The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-01-30
MR.. FILLMoRE's REPORTS.

The Hon. Mf. Pendletou, OF Ohio, ie"
days since presented 20 the House peu'ion OF
some thousands Of his constituents residing 10
and near Cincinnati, urging upon Congress 'he
adoption of the Exchequer. The only ans"es
which MIR. Pendlelon could give TO this cry oil
the people of his own district for relief was TO
say tina, he had read MIR. Fillmore's Report
against the Exchequer, and il appeared 10 nun
unanswerable. la this we think that he pa'd
high compliment TO Mr. Fillmore, al the expense
of his constituents.
We. also. have read Mr.. Filmore's report,
and though il has some merit 10 point oil styie'
il struck US as being very far from answeraD'e'
The facts aud illustrations by which he supports
his arguments against the Excbequer are in
some instances ludicrously at war with his own
reasoning.
For example, as proof of the danger oil ex-
cessive issues Of paper from The Exchequer pY
legislative authority, he cites the fact that Con
gress, very recently during period OF profound
peace, authorized an issue OF Treasury notes
which fell Immediately TO five or six per cent. be-
low par. Now we should think that this fact might
of paper money was wholly independent of the
Exchequer: and that if Congress chose TO au-
thorze such an issue they would do IL, whether
the Exchequer was in existence or not. The
fact that The Exchequcr notes are TO be redeem
able, would re curb on Congress, and not
temptation. They would not venture, with the
eyes of the whole people upon them, to increase
the issues of a redeemable paper hey ond safe
point.
Again, as an argument that the Executive
power over appointments cannot be limited, Mr..
Fillmore appeals to the fact of the removal of
the depOstes from the late Bank Of the United
States, and to the mode in which it was effect
ed by the dismissal of one Secretary of the
Treasury and appointment of another. But
does not this very fact prove that Bank of the
United States is no better in this respect than
The Exchequer? Another President might
choose to remove the deposites from a Bank of
the United States upon still slighter grounds
Than General Jackson.
In reply TO the argument that the Exchequer,
if it should fail to answer the expectations of
the People, may be repealed, Mr. Fillmore urges
that The Presidential Veto might be interposed.
But the chief danger from the Exchequer is al
eyed to be from The liability of Congress to au-
Ihorize excessive issues. If Congress wished to
repeal it, they could easily DESTROY all motive on
he part of the Executive for opposing its repeal
Its whole efficiency, WHIT for good or i'll,
would depend upon the will Of Congress unless
Congress should imprudenily so organize il at
irst as to vest too much discretion in the Exc
:ulive: and even in that case the difference be-
ween the Presidential term of four years, and
The usual period of Bank charter, would be
greatly in favor of the Exchequer.
We could if the time We're allowed us, point
% other arguments in Mr.. Fillmores report,
which we dare say that many of Mr.. Pendle-
on's intelligent constituents would find no diff |
iculty in answering; unless indeed they are
generally deserving of the compliment which he
pays them, in telling them that Mr.. Fillmore has
thought, better for them than they can think for
themselves, or than he can think for them