OCR Interpretation

Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, January 24, 1834, Image 2

Image and text provided by Library of Virginia; Richmond, VA

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85025007/1834-01-24/ed-1/seq-2/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for

Daily paper - - - * - $8 per annum.
Country paper - - - 5 per annum.
try is printed on Tuesday, Thursday, and
Saturday. ,
1 All advertisements appear in both papers, aim
are inserted at the usual rates.
On the Removal of the Deposites.
I ***■-■■" - . '
* Sir this is the first instance in the history of
this country, where the funds were placed at the
disposal of one establishment, with liberty to
make anv use of it which they might find con
venient; and I hope it will be the last. I am
glad that the attention of the American people
has been called to the subject; they will better
understand the nature of that moneyed powei
to which they have been so long subjected; and
I shall be sorry if Congress allow the deposites
to be returned to the Bank. I think, sir, I have
now said enough to show that both with regaid
to the government and the public, it has done
enough to forfeit its charter, and that the Secre
tary of the Treasury has acted justly ill with
drawing the deposites: and I think, sir, I have
shown that he had legal authority for that act.
Sir I might here leave off, but other subjects
have bee a brought forward, which ought not to
be passed by unnoticed. I understood the se
nator from Sonth Carolina to dispute the i tght
of the President to surpervise the conduct of the
Secretary, and to remove him. Such was not
the view taken bv the honorable Senator from
Kentucky. The‘first charge brought by that
gentleman was, that the Secretary, by remo\
This denunciation .seems to have been resorted
to for the purpose of exciting terror. That the
~ power of the purse was usurped with the power
- of the sword. What, sir, constitutes the power
i>f the purse? The people are taxed only by
their own consent, through theii oun lepiesen
tatives. The power of the purse is the power of
raising money from the pockets of the people,
and of disbursing it without their consent or ap
proval, in such manner as may suit the purpos
es of him who takes it. In England the power
of the purse is held by the Parliament, as it is
by Congress here. The King there may make
treaties, or levy war, but he must go to Parlia
ment for the money, and if Parliament choose
to withhold the supplies, he may levy war and
make treaties in vain.
Is it meant, sir, that the power of keeping the
purse is not a part of the Executive power? But
the Executive has a right to see it done, and to
determine on his own responsibility how and
-where the money shall be kept. There was for
merly no obligation on the Secretary to depo
site money any where. It might be deposited
in the State Banks, or in the Bank of the United
States, and was he ever accused of depositing
it wrong? The public money, since the establish
ment of the U. S. Bank, was placed there by the
act which constituted that Bank, until the Se
cretary should otherwise order and direct.—
Well, sir, does tfe, in removing the deposites,
transgress the law and usurp the power? No,
sir. But then we are told that the Bank of the
_V,t;jr-I ‘"•*■‘--1-- - ITtkal la tkaoaca,
it is so sub-modo onjy. A correct notion of the
treasury of the United States is not to be deriv
ed from the place where the money is kept, but
from the state or condition of the public money
in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury.
The place of the public deposites is where the
proper officer may order them to be deposited.
This position was obviously illustrated by a re
ference to the documents:—In IS 10 a resolution
was passed in the House of Representatives
_in___ tnyir r, f Iko rP niiil l~ir tn
upvu WUV/ VV«. T * . X.V.WVW ^ —
report as to the amount of money in the differ
ent places .of deposite. The Secretary replies,
“The probable amount of money in the Trea
sury, is near two millions and a half.” He did
not state any particular place, byt merely the pro
bable amount in the different places of deposite
and those he called the Treasury. The receipt
of money by persons appointed by the govern
ment is synonymous with its receipt into the pub
lic treasury. Whenever the public money is
under the control of the Government in the name
of the Secretary and to his credit, and where it
is available to the uses of the Government, there
. it is in the Treasury of the United States. Sir,
it is the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury,
on the third day of Congress, to furnish a true
and perfect account. Does he furnish an ac
count of the bank? No, Sir, but he furnishes an
account of the public moneys, wherever they
may be. Sir, the charge of breaking into the
Treasury is one of a grave character, and de
serves some elucidation. I will endeavor to
show that no such crime has been committed.—
Sir, do not the funds of the country still stand to
the credit of the Treasurer? Are they still not
under his control, as the money of the Govern
ment? Are.they any more exempt from the
control of the Government in their present situr
ation than they would be, if they were still in
the Bank of the United States? Yet we should
suppose, from the observations that have been
made, that they were drawn out of the Treasu
ry. The honorable Senator, I trust, when, his
mind is drawn more closely to the subject, will
see, upon reflection, that all that has been said,
has not been said with justice on this subject.
