Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

government, can be less than the difference tors with very great ability, and with perfect between the "nothing” which it receives from fidelity to all their obligations to the stockholdthe government, and the profit which it would ers, to the Government, and to the country. derive from the same operation, if performed They regard the bank as an institution indisfor individuals.

pensable to the preservation of a sound curIf the gove: nment collected its revenues in rency, and to the financial operations of the specie at New York, and had occasion to ex Government, and should consider the refusal pend it at St. Louis, it would certainly cost it of Congress to renew the charter as a great something to transport the specie from the one national calamity. place to the other. If, in the absence of a They will add, in conclusion, that they are Federal bank, it collected its revenues in the equally decided in the opinion that Congress is bills of State banks, as it would be obliged 10 called upon by the most weighty and urgent do, the operation of transferring these funds to considerations to decide this important question distant places would involve a still greater ex. during the present session. The uncertainly pense. But under the existing system, the which prevails on this subject, is calculated to bank is responsible for the safe custody of the exert a very pernicious influence over the in. government funds, and for placing them clustry, enterprise, and trade of the country. wherever they may be required, without any if the charter of the bank is not to be renewed; expense whatever to the government. if the tremendous operation of withdrawing

if, then, the bank has not raided the fiscal from the community fifty millions of bank acoperations of the government," as the repori commodations, and twenty-two millions of its seems to intimate, a uniform currency and a circulating medium, must take place, it is full revenue safely kept, and universally transferred time that it should be distinctly known, that at the risk of the bank and without expense to the shock of this operation may be mitigated the government, affords no aid to its financial by timely arrangeinents on the part of the bank; operations.

and that the community may have time to proThe report, adverting to a letter from the vide the necessary substitutes. Considering president of the bank, of the 29th March list, the iminense extent of the operations of this inin which he informs the Secretary of the Trea. stitution, the time which is charter has yet to sury, that the collector of New York had re- run will be scarcely sufficient for winding up quested the “ balk to authorise an extension its affairs, of loans in that city, in order to assist the debt. To the report of the majority is appended a ors of the Government,” and that this had been great number of questions, proposed to the promptly done, gives a view of the discounts president of the bank by a member of the com. of the office at that place, calculated to make mittee on the general subjects of banking and the impres-ion that no extension of loans had currency. As the questions alone throw very taken place. This is an error. ll proceeds little light on these matters, the answers are from confounding notes discounted with bills herewith submitted for the information of the of exchange purchased by the bank. It will House.

GEO. McDUFFIE, be seen by the weekly statement of the New

J. Q. ADAMS, York board, that the amount of gotes discount.

JOHN G. WATHOUGH. ed on the 1st of September, 1831, was $4,103,134, and that on the 21st of March, 1832, a THE UNITED STATES' TELEGRAPH a few days before the date of the president's letter, the amount was $4,834,917, exhibiting Washington City, upon the following Terme an increase of $731,782, in a little more than Daily paper, per annum....... six months,

Country paper, (three times a week dur. If the amount of domestic bills falling due at ing the session, and semi-weekly during a distance, during the same period, were larg. the recess of Congress..

5 00 er than the amount purchased by tlie bank For six months,.. this fact has nothing to do with the extent of Weekly paper,..

250 the accommodation affrded by the bank to the

Payable in advance. merchants of New York. The true meastire A failure to notify the Editor of an intention of that accommodation is the amount of domes o discontinue, will be considered as a renewal tic notes discounted, and not the amunt of of the subscription, which will not be disconthese notes united to that of the domestic bills tinued, except at the option of the Editor, until purchased

all arrearages are paid. Thit the bank has relieved the commercial Where five or more subscribers, at one post community of New York, during the recent office, unite and remit, at the same time, two pressure, is a fact well understood and practi.lollars dach, that sum will entitle each to recally fell by the merchants there; and it will ceive the weekly paper for one year. be difficult to reason them out of the convic The price of the weekly paper being two dol tions of their own experience by artificial state lars and fifty cents, cannot be remitted by mail. ments and conjectural inferences. Upon a to avoid this inconvenience the receipt of review of the whole ground occupied in the any Postmaster will be considered as cash; examination they have made, the minority are and all Postmasters receiving money on our of the opinion that the affairs of the bank have account, will be recognised as Agents to remit been administered by the president and direc- the same in convenient sums.

TS PRINTED AT

ris...$10 00

300

WASHINGTON, MAY 21, 1832.

Vol. VI................. $2.50 PER ANNUM..... BY DUFF GREEN.

