The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-09-28

II the bills had been really such TO promote tho
welfare Of the country, he might have sacrificed long
cherished principles to such desirable expediency
But In truth, had he signed the bills he would alike
have violated cardinal principle Of his political life
and have entaled the party measure fatal 10 is
vigor. His rejection alike screened the party and
relieved himself But he doubted, and must be
damned II the merits of the bills themselves were be
discussed, they could not stand that test, and the
blame must fall elsewhere--a new issue, therefore,
was necessary to avoid that result and here is the
whole secret Of the difficulty, the very pivot of the
controversy; IL is easier to d-n a doubling man.
than to defend and justify bad measure. What
good to the party, to the country result from
discussion as to the doubts OF the President here
But vast deal might from discussion Of the merits
of the bill. Yet the first Improbable question is
made to engross public attention. while the other, Of
pervadng Importance is allowed to slip quietly into
oblivion Why Is this Z When no good can come
from the discussion Of the first question: but while the
last is one Of pervading and abiding import
Do not let our attention be drawn from essentials TO
TITLES Do not 10, the nation prove whale, sporting
its fury on a tub, while the harpoon is raised aloft
with fatal aim upon him. ~
What good is to grow out Of this discussionl Do
they propose to show that the President has vetoed
which would have carried healing on It's
wing to distracted currency Do they propose 10
show that measure conceived in wisdom, and ma
ured by the lights of experience after having passed
through all tho formula Of government was inter
copied by an injudicious Tsiof Do they attempt 10
show that the nation would have gained any thing by
a waving of the Veto9 Do they undertake to say
that the Veto has not preserved the nation from
standardization dangerous measured No; none
Of these things. What do they purpose to prove
Why that the Executive doubted u! Cut bono. II
he had said I'll you did first, III not sign that
BILL they are ready to admit there would have been
no help, and that perhaps, il would have been we'll
to smother the ricketty offspring But because he
hestated to give fiat denial to their request because
he felt inclined yield his wishes to theirs and mani
tested that disposition, he must be DID.
Has not the discussion very suspicious appear
ance when we the subject Of vital import to the
welfare of the nation overlooked while collateral
point engrosses attention. which, however it may re-
suit not affect the interest of the nation for either
good evil To every considerate mind il must bear
Questionable appearance.
Is not passing strange that he who originated and
carried through defective bl--a bill which would
have entaed danger the party if passed into law
should be held up its idol, while he who saved
the party from its injurious effects must be sacrificed
Strange justice singular infatuation! Such mon
srous absurdities cannot last long, and the public
sense will yet mete out la n-handed verdict.
man who is tempted to promise his sanction to a
rash act, recalls his promise and prevents it, is to be
blstered with nfamy, while he who conceived its in
fiction and tempted the promise, being consistent in
his resolute determination to perpetrate il is to have
hozannas sung 10 him. What misplaced admiration
IF