Advantages of a Gold Currency

10 • . We are, with sentiments of the highest respect, your friends and fellow citizens, E. W. JUDD, SILAS WRIGHT, JOHN MORTON, ASAHEL PARSONS, WM. B. SUMNER, CHARLES LINSLEY, BENJ. MINER, Jr. C. C. WALLER. MR. RUSH’S REPLY. Sydenham, near Philadelphia, ) May 26,1834. $ Gentlemen,—I received your letter of the 25th of last month, embodying a copy , of two resolutions adopted shortly before its date at a public meeting of citizens of Addison county in Vermont, Opposed to rechartering the Bank ; the first 61 which demands my special thanks, as being in terms than which none could be more cordial or obliging. Coming in a manner so unexpected and spontaneous; it is doubly grateful. Your second resolutloh asks my vieWs on the points following : 1. Whether the recharter of the present Bank of the United States,', “ after it has boldly entered the political arena, attempted to corrupt the press and wage wat with the government, would.nOt be dangerous to the peace of the country and the safety of our free institutions.” 2. Whether the pressure in the money market “hits resulted from the removal of the public depo- eites or from the conduct of the bank; and whether a.return ofthe deposited without a change in the course pursued by the bank, would materially tendtb Relieve or mitigate that pressure.” 3. Whether “the late vote of the Senate of the United States censuring the President for the re- ;incval of the deposites, is warranted by their con- -stitutional powers.” Upon subjects so much discussed before the country as the above have been in official and all ways, I almost dread to enter, for fear of tediousness ; but as you are pleased to ask my opinions, I will give them with the. candor every citizen should exercise when thus invited. The nature of your communication is a proof, that although the subjects may have lost their novelty, they have not, in your eyes, lost their irttefest; nor have they in mine. On the contrary, so blended are they With the highest considerations of public policy, so fruitful have they been of strife, and so big do they still seem with it, that appeals are but the stronger to the public duty of every citizen, to contribute his mite, if called upon, towards the right understanding of them. * 1. l am of opinion that the rccharter of the bank would, in the words of your resolution, be dangerous to the peace of the country and the safety of our free institutions. I think so for your reasons. The bank has entered the political arena. Not to see this, would be blindness. Its friends do not, in effect, deny it; but say that if it did go there, it was from necessity, not choice, and with no other object than to defend itself against attacks. 4 regard the plea as unsound. It puts the bank in a position not given to it by the Jaw, or existing in the nature of things. It starts , in error, and gives a bad direction to what follows. It confounds first elements. The attacks meant, are those contained in the President’s * veto and other state papers from that source. The President is not the whole government; but he forms the executive branch; He represents the nation in that branch. He is likewise a co-ordinate branch of the legislature. The concurrence of a former President, was requisite to the law creating the bank. It was an act of duty if he thought such an institution necessary. The Veto of the existing President was not less an act of duty, if he, in turn; thought that its charter should cease. And is it for the bank to consider this constitutional opposition, an attack? If so, it assumes to prescribe a course for the government; It assumes to pass.sentence upon its acts of indisputable authority. It undertakes, as your resolution remarks, to wage war with the government. Hence the very newspapers Of Europe, as our own; are, at this moment, from what is too obviously the fact, speaking of a war between our government and the bank. There is something novel in this fact. I’d have produced it, principles and feelings fundamentally wrong, must have been at work. Where, will be the purpose of my search. It ought not to have happened, that a banking company could have raised itself to a condition of such coequality with the government of a great nation’; dr any of its branches. It is disparaging to its dignity, to its authority, I add emphatically to its safety. The last is struck at, if ever to bh threatened with the hostility of an overgrown moneyed institution planted in the heart of the land; Neither the passions, nor even the just interests, of such an institution, ought to have so dangerous a sphere open to them, on the plea of self-defence, or any plea. Its sphere* may be a .very useftdone; if it keep within it; but it is a sphere totally different. It is business-like, not war-like. The plea is an aggravation. It is deceptive. It has a first blush of justice before those unable or unwilling, to exert thought; but not the leastreality of justice. The dangers that lurk under it, ought to awaken the Whole nation; and would, but that so large a portion of it feels.the power, or cowers under the influence of the bank. Thirty- five millions of dollars clad in corporate armor, ought not, under any given or possible circumstances, to be seen as a parly belligerent defending itself against the government, or any part of it. What is to be. the consequence of such doctrines ? How far is it to go? Let sober minds answer. If the Bank may fight the President, it may, on the same ground, fight either house of Congress; that is, whenever it deems itself attacked by either,' whether through the adverse report of,a committee, adverse resolutions, or otherwise. It may fight any of the public departments. It may fight the whole government conjointly, as any part separately. The plea is utterly inadmissible; the spectacle an outrage. . We have so plunged into error after error upon this subject; we are so steeped in influences as intellect as reproachful to patriotism and wounding to public pride, that the mind must rouse itself from its stupor, to get back to first truths. The remarkable state of things I am to deal with under your letter, never could have happened but for.the perilous growth of Strength, and still more rank progress of vicious no-' tions and practices in the bank; which, if.not effectually checked, will bring upon this country a state of political and social debasement not to be contemplated but with dismay and disgust.' The bank has