..No 9.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

EDITORIAL,

Lless abandonment of the interests and princi.

ples of those to whom you are indebted for MR. McLANE'S COMPROMISE.

every thing? We yesterday gave a tabular criticism on Mr. McLane's late report. Our country readers

MR. PATTON. will find it in this day's paper. Upon a review We insert to-day the remarks which this of it, we can detect no error. This statemen, gentleman deliyered on the floor of the House, shows, that upon the data which Mr. McLane as his vindication against our commentary on himself assumes, the reduction will be but his attack upon the liberty of the press, and $6,310,257 on the present tariff; and that, upon the character of this press in particular. without making an allowance for the increase We deny that he has either been misrepre. of the customs, which must follow a reduction sented or abused. He says ibat he understood, of duties, there will be a permanent revenue of for he had seen but one number of the Tele$23,789,743.

*graph, and that by accident, that his remarks Mr. Ritclit, after insisting that the south baci subjected bir to the almost daily out-pourshould be satisfied with nothing short' of a sing of abuse. This our readers. know to be reduction of the revenue down to the econo untrue. The gentleman gives himself too mical wants of the Government, has boldly much consequence. Excepi for the accident verified our prediction, and denounced all those of his being a member of Congress, and his who will not receive Mr. McLane's bill as a setting up to be a leader for the kitchen cabinet measure of compromise. We expected this, the leading advocate ? club law-be would but not so soon! Now, let us see with what not have been noticed by us. - We have mucha propriety.,

more important matter before us than giving Unless we have misconceived Mr. McLane's him notoriety: We have spoken of him but as project, (and we challenge a correction of our an incident, and as such only will we treat him. statement)it will leave a revenue of$23,789,748. We will, however, strip him of some of his The expeadi'ure of the Government, exclusive borrowed plumes. of the National Debt, was, in

He complains that he was reported to have

reported
1823

$10,508,017 81. said thala
1823
10,190,113 81

Yesterday, or the day before, one of the 1824

10,830,635 95 papers of this city contained an editorial para1825

12,892,544 72 graph, purporting to give a statement of the 1826

13,255,413 09 facts connected with this al eged outrage and 1827

13,216,650 86 breach of privilege. That statement was ob1828

12,642,408 61 viously, and on the face of it, highly discolored 1829

12,669,490 62 and exaggerated, anci, us he had since been in. 1830

13,229,533 33 formed by one of the parties implicated, grossly 1831 (estimated) 14,777,911 58 False in all its essential particulars. He, (Mr.

P.,) knew not if it was so." $124,275,720 38

And says that he said " I had been inform, Making an aggregate of $124,203,72038 in tened that the statement was alleged by the accus.

as an average annual'expenditure ofed to be grossly false," $12,420,372 04; which, deducted from the

When the reader comes to compare our re. revenue which must accrue under Mr. Mc-port with Mr. Patton's own version of his Lane's bill

, will leave an anogal surplus of speech, he will be at a loss to ascertain the $11,369,371

cause of the gentleman's extreme sensibility, Ayet M. Ritchie, who is oppired to as ir.

Where is the difference between saying that plus-who would not be content with any thing lie“ ivas informed by the accused," and that it short of a reluction down to the actual and was alledged by the accused." The only differ. economical wants of the Government,denounces ence is tha: Mr. Patton suggests that he ought all opposition to such a scheme as factious and not to have been in consultation with the disorganizing! Onthou pure, thou consistent, accused after his arrest. And where is the disinterested patriot!! Art thou not incapable difference between 'being in consultation of shame? No one suspects you of ignorance with him, nnd with those who did consult What can have seduced you into such a shame with the accused.

of what use is it for

Mr. Patton to say that he did not consult with Note-This sum was increased about Houston, when he openly appeared on the $500,000 by the payment for deported slaves, Avor as his partisan and advocate? If his which should not be carried to the account or opinions were the spontaneous offspring of the ordinary expenditures.

bis own mind, and the result of his owne con

[ocr errors]

was dead. The assault woher discolored indulgence of his constituents. He should re.

ception on the case, there would certainly have It is difficult to probe the motives of menbeen no more impropriety in consulting Hous- but there are some things so plain, that the ton, to ascertain all his views and explanations, blindest can understand them. Mr. Patton re than there was in advocating him on the floor presents a district composed of high-minded, of the House. Why then did Mr. P. not see honorable men, friendly to General Jackson, Houston?

