The Council Bluffs nonpareil. [volume] (Council Bluffs [Iowa]) 1857-1867, 1857-09-26

We clip the @llowing extra( from !
speech made ~ tho Democsati caididats
for Governor, ct Dnbuque:
PsrsosAly opposed ID Bashs and faiiis 70 realiss
that necessity for their exielDnce whicA many others
yet wcui after the late actsoa
the election Of Iowa on the Constitution, intefposs
any objection 70 judicious banking law. me New
spsrsin only alter L shall have beea susitssd 8, and
approved By, majority Of the electors Of lows Any
Law on the subject not volatve Of the Constitution,
would receive my signature, and be submitted 70 the
people for their APPROVAL o. rejection"
Mr. SAxuEIs here acknowledges that be il
personally opposed to banks, and doss,not
realize any necessity for their existence, and
would not recommend their establishment.
Will this declaration prove satisfactory to
those who are in favor of the establishment
Of banks Of issue? We should think, quite
the contrary. Under the New Constitution,
it is made the duty of the Governor TO re-
commend to the Legislature such matters as
he may deem expedient. Would Mr.. SAM
uRLs recommend banking law9 No sir,
he SAYS unquali6edly, that he you'd not!
What have we then, to expect of MIR. SAN
UELs, on this question ? why, that he would
not ssinterpose any objection to judicious
banking law" What would he consider a
iudicious banking law?-what would any
man, personally opposed to banks, consider
jadicious banking law?-what would any
man who did not realize the necessity OF
banks Of issue, consider a judicious banking
law? We can only answer those questions
by asking another. Would he consider any
law contemplating the creation of banks Of
issue, judicious law. To our mind, it is
clear, that he would not. Again, it will be
seen that after stating that he would not
ssinterpose any objection to judieious
banking law" he says-"Any law on the
subject, not in violation Of the Constitution,
would receive my signature" Here we have
two. declarations-on implying that he
would interpose objections to an injudcious
banking law, and the other states unquali-
fedly that he uould not nterpose any objec-
ton to any laU on the subject, not ViolatiVe
of the Constitution. Here, then, we have
delightful specimen of Democratic bank
and anti-bank unexpectedly opposed to
banks-.fails to realize the necessity Of banks
-,could not recommend their establishment
-would interpose no objection to ajudic'-
Gus banking lap--would sign any law on
the subject, not riolatire Of the Constisu-
ton.
Ben NJ. SAxUELs, then is a candidate for
the whole people-his views are intended to
cover the whole case. Those personally OPP
posed to banks, can have their wishes car
ried out, by voting for SAaUELs. Those not
realizing the necessity of bank of issue, will
find representative of their views, in BEN
NJ. SAMuELs. Those favoring a judicious
banking law, can have their wishes forward
ed by voting for BEN NJ. SAxuELs. Those de-
string any banking law, not violative of the
Constitution, whether judicious or injudici--
Gus, can receive the Executive approval by
voting for Ben NJ. SAxUELs. .-..
On the bank question, the Democratic
candidate for Governor, is everything to all
men. You try to pin him down to any one
point, and he is not there-he has flown the
track. Should Democratic Governor and
Legislature be chosen, what assurance would
the people of this State have, that provision
would be made for the establishment of
banks of issue, none. If it is the desire of
the people of thisState, to have banks, should
they elect as law makers men personally op-
posed to banks? We should say, of course
not, but elect those and those only, who are
unqualifedly in favor Of the establishment
of banks of issue. Then it must be obvious
to the most casual observer, that the only
way to accomplish this end is to vote for the
Republican candidates. ga word, &C.,