The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-12-06

LETTER FROM MIR. CUSHING.
From the ". Y. Ere. Post.


Froa, the n. Y Ere Post
My attention has just been called to the folowin
ariice IN the Post oil 30th November, viz
"A SCHEME OF FMAScE-On our first page viii
be found scheme for the custody of the national
venue, which has been drawn up by person of grea
sagacty in such matters, and to which invite thu
lispassionate attention of our readers.
1t is in substance an independent treasury, al chem'
for keeping the public money without the aid o
banks, TO which Is added an authority to receive dc
poses of coin and give certificates payable either
the Office where they made or at an office, sub
treasury you may call it, in another part Of thi
Union. The plan is well dgested, severely simple il
rs provisions, and accompanied by explanations
which show clear and intimate knowledge Of tn,
subject of finance.
We happen to know that that this scheme was las
summer communicated TO the principal men of the
whig patty in Congress. MIR. Gushing, in the House
Of Representatives took it for the basis Of tleiI
plans but both eDgrafted upon il features whca mad,
tia conrivancc for expanding the currency, and Dor
rowing money from deposors. What was good in
their plans and reports, taken, our readers ca
now see from this plan and the commentary of it,
author what was bad, was their own
The system proposed by the author Of the plan we
publish differs from theirs in keeping the deposites
sacred and untouched for those who make them, un-
Ill the certificates redeemed and in containing
principle by which the amount of paper tokens can
possibly exceed the amount of coin actually on hand
and ready for their redemption. 1t offers plan OF
deposite for coin which is never to be used by the
government, except t, be restored to the deposi,or,
and the paper he receives is merely the evidence
lbs title to the coin he has deposited.
The convenience Of the scheme If rigidly pursued
without departure from its strict provisions, and
in spirit of scrupuous fidelity to its object is mani
estn
This article contains several errors of fact in
gard to the plans Of Exchequer, now pending in the
two II uses Of Congress. 1t speaks only of the bill
reported by the Committee of the House Of Repre-
sentaves and for that reason refer in the follow
ag explanations only TO the bill Of the House. But
the explanations apply in part to MIR. Tallmadges
oil, well as to nine.
The Post specifies two material points, in which il
alleged the plan of Franklin" differs from mine
and differs to the disadvantage of the latter These
imputed differences are said to be:
/. ain keeping the deposites sacred and untouched
for those who make them, until the certificates
redeemed.
:. sin containing no principle by which the
amount of paper tokens possibly exceed the
amount of coin actually hand and ready for their
redemption"
In imputng these differences between the plan OF
franklin" and that which bears my name the Pos,
mpcdly asserts that the House bill does not 'keep
the depostes sacred and untouched for those who
make them, &c, and that the House bill does not lin
",he amount of paper tokens" to the amount OF
coin actually on hand"
In each of these particulars the implied assertion
The House bill does not percmptorily
and under the strongest penal sanctions, require the
lpostes 10 be kept "sacred and untouched for those
who make them, until the certificates are redeemed
And the House bill does not contain any "prnciple
by which the amount OF paper tokens can possibly
exceed the amount Of coin actually on hand and ready
Tor their redemption" but, on the contrary, it ex-
sSued, TO the amount of coin actually on hand and
ready for its redemption.
The Post goes on to say, that the plan Of Crank
In" proposes "deposite OF coin which is never to
be used by the Government except TO be restored to
The deposi,or, and the paper he receives is merely
the evidence of his title to the coin he has depo-
s.edn
It would seem to be imp led, by the context, thai
this particular also the House bill differs from the
plan of Franklin" and differs disadvantageously
so, here also is another for, according to
The plan of the House bill, the coin deposited by al
Individual can never be used by the Government
and the paper which the depostor receives is mere,
The evidence Of his title the coin he has deposited
The Post justly commends the plan of "Frankln,'
because of these its leading provisions. ! trust,
therefore,, that the Post IA journal wi ose opinions
are entitled to respect, and have infuence) will,
Inspecting the House bill, and perceiving that the
House bill contains precisely the same provisions,
ldoption by Congress
Tue Post says, in another part Of the article, tina
ny bill has features which made it contrvance fol
expanding the currency, and borrowing money from
depositors. This is error. There are no sue
eatures in my bill but the contrary it confines
lie issue to dollar for dollar and utterly excluding
0lrrowing, either by from the Government as re.
peCts depostors.
In word, | adopt and concur in, the very thing
Which the Post approves features of the plan OF
franklin" You will find them all developed and
maintained IN the report which presented 10 the
House, accompanying the bin.
The Post further says, that "whatwas good in the
plans and reports presented to Congress, was taket
from the plan of Franklin" and the commentary OF
le author; "what was bad was their own
ms Is very summary as well epgramatic
spectiully ASK you to reconsider this pointed con-
demnation of the bills before Congress, as compared
with the plan of sFrankn.n
VI have no pride OF authorship in regard TO the
OIL which reported 10 tie House and so far as il
proper for me to refer to the private history of the
O desire the public to know, that special and pr-
mary credit in that respect is due to Mr. Wise an
Uner member of the committee.
do not desire to detract in any degree from tn,
merit or the originality of FrankIm's' conceptions
He identity of principle in certain respects, between
uN plan and that of the House, tends To confirm tn,
ul,h OF the conclusions TO which both 'Franklin'
and The House committee have arrived. But il is an
,of 20 assume that the committee took It's plan from
rank IL" can say for myself, and believe for
WI wise, if not for other members of the commit
ee that The leading features of the House BILL were
7. our minds long before had any knowledge of the
Iaa Of "Franklin.n
am, very respectfully,
ha,