New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1849-03-09

The refusal Of Congress In ia expiring mo menu -
establish VI nj ia this City, 9 otsi asel-. - -
NIT. rer-c-afion While hundreds OF M4nul u.
-. bi. - .rsrreiv spy importance were nltcnrd
,eg-thsr and rolled through, inls ui--s1lr' -
IL interesting o. TIE entire N0rth ah5 - -,
rspdei y a. utterly disfegzrJrd IsA'ns 90 -
into consideration. 10 CONNECTION ~ ~ -.
spf uece..ity u the pr1posion - can '0s1.-J -
y.r Inv 4 Va. that such suisoie measure ~; ho'
passed A. 40 early stage u The Session We u''-o,
that Mr. Tallmsdge made an eroft Al me ass -,
but IN the midst Of the conuson, 80, 80. -,
kinds Of di,grscefal disorder, cogl1 nor n'sr oee
expected tha, IL would pass through ooin Houses
Our Ciry Delegation should have oeeh il'Is soI,e :.
tnis matter II they bad been u eouu % o-D' -
been ACCOMPLISHED In season 70 coin the raw mAsellA
which viii be aowug il upon z. IN tNe''e nlo mona
r. Me..rs. Taumadge and Nicoll devoted a
larre share of their time and energies throughout
the Session TO this Mint bill, seconded In some de-
gree by their City colleagues and II the Editor
o., The Globe fsncies that the bill was lost for
want Of activity on the par; Of the City Delesa-
ton. he IS grossly mistaken. On the contrary II
was reported al very carly day made 'Pecia'
Order after at least one unsuccessful struggle as
early as possible got before the House the t7st
moment 1t could be. and passed by a large ma
jonty. Say the delegation lacked influence
talent tact, anything You please but II IS
grossly unjust to the two members above-named
to say they lacked activity More than half the
votes by which the bill was passed were gained
By their assiduous personal appeals and explana
tons.
claim no part Of the credit for myself, and seek
no exemption from the censure above bestowed
desired the passage Of the bill, made some exer-
tons. and obtained some votes for it but did not
and could not work Tor it as / should have done
had il. details commended themselves to my Judg-
ment. There ought clearly to be Mint In New
York. but not Branch Mint. The Mint should
be here, where Bullion and Foreign Coin are
mainly received and held and whenever we shall
have obtained a Mint here there will be no more
use for one IN Philadelphia than In Vermont. The
thing proper to be done. therefore, Is the removal
of the Mint from Philadelphia to this City, and
whenever that shall be directly attempted, | Will
endeavor not to be deficient IN activity. But IN
canvassiug for this bill was met by the strongest
and soundest men in the House-among them
Mcssrs. Collamer Of VI. Hubbard of Conn. and
Hudson OF Mass whose local interests and sympa
thies were ali IN favor OF our City, with the frank
demurror-"I cant vote to multiply MINIS but
change your bill into one removing me Mint to
New York, and will heartily supPortit. can
vote to make G new Mint within hundred miles
of the old one. What sort Of activity would
have overcome this objection
We have four Mints already, which IS at least
two too many. A bill retrenching orr Mint eX-
pendtures by abolishng the North Carolina aud
Georgia branches and removing the chief Mint to
this City would far larger aggregate com
age at a much smaller expense and such a bll
can be carried through Congress without taxing
too severely the activity OF our City Delegation.