, and the amendment was withdrawn before it
was offered and such recognition Of the assent
principle appeared in the BILL how ii be urged tha,
the resident was ever committed TO the bill which
passed through Congress This is argumentum ad