Wheeling times and advertiser. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1839-1849, 1843-03-17

i Nft-
tale Z" u. 'hi a c'ld not have passed ciiher IloI.,
had tot suilvIeni .utn 'Icr ct thr D-n,rr,tc ,,,
~. IN bu.h bfant lac voted Er A. 10 prsuent us a.
fe', Ii - therefore. "a punt al tact. not a Wbi,
ulea-nre, aud wuuld uoI have been adopted had n,
n,ruibcrs ot thai purity al ne sustained IT. N IA,
pissed hy Dem cratic as well 10y Wlig vote,
I It WAS opposed bY wnig as we'll ~ hr Dcin,rr,t,r
/ Toe 'cI hat lnrger number niolc party than a.
'ae other VOTED Tor The law justly involves them ~
larger snare oi h" responsibility irr IIs e.iaciI..en
but not The tr,ias''r res sItsiblliy.
But II deserves 10 o. Irm1rkc thai
| Mf Van bdren has been urrfaruly the
advocate OF ijtnkrupt law; ami, 81
lar back as 1925, when he was IA Scnl
! tor from New York, he not Only vu.c.
Tor, bat lie Ivcred spc ch in favor of a
bin ''io establish Il uniform system OF
| BAT krup'cy,' then b..urc ihut bnly-a
bill which was IA almost every import.
ant PHu ticuIar open - the same ouiec
lions that are NOW urged against the
Bankrupt Law of 1911, " Mr Van BI
ren ; trends, If no, himself! Indeed
durln = the last Pr. StdrutlaI e nv,ss
both Mr. Van Barren aud Col Jo .nSon.
the candidates Of the opp ,Icnts iur the
nrSt and second Offices OF the narinn
were aYowcdiy advocates uf IA btnkrup
system upon IN 'Ir OH "a expressed and
unrSchntrd "PIuIonS in lis layor--upIn.
Ions unrccdn'co even nuw-Iud if tney
or :hc 'cSS e.nIucnt ms,ntcrS Of thai par
~, dIlicred iru.u The ~ hlg aIvncIl,s of
mat law al all, ms; difference mainly II
not altogether, grav oul at the adverse
views as to tn cXpe Iicncy o. pl4cin-
STATE Banks and other cJru Irliiuns al
the mercy ofthe Federal Executive. in
the drsccrated name OTIS ate right,
- Late. indeed. as The winter uf 1897.
the cNPcdicncy OF ,ia5lIS iiug a B,uk
ruPt system was referred To the JuJl.I
a y Commit Of the United State, sen
ate, which Com nIttee Consisted of three,
higS and two Democrats. Tnai Com
m''iee was unanimously in favor O the
Po ICY OF Bank apt Law; but. dl!I;.r NO
ia reference 10 the pIincip Is VIII ch
ought TO be cmbpdisd in it. each of The
parties reported Il bill, And il is wor-
thy oil SPECIAL observation, that the bill
reported by the Wing majority of the
COMMITTEES, did not coutala maay of the
provisions OF the cXistIny Law. which
are now most slrongiy obIscled To and
denounced whilst the bill rey1r:eI Inv
Mr Wall. as tine organ Of the Democrat.
&c minority, did contain these very pro.
vsiJn'- And, what may perhaps seem
oiIii moro remarkable, Mr. Benton. who
mas taken the lead ia opposition to the
law at 1911, was then the champion nI
! Nr Walls bill, AMI the opponent Of the
antagonist " hig scheme. because Mr.
| ais gill contained, and the autaro.
| "A - homo HI Il
which are now the subject of his and
party's especial malcdl,tion! Indeed.
the existing law, which Mr. Benton and
MS party SO clamorously denounce does
not contain n single important prrncI.
pie that w; not embodied in Mr. Wal ;
Oil, which they so strenuuusiy advoca.
ted. he IN essential difference be
tween Them Is the absence Of the former
OF provision making it applicable to
Sale corporations, winch was embodied
IN the Iatter--a provision WI ch we re.
Sarc as unconstitutional IN itself and u
ter!y destructive of the rights of the
States AS Martin Van Buren, binseIr
Though he recently changed that o,in
ion) declared II TO be in ls26, and as
John Z Calhoun proclsims it 10 be now!
AiterthlS brief glance ut the attitude
oil parties on this question, at three sew
cral periods within the last seventeen
years, no unprcjudiced mind will hest
tate TO Justify the declaration. tn L the
Ban kruPt Law was never regarded, or
treated, as party question at all, un
nj the Extra Session Of ISL, aud that
1t was then, rs fac as practicable, made
party question for iaciiOus purpo ses
Ii Is question with which tho Wings,
as party, have never identified them
selves, and to which on the otner hanJ
their opponents have, until 1871, given
as general and as cordial a suppurt as
themselves. Its subsequent repeal, too,
by vote Of about two TO one. in the
House Of Representatives, in which
here IS a large Wing majority, woalI
demonstrate the injustice ofthe attemp,
TO identify II as ca Wing measure ey.
en- II the intelligence Of the country did
not AT once enable it 20 detect the faisity
Of the allegation.
Circumstances require US, fellow.ciri.
zcn5, briefly, but emphatIcally, to say
that we are opposed to the
ASSUMPTION OF STATE DEBTS.
In Whatever form that proposition ma =
have been hcretolore,or may heretofore
be suggested. In the contraction OF
debts, each Stale acts for itself and is
alone responsible for its acts. The zen.
eral government does not stand, toward
the States, 10 relation Of either guardian
or enodrser; and is not, therefore. under
any obligation to contribute towards
their relief But we 20 farther and sav
that IL has no right 10 do so, with or