but a majority of them holding in contempt We have Mr. Patton's own words to sustain Lewis, Kendall, & Co. Gen. Dade, his com us in asserting that his solicitude manifested on petitor, was preferred by that influence, and the occasion, proceeded from no desire 10 Mr. Patton came toʻcongress with a knowledge serve Houston personally: He cared nothing that he was expected 10 act an independent and for the accused. His efforts were intended to honorable part. Hence his extreme sensitive. propitiate much more important personages ness when he found that he was noticed and unWilliam B. Lewis, and John H. Eatons and derstood. And we verily believe that his conthrough them the kitchen cabinet were involv. stituents are chiefly indi bted to our intimation ed. Houston had appeared as their champion that he had enlisted in the service of the kitthe defence of Houston was the defence of chen cabinet, for his refusal to attend the Balti. them; and we greatly err, if Mr. P.'s change of more Convention. That intimation drew upon opinion, and his zeal too, are not both to be him the eyes of his constituents; and we know attributed to this cause. We say change of opi. that he was odmonished that Judge Barbour was nion, because he admits that he at first believ. their choice, and that he would endanger his ed that Houston had been guilty of a breach of re-election by openly taking the bounty from privilege.

Van Buren. Under ihis impulse, he penned his But Mr. Patton complains further that we leiter published in the Globe. That print ad. bave given a wrong interpretation to lvis refer- monished him that Gen. Dade would prove a ence to the "facts connected with this alleged | faithful delegate; and Mr: Ritchie, coming to waylaying and assauli." Now the reader, if its aill, gave Mr. P. to understand that he would he goes back to this paper of the 16th of April, be treated as a rebel, or disposed of as a deserto will find that we spoke of the alleged out-er. What was he to do, under such circumrage and assault, as follows:

stances. Turn upon ihe, Telegraph, and pro.. on Friday, abou' 8 o'clock, Mr. Stanber-pitiate the venal hirelings of power, by using ry was assaulted near his lodgings, in the man, his privilege, on the floor of the House, to say ner as he has stated; knocked down with a that this paper is “regardless alike of truth and bludgeon, and much and severely injured-his decency.” He wrote his letter to propitiate Mr. right arm being (lisabled, the left hand severe. Barbour's friends, whiò control his district-he ly fractured, and his head and body much bear. riade his cowardly attack upon this press, to en and bruised."

propitiate Amos Kendall, William B. Lewis, F. And if he will refer to the evidence of Mr. P. Blair, and Thomas Kiichie. Buckner, he will find that it is in proof that Mr. We farbear, unless further provoked; but we S. was Mr. or aggravated. But what were the facts con: member that they, with scarce an exception; nected with this alleged outrage and breacli of are the descendants of whig parents, and that privilege!" These are Mr. Patrou's own words, they, as well as he, inherit the spirit of their Then, what are the prominent facts of this case? fathers. and, more especially, those which were most. calculated to effect the accused? It was the

CASE OP GENERAL HOUSTON. contemplated FRAUD charged upon Mr. Ea. ton. Take away this fact, and the others were nothing

REMARKS OF MR. PATTON, OF VIRGINIA, Mr. Patton denies that he vouched for Hous

WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 1832. ton's innocence. If he did not vouch for bis in. Mr. DODDRIDGE 'being entitled to the nccence, what did he do?, What was the pur. Aoor, yielded it temporarily to his colleague, pose of his speech, denouncing the Telegraph, (Mr. Patton.) . and denying the power of the House? We ad

Mr PATTON said, that hej hoped the cir. mit that he did not say that Houston had not cuinstances, which had been alluded to by his contemplated the fraud, nor did he say that he colleague, (Mr. DoppriGE,) as having induced had not committed the assault; but be denied him to yield him ihe floor, would operate as a that Houston had offended against the rules and sufficient motive with the House to give him its privileges of the House, and repeated, upon attention for a few moments, while he made a Houston's authority, that the statement made few remarks. in the Telegraph relative to the fucts before the The illness, (he said,) of his only surviving House was “grossly false, in all its essential parent, would probably require his absenice par

iculars;” and not content with this, he said, from his seat; and might, perhaps, prevent his for himself

, that our statement was, upon its being in his place when the vote was taken face, "highly discolored and exaggerated." It upon the resolution and amendment now under will not do, then, for Mr. Patton now to say, consideration. that le did not intend to youch for Houston's Mr. P. said, some bow or other, lie bad been innocence. He did become his sponsor, as für made the subject of gross misrepresentation and as he could go. Why did be do so!

