The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-06-11
Hom tAe .4meriean senlineI.
THE VETO OF THE BANK BILL.

As there has recently been new publication OF pa
pers in relation the dissolution Of the Cabinet anc
as the letter Of Col. Bell late Secretary oil war
to have been almost entirely overlooked III hi'
discussion, take leave here to call the ATTENTION
OF the public TO portion OF it, Inc eA'Iac, We to
publish to-day appeared in our paper last
1t contains some remarks upon the letter Oh the iate
Secretary of War that worthy OF persai al TINS
time
the PRESIDENT AND THE BANK BILL,
ssThere is part of Mr.. Bells letter that to
indicate the serious doubts Of the President on the
Bank bill, and we think il grew out OF MIR. Badgers
remarks when the Cabinet and the sident were
discussing its provisions. MIR. Bell says that Mr.
Badger remarked, :" Tat nothing would been gained
by The of the terms of bank of discount and de-
post in his message for, TO the charge OF inco
sisency, 1t might, and probably would be made against
him, for party effect, if he sanctioned the bill ther
proposed by him. inasmuch dealing in, or buying
bills of exchange, would be discounng, and to thai
extent make it a bank of discount MIR. Badger wa,
clearly right 1t is here that we think the President
took the alarm for we find Mr. Bell adds the follow
ing
:" When all the material points appeared to be dis,
posed Of and the members of the Cabnet present had
expressed their decided appreciation of the plan the
President had suggested he said that after ALL nc 'cod
moi sanction bank in the form just agreed upon, ne
supposed that coud be made the ground ioork or oasis
ola bank with all the potcers Of the late Bank ~ the u
fNNN'
local discount"
Now who can censure the President when bill
for il does hot appear that "the blll was ever shown
to him before il was submitted TO Congress was
passed and presented for his APPRECIATION that he re
fused TO sign it, particularly as he was satisfied that
the "Exchequer Bank" was but another name for a
Bank of Discount" and came within the reserya-
ton which the President made, and which Mr.. Bell
In his letter, says he made at the time II might have
been the intention of the President, when the Cabi-
net met to have prepared Bank BILL if possible but
the declaration of one of his Cabinet that it would
be called "BANK OF DISCOUNT induced him. we
think, make the emphatic declaration, that we have
copied into this article relative to his not sanctionng
the Bill if it could be supposed to wear the character
of Bank of Discount"
1t is also well known fact, that the President
during the debate upon the Bill, and before IL HAD
passed had resolved not 10 signit Ii Was therefore
matter Of downright folly TO push it through the
two Houses after this fact was distinctly known
This proof enough, if any could be demanded
that there was some Misrepresentation upon the sub
ject between the President and his Cabinet, and tha
he had never agreed to this particular bill AT mos
the outline only talked Of at the Cabinet meeting
and that conditionally The bill that is alleged hs
to sign it is pretended he saw, before il
was reported in Congress, and he saw the
bill reported, he said he would not sign II. To hav,
bound the President to any particular bill, it SHOULD
have been handed to him. and also have been CAREFUL,
examined by him. On the contrary, the gentlemen o
his former Cabinet never brought the bill to him fol
his Inspecton-and yet some of them now try I,
make appear that he was pledged to the bill passec
by the two Houses of Congress-a bill against which
from the moment it ushered into Congress h.
evinced the decided hostility.