Sir, I must be permitted to express great sur
prise, that the Senator from Kentucky, when
quoting a passage from the speech of Patrick
Henry, should denounce the union of the purse
■ and sword, from that authority, as applicable to
the removal of the deposites. I could not but
be surprised that a mind so patriotic as that of
the Hon. Senator undoubtedly is, and so ready
at all times to raise his voice against any sup
posed violations of the laws of this country,
could go so far as to believe that Patrick Henry
uttered this deprecation, as applicable to the
removal of the public deposites. Henry could
got have seen in this, the usurpation of that
great power of the purse in union with the sword,
which was to give the death blow to liberty. If
the Senator had readonly a few brief senten
ces preceding his quotation, he would have
seen, that Patrick Henry could not have meant
such a union as this, of the purse and the sword,
without doiug the greatest violence to his lan
guage. In his view. Congress had both the
purse and the sword; Congress had an unlimi
ted control over both. The purse is the power
oftaxation; the sword is the power ofraisingan
army, and extending a control over the militia.
The two powers in question, were not consider
ed as belonging to the President, but to the Con
gress of the United States. He used this as an
argument, at the convention, in regard to the
Government considered collectively, and his
yery uae of the term is a confirmation of all 1
! have said. That the power of the purse and.
the sword is an indefinite power over the pub
lic money, and the military forces of the coun
trJ|f the Senator will inspect the passage, the
exoression will satisfy him, that it has some per-'
tinency. Patrick Henry was against the union
of the purse and the sword in the hands of tile
General Government; it was the whole power of
the country; and under such a union, liberty
was gone. His argument was, that if, when the
purse and sw^ord are in the hands of the entiie
Government, checked and balanced as it is, by
means of its various departments, there is still
danger, how much more immense when they
are in the hand of one of them, when all did not
furnish a competent security for liberty.
And on another branch of the subject, allow
fHere Mr. CLAY said, that in his remarks on
the union of the purse and sword in the hands
of the President, he did not allude solely to las
seizure of the public money, but to the po\vei
which he had claimed and exercised, of saving
to one 'Secretary, “ You must get out of office, |
if you will not do as 1 bid you;” and to another
officer, “ I dismiss you, unless you consent to be j
governed and controlled by me.”]
It still seems to me, contined Mr. Rives, that
the Senator’s quotation from Henry, is not ap
plicable to the removal of the public deposites;
and I understood the Senator’s remark to relate
to this particular act; that it was violating the
Constitution by putting in the hands of one
man, the *power of the purse and sword; that if
these powers were dangerous in the hands of
the whole Government, they were much more
so in the hands of an individual; and that it was
not improperly said, that by the removal of the
public deposites, they were so consolidated. I
wish to show that Henry alluded to the power of
the purse and the sword in the hands oi the ma
ny; and to designate the object to which his
remarks should be applied, submitting for that!
object, ministerial power, in supposing a col
lusion by means of the public money, when Ex
ecutive officers receive and disburse it accord
ing to law. It is another matter, if the Senator
supposes there is danger in relation,to the du
ties of the Executive officers of this sort; all his
argument on this point came forty years too
late, and all that are applied againstthe power
-of removal.
