Alexandria Gazette

Letter from James Lyons

To the editors of the Richmond Enquirer:

Your paper of Tuesday morning contains, in its leading editorial, the following sentence, viz:

"Yet, in 1840, the Virginia Whigs represented Gen. Harrison as anti-Bank and anti-Protective Tariff, and for such double dealing they felt the keen lash of W. Newton's honest indignation."

I am satisfied that you do not intend, by this paragraph, to misrepresent General Harrison, the Whigs of Virginia, or Mr. Newton—but, in fact, you do, in my opinion, and so do injustice to all of them: certainly to the "Virginia Whigs" and General Harrison: wherefore it is, I presume, to address you this note. Your former article upon this topic, your allusion to Mr. Newton's lash, and the comprehensiveness of your language now, assure me that you found this charge upon the Whig address of 1840, because that was the only document issued at that time, by authority of the Whigs of Virginia, and professing to speak their sentiments. The duty of preparing that address was assigned to me, and I wrote every word of it, aided certainly by valuable suggestions from other members of the committee, and I am able to say from personal knowledge, that no sentiment was expressed in that address, as the sentiment of the Whig party, which was not at the time honestly entertained by it, and none ascribed to Gen. Harrison which was not justified by the evidence before us, and subsequently ratified by Gen. Harrison.

The evidence upon which we founded our statements of Gen. Harrison's opinions was embodied in the address, and, I think, fully sustained us: but, if it did not, the error on our part was a defect of reasoning, and not a misrepresentation, and there is no excuse therefore for any imputation of double dealing or deception. Whoever was deceived, if any one was, was deceived, as we deceived ourselves, (upon your hypothesis that we were wrong in fact,) by false reasoning. But there was no error in fact as to Gen. Harrison's opinion on the Bank, as to which alone we professed to speak: I say this, first upon the evidence before me when I wrote the address, and which I quoted: and secondly, upon the statement of his opinions, made to me by Gen. Harrison himself.

The evidence published was a letter to the Inquisitor, in which Gen. Harrison expressly declared that in his opinion the Bank was unconstitutional: and when the Whigs of Virginia published their address he had never retracted that opinion. On the contrary he had reaffirmed it: though he said in his Dayton speech, that, if all other financial expedients should, upon trial, be found to be inadequate to the purposes of the Government and the country, and, with that experience before it, Congress should pass a Bank bill and send it to him, he would not veto it. Subsequently, after his election, he told me that the address represented him correctly, and in substance repeated what he had said in his Dayton speech. The conversation occurred thus: I was very much averse to an extra session of Congress, and in a conversation with General Harrison upon that subject, expressed my regret that there was to be an extra session, and asked him what it was to do. He answered, that he had been himself averse to it, but gentlemen justly high in the confidence of the party, and of great experience in matters of State, whom he named, said that the Government could not get on without it, and so he concluded to call it. He said its business would be "to provide the ways and means to carry on the Government, which could only be done by loan, as new duties or taxes could not come into the Treasury in time to relieve it—to retouch the Tariff so as to make the revenue adequate and permanent.—pass the land bill, if they chose, and go home." This qualification of the third enumeration struck me with much force, as it indicated something like indifference, at least upon a subject upon which I expected to find him ardent. I then asked him, "and what about the Bank?" and he replied: —The Extra Session of Congress will have nothing to do with the Bank. It is called for no such purpose. The Sub-Treasury has never been honestly tried; it shall be until the regular session of Congress. If it works well, which I do not expect, the people will not want a Bank, and so we shall get rid of the question: if it works ill the people will demand a Bank: and if they do, and their Representatives pass the bill and send it to me, with that experience before me, I shall not veto it." How much wisdom and patriotism there was in these sentiments, and how unfortunate for the country that they were not acted upon, experience has fully shown.

But my purpose was simply to vindicate the fairness, the perfect fairness, of the Whig party of 1840, in their representation of Gen'l Harrison's Bank opinions. If General Harrison subsequently changed his opinion as to the Bank, of which I am not aware, or the Whigs changed theirs, what wrong or fraud was there in that? If, convinced by further experience that a Bank was necessary, when previously they thought it was not, was it not their duty, as men and patriots, to avow the change and act upon it? Is it worse to change to the Bank than from it? and how many gentlemen are there now in your party who have changed from it? I was myself a Bank man in 1840. I am now a Bank man, when satisfied that it is "necessary and proper:" and yet I would not now vote for a President who intended to make a revival of the Bank a ministerial measure. I do not now perceive that it is necessary, and do not think it would be proper, but on the contrary, believe it would be pernicious. Still, if I should live to see the time again when I must choose between a merciless hard-money system, with broken State Banks, and a Bank of the United States, I would take the latter, because the necessity would justify me, under the constitution, in doing so. Now, the Sub-Treasury is not in practice the hard-money measure, which at first, by the letter of the law, it was, and the State Banks are sound: and, moreover, the country has, in a great measure, adapted itself to it. The subscription for a Bank now, if it could be procured, which I doubt, would tend rather to embarrass the financial operations of the Government than to aid them.

Next as to the Tariff. You are wholly mistaken in saying that we represented Gen. Harrison as Anti-Tariff. The Whig Address does not touch his opinion upon that question, but simply seeks to show that his opinion on that subject however strong it might be, ought not to operate to his injury, because his opponent, Mr. Van Buren, was equally as obnoxious to anti-tariffites, if advocacy of the Tariff was obnoxious. If I am wrong in this, have the kindness to publish so much of the Address as represents Gen. Harrison as an Anti-Tariff man.

If you should think that I am late in making this communication, my reply is, that I have often thought it my duty to the Whig party, and to the memory of Gen. Harrison, to make it, but much occupation, and an unwillingness to go into the newspapers over my own signature, have prevented me. I have frequently made, orally, the statements which are here made, as to the Address and Gen. Harrison.

Your friend,

JAMES LYONS

Richmond, April 13.