The Madisonian

Petersburg, September 28th, 1841.

Dear Sir-It has been charged that Mr. Ewing, in his recent revelation of the transactions of a Cabinet conference, made a gross misstatement of facts. That erroneous development was necessary to make good the accusation that the President had vetoed a bill which he had promised his Cabinet he would sanction.

How stand the facts as exhibited by the record?

Mr. Ewing says.

"The bill which I reported to Congress, with your approbation, at the commencement of the session, had the clause relating to agencies, and the power to deal in exchanges, as strongly developed as the one you have now rejected, and equally without the assent of the States."

Mr. E's bill which you have said did contain the principle of State assent, had in it this fundamental rule, to wit:

"That the said corporation shall establish a competent office of discount and deposit in any State by the assent of the Legislature of such State, whenever the directors may think fit so to do; and when established, the office shall not be withdrawn without the assent of Congress.

"Or, instead of establishing such offices," (of discount and deposit,) "it shall be lawful for the directors or the said corporation, from time to time, to employ any individual, agent, or any other Bank or Banks, to be approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, at any place or places that they may deem safe and proper, to manage and transact the business proposed as aforesaid, other than for the purposes of discount, and to perform the duties hereinafter required of said corporation, to be managed and transacted by such offices, under such agreements and subject to such regulations, as they shall deem just and proper."

Instead of that 16th fundamental rule which was in Mr. Ewing's plan, the bill introduced into the House by Mr. Sergeant, contained this, to wit:

"16th. That, for the purposes of carrying on and transacting the business of the said corporation herein and hereby authorized, and fulfilling the duties herein and hereby required, it shall be lawful for the directors of the said corporation, from time to time, to establish agencies in any State or Territory of the United States, at any place or places they may deem safe and proper, and to employ any agent or agents, or, with the approbation of the Secretary of the Treasury, any Bank or Banks, under such agreements and subject to such regulations as they may deem just and proper, not being contrary to law or to this charter.; and the same agencies, at their pleasure, to relinquish or discontinue, and the same agent or agents to remove; and to commit to such agents, agencies, or Banks, such portions of the business and concerns of the said corporation as they may think fit : Provided, always, That neither the said corporation, nor any agent or agents thereof, nor any Bank or Banks employed by the same, shall be authorized to discount promissory notes with the money or means of the said corporation, but shall employ the same in the business and dealing in foreign bills of exchange, including bills and drafts drawn in one State or Territory and payable in another."

So speaks the whole record. And, now, let us see if it be true as asserted by Mr. Ewing, that his bill conferred on the Directors the liberty to establish agencies with the power to deal in exchanges as strongly developed and fully conferred as it was in Mr. Sergeant's bill. It is admitted that the liberty to establish agencies without the previous assent of the States, is equally clearly conferred by each. But that is not the idea which the ex-Secretary has misstated. The idea is in the inquiry here instituted; and the inquiry here instituted, which is the true and vital one, is this: Were not the powers conferred on and to be exercised by the agencies under Mr. Ewing's bill, more restricted, less extensive, than the powers of the agencies under Mr. Sergeant's bill?

Observe: The agencies under Mr. Ewing's bill were to "manage and transact the business proposed as aforesaid, other than for the purposes of discount," &c.

Thus, without any exception or reservation, the faculty of discounting was interdicted. Not so with the agencies under Mr. Sergeant's bill. This, as to any useful or effectual extent, only interdicted the discounting of promissory notes. It will not be denied that dealing in or buying bills of exchange, would be discounting. Mr. Badger, according to Mr. Bell's statement, told the President that he could not escape the charge of inconsistency, in that way. Nor can it be asserted that it was on an unsubstantial distinction that the President approved Mr. Ewing's plan, in this particular, which prohibited discounting, and yet rejected Mr. Sergeant's, which conferred that faculty to an almost unlimited extent. He that insists on State assent to the introduction of agencies, when large and dangerous powers are conferred on them, may, nevertheless, waive it, consistently with all of his doctrines and beneficent purposes, when the 'agencies' are not invested with such powers, but with such only as are subsidiary and insignificant. That President Tyler has kept this idea in mind, is made manifest by the amendment to Mr. Sergeant's bill, which he put in the hands of a member of the House, and which one of his foes has unwittingly given to the public in an appendix to his recently published speech. In preparing that amendment, President Tyler acted with reference to the extent or magnitude of the powers to be granted to the agencies, and declared that the principle of the assent of the States, "by an express resolution" of their Legislatures, must obtain, in order'to secure his sanction to the bill, in case such agencies should "be authorized to deal or trade" as is allowed in the 16th fundamental rule, which is above recited and shown to have been framed to confer much larger and more dangerous powers than the somewhat similar provision of Mr. Ewing's bill.

If you will excuse the use of a rather stale pun, I will add, that he who cannot see that "the clause relating to agencies" was less "strongly developed,' and "the power to deal in exchanges." which is discounting, was far less fully conferred, in and by Mr. Ewing's plan—which, it is alleged, the President approved—than in Mr. Sergeant's bill, which he vetoed, and consequently that is demonstrated that Mr. Ewing made a gross misstatement, must be as blind as though his eyes were full of clay.

PUBLIUS.