There is not one argument brought against
the President’s going to an officer and saying,
M I remove you, unless you do so and so”—not
one, which was not urged in 1789, against that
power of removal. As to the President’s abuse
of power, I will not say that he may not abuse
it; but the single responsibility of the President,
looked to controlling the whole Executive de
partment, and his responsibility as to the duties
of that department, was considered as a secu
rity for the liberty and good of the country;
and in that light it was regarded by Mr. Madi
Sir, permit me to advert to another constitu
tional opinion, expressed by the Senator from
Kentucky. He not only asserts that the Presi
dent has wrested the purse from the hands of
Congress, but that there is another glaring usur
pation, in wresting also from them all power
over the Executive department. The constitu
tion has devolved on the President the Execu
tive department. The Senator has commented
on that, and has decided that the constitution
devolved upon him no such control of Execu
tive authority; that it is not from the constitu
tion, but from law; that in particular cases he
has such control over the State, War, Treasury
and Navy departments as was given him by law;
that cr\ far as tho law hue given it ha hue it, hilt
not from them constitution.
Sir, here is a fundamental error, which must
I be corrected—that the people and ourselves may
have a just notion of the Constitution. I am
not an advocate of Executive power, but I am
engaged in a discussion on the Constitution; and
the Constitution vests the whole Executive pow
er in one person. There were various proposi
tions in the Convention for framing the Consti
tution; one was for an individual Executive;
another for a plural Executive; the plural was
presented under different forms; all were con
sidered, weighed, and discussed, but the deter
mination was—that the public liberty and good
required a unity of responsibility in one man;
therefore they vested the whole Executive re
sponsibility in one person; and it was so vested
on the principle, that there would be the highest
security oi puuuc lioeriy, in one v.mei magis
trate. As a consequence of the responsibility
of the President, in regard to the Executive de
partments, he has the power of controlling, in
specting, and placing substitutes for Executive
officers. This power of superintendence and
control was so explicitly recognized in the de
bates of 1789, at the first Congress after the
adoption of the Constitution, that I refer the
Senate to them.
Sir, in what language could Madison, and
every interpreter of the Constitution, more
plainly express, that one Chief Magistrate is re
sponsible lor the Executive department, and on
the principle, that it was under his control and
I responsibility, for liberty and the public good?
Mr. Ames says, the President has the responsi
j bility,for the greater security of the liberty of the
American people; I say responsibility, for it im
plies the power of control in the President, and
the framers of the Constitution would not make
the President responsible without control. The
Congress of 1789 acted on the ground that the
responsibility was in the President; and the Con
stitution necessarily gives him the power of
Sir, the Senator alleges that he has made ma
ny researches, and his friends have made them 1
for him. I also have made some, though I have ;
not had the benefit of friendly assistance; and I I
beg leave to present a few extracts from the de
bates of 1789. Madison—“ There is no danger
in the choice of Executive officers by the Se
nate; they may choose on the nomination of the
Executive, who constitutionally has a supervi
sion and control over them.” Mr. Lawrence—
“ In the departments, the Executive determines
the source of control,” &c. Ames—“ The Ex
ecutive power exists with a view to inspect and
control the officers.” Through the whole de
bates, it was admitted, by the majority of Con
gress, that the Constitution had given the Presi
dent the control of Executive officers, and con
sequently the responsibility was placed, by the
Constitution, on his shoulders. Does not this
show that it is derived from the Constitution,
and not from the laws?
The Hon. Senator continued. But, Sir, it
has been suggested that this great question of
the power of removal on the part of the Presi
dent, is a party question; that the Federal par
ty was in favor of the removal, and the Repub
lican party were of the opposite opinion. Sir,
there was no such party spirit. With Madison
were found many of those who after wards bore ;
the character of Republicans. But, Sir, to show
that this question was not connected-with these
great principles, I call the attention of the Se
nate to an authority which all admit to be the
highest Democratic authority which can be
y * .
fMr. Hives here read several extracts from
Jefferson’s letters; and continued.J
tion of Washington no distinction was made be
tween officers? Sir, this is a most important ques
tion. It is desirable that the people should
derstand it, and that they should not be influ
enced by bold.denunciations. . . •
The Hon; Senator from Kentucky, Sir, has
said, that in all the researches which he has
himself made, and which have been made for
him by others, he has been unable to find any
authority for the course which has been pursued
by the President. Sir, if the Hon. Senator had
looked through ^he debates, l am sure he would
have come to a different conclusion. Sir, I un
derstand that gentleman to say, that the Presi
dent has no authority except when the law is
resisted by force; and that he (the President)
mav overcome this resistance by force.
