The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-10-27

Dill thus amended r. we ask who auth0riZeu
him to give any assurances Upon whose au
thority were they made2 BY whom was he
authorized Was he authorized by Mr.. Tyler
Ii thus authorized, Mr.. Tyler was committed
and pledged to sign the first bill incorporating a
Bank. Did he do it2 No. Then he deceived
Mr.. Ewing. But Mr.. Ewing says, that he was
perfectly satisfied with Mr.. Tyier's course in re-
ference to the first bill mo man questioned bis
sincerity" Now we ask was not Mr. Tyler
just as much committed 10 sign the first bill as
The last if Mr.. Ewing is TO be believed2 Well,
Mr.. Ewing accuses Mr.. Tyler of duplicity and
treachery in refusing TO sign the last bill,
whilst his conduct in relation TO the first bill is
selected as fit subject of eulogy. If Mr.. Ew-
ing was authorized by the President to give as
surances to Senators that the first bill would be
signed and, upon these assurances, we may
well suppose that Mr.. Clay framed his compro-
missing amendment-did not Mr. Tyler, in this
instance, as well as in the last, according 10 the
proofs before US as made out by Mr.. Ewing,
prove false 10 his promises? Yet, forsooh,
Mr. Ewing says, that there was nothing wrong
in the action of The President on the first bill,
and that he had his "adherence and support"
If Mr.. Ewing felt so much Indignation towards
Mr. Tyler on account of his refusal to sign the
last BILL and he stands chargeabe with vacila-
ton and treachery, why was this high wrought
Indignation smoihered, when the first bill was
vetoed 2 Why. then, did he not make
his appearance before the public and
proclaim the insincere conduct of Mr.. Tyler ?
Why did he retain his seat in the Cabinet, with
a man who he now says proved unfaihful to his
trust, and disregarded his word But in all this
conduct he sees nothing to condemn. He re-
serves the thunders Of his denuncialions for the
second veto, and passes high eulogium on the
motives of Mr.. Tyler in regard to the interposi-
lion Of the veto on the first bill. If his statement
is untrue in reference to the first bills it not
reasonable to conclude il is so in reference 10 the
second? Is it possible, then, TO give credit to Il
man who thus contradicts himself? And what as
suiance have we that he whose memory is so
treacherous, and who is proved by his publica-
ton 10 have been so much under the influence
of passion, as to have not stated his own impress
sions and references as facts, was capable of
telling the truth?
The statement Of Mr.. Ewing on these
charges, thus liable to suspicion in itself, on ac-
count of the irritation in which he viewed these
transactions, thus contradicted by his own
written statement, and by the statement Of 9TH
er witnesses, is not entitled to belief but must
be laid wholly out of the case.
AS regards the statements of Messrs Bell
and Badger, they are nothing more than the
mere reflex of Mr.. Ewing's; they were all la
boring in their work of conspiring to break
down the Administration, with a view to the
elevation of their party. Being co-workers in
must stand or fall together.
If the testimony of one is TO be discredited
all must sink in the same abyss. The pct OF
any one man is thus made the sanction of the
acts of ALL "What are you doing, Tom %
I" Nothing, sir" ''And what are you doing,
John? 2" Helping Tom, sir" has been i'm
proved in this great drama. "What is your
statement, Ewing 2" ''BelPs, srn "And
what is your statement. Boil % Irving ;,
SIR" This scheme of mutual youching for
each other is of excellent convenience, and
serves to strengthen ones memory. They
have made their respective indications, in
which they assure us that their simultaneous
movement at the extra session was entirely for
tuitous, and that they jumped 10 the same con-
clusion, at the same time, and from their seve-
raj stations, without any kind of concert or
agreement among themselves such remarka-
there has been no communication, certainly
even sometimes appears and they have indeed
given an occasion to the proveIbia remark
that pits jump" Thomas Ewing, John
Bell and George Badger, were doubtlessly new
er suspected of being wits while in office, but
the accord with which they jumped out of it
would go far towards establishing this charac-
ter on them under the terms of the proverb 1t
was beyond all question the most original thing
they ever did in their lives. and the only action
servceable to the public which they ever per-
formed. In this view Of The matter, it is not a
little grievous that they should be blamed for it
and we cannot deny that their predicament is
altogether one of peculiar and singularly COM
plicaled disgrace To go out was the most me-
ritorious step they could take, and yet they have
contrived TO go out in such manner as to
make their first service 10 the public also their
browning offence against honesty Discord
was long the reproach Of the Administration,
and concert is now the accusation they have to
reDel InraDacitv has FOR manv a dav bepn' i'm
puted TO them, and in their very last act they
would fam disavow "any common understand
ing" They have retired from the councils of
the Federal Administration; their harmony has
rod hut II,