The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-01-19
REVIEW OF MR.. MANGUMs spEEcH.

i 10 put arguments IN the mouth OF political al
versary for the sake of answering and refuting-te
impute TO him errors Of reasoning deducible from
his conduct for the sake of afterwards exposing the
absurdity of that reasoning and condemnng that con
duct founded upon itare articles of eloquence fan
IN themselves, and sanctioned by the practice OF the
ablest debaters But to assume the very garb II
the person Of your adversary, and in that disguise
profess in his behalf sentiments probably as foreign
to his feelings they certainly inconsistent with
his character and preudcal to his interests is unfair
and uncandd. not 10 that adversary alone, but TO all
those who may be misled by the delusion. What are
the consequences Of the denuncations of the disn-
guished Senator Are they not calculated TO perpex
and mislead the understandings of well meant and
well affected persons towards the Wing party; TO
lead the closest adherents of the Administration UNI
consciously to disparage its principles lis character,
and thereby render the very predictions or views OF
portion of the Wing party subseryient to the views
and interests of political hostility.
The speech under review shows how man of abil-
y may plausbly peryert the painest question, and
lead the public mind to wrong perception of political
principles This sort of ingenuity, however, may be
tolerated, because being exposed and percepble to
the reflections of men, il is susceptible of counterac-
ton But what we think altogether unjustifable in
this Speech is the uncandid resort to nsnuaton
OF all the modes of conducting controversy, that
OF nsinuaon is the most disingenuous for, in such
case nothing is stated the Judgment is obscured,
and imagination, that great field of human error is
left to infer, at random, whatever of evil it may
suggest
The question for the consideration Of the people is
not that Of q controversy between two indiyidu ais
between whom you TO decide: viewed in that
iigt It would be question of mere personal differ
ence, involving no principle, and unworthy of the
notice of the people; but regarded in different as
pect, or involving the character of an officer occupy
ing the most distinguished station in the Government
whose conduct, in an interesting public transaction
has been impeached, springing from improper con
slderatons, it assumes more important bearing anu
presents a question of deep import.
We contend that when an individual is elevated TO
a place of high official consideration, mos, serious
obligation is imposed to discharge with fidelity the
various duties of his Office
MIR. Mangum contends that MIR. Tyler was not gov
erned by proper considerations in rejecting the Bank
bill that he is DESTROYS of oyerthrowng the party
that elevated him TO power and that he vetoed the
Bank bill not from constitutional scruples but under
other influences than those which sense of the pub
lie good required These are the imputations thrown
by Wing Senator on the conduct of Mr. Tyler
these are the wounds he has inflicted This heaped
up measure of Senatorial dcnuncation is prepared
for whom For private Individual violent po-
litical opponent No; for the President of the Uni
ted Staes-the representative of great and power
full class--a member Of the HARRISON PARTY, whose
confidence he ought to share. Elevated to power by
the suifrages OF that party, are we not bound by
strong political considerations TO uphold him in his
sphere of usefulness and honor bound, we contend
by the most impressive obligations, to yindcate his
character from obloquy and reproach.
But in charges Of so important nature, urged by
such high authority, simple denial not sufficient 1t
behooves us for the justification Of the conduct of the
President and for the vndicaton of his hitherto pure
and unsulied reputation, TO meet each charge with
full and particular answer to explain and refte at
length every thing urged against him; to state the
evidence by which we expect to dsproye every fact
lied on in support the accusations and to detail all
the facts and arguments on which intend to rest
his defence. The necessity Of our review embracing
all these obecls and specific allegations, be OBJ
sous to all minds honestly seeking the truth
What, then, is the whole amount Of the crime of
the Chief Magistrate on this occasion Z That he a,
the head Of the Cover nment with whom the Const-
tuition has lodged the important Veto power has had
boldness enough to form an opinion upon grave
question that on mature deiberation
from u consideration both ofthe precedent establish
ed by his predecessors and the principles involved in
the bills he refused to give his sanction them. Is
it not the full measure and merits of the Presidents
crime If the President has rig ht To have any OPT
Mon OF his own in the matter and if the OPT Mon he
formed a one-and it is not denied, gene
rally-how and whence springs the charge that he
acted from improper motives
The President could not have been ignorant Of the
state OF irritation which existed in every part of the
Union on the subject of establishing Bank, nor o f
the extreme offence which must be gven by any con
duct of Ills, in regard to the interposion Of the Veto
power. He could not be ignorant that the rejection
Of the Bank charters extremely capable of being
his injury and would hardly fail to assume
that appearance in the state of political feeling which
then existed. lie is admitted on all hands to be
man of sense; and would man of sense, without
some strong motive, commit deliberately an act so
likely to blow up flame of resentment against him
self and those with whom he was connected unless
forced by the urgent and conscientious sense of
public duyl
What motive, we ask, could Mr.. Tyler have for re-
jecting improperly this charter To secure the sup
port of his personal friends MOTOR he was sure
OF that without the rejection To conciliate the con-
fdence of his political adversaresl No he incurred
their dspeasure by the repeal of their favoite mea
sure, the Sub-Treasury bill If then, he rejected the
Bank measures believing them 10 be conirarent to the
high commandments Of the Constitution, he commit
ted the act without improper motive or object. Had
Mr. Tyler tcen actuaed by the desire of lending his
influence to the adversaries of his own party, he
would have refused to abrogate the Sub Treasury
scheme