Sir, I understood the gentleman from Ken
tucky to say, that under the law and the consti
tution, the President has no other authority than
to resist any opposition to the laws or the con
stitution, which may be made by force. This is
a power more dangerous to the liberties oi the
country than any other power that could be gi
ven him; and there is not, under the law or the
constitution, any such provision. The Congress
only has the power to call out the militia. 1 he
President is, indeed, commander-in-chief of the
forces, and this power is given to him by Con
gress. But there is something peculiar in the
language which confers upon the President this
authority, in the words “ that he shall see the
laws faithfully executed.” Mr. Madison, how
ever, thought that the duty to see the law’s faith
fully executed was not to be by force, but through
the action of the subordinate officers of Govern
ment. The power to issue proclamations rests
exclusively with the President. I understood
the Senator from South Carolina to say, that the
President has a right to state in what manner the
laws are to be executed. Sir, the President never
Hnimpfl nnv nfher anfhoritv. It has been argued,
sir, that the public officers, so far from being ac
countable to the President, were accountable
only to the country and to the courts of the coun
try. No one has more respect for the institu
tions of the country than I have, but I was sur
prised to hear the Senatqr from Kentucky quote
the opinion ofthe Supreme Court, in reference
to the case of Marbury and Benson. There can
now be but one opinion, and that is the ground
which was taken by Jefferson; he supposed the
commissions to be not then consummated, anti he
prevented the consummation ofthe commissions.
Sir, is not this the plain practical sense of the
constitution? Mr. Jefferson said that it was the
invariable practice, that a commission, though
signed and sealed, was not valid until it was de
livered. (Here Mr. Rives cited several instan
ces recorded by Jefferson, in favor of that prac
tice.) Such was the republican doctrine of the
day, though it w'as not the decision of the Su
preme Court. It decided that because a com
mission was signed and sealed, it was valid, al
though not delivered. 1 may now say that the
general sense of the country was against it.—
Mr. R. then read a letter addressed to Judge
Roane by Mr. Jefferson, and cited several other
passages from the same works, after which he
dwelt at considerable length upon the nature of
the tenure of office, and ofthe various duties as
signed to the several officers of the Govern
ment. \
Mr. Rives alluded to the remark of Mr. Clay,
that we are in the midst of a revolution. He
accorded with him in th-it opinion, hut in a dif
ferent sense. We are in the midst of a revolu
tion great and salutary. The American sys
tem, of which the Senator was the acknowledg
ed champion, was a most unequal system of tax
ation, and would, if not laid in the dust, under
mine all our institutions. This system was al
ready giving way before the power of public
opinion. Its chief advocate, fearing the action
of a new Congress, had made an effort to save
it from destruction by means of the Bill of com
promise ol the last session. Internal improve
ment, on which the public money had been un
constitutionally squandered, must of course fail
for the want of the means to cany it forward.—
The Bank, the first step.in the system of revo
lution, had been exercised in the best times, both
lioro nnrl in P.no'hmil In PT. n rrirt twi it vvnc n.-iu’
of no use, because other and less unpopular
means had been found and resorted to, for the
control of legislation. But in the reign of Wil
liam the III., who had acquired his power by a
revolution, and who was deemed in a high de
gree the friend of freedom, the veto power was
frequently exercised. Afier paying a high tri
bute to the worth and talents of Mr. Madison,
and pronouncing him the most virtuous man in
! the country, he asked how often did he exercise
j the power of the veto. In the first two years of
! his Presidency he had vetoed four Bills passed
1 by Congress, and some of them at least, on
j stronger grounds ofexception, than those which
had been adduced in the case of the vetoes of
j the present chief magistrate.
Mr. Rives deprecated the counter revolution
which might, and probably would occur, if there
should be a turn in the present course of public
affairs. He thought it would be dangerous to
the stability and character of our institutions, to
the purity of elections, and the morals of the
community". He thought the public money wras
now shut up, iri a strong box, where it could not
be used for purposes of corruption. Such a use
of it was by this means rendered wholly imprac
When Mr. Rives had concluded, on motion
ofMr. Pre-tno. he Senate adjourned.
