The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1841-09-25
FOR THE MADIsoNiAN
Mr.. EWING,S LETTER.

FOR THE MADIsoNiAN.
MR. EWING'S LETTER.
As imprecations and charges Of grave character
have been lavishiy hurled upon President Tyler, for
the exercise of the Veto but particularly as they say
in the Wing Address, " In that ereessipe Of the
Veto power; J" Gas if he bound by his oath to
use II as often mperous necessity might demand
il 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 infe
not true of Inconsistency the part Of the
President but that the contrary every line Of his
letter goes establish the 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
dissolving the ties which have existed between US"
Here there is an express ayowal that the loss Of
Bank BILL not sufficient to estrange him from the
President. IT. 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 as to the char
ter Of National Bank sufficient reason for dissolv-
ing the ties which have existed between them" But
where there desire do any act there can always
be found pretexi IT, then, the Wing press, presi-
ously to the receip, Of Mr. EWING letter wrong
in the issue and il the difference Of opinion
National Bank" that President Tyler was OBJ
noIious to7-what was ii a Why, since Mr.. Ew-
ings letter. they have discovered it his "want Of
candor" betrayal of his party" and any thing and
every thing. Let US examine this letter, and then
see to whom these charges will best apply. That the
President entertained and expressed but view,
Mr.. Ewing clearly shows, for he says
II is but Just to 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 nerer in its progress, far as know believe
receive at any time either your express implied
sent
II knew the extent Ia which you were committed
the question knew the perfinaeify to which you
adhered TO your oppressed opinions"
These require comment, they conclusivey show
that the frs, bill never received an assent cypress or
implied.
Yet, in the next paragraph following, he says
You may not, it true have read the bill through
out and examined every part Of il; but the 10th fun
damental article, which became the contested question
of principle, freely discussed between us and il
was understood and uncquivocally sanctioned by
yourself The last clause in the bill, also, which
serted the 9Th Of June in your presence and with
your appreciation though you at time told me
that in giving your sanction the bill, you would ac-
company it with an explanation Of your understand
ing Of that first clause"
Now, here is palpablc contradiction, for ifit ne
received the Presidents assent "erpress or i'm
piled, it certainly never could have been unequi-
roeaiiy sanctioned" But will any honest man read
the above and say the President would give his une-
equiroeai sanction to BILL (ahout the details Of which
he was so scrupulousiy pertnacious If il was
biguous and Of doubtful construction that he had to
accompany il with an explanation OF his under
standing of it-sending it forth the painter did his
horse, with the inscription written beneath this is
the horse, that they might not mistake it for
No, MIR. Ewing will have to tell another story to he
credited for this is incrcdulous to be believed He
then closes that portion of his letter relative to the
in BILL thus:
:" could not find in that act enough 10 disturb the
confidential relations which existed between us.
was disposed to attribute this act TO pure and honora
bic motives, and TO a conscientious conrcfion your
part that the bill in Of It's provisions concted
with the Constitution"
Let 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 a sufficient
reason for dssoving the ties between them because
the bill receired the consent Of the President,
express or 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 be his conviction that
the President throughout acted consistently and from
pure and honorable motives under the awful RESPONSE
bIli,y of an oath-to those who believe in mans ho-
nes,y and responsibility this will be enough Blu,
many will say, what could have induced Mr. Ewing
to have published such evidence against himself
Quem deus vult pcrdere, prius demented' In my
next win review that part Of the letter relative to
the second Veto.
NEW JERSEY.