Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-03-30
10 WV. Fl. SEW ARD, Esq.
Governor of New York

The very great disposition manifested BY the Federal
Wings to assal and abuse the Hon Mr.. Hunter, ana
seemrr disposition to make ii appear that he acted
with dupcity during the last fall particularly III an
swerno letters addressed to him by some OF his con-
s,ituens, little time prior to the first Monday IN
November has induced me to make the following state
me mt order, that so far as am concerned, no MUS
| tce may be done to Mr. H.
Some time in October, some five or six voters ad-
dressed TO Mr.. Hunter letter, "a copy of which IS
here with enclosed making enquiries. Mr. Hun
ters (Which is also enclosed) did not come TO
hand until few days before the election, having,
as was informed, remained in the office about week
BY reference the letter and to Mr. Hunter answer,
the object OF the writer's may be The charge
now alleged against Mr. Hunter is, that just upon
the eve of the election, he wrote letters TO various
neighborhoods, in order TO aid the Democrats. did
not vote for Mr. Hunter at the last Congressional cleo
ton, nor do | know that shall do so this Spring
nor do | approve of the position which MIR. Hunter
assumed during the late canvass yet justice requires
that the facts they exist, should be known At least,
far regards the letter written by Mr. H. to me ana
Others there is nothing which the most fastdIous wing
ought 10 complain Of This communication is made
with the appreciation of Of the Wing friends of
Mr. Hunter You will please publish the whole mat
ter Your obt servant,
JOHN sUMMERsON.
P g. The copy of the letter addressed to Mr.. Hun
ter has been mlslad but its purport may be learnt by
reference to Mr. Hunters answer. j. ,.
LoYp's, Essex Oct -, $50.
To Mcssrs. John Sammcrson, Ihos. ~ Roaae, Henry
Didiake Jonathan Smith, Peter Brooke.
Gentlemen | seize the first opportunity which the
mail has afforded since the receipt OF your letter. 10 re-
ply to the nterrogaores which yon have addressed 10
me In relation to the first subject OF inquiry you ASK
"Did the detailed plan of MIR. Ponsett for training
and arming the militia, any other plan, except tha
mentioned in the Annual Message of the Secretary OF
War mad the President accompany the President
Message delivered to you, as Speaker OF the House OF
Representatives. and if such paper had been thus trans
mitted would ii not have passed through your hands
To the first question, reply, that according to my
recollection q have journal by me for reterenceD
no plan other than that contained in the Annual Re-
port of the Secretary of War did accompany the fre
sdents Message, transmitted to the House through me-
The outlines of plan for eorganzIng the militia you
will find by reference to that report, and the details
Of this plan are contained in the letter of the Secretary
of War; dated March Goth, 1910, and addressed TO the
Specifically reply to your second nerrogatory Is,
that regularly all communications intended for the
House should be addressed 10 its Speaker; but some
times communications made to the chairman OF
committees, which are printed by order OF the House
Such for instance the letter OF the Secretary oil
War dated April Sth, $40, 10 the Hon. Geo NJ keln,
Chairman of the Militia COMMITTEE House oil REPRE-
sentatives.
You next inquire of me, whether was in favor OF,
opposed to the passage Of the Independent Treasury
There have been several bills thus dcnomnated,
terialy differing, in my opinion, not only in details,
but in principle One OF these supported with great
pleasure mean that of 1895; but during the SEES
sion another was sent from the Senate with the like Il.
tie but without the specie feature, against which would
have recorded my vote, had the opportunity occurred
with equal satisfaction The regarded then, as now,
as seeking great reform by means, though not perhaps
the BEST vet safe and efficient whilst the other have
always viewed as mere mocSeIy OF the measure OIL
divorce between the Banks and the General Govern
ment and disguised adoption of the pet bank scheme,
in the worst Of forms. The opinion which l origl-
naly entertained relation TO the p.priety of sepa-
rating the Banks from the General Government, have
seen no cause to change and, indeed my CONVICTIONS
Of lis truth have been strengthened by subsequent ex-
perence and reflection. believe that measure to be
of cardinal Importance 10 the success OF our hepuo
experiment, and Of the Democratic principle upon
which our Government is in part founded Give the
General Government control over the Banks, either
by allowing 10 offer them the use OF ITS credit, upon
conditions or by establishing such institutions
ly under its regulation and fear there VIII be no iar
her hope Of resisting either It's endorsements uPo,
the rights of the States, or the overshadowng growth
of Executive influence and power, ALREADY 100 ssea'
for a Republican Government. The power over 'he
whole property of the country, involved III le iie
10 establish and regulate its banking sysuc' - oIe
assumed by the General Government, Will soon carry
with it every other which it may choose 10 eaelc'se-
Each encroachnent here seems TO ihcrease Tue
patronage Of the Executive, who adminisle[ 'He ~"
and thus power, in its most unwhoesome io n' N
OF patronage, IS given 10 swell the influence VI ~" 10y
indiciduat interest which people have any serious
cause 10 fear.
With these views, you will readily perceive some Oh
the leading reasons, which induce me to support any
scheme that promises e.ectualy to separate the pow
OF the Government from that Of the BANKS anu II -
equally clear, that the reasons would inauce ne
to resist any which would give the treasury
Department the means of issuing drafts fer the Pu'
poses of general circulation.
This brings me TO the bill of the last session, "
which presume your inquiry referred, although you
did not specify it in your letter. To some OF the de-
tails had objections serious, that did doubt, At
time, whether should support it at all although
determined to vote for it if had the opportunity, I'M
der the exgency of the cnse and in view of the great
reform which it in part accomplished. The objection
which had to the bill was that it did not sufficiently
guard against the danger Of converting the treasury
had it in their power to have remedied this deiec
and 10 this day. have seen no sufficient reason tor