The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-10-22
Communication.
TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED
STATES.
A DEFENCE OF THE ADMINISTRATION

the Administration, we think that we have
succeeded in establishing, beyond controversy,
the following facts:
First: That Mr.. Tyler was hostile to the es-
Enlistment Of United States Bank up to
1889
Secondly: That, as a member of the Harris
burg Convention, he did not avow any opini-
ons favorable 10 such an institution.
Thirdly: During the political canvass, in
1910, he addressed a letter TO the Hon. Henry
A. Wise, in which he explicitly announced his
views in opposition to the creation of Nation
al institution, and lastly after his election as
Vice President, and before the Inauguration, he
observed TO several Wing members in Congress,
viz Hon. John NJ. Bolts and Others that if
the Bank question was brought up in the Sc
nate, and his vote as the presiding officer of that
body was required TO determine the matter, that
ne routd be constrained 10 rote against IL.
After this recapitulation Of the foregoing
facts let US investigate the objections as enter
tanned by Mr.. Tyler to the bill incorporating
National Bank.
In accordance with the resolution adopted by
Congress, Mr.. Ewing, then acting as Secretary
OF the Treasury, communicated to 10th Houses
of Congress a plan for the establishment OF a
National Bank. 1t will be remembered that
this system was, in many respects, different
from any that had ever been submitted to the
consideration Of Congress. Its provisions were
materially variant from the Baking system
which was adopted IN 1916. 1t differed not only
as regards its precautionary measuresand restrlc-
tons, but in its fundamental rules. This bill
contemplated the establishment Of Bank in the
District Of Columbia, and, apiM the assent Of
the States such branches as might be deemed
necessary and expedent 1t was afterwards
amended. This amendment was thought 10
be highly Objectionable. 1t contemplated the
establishment Of branches in the several States
Of the Union, whenever the States did not dis
sent from their intrusion within their borders,
and constituting their silence into assent. This
is the basis of the amendment This was one
of the fundamental articles of this institution
1t was zealously contended that this compro-
mise provision obviated all constitutional scru-
piles. President Tyler thought otherwise In
1909, TIC du'tCdttu TIC dIllcUuUltUt oUeItu Nv
Mr. Moore, of Alabama. This amend
ment asserted the very principle for
which Mr. Tyler now contends, as re-
CARDS the exercise Of the branching power with
out obtaining the assent of the States When
the Opposition engrafled this amendme mt on the
BILL they knew full well that Mr.. Tyler could
not approve of the Bank bill He had, as have
before remarked, on a former occasion main
tanned the ground that the Congress of the Uni
ted States transcribed the powers of the Fede-
raj Constitution, in forcing institutions into the
territory of sovereign States without their as
sent. With the fact before them, how could
they expect Mr.. Tyler to sanction bill thus
fraught with such power2 Now here is a d-
rect conflict of opinion between the President
and majority in Congress, on an important
constitutional point-a point directly at war
with those constitutional views which he has
always maintained, as regards the reserved
rights of the Sta,es-as regards the inviolability
of Stale sovereignty. Then, as the Senate
was aware of his opinions, we ask v by did they
insert provision in the bill which they knew
would constran him TO veto it? The answer
is plain-it was done for the purpose of creating
an excitement against the Chief Magistrate Is
the conduct of the Opposition susceptible of any
other elucidation2 Here was the commence
ment of the controversy. That Mr.. Tyler hon
esiy entertains these opinions, as regards the
powers of the Constitution, no man will
undertake to contradict. Then, when this bill is
presented to him for his approval, what course
of conduct was he to adopt in regard to il2 He
was bound by his honor and his conscience, by
his oath to the Constitution, as well as his re-
sponsibilty to the public opinion Of the nation,
to act on his mature and unbiased judgment, 10
call into full exercise the Veto power and return
the bill to Congress with his objections. Ii was
his sacred duty to act thus, although he contra
vened the expressed wishes Of his political
friends. The President assumed the rens OF
Government with the determination to cherish
the wisdom of the nation. 1t was an honest
determination. He might, it is cerluin, have
suffered it 10 become law by retaining the bill
until the expiration of ten days; he might, by
SO doing, have escaped the denuncidtion which
he has incurred by rejecting it; by so doing
he might have avoided the obloquy TO which
he has been exposed, on account Of this
rejection, and the impeachment Of his mo-
tives, as far as it is founded thereon
But had he done so, in our opinion, he
would have been guilty of cowardly dere-
LECTION Of duty. The man who aspres to the
fame of true patriot, cannot be requir, to sup
port measures, which are viewed by him as I'M