The subscriber wishes to sell that valuable
^corner of 12th and E streets, Washington
City, at present occupied as a boarding house,
and recently built, and rents readily at one hun
dred aud eighty dollars a year. Perhaps there
are but few stands (except those on the Ave
nue) more valuable, and is well calculated for
any kind of business.
For further information concerning the above
apply to Arther Warren, Grocer, next door, or
to the subscriber, in Alexandria.
Alexandria, jan 10—eotf
THE Washington Line and Cement Compa
ny have the pleasure to announce to the
public that they are now prepared to furnish
Quicklime of superior quality, at their Kilns, on
the Canal basin, near Georgetown. All the
Company ask is, that full experiments ma)' be
made by the scientific and practical part of the
community with the article they are now manu- ,
facturing, as they reel assured-it will meet pub- ;
lie appropriation.
As soon as the Canal navigation opens, the
Company will also be able to furnish the Hy
drate of Liine, or Water Cement, of a quality
fully equal, if not superior, to any yet discov
ered in this country, or imported from abroad. 1
Washington, jan 20—d2w
In the House of Representatives on Wednes
day, some debate arose on the proper disposi
tion to be given to the bill from the Senate, fur
ther to continue in force “ An act to authorize
the extension, construction, and use of a lateral
branch of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in
to arid within the District of Columbia,” now on
the table of the House.
Mr. CHINN stated that he had been instruct
ed to move that the bill be re-committed to the
Committee on the District of Columbia. It was j
a bill in which the people of the District had a j
direct and near concern, and the subject certain-!
ly pertained of right to ther own Committee.
Mr. McKIM explained. The bill merely pro- i
posed a revival of a former law, which had ex- 1
pired by its own limitation. The Company had
obtained a new' law from the Legislature of (
Maryland, and they now wished concurrent le-1
gislation from Congress. Thai Legislature bad ,
granted $500,000 toward the construction of the j
road, and they bad therefore added fifty cents
per passenger to the rates before proposed, by |
way of compensation of this aid. He had no.
objection the bill should go to the District Com-;
mittee, although he did not see how the people |
ofthe District could expect to get any portion of j
, the toll for a road, so small a part of which pas-!
! sed through the District; unless, indeed, they ]
| would like Maryland, suscribe a part of the ■
capital to make the road.
Mr. CHINN only insisted that the people of I
the District should have an opportunity of being !
Mr. VINTON had no objection to the recom-!
mitmentof the bill, but opposed its going to the j
District Committee, inasmuch ns it belonged, i
manifestly, to the Committee on Roads and Ca- I
nals. He had no idea of the Distr ct Commit-i
tee taking it out of the hands of the Committee j
j to which it had been appropriately referred.— j
I As well might a bill for a road through Michi- j
| gan be sent to the Committee on Territories.— <
This was not an allair oi tne u,.strict merely, or
mainly; this road was part of the great line of
communication from Boston to New Orleans, |
and, as such, was under the jurisdiction of the i
Committee on Roads and Canals.
Mr. STODDERT said, he would enter into l
no comparison or contest as to the relative dig
; nity of different Committee of the House, but, as
1 one of the representatives from Maryland, he
j was anxious to avoid all collision of jurisdiction.
The road had been authorized by the Legisla
ture of Maryland, but its completion required
j the legislation of Congress, as the local Legisla
ture of the District. The District had none
! ofher; and the place where its interests were to
he presented was the District Committee of that
| House. That Committee had no desire to frus
i trate the undertaking^ far from it; and he,
! though deeply interested in all that concerned
the prosperity of his own State, thought there
was weight in the reason why the.bill ought to
goto the Committee on the District. The peo
ple of his own district were also deeply concern
; ed in the provision's of this bill. The road puss
j ed directly through his district. There was al- j
so a turnpike road, the stock of which was part
ly held in Baltimore and partin Washington,
which was likely, if not suitably protected, to be
ruined by this rail road. He wished both sides
of the question to be fully considered.
Mr. VINTON moved that the bill be recom
mitted to the Committee on Roads and Canals.
