Lynchburg Virginian

THE SUB-TREASURY.

In his last Annual Message, President Van Buren said, 'I have addressed enquiries to twenty-seven governments of Europe, and find that twenty-two have adopted the Sub-Treasury.' But he forgot to add that these 'twenty two,' which he has made his financial models, include every Absolute Despotism, and every government which approaches most nearly to the concentration of all power in One Man, and to its 'withdrawal from the great body of the people.' Is this fact, then, a recommendation of this measure to the free citizens of this young and growing country, which, throwing off the shackles of precedent, in the outset of its career, solemnly abjured Monarchy, 'with all of its appendages?' Are we now to be 'curbed in our bright career,' and to fall into the beaten track, which, in all ages, has conducted, by short and abrupt transitions, to the grave of Freedom! For if we are to borrow our systems of finance from China, Egypt, Turkey, Russia, Austria, &c. why should we not copy them in other respects, abolish our constitutions, dissolve our representative assemblies, burn our act of Religious toleration, and build up a great National Church establishment—in fine, fall back into the 'arms of our legitimate Prince,' and thus demolish at a blow the great Temple of Civil and Religious Liberty erected by the heroes and statesmen of '76?

For if Mr. Van Buren's argument be worth anything, it is still stronger when applied to other features of European policy. He will find, on again 'addressing inquiries to twenty-seven Governments of Europe,' that not only twenty-two of them, but all, are Monarchies, more or less limited—Does he intend to recommend a Monarchy to the people of the United States? He will find that in all of them Church and State are united together. Does he intend, for that reason, to recommend the union of Church and State here? Yet, if the argument that because the Sub-Treasury is a general appendage of European despotisms, therefore it is fit and proper that we should adopt it, be sound, why does it not apply with as much force to the whole structure of Government as well as to a system of finance? With us, it is one of the strongest objections to the Sub-Treasury scheme, that it is in congenial alliance with every despotic government on earth, while in the most enlightened and limited monarchies, such for example as Great Britain, it is repudiated and discountenanced.

The Watertown Register, in the following leaf from the Colonial History of New York, shows that this idea of an Independent Treasury is an old conception, even on this continent; that when we were vassals of a foreign power, it flourished in full vigor in the Empire State—with what fruits, let the following chapter testify.

A LEAF OF HISTORY.

Sub Treasury before the Revolution.

It is a fact not generally known that the sub-Treasury was once in full operation in New York, under the Governors sent over by the Sovereigns of England. From the 'History of New York, from the first discovery to the year 1732, by Wm. Smith, A. M., with a continuation to the year 1814,' we make the following extracts, which go to prove that our democratic President has not been searching among monarchs for precedents without some success; though he very wisely confined his investigations to the eastern side of the Atlantic. Who will say that 'revolutions never move backwards?'

In the year 1691, under the administration of Gov. Henry Sloughter, the General Assembly established a revenue, of which the history speaks thus:

'Among the principal acts enacted at this session, we may mention that for the establishment of a revenue, which was drawn into precedent. The sums raised by it were made payable into the hands of the Receiver General, and issued by the Governor's warrant. By this means the Governor became, for a season, independent of the People, and hence we find frequent instances of the Assembly's contending with him for the payment of the debts to individuals, contracted on the faith of the Government.'—Page 126.

Gov. Sloughter was succeeded by Colonel Benjamin Fletcher, a man of strong passions, very active, and equally avaricious. In September, 1692, the revenue established for the year preceding was continued for five years longer. Governor Fletcher proved to be a sub-treasurer of the first water according to the history:

'At that day the Assembly had no treasurer; but the amount of taxes went of course into the hands of the RECEIVER GENERAL, WHO WAS APPOINTED BY THE CROWN! Out of this fund moneys were issuable only by the Governor's warrant; so that every officer in the Government, from Mr. Blathwait, who drew annually five per cent. out of the revenue as Auditor General, down to the meanest servant of the Public, became dependent solely on the Governor; and hence we find the House, at the close of every session, humbly addressing his Excellency for the trifling wages of their own clerk.'—Page 142.

Gov. Fletcher was succeeded by Richard, Earl of Bellamont, who, in his opening speech, gave the Assembly his word of honor that he would not steal the public money!

'I shall take care that there be no misapplication of the public money. I will pocket none of it myself, nor shall there be any embezzlement by others; but exact accounts shall be given you, when, and as often as you shall require.' Page 155.

Fortunately for the People, Lord Bellamont was a man of his word; but his successor, Lord Cornbury, was so prone to practical sub-treasurism, that the Assembly refused to raise money to be put in his hands, and addressed the Queen of England,

'Complaining of the ill state of the revenues, through the frauds which had formerly been committed, the better to facilitate the important design of having a treasurer dependent on the Assembly.'— Page 177.

Lord Cornbury was removed, and in June, 1721, the Assembly, according to permission from the Queen, elected a treasurer.

In 1741, Lieut. Gov. Clarke, in his speech to the Assembly, complained of the encroachment of the Legislature upon his prerogatives. His lamentation ran in this wise:

'Late Assemblies, having grown wanton by prosperity, had abused the clemency of the Crown, and had demanded the nomination of their own treasurer; this demand having been granted, they had further insisted on the particular appointment of the salaries of the officers of Government, and absolutely refused to raise any revenue unless this demand was likewise granted.'—Page 444.

The Assembly, in their address, in reply to the Governor, said:

'That while the public moneys were at the disposal of the Governor and Council, they were misapplied; and that the Assembly, to correct the evil, directed such moneys as were raised for the forces intended for the security of the colony to pass through the hands of a person APPOINTED BY THE LEGISLATURE; that Queen Anne had sanctioned that procedure, and allowed the LEGISLATURE TO APPOINT ITS OWN TREASURER.' Page 447.