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

scandalous abuse, in relation to the part which not seen any of the papers except the last, that
he had felt it to be his duty to take in the pro. my course and remarks on that occasion has sub-
grese of tbe trial of Houston; and he, therefore,jected me to the almost daily outpouring of an
felt it due to himself, not to leave it possible for buse, by one of the newspapers of this city.
any imputation from any quarter-an imputa. I accidentally picked up the United States Te-
tation which, as a public man, is the very last legraph, of yesterday, belonging to one of my
which I should be willing to have made against friends, who is absent, and who requested me
me-of my having shrunk from the discharge of to take care of his papers and letters during his
ány duty which devolved upon me as a mem- absence. I opened it and saw the article to
ber of the House, in any case. I should not which I allude as the only one I have seen of
have said a word more on this trial, but for the that character.
possibility of my absence as above stated. I I care nothing, and would be sorry to be un-
do not now mean to say any thing in the way of derstood as complaining, about any criticism of
argument-I do not desire to do so; and if I my public course, as long as their criticisms are
did, my healıb is not such as to enable me to founded upon true representations of what I
discuss the questions which are involved, in a say or do, and shall always leave such criticisms
manner which would do justice either to myself to the judgment of the public without remark.
or the case. But lest it should happen that I But I do not pretend to enjoy such a reputation
should not be here to express my opinion by as a public man as to despise any effect upon
yoling, I wish briefly to state the judgment I me, which may be produced by misrepresen.
shall give if hiere.

tation and falsehood. Where I am known, and
When the subject was first introduced by that paper is known, nothing it contains can in.
the letter of the member from Ohio, I concurred jare me. I am, however, not extensively
with a large majority in thinking that the case known, or in any way distinguished, and it is
stated constituted a breach of privilege of the possible that there are some still so credulous as
House —and that we had a right to try and to put faith in the assertions of that paper.
punish him This opinion was entertained with In the report of the debate upon the reso-
out any examination-without much reflection lution I offered, and which is above alluded to
For which, indeed, there was no time before contained in the Telegraph, and which I never
we were called on to act. The more I have saw until it came to me in a Richmond paper,
seen-the more I have heard--the more I have I am represented as having said, "yesterday or
reflected upon, and examined the question-the the day before, one of the papers of this city,
more I have seen cause to distrust and doubt contained an editorial paragraph, purporting to
the correctness of my first impressions, And if give a statement of the facts connected with
. now called on to decide the naked question of this alleged outrage and breach of privilege-

wur power to try and punish in such a case as that statement was, obviously, and on the face that now before us, I should say we had not of it

, highly discolored and exaggerated; and, such power; and whatever might be the proof as he had since been informed by one of the pare of the facts charged, that the accused ought toties implicaled, grussly false in all its essential be discharged. But as I believe, with the particulars. He, (Mr. P.), knew not if it was honorable gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr so." Now, Sir, I did not say that I had been Drarrox.) on the evidence, the fact, that the informed by one of the parties implicated. I assault and outrage was committed for words said, I had been informed that the statement spoken in debatę, is niet established, I am will was alleged by the accused to be grossly false, ing to leave my judgment upon the question of &c. This error is no otherwise important than our power, open to conviction of the error of in this--that but two days before I had declar my present impressions; and I believe I shall be ed I had no acquaintance whatever with the able to review them in any future case, without accused, and if in two days after that had spo• any pride of opinion, and shall willingly retract ken of information derived by me from him,

any erro: I may have fallen inio, whenever the inference would be, that I had, in the mean convinced of it. This is all I wish to say on time, procured an introduction to the accused,

and was in consultation with him; which it I now ask the further indulgence of the House would have been indelicate and unbecoming in for a few moments in relation to a master per me to do, as one of the tryers of the case. I sonal to myself, not perhaps now strictly, in or said that I had, and I now say that I have, ne der, but growing out of whiat occurred in a pre- acquaintance with the accused have never vious part of this case. It is the first occasion, been introduced to him-have never been in and it will be the last and only one on which I his company-never exchanged a word with have or shall ask its attention for a similar cause. him. I do not mean to say that the accused is Some time ago, when I introduced a resolution unworthy of my acquaintarice-I know nothing for the purpose of preventing the publication to justify me in s5 saying. But I would not of the testimony that might be given in this case ask or permit any acquaintance, or conference until the trial was over, I made some remarks with him while he is under trial, and I am one in support of that resolution. Those remarks of his judges. The error in the report of my have been so strangely misrepresented, and my speech referred to, I have no reason to sup. meaning so grossly perverted, that I feel my-pose.was intentional. The reporter of the Te self called on to say something on the subject. legraph could have no motive to misrepresent

I understand I say I understand—for I have me, and I have no doubt it was a mistake, and

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

that subject.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

one only of any consequence in the manner a-ed on a memorandum given to us by the debove stated. The report in general is as accu-partment, to enable us to give to the public the rate as an unrevised report can be But the cause for the removal. The ground alleged Telegraph of this morning, noticing the cor, was, that he had, in violation of an act of Conrection which had been made by the Richmond gresy, overdrawn his compensation, as a clerk, Whig, at my request, says

to the amount of $300. This, we have since “We note this article of the Whig for the learneci, Mr. C. salisfactorily explained to Mr. purpose of correc.ing the correction. Mr. Barry to be an error of the pay-officer of the Patton was not mis reported in ihe Telegraph; department, in passing that sum to a wrong acand it will be found upon examination, that the count on the books. Our notice of the transacexplanation will place him in no better position tion was derived from the department; and, in than the report. If Mr. Patron did not derive publishing the cause assigned by the departhis information from one of the parties, from ment, it never was our intention to insinuate whom did he derive it. If he did not derive it that Mr. Coyle had acted dishonestly, nor do from the parties direct, he must have deriveil we believe ihát-cur language is capable of reit through second or third persons, or through ceiving that construction. the publications of the accused; and it matters Under the excitement consequent upon his not whether Mr. Patton had any acquaintance removal, Mr. Coyle supposed that our remarks or intercourse with the parties; he became the were capable of a construction prejudicial to sponsor for the accused, by vouching for his bois character, and jóstituted an action for dainnocence, "&c.

inages.

It was arranged by our counsel, and The House will perceive by comparing this the suit dismissed, we paying the cost. statement with the report, of my remarks.co. Although we were not required, by the arpied from the Telegraplı, that the first “mis- rangement, to make a publication upon the subrepresentation is, in stating that I had spoken ject, it was understood that we would, in jusof the alleged fraud as being what I had been tice to our own feelings, and in viúdication of informed was falsely stated by the Telegraph. Ur. Coyle's feelings and character, do him the I bad not the remotest allusion to the s ate-justice to say that it never was our intention 10 'ments of the Telegraph concerning the frauit. impeach his integrity or honor. And, inasmuch I referred to the statement "of the facts con. as ihe subject has been referred 19 in debate, vected with this alleged outrage and breach of on the floor of the House of Representatives, privilege," jeaning thereby the alleged way we feel called upon to go further, and say, that laying and assault, for words spoken in debate. we are now satisfied ihat the alleged cause was

But the worst misrepresentation is, in stating but the mere prelexi for doing that which air.
that I stood sponsor for the innocence of the Barry bad resolved-yea, promised to do, be-
accused. I expressed no opinion of the inno-fire he left Kentucky.
cence of the accused, either in relation to the We will further add, that in the case of Mr.
fraud or the circumstauces of the assault., 1 Gillebrown, in saying that he had permitted his
spoke only, of what the accused himself. had name to be used for the purpose of drawing,
alleged.

improperly, from the treasury a large sum of mo. I declare to God, that I never spoke on that ney, it was not our intention to charge him with subject to any one human being, who was having acted corruptly. It was our opinion, and either implicated in the charge, or who knew so far as we are informed, it is still our opinion, or professed to know, any thing about it, either that the money was improperly drawn; but we of his own knowledge, or by inforraation from know, and so stated, wat although Mr. Filleothers--either connected or unconnected with brown drew the money in his own name, it was the charge.

intended for the use of another, to whom it was The Telegraph's own report of what I said, immediately paid over. And we were fully shows the falsehood of the imputation--that i aware that, under the usage of the department, vouched for the innocence of the accused the nanies of individuals were frequently used, as to the fraud or as to any tbing else which is to facilitate the passage of accounts, as a mere now made by the Editor.

matter of form. Such we considered the case. “ He (Mr. P.) knew not if it was so," is what Had we been situated as Mr. Fillebrown was, we I am reported to have added, and is substan. would not have permitted the use of our name; tially correct.

but we know, and so stated, that he acted in obe: I have only further to say, that while I do dience to the direction of ilie Secretary of the not profess any greater insensibility and indit. Navy, and although we disapproved uť ibe act, ference to such assaults, than other men feel, we did not intend to charge with a corrupi moI would infinitely prefer to be the subject of tive. The act was assigned by the department, vituperation than of praises coming from a as the cause of the removal, and our object was source regardless alike of truth and decency. to lay before the public the grounds upon

which the department had acted, and not to im. It is due to ourselves, as well as to the party pute fraud to Mr. Fillebrown. implicated in the statement made in the debate on the Wiscasset case, that we should 'way that

ANOTHER OUTRAGE. sbl publication of the alleged cause for the re It will be recollected that when Doctor Da. moval of Mr. A. Coyle, tale clerk in the Post vis, of South Carolina, was under examination, ofice Department, io the Telegraph, was found-be was asked by Mr. Cook, of Ohio, what but

[ocr errors]
« ForrigeFortsett »