The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-10-26

friends Of the banking system contend not only
for bank 10 manage the fiscal concerns OF the
Government, but for the establishment OF one
on account of the discounting power-no' Tor
an institution confined exclusively to the collec-
ton and disbursement of the revenue; but, Tor
an institution possessing a number OF branches
or agencies; thus subverng the particular design
and violating the general spirit Of the Conslilu-
| lion. The banking, engrafted upon the dis
counting power Mr.. Tyler thought would dege-
nerate from objects truly national, such as were
connected with the powers and duties OF the
Federal Government TO those merely local. and
also become the means OF extensive and danger
Gus political combinations this could not be
doubted. He apprehended that this tendency
was too strong TO be resisted, that At would
prove fatal 10 the system; for as high as the
people might estimate the benefits Of a National
Bank, they still more highly value, as they
ought the purity of our political Institutions
| IL was the fortune Of him who now fills the
Executive chair, TO discharge the duties as one
Of the investigating committee on the affairs oil
| the Bank in 1884, in conjunction with Messrs.
| Mangum and Ewing. He then, as now, thought
the power of discounting local paper an evil OF
serious magnitude. Thus thinking, he could
not reconcile il 10 his conception OF duty, regard
| ing the interests Of the county, TO sanction
bill, containing, as it did, the provision under
consideration.
Such were the objects Of Mr. Tyler, in main
tanning those opinions and we contend that
they were fair, proper, and constitutional OBJ
jects. For these reasons Mr.. Tyler could not
concur with the majority in Congress. In this,
we insist, he acted consistently, and according
to the best Of his ability In refusing to sign
the bill, it is impossible, for the reasons stated
by him in his Veto Message, for US to decide
that he rejected the Fiscal Corporation bill''
from improper considerations, since he could
have no possible motive for a piece of conduct
so shameful, and at the same time so well cal
cuated 10 give offence to his political friends.
In point so liable to misapprehenslon and mis-
representation, and so likely TO be used as
means Of exciting public odium, il is far more
probable that, had he been capable of bending
his constitutional opinions 10 other motives, he
would have sanctioned the bill thus presented to
him for his approval. Mr.. Tyler could not have
been ignorant of the state of irritation which
then existed in every part of the Union, on the
subject of a Bank, nor of that extreme offence
which must be given by any conduct of his, in
regard to the application of the qualified veto.
He could not be ignorant tina, the rejection Of
the Bank bills were extremely capable Of being
tortured by malevolence TO his injury, and would
hardly fail to assume that appearance in the
then state of political feeling which pervaded
and convulsed the country. He is admitted, on
all sides, to be man of sense; and would a
man of sense, without some strong motive,
commit deliberately an act so likely 10 bow up
flame of resentment against himself and
those with whom he was acting, unless i'm
PEELED TO action by pure and elevated considera-
tions2 Now, we ask, what motive could Mr..
Tyler have had for refusing to sign the Bank
bills? To receive the support Of his personal
friends? No; for he was quite sure Of that
without the rejection. To concilate the sup
port of the Opposition No; he had incurred
their displeasure by sanctoning the repeal of
their favorite measure, the Sub-lreasuy bill.
If, then, he vetoed the Bank bills, believing
them to be unconstitutional, he commitedthe act
without any improper motive or object. Had
he been aciuated by selfish principles, he could
have pursued different policy. President
capable of acting deliberately under the inhu-
ence of such principles, must be as regardless
of the Constitution as his oath. His consider
ing an act as unconstitutioLa al, could not prevent
him from sanctloning it, if sanctioning il could
subserve his purposes better than the rejection.
better to have approved the bill creating the
Fiscal Corporation. To have sanctioned it
would have given him an additional hold on his
political friends, and hence it is that we infer
hat he was actuated, not by improper nfiuen
ces, but by a conscientious belief that the Fiscal
Corporation bill was violalive of the high
commandments Of the Constitution.
But you have assumed that Mr.. Tyler intended
to sign the bill and from that assumption of inten
ton you have assumed that as he refused to sane
ton the Fiscal Corporation, that an improper in
huence directed his judgment From these as
symptoms we are asked 10 infer that he was
operated upon by reprehensible considerations
There is no evidence to support either Of the
assumptions. The intention 10 sign the bill
with the provision to buy and sell bills Of ex-
change not being proved, the differences which
you have deduce1 as TO the views which
prompted him to return the bill to Congress,
could not be proved to have existed. You, there
TORE do not prove that which was TO be demon
strated; however, you must be admired, not
for making out your case, but for the ingenuity
of your d, auctions from assumed premises
We must consider them rather as exhibitions Of
your general ability, than as evictions of truth