16 upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and Laws, but in derogation of both.” In the elaborate discussions which the subject led to in the Senate, it has been said, and I think justly, that the resolution in this shape is more objectionable than if it had specified some act or acts. In the latter case, posterity could have judged for itself in the matter. If the removal of the deposit's had been specified, it might have asked why they were removed. This would have brought out the -i/hole case. The merits on each side would have been known. The resolutions of the Bank appropriating the public money to act upon the Press, and all else that it has done, would have been known. Posterity would then have judged how far there had been any breach of public faith towards such a bank. The charge, as it now stands, is merely a sweeping one. We, of the present ,day, jknow indeed that it covers the removal of the deposits, and so may have been meant. It is, in its very nature, criminatory. I do not hold it to have been the province of the Senate, thus to brand a President, Jf he had done any thing criminal, it would devolve on that body to try him, on impeachment by the House of Representatives. The former ought not therefore to be accusers in any sense, see- ing that they may be called upon to be judges. It is blending characters that the Constitution intended to keep apart. There is natural injustice in trying or accusing any man in his absence, no matter how slight the censure, or bare inference to that effect. All our Constitutions, all bur laws, of the States and Union, guard against such a course, by their entire spirit, and careful enactments. Still less should it ever be adopted by one branch of the government towards a co-ordinate branch. The artificial claim to legislative rights or privileges, or to incidents growing out of either, cannot extinguish the prior claim to natural and Constitutional justice. The President should not be solemnly charged by either House of Congress with_ offences of aiiy kind, or with breaches of the law in any way, unless by impeachment, or resolutions intended as its groundwork, and only then by the House of Representatives. He would then have full opportunity of making his defence. This I consider our Constitutional law,in all its broad intendments, flowingneces- sarily from the words of the clauses that bear upon this subject. The resolution of the Senate runs against them. It has the effect of impeachment as far as intended dishonor is concerned, whilst it allows to the President none of the justice of its forms. In England, the approved mode of proceed’, ing against all State offenders is, as we know, by impeachment, It has been laid by, in revolutionary or arbitrary times. In such times, contending parties attack each other with bills of' attainder, and what they call in England, bills of pains and penalties. Our Constitution recognizes neither of these proceedings. The vote of the Senate censuring the President, makes some approximation in principle to the latter so far as laying a foundation for it goes- I repeat, that I can see no warrant under our Cou’- stitution for that censure, and none in justice. Thw President’s protest against it, although not placed on the archives of the Senate, is before the reading public of America. It has doubtless reached each of you, and would supersede, did nothing else, thp necessity ofmy enlarging on this head. My letter is, already, I fear too long, not for thp deep interest of the subjects, but your time must be closed. Permit me to say, that I should have written it sooner, but for hindrances since yours came to hand, putting it out of my power. With renewed expressions of sensibility to the terms in which you addressed me, I remain your fellow cjtizen and friend, * ‘ RICHARD RUSH. To E. W, Judd, Sijas Wright, John hforton, Asp. hel Parsons, W. B. Summer, CJjas. Linsley, Benjamin Miner, Jr., Calvin C. Waller, Esq’s. BANK MUNIFICENCE. The following are some ofthe patriots who are urging on a civil war because the People will hot recharter the British Bank. Look at them ! This is the way Nicholas Biddle pays the ’public servants : Lawyer Clay’s fees, $40,000 Lawyer Sergeant’s fees, - 40,000 Lawyer Webster’s fees and loans, 58,000 Lawyer Johnston’s loans, 36,000 Lawyer Poindexter’s loans, 10,000 Printer Webb’s loans, 52,975 Printer Green’s loans, 38,000 Printer Harding’s loans, 31,916 Printer Wilson’s fee, in part, 580 Balance of Printer Wilson’s fee, 1,447 Printers Gales & Seaton’s loans, 52,370 Printer Walsh’s loans, 6,541 Total, $467,829
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=