After some further conversation, the bill was
sent to the Committee on the District of Colum
• Albion Corn Plaster softens the corn, however
I. old and tough, and extracts it to the very roots.
The relief afforded is gentle, immediate, and tho
• The proprietor begs le#ve to submit the following
case, from Mr Stowell, who is well known to the in
habitant# ofthis city, especiall) at the South Kud and
South Boston, as a very worthy and respectable cili
£a ' lit
A Ca-k
Sin I d > not hesitate to give my most unqualified
approbation in favor of your valuable Albion Corn
Plaster By the use of less than a box, Mrs Stowel!
has been cured of a corn on each foot, which had been
exceedingly troublesome and painful for rears, and I
think it btitjuatice to your invaluable preparation to
add, (for the encouragement of those who, owing to
repeated disappointments in the various remedies re
sorted to, have finally despaired of a cure,) that your
Plaster curb'd her corns, after tmng other highly re
commended re medies to no purpose: and what in
creases mv confid nee in the superiority of your Plas
ter, is the fact, that it has been used by several of my
neighbors with equally good success (Signed)
Seth ‘'Towell,
Keeper of the Toll house, South Boston Bridge.
Mr. T Kidder, Proprietor of the Conway Medicines
Boston, June 17th, 1829.
Price 50 cents ,
IT I "tindous, the weakly, and others, who are 1
troubled with soreness or inflammation of that
delicate organ, will be able to obtain a insist pleasant
and invaluable application, in >
Tilts well established Wash for the Eye is perfectly ;
innocent, and gi\es immediate relief, even in very ag
gravated ca*rs of soreness and inflammation. .
Price 25 cents
__ ]
r gTllS agonizing disorder is cured in its most painful
t stages, by one of the most simple as well as pow- ]
erful remedies known in modern pranice I he
afford instant relief, without inflicting the slightest in
jury on the teeth They are applied externally to the
parts affected, with the greatest ease and expedition, ^
and generally operate as a soothing lenitive to the l
suffering patient. Price 50 cents a box. r
• dyspepsia, }
OF most obstinate character, after having baffled I
the skill of the most eminent physicians, and
withstood the most highly recommended medicaFpn*
parations, has been checked, relieved, and cured, in
a number of instances in and about this citv, by using, F
for a short time l)r Peeff/s
in connexion, according to the directions accompany- r
iog the Specific It is also one of the best medicines d
known for Sick Headache, Sickness at the Stomach,
Nausea, and Flatulences.
Price of the Specific and Pills, 50 cents each. ^
• None genuine unless signed on the outside prin D
ted wrapper by t e sole proprietcr, T. Kiddder, im- 1
mediate successor to the late Dr. W T. Conway. "For
sale, witli all the other “ Conway Medicines,*’ at his *
Counting Hoorn, No 99, next door to J Kidder's Drug Fc
Store, corner of Court and Hanover streets, near Con- ff
sert Hall, Boston; and also, by his special appoint r,
ttent, by \VM. STABLER, B
Fairfax street, Alexandria
*/ Large discount to those who buy to sell again, if
jan 24 " 11
□PEN, daily, from 10 to 12 o’clock A. M. and
from 3 to 5 P. M. jan g4
• For a long time past, the official Government
paper has been remarkably silent as to Mr
Webster. While it bitterly denounced other
distinguished Senators opposed to the Adminis
tration, that gentleman w as spared. The hypes
as well as the fears of the Government were
plainly seen in this course. Mr. Webster’s re
cent speech in the Senate has, how’ever, render
ed further concealment unnecessary; and ac
cord, ngly the Giobe of yesterday opened its bat
teries, in the usual styfe and manner, to wit;
“ Mr. Webster, like the rest of the advocates
of the Bank, it seems, can twist the Bank char
ter into any form to suit emergencies,” &c.
“Mr. Webster, on Monday, opened his views
on the subject, and with an expanse quite sufft
cient to embrace every speculation in regard u>
any system, calculated to set up a Bank govern
ment over the government of the people —to
transform the principle of free suffrage, giving
efficacy and control to the popular will," into
that of monopoly and of corrupt influence.”
Will the Globe enlarge its positions—or wi’.
it, by and by, “ haul in its horns”? Nous vei
“ Fire in each eye, and paper in each hand.
