Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1848-04-04

Republican members of Congress, or who Then
were, or afterwards became Republicans, voted
for The Bank and these o,her memhers, then or
afterwards known rs Fcderaiisis. voted against
l.; yet h"t''u, nth unanimous roicc, IS we nave
shown, prociaims that i! was "a FtderGi mse
Sare;" ana Ina. h, Federal and Republican par
lies were divided upon il, and that upon r!lnci-
PIE, Offering about j, rialy and radically, and
even bitterly and furiouslv. Ih-se in ividuais,
il then belonging 10 the parties they are classed
with, only differed with their respective parties
On this particular measure, or did not become al
tached 10 these respective parties un'i aier'
wards, or their votes were controlled, as often
happens. especially with Republicans, by The
known will OF their constituents, or by some Other
temporary circumstance; and thus The whole eng.
ma is solved, aud the "Iuth OF history" perfect,
ly reconciled with these imposing "fao's." Just
so, Mr.. Gallatin unquesllonably differed with
Mr.. Jefferson and the Republican party in 1909,
and so did Mr. Crawford in 1911. And just so,
too, il can be shown that, in 1915 and 1916, Nh.
Madison and the Republican members oil Con-
gress, a majority Of whom vo'ed 10 Ie'chailer the
Bank, as well as the FederalisIs who voted
against il, either differed On that OCCASION and ON
that measure with their respective parties, or SUI
agreeing with their parties in principle, even as
10 the Bank, had their votes controlled al The
time by peculiar views and circumstances. But
The Bank did not change lis character as a Go
vernmen,al' measure; nor did The Federal and
Republican parties themselves simultaneously
turn a universal somerset, abandon their princi-
piles and their creeds, ami swap sides on This
great question. "Credat judeus ArPeHa, non eso.'
This last proposition really appears to US SO
inadmisslble, if not preposterous, that we feel
inclined 10 save ourselves the trouble, and our
readers the labor of its further discussion, and
if relied on by the Wing, to let it make the
most of 1t. But we know there are persons who
really think, and some who represent, that the
two great Parties. Federal and Rel ubl'can,
which have divided our People and Politicians,
and which, as Judge Narshall says in their con-
ficts on this and other measures, have "shaken
the United States TO their centre" both, we be-
lieye hone and patriotic in the main,-that
these Parties did actually cut this extraordinary
caper in 1915 and Is, and with mutual consent,
abandoning their respective principles and
creeds, exchanged positions with each other on
this, as we'll as the other great measures which
divided them. If it were so, it was highly de-
rogatory to the character of both. We do not
believe it. All, who will Rad their histo-
ry with candor, must see, that up to this pc.
riod, these parties were uniformly divided,
and in principle, on this Bank question. We
admit that many Politicians, and we believe a
majority OF those in Congress, about 1916, on
both aides, changed their rttcs Cd this question;
some from an honest change or modification OF
they conceived 10 be the pressure OF existing cir.
cumslances, and not a few from mere ~faclious
considerations But 10 say that therefore lhs
measure changed lis character, is, we respectful
ly submit, utter nonsense; and tina, the parties
themselves exchanged positions in regard 10 il, is,
as we have shown, 10 stale a non ~sequitur. Il
was not SO. Many Of The politicians in their
struggles Tor power, some honestly and perma-
Dehtiy, some iacIiously and temporarily, changed
sides, or rather altered their vores. The peo-
pie and The parties did not change and could
not change, but continued their struggles
with som changes in their leaders, it is true,
though these were few, until The Bank, which
was thus r~ecreaied, had been again laid prosraie
at the feet Of the Republican Parry, and for The
most part by The very same men who had origin.
ally differed about its erection. We might refer
10 innnmerabie proofs Of this, il We had time or
space, AMI lh1ughr The game worth The candle
We viii only stale, in hi, connection, hat We
are assured that Mr.. Madison never did ,bange
his opinion on The onsilurionalry of The Bank
bu, on this question, in principle, as on all others,
he concurred with the Republican Party 10 The
last. He, however, ,houghtlhat The constitution.
al question had been settled against him and
that he was bound 10 yield his individual opinion
ahcu' il. Ills letters TO MIR. l~ngersoll, written in
1881, are conclusive as 10 this.
We are aware, TOO, that some writers represent
that abou, his period Q8l6, the Federal parry e1-
pired-having brea'hed its las, in its dea'h.slrug-
giles against Mr.. Matison's administration and
the War cl 1912, just before concluded. We be.
lieve the Wing itself considers the Federal parry
dead and buried; but do not ~recollect that it ever
liked The precise period OF this melancholy event.
We do not believe that i, is dead yet. But il il
did expire in 1916, and parties up 10 that time, as
We have shown, had been uniformly divided about
The Bank, Ihen This sturdy old Federal parry may
surely claim Tor us memory The merit, with pos
lerily, Of having h,norably sustained The Bank 10
The last, and that it only surrendered lis regard
Tor this favored child Of its early affections with
lis own un,imely end. If The parry be dead, its
measures and principles are here, -and il Fr,Ie-
raj while The party lived, and as long as il lived,
they are Federal still, un ess those can be fund
who can BE- gully Of he s~acriiege OF robhing The
deaf, and appropTiating lis properly and lis no.
nors.
We had prepared 50 much Of The above arti-
Gle, before we saw he Wing OF yesterday. From
a hasly peiusal OF he mo ice" il takes Of our
last "chaptet" on the Bank, we find lha, we
might probably have aved ourselves the trouble
OF touching the last point made by US, as the
Wing does not seem 10 maintain il, or pretend 10
have done so. 1t was only a guess Of our owr;
and we cheeIfu,ly acquil The Wing Of having
done so, or Intended 10 do so. We now feel halt
inclined 10 suppress. The article alioeeIner; bur
as we have taken ihc notes, "tai,h we'll print Them"
The Wing tots con'end that the Bank chad
never belonged s;',ciIy 10 he category Of parry
measures" and ti": because rat no time was it
supported or opposed exclusively by The Federal
isis or by the Republicans" But this may be
said Of every party measure that ever existed; and
il only such measures as divided al he members
OF a party were 10 be considered strictly party
measures, there would be no such thing as a par
" measure in The world. Individual exceptions
will always exist, and We doubt if The case can
be found, in which al Of any parties were ever op-
posed on any question. But this proposition OF
The Wing, that he Bank was not strictly a party
-. - -, - - -. -. H., viii a,.,,, L..