Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1844-03-28

Fsn
9u'rer had been era,ifed by elccting MIR Craw-
ford, we should have had a Bank man i'm Office i'm
1859, instead Of General Jackson! And as a ne |
cessary consequence Of that state Of things, the
Bank would not have been vetoed, but would, at !
tins moment, have bceu in operation! Yes the
defeat OF the Emquirer's candidate lost us the
Bank 1T he had been elected, he would have
sig"ed the Bill. and saved the country from all
the evils which followed its overthrow!
Are we right IN saying that MIR Crawford was
Bank man In 1924, when he was, in the eyes of
Mr. Rltchie, the very impersonation of RepubIi-
canism! Let MIR Crawford himself answer the
question. In his letter 10 MIR lngersoll in 1881,
he Says
1.-The opinion which formed of the Bank of
the United States when was a member of the
Senate, was the result OF careful examination Of
the Constitution Of the United States, made with
out any pre'conceved opinions That opinion is
recorded IN TWO speeches which 1 made IN the
Senate lii 1911. Since that time 1 have had no
occasion OF reviewing the question. Ny opinion
! remdins undhered.
81 was Secretary of the Treasury more than
eight years, and during that time had ample evil
dence Of the great utility of Bank of the Uni
ted States, in managing the fiscal concerns of the
| Union. l am persuaded that no man, whatever
his pre-conceved opinion may be, can preside o.
yer the Treasury year, without being deeply
! Impressed with the expectancy of the United
- Bank In conducting the finances Of the Union.
1.-The provision OF the Constitution, which
gives Congress the power TO pass all laws hich
may be necessary and proper to carry into cflec,
the enumerated powers, gives Congress the right
10 pass the Bank bill, unless law mast proper TO
carry into effect the power to collect and disirib-
ute the revenue should be- excluded by tina, pro-
( VISION
] Let US not omit, in this place, one other firt.-
This same William II Crawford was the especial
iavorite of Martin Van Buren,, who supported hin,
! Tor the Presidency might and main! And is it
not strange that man who is SO uncompromi-
slng'y hostile to Bank, should be so Jealous in
his support OF the great champion of the Bank .
And tina, too, at the very moment when if his t.
'orts had been crowned with success, the consc-
quence would have been The inius ion of new life
into the dying monster! If Mr.. Crawford had
been elected, and the Bank had been chartered
Gas II would have been) in 1892, would not Mr.
Van Buren, and Mr. Richie have been accesso-
es before the fact 10 the horrible outrage on the
Constitution
But enough Of this--wo have shown ,ha,
| w ASKING ton, Adams, Jefferson and Madison
were all comhii,tcd in favor Of the Bank, hy their
official acts. Let us now see how Monroe stood
| on that question: he has defined his own posi-
| ion In his letter 10 Silas f. Burrows, dated Doth
January, 1881. Mr. Monroe had in 1871, as one
OF the Senators O! Va, voted against Tie Bank
bill.-ln his letter 10 MIR Burrows, after rccap,u-
la,ng the aspect of affairs in 1916, he says /:
"Ihese considerations led TO change in my o.
pinon, aud induced me 10 concur with the Presi-
dent In the propriety Of instiluting such a Bank
aittr The conclusion Of the war in 1915. AS to
The constitutional objection, il formed no serious
obstacle. In voting against it in the first instance
was governed essentially by policy. The con-
strucion gave to the Constitution, ] considered
a strict one. In the latter instance, it was more
LIBERAL but according to my judgment justified by
! its powers"
I There is one other circumstance connected with
the history of the Bank question, which we would
especially commend 10 those gentlemen who pride
u y, insei'es on Their consis'ency-and oppose The
! Bank now because they have done so i'm by-uone
days. The cOnstlluiionalty of the Bank depends
upon Tie fact, whether 1t is Il .'necessary and
proper means" 10 the administration of the fiscal
affairs OF the government. All admit that if its
necessity is shown ii is constitutional. This is
! practical quesilon-theory has nothing to do
with lit is 10 be tried and settled by experience
Ono experiment is worth all the reasoning in
/ The world. Well, how stands the question: when
/ this test is applied! Every Secretary of the
treasury, we believe, from Hamilton to the pres
ent time, tells us it is necessary and proper for
that purpose! Is II not rather arrogant and pre-
sumpiuCus IN us who have never had an opportu-
hity OF making an experiment of the kind, to
up our opinions in opposition TO those who have
made fair Trial of it!
I Madison at first thought it not necessary and
! proper, but experience satisfied him he was
wrong. Clay at FIRST thought it not necessary
out he too was convinced OF his during the
war: Giles was originally the stern opponent OF
The Bank, but his eyes were opened during Tie,
war to Its necessity, and he changed his opinion
and voted for the Bank in 1915.
With the testimony OF such men as these as to
The necessity OF the Bank, fiscal agent, and
their patriotic examples before u.s. in rcnouncing
erroneous opinions, who should feel afraid or
ashamed 10 say, 81 yield to the force Of evidence
and abandon my opposition TO Bank!' We
had hoped TO finish what we had to say on the
Bank question, i'll this number, but finding tina,
we cannot do without extending it to an unrea-
sonabse length, we must reserve some additional
Facts which we wish to bring before the country,
for concluding number.