It raves, recites, and maddens round the land.':
The Globe grows furious against the Bank of
the United States. That institution, opposed
by the whole power of the government—sought
“ to be crushed as a reptile”—its branches threat
ened—the public deposites taken from it—its
ra./'liartfli' yofnto/1 in n>-Ann»!v,.. ._:.. i
* ^ vv« • VIWVVMJ AH VjJUl iilg LKJ VYiliU UJI
concerns by curtailing its creditors. From
motives of self-interest alone, we must know
the Bank will curtail so as to do as little injury
as possible. Under these circumstances, the
•Globe yesterday calls it ‘‘a heartless, son
less, MONSTER,” and its directors SHY
LOCKS! This is in the true Jack Cade vein.
The Washington Correspondent of the Ba;
timore Republican speaks in the highest terms
of the “ powerful speech” of the new* Senatoi
from Maine, Mr. Shepley, as “ replete with
wit, argument and sarcasm, in support of tv
course of the Administration.”!!!
Mr. Shepley’s speech replete with wit! argu
ment!! and sarcasm!!! The idea is too Iaugha
ble to talk about.
The JJcposite Question in the Virginia Home
of Delegates.—Mr. Colston’s motion to postpone
to 31st March the whole resolutions pending—
at the request of Mr. Marshall, he withdrew
that motion for the present, and that gentleman
then offered the following new resolution:
Resolved, That the Assembly does not intend,
by the declaration ofits opinion, in regard to
the constitutionality of the Bauk of the United
States, to qualify, or in any manner to impair,
the force ofits disapprobation of the removal of
the Deposites.
Mr. Roane moved to amend this resolution a*
That they highly disapprove the manifold in
stances of misconduct, which has marked the
management and direction of the present Bank
and that our Senators in Congress are hereby
instructed, and our Representatives earnestly
requested, to oppose all attempts which may be
made to obtain a renewal ofits charter, and to
co-operate in passing all needful, and proper M
laws to compel or to enable it to close its con
cerns in a manner least injurious to the curren
cy of the country and happiness of the people.
d ffiU- /loKnfn . A M ... . ... ' __ _ _ . • J
— - vui.j lu » CIO UrgalMvU
Mr. Wager then moved to amend Mr. Mar
shall’s resolution as follows:
Nor to express an approval of the conduct of
the officers of the bank of the U. S. in tlicii mar
agement of that institution.
This amendment, after debate, was also ne
gatived. ^
Mr. \\ illiams then moved to amend as fol
Nor does it intend by the declaration of it?
opinion censuririg the removal of the deposite
from the bank of the United States to qualify or
impair the force of its disapprobation of tiie ex
3icise of the power by Congress to incorporate
i bank.
This resolution after debate, was likewise nf
gatived— ayes 62—noes 62.
Mr. Garland of Mecklenburg, then moved te
imend as follows:
Nor does the Assembly' by any means inter,
o insinuate that the President of the U. S. ha?
lot the constitutional power to superintend aft*
control the Treasury Department.
When this amendment was offered, it being
ate, the House adjourned, to give Mr. Gerlarir
tn opportunity of expressing his views.
Disagreement between the two Houses of Cl
Tcss. In the House, on Wednesday, Mr. Pod
no ved to take up the subject of the partial de
leral Appropriation Bill, with the Senate's ad
lerence to its amendment thereto, to which the
louse has heretofore disagreed.
The House having assented,
Mr. Polk moved that the House do insist oi
:s dissent to the Senate’s amendment, and a?*
conference thereupon.
On this motion a debate ensued which ovei
an the hour, and, superseding the orders off-'
ay, occupied the House until 3 o’clock.
The motion was opposed by Messrs. Hardin
.dams, Foot, E. Everett, McICennan, H.
;tt, Barringer, and Bouldin; Messrs. Bell, o'
’ennessee, and Gamble explained, declaring
iat they, and many others, had voted hr
•re under a misapprehension of the wording®1
le clause; and advocated by Messrs.
rown, and Foster: when
Mr. Foot moved that the House recede ftoP
s dissent.
On this motion, which had preference, i*n 01
?r, the debate was renewed.
After a discussion on questions of order,
Messrs. Mann ef New York, 9

xml | txt