New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1843-04-21
The Regency Address.

Notices Ct On. Soifhey, &c see ifst iage
fly- For deferred Cify Nccs see Last Page
The Regency Address.
There is an old lokc-pcrhaps 1t may be found
IN the complete works Of Joseph Miller, Esq
shat cuIprit just convicted Of some heinous Of
fence, and ordered TO stand up and hear what the
Judge had to say to hun, after a few moments at
tentlon TO the rather pointed observations OF that
functonary, interrupted His Honor with polite
inimation that the matter of his discourse was
personally offensive and dsagreeable, and he
begged him TO change the subject
This gentleman in difficulties has had many
imtators, because many have found themselves in
similar predicaments.; and yet we do not rcmcm-
Der to have ever remarked so striking an instance
OF the sort as in the Address Just issued by the
Van Buren, Members Of our late Legislature. 1t
has for some years been the laudablc custom OF
each party in the Legislature, at the close OF
Session, To put forth an Address TO the People,
setting forth their views of Public Policy, their
course as Legislators, and the reasons which I'M
PEELED them TO support or oppose certain leading
measures of the Session. We like this, because
1t tends to place the reasons for and against the
measures discussed distinctly and conciscly be-
fore the People, and aid them In making up AN
impartial and correct decission.-But the Van
Buren, majority of the Legislature which has Just
adjourned has put forth Address which fills
nearly nine close columns of the Albany Atlas be-
tore us, of which little more than half column
in all is devoted to single topic of State policy
while all the rest is given up TO dlscusslan OF
matters as foreign TO the business of the Session
and the duties of our State Legislature as would
be disqusition on Imdoo mythology or the
Last Tribes of Israel.
Let us consider: A PLAIN citizen of New York
takes up the riyal Addresses of the Members of
The two parties 10 see what each has been dong
the past winter, and seeks answers 10 these I'M
portant questions What has been done III re-
gard TO the difficulties between Ncw-Ho DIRK and
Virginia Why has bill to repeal the Jury Trial
Act passed the Assembly IL just and right,
why did it not pass the Senate also What has
been done with the Retrenchment bills introduced
with such ilourlshes of trumpcts What with the
Inspection Laws The Usury Law Whatin re-
lation TO Bank Reform, Individual Responsibility,
the Erie Railroad Ward Equalization, &c. &c.
Loco Eocoism out o! power is vocilerous for legls
laton. What has been done with them in pow
er and If nothing, traynothng These archie
points on which the great mass OF readers Will
seek this Address for Information but not 4 word
of it viii they fnd They are only told IN the
most cloudy and oracuar terms that the Stop-and-
Tax policy of Young and Hoffman has been per
sisted IN through the Session, and is TO be per-
sisted In, indefinitely If not for ever.
Well SINCE the Regency Legislators prefer 10
discuss any thing else ratherthan their own doings
we Will follow them TO their chosen ground of
controversy, and see what they have TO offer:
Their first two columns arc devoted to dema-
eogue attack on a National Bank, in which COM
mon sense is set at nought and History lalsited
Among their direct Measurements are these
l. That the Federal portion of the Convention OF
l1S7 strove To confer on Congress the general
power of incorporation, srith rsetc 10 the creG-
tioa Of a National Bank; but the Republicans
defeated TIT the Federal portion had chosen
to do any thing of the sort, they would have ac-
complShed II, as they had u decided majority.
But TO confer on the Government the general I'M
limited power OF creating Corporations, and the
power TO create such Corporation as is necessary
for National purposes, are very different things.
>. That the first L. :. Bank was created by the
Federal party, and had but 4 small captal-rhe
vote creating was not parti-w!se bu, section
al and It's capital was larger, IN proportion to the
business and resources of the country, than was
proposed BY Mr., Clay in lsil.-3. That the char
Ter of the second U. S. Bank in 1916 was merely
assen,cd to by the Republican President and
Congress of that periodic was repeatedly
urged bya Democratic Secretary of the Treasury,
recommended as well as signed BY President Mad.
ison, and passed by alargo majority tthreo to onel
OF the Democratic Members NEST o. TIE Federal.
t$tS eating against u. So much for the assertion
that liberation OF 1 Bank measure constantly
pursued by the Federalists.--f. That the question
OF recharterlng or terminating the Bank was pre-
matureiy forced on Congress BY the Bank Itself
IN ISSa.-lt had been twice before pressed upon
the attention OF Congress BY President Jackson
in one instance, two years beiore-5. That Gen.
Jackson's Veto of the Recharter put the question
/. Bank or No Bank distinctly in issue, and that {
his reelection thereupon was verdict against 3
National Bank.-Ihat Veto expressly stated that .
Gen. jackson himself would have furnished the +