Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1843-05-10

walls. Accordingly his letter, though dated Feb. 18th. had
not reached indianapolis late in April, when, after vainl,
waiting three months, the Committee published the othcl
-four letters, cmarking that none had reached them from MI
Van Buren,. After those letters had appeared, we hsi
heard that Mr.. Van Burcn's had been written, and now II
makcsis appearance. indianapolis is some ten days by mail
from Undertook. Is IL not palpablc that the date of Mr.
Van Burens letter IL n ialschoodi
The two first columns at this letter are devoted Co n falsi-
fcation ofthe history ofihc Country and To the grcsSeSt as
pcrsion Ut the conduct and motives ct those who differed
from the writer in regard To the Rechartcr OF the late United
States Bank. The whole ground is p~etifoggcd ovcr-not
at all IN answer To the questions submitted Ia HMM the
sTInt OF Marat. and with the dignity of a Ward Caucus Ora,
tor. All the evils which have been imposed on the Coun-
Try by the ignorance and obs;inacy OF Gen Jackson, intam-
ed by such advisers as MIR. Van Buren,. are changed To the
Bank. II was the Bank that made all the distress, when
compelled To curtail by the arbitrary withdrawal OF Eight
Millions from its vaults by Gen. Jackson; Il was the Bank
again that flooded the Country with money when all the
Banks expanded under the stimulus ot the Pet Bank syS-
tenn. II is the Bank which has caused every citizen of the
United States To suffer, as he saws, sin some way or other
in hs habits, his morals, or his property" MIR. v. b. hav-
ing taken precious good care OF his property, we regret be-
Ing forced To the conclusion that il is in his habits or his
morals that the Monster has proved upon him. lie at
tributes TO the Bank not only all the disastrous consequences
which were clearly torcscen and predicted in lS32 rs the
inevitable results oi the policy then resolved on by the Exec
uuve; hut even the State Banks thickly chartered by Jack
son Legislatures to take the place $50 urged the Globc) Of
the Monster they detcstcd. and to prove it unnecessary,
are all charged by him To the account OF the cx-Natou-
a. institution! Nay,morc; the very States which did 50 much
toward the ruin of the United States Bank, BY borrowing
Of 1t Twenty or Thirty Millions and either repudiating OF
making no provision for the payment OF the intorest-so
that the Bank was plunged into difficulties. and compelled
To sacrifice their Stock for n fifth part ct their cost-arc here
sad To have been "impOreriShed' by the Bank They
have borrowed oft Twenty old Millions, and, by bankrupt.
CIV or knavcry, subjected II to 4 loss of threc-fourths Of the
amount, running the institution and beggaung its stockhol.
dcrs, and yet we are are told that they have been empower
ished" by the Bank! How can this man hope to escape
the scom and indignation of every candid mindl
MIR. Van Buren, affects TO wonder why the late Bank did
not wind up its affairs as quietly and advantagcously as did
the trst National Bank. To this he has himself suggested
the proper answer: The first Bank was not Indignantly
Marred unnn hV the then administrations: the Government
DepOsiteS were not removed frOmit, norany measure of hos
Utility rcsortcd to; the President never declared il insolvCni,
nor attempted tn break one OF its remote Branches by col
lecung all Its bills aud crowding them upon 1t ut once for
specie. No evils resulted from the winding up of the old
Bank beyond the loss o, its services TO the country, because
those who then administered the Government were states
men: ruin attended and followed the winding up of the late
Bank, because the Executive power was welded by Gent
Jackson and Martin Van Buren,. We challenge all history
Tor an instance in which a National Bank was ever broken
or perverted To evil uses except by the action OF the Govern
ment
We must not devote more space TO this part of the Ex-
Presidents letter-not even To- treat rs they deserve the
bold assertions that n National Bank must necessarily be
irresponsible and SO potent for the pspetranon of evil
when all its powers are granted and strictly defined by law,
and when Congress and the Secretary ct the Treasury
as often hostile as incndly-arc empowered to exert over II
n constant supervision aud control. Mr.. Van Buren, has
obviously written this letter for those who do not argue, and
seldom read; else he would not speak ot THAT party which
airdgs has been, still y, and ever will be the advocate and
support Of such an Institution" lie well knows that the
late National Bank was chartered IN Isle bg The Demo
cratic party, headed by James Madison, John {. Calhoun,
and \. J. Dallas, and that a large majority Of the Fedora
lists in Congress voted against IL. But what cares he for
history ? Those for whom he wOte tins letter know moth
ing Of the facts, and will take his word for it that the De
mocrats were always hostile 10 4 Bank. and the Fcdcralists
untring in their efforts 10 charter OF sustain such an insutu-
non!
Passing TO the Land Distribution, saws Mr.. Van Buren,:
The tenacity with which our opponents adhere to the
distribution OF the proceeds OF the public lands among the
States, m the present condition Of the Treasury, l. 4 poll
ucal anomaly, which II j. not n hide difficult To explain, or
to reconcile, with II fair understanding OF, or a proper re-
gard for, the true interests OF the country. II any apology
Tor It can hc made, It Is 90 be traced To that unwiiingDcss To
abandon, Ia the face Of their opponents, 4 position which
has been assumed with confidence and supported with ear
nesmu,s-an indisposIuun from which but few political as
soclatOns are altogether exempt"
Now itcannot be unchanable To say that Mr.. Van Blu |
rem kH2rS better than this-knows that the Wings urge the
Land Distribution a. a barrier againstthc iuccssant and Tor
mldable attempts, cuuntenanccd by himself and the lead
ers Ut his party, 10 plumber the Old States Of their righuul
INTEREST," and advantage from the Public Lands, by rcduc-
ing the price 10 the noighborhood Of nothing or ceding them
outright to the States IN which they he. Mr.. V. b. well
knows that tins Is one of the grounds on which the Distn-
button u urged, yet he unfairly conceals II, and saws that
the only question Is, whether n certain amount of money
shall Toe raised from to Peopcl- taxes IN order that an un-
equal or less amount shall he distributed back To them
He knows, too, that the Distribution Is urged ON the ground !
OF the imp"icy aud inpruyidencu uf a great nation eating
up It's estate IN a time OF profound peace, like Il prodigal
heir, who sells "i ms patnmunial acres, piece by piece, 10
%replenish his table and his cellar. until oil are gone. The
Wings believe that the proceeds of these Public Lands
should Ice 50 disposed "f that future generations shsll be
benefited 10y them Us well n the present; aud, since the
General Government rcnounccs the power To make Inter
nal Improvements, they see no other way To effect the Oh
Iect than by a Distribution to the States. Mr.. v. Il. may
differ from us ON these points, but why should he misrepre-
sent aud belle u.s.
We have at last reached the Tariff question, TO which
the eN-Ptesldent deyotes Two long columns, after the man
ner Of his famous sheep Speech OF ls2s. lie Is a little
more ant-frotecuNe now, aud YET we can find IN his two
columns no clear avOwal ct Free Trade sentiments, like
Mr.. Calhoun's, or Of Protective principles like Messr..
JOhnson's, Cass's OF Bnchanans. His paragraphs are labo-
uously constructed 80 ne to mean little or much, as shall be
desirable; the Evening Post says Mr.. ". Il. declares him
seli uHeqaHoeaty hostile to the principle Of Pcoteeuon."-
We tied To prove the same To a Van Buren, Protecuonist.
with whom We differed, on fiTst receiving the letter; but we
could not make itOut very clearly, while our opponent IN.
sisted that the letter favors Incidental Protection. The dL.
rcctcst expression ON this head appears to be this:
The unbiased sentiment OF the country, IN respect to
what Is, under such circumstances, the rule for legislative
action upon tins subject, has think, by the course Of events
and the progress Of opinion, been brought 10 the conclusion,
briefly expressed in one OF the resolutions Of your cOnven.
uon' VIZ n discriminating tariff for revenue purposes only,
and which will incidentally protect American Industry"
Can any one tell us just whist Is meant by the above par
agpphi Is the Tariff TO discriminate with a view 10
Revenue or to 'ProtocuDnF Here Is the pinch of the
case. Nobody ~ the world ever cOntended that a Tariff
ougi: not discriminate with a single eye % Revenue; but
Mr CalhOun slysit should not discriminate with a view to
Protection, while Messrs. Cas-, Buchanan aud Johnson
says 1t should. So say we. Mr.. Van Buren, says-what1
II o Tariff TO discriminate for revenue purpose. only. il
must clearly, as the Globe forcibly urges, impose orer duties
on the importation If such foreign articles as meet here n
domestic rivalry than on othcrs. For instance: Suppose
the general rate Of duties be twenty per cent. and the qu,s.
uon uHscs, what shall be the duty on boots and shoes We
say, Discriminate 80 Us 10 protect incidentally, II you wish
10 be meuly-mOuthcd about ~ the American shoemaker
make the duty an boots and shoes thirty per cent. But #
VIC nc 10 discriminate for revenue purposes only we must
discriminate the other way, and make thc duty on boots
ana shoes ten orbJfeeH per cent because moro would be
imported and more revenue collected under this than under
a thirty per cent. duty. Tho protection afforded 10 our in.
dustry by such a Tariff would be uery incidental indeed.
Buthcar Mr. Van Buren, again:
alt will not, Fbeiove, be contcndcd in any quarter. that
the prosperity Of either of these great interests Commerce
and Naylgahonl IS essentially advanced by q Protective or
a Revenue Tariff. That the great body Of the Mechanics
and LaborerS IN every branch of business, whose welfare
shouIdbo nn object Of unccusing soliciudc on te part Of ev.
cry public man, have been the greatest sufferers by our high
protective Tariff, and would continue 80 10 be if that policy
Is persisted IN, is to my mind tOO clear 10 require further
clucidation"
We insisted to our Van Buren, friend that this passage ov.
idenuy implied hostility 10 our present. Tanf; but no, he
commended tIatit meant the high Protective Tariff Of ls1s.
How -Oi' was our response MIR Van E1r,u bi,rsclf Va
ted fr that v,rv T,r,gi, al, ....,., 49,.