The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1842-06-11

As there has recently been new publication OF pa,
pers in relation the dissolution of the Cabinet and
as the letter of Oo Bell, late Secretary OF War,
seems to have been almost entirely overlooked IN TINS
discussion we take leave here to eau the attsnuon
of the public TO portion Of it, The extract we re-
publish to-day appeared in our paper last september
Ii contains remarks upon the letter OF the late
Secretary of War that worthy OF perusal at this
time
THE PRESIDENT AND THE BANK BILL.
There is part of MIR. Bells letter that seems to
indicate the serious doubts Of the President on the
Bank bill, and we think it grew out of MIR. Badgers
remarks when the Cabinet and the President were
discussing its provisions Mr. Bell says that Mr..
Badger remarked, "that nothing would been gained
by the Of the terms of bank of discount and de-
post in his message for, as to the charge of
sstency 1t might and probably would be made against
him, for party effect if he sanctioned the bill then
proposed by him, inasmuch dealing in, or buying
bills OF exchange, would be dscounting, and to that
extent make it a bank Of discount" MIR. Badger was
clearly right 1t is here that think the President
took the ALARM for find MIR. Bell adds the follow
ing.
When all the material points appeared to be dis
posed Of and the members Of the Cbnet present had
expressed their decided appreciation of the plan the
President had suggested he said that after aA he 'ood
not sanction bank, in the form just agreed upon, he
supposed that would be made the ground ,oork basis
oa bank soM all the posUers Of the Iate Bank Of the u.
States He would gue his sanction to the po,cer Of
local discount"
Now, who censure the President, when bill
(tor does not appear that "thc bill shown
to him, before it submitted to Congress was
passed and presented for his APPRECIATION, that he
fused TO sign it, particularly he satisfied that
the "Exchequer Bank" but another name for a
"Bank OF Discount" and came within the reserva-
ton which the President made, and which Mr.. Bell
In his letter, says he made al the time 1t might have
been the intention Of the President, when the Cabi-
net met, to have prepared Bank BILL if possible but
be called "BANx OF DISCOUNT" induced him, we
think, make the emphatic declaration, that have
copied into this article relative his not sanctionng
the Bill, if could be supposed to the character
Of Bank of Discount"
during the debate upon the Bill and before 1t had
matter Of downright folly to push it through the
two Houses, after this fact distinctly known
This was proof enough, if any could be demanded,
that there was some misrepresentation upon the cub
jec between the President and his Cabinet, and that
ne had never agreed to this particular bill. At most
the outline only talked Of the Cabinet meeting,
and that conditionally The bill that it alleged he
to sign is not pretended he saw, before it
was reported In Congress, and he saw the
bill reported, he said he would not sign 1t. To have
bound the President to any particular BILL it should
have been handed to him, and also have been carefully
examined by him. On the contrary, the gentlemen Of
his former Cabinet never brought the bill to him for
his lnspection-and yet of them now try to
make it appear that he was pledged to the bill passed
by the two Houses of Congress- bill against which
from the moment it was ushered into Congress, ht
evinced the most decided hostility.