Article Text
The venerable Editor of the Richmond Enquirer takes exception to our having copied au article from a Vagima paper. in which he is asked why he does not apply to the Bank of Virginia, in regard to its suspension of specie payment, the same language as the does to the Pennsylvania Bank of the United States: and the only reason which he now gives, is that the Pennsylvania Bank began the suspension. At the risk of still further disturbing the placidity of the worthy Editor we must be allowed to say that this answer is not at all satisfactory. The Pennsylvacia Bank suspended specie payment because it could not help is ; and the Virginia Bank did the same, and did menher more not less. If either of these Banks suspended payment under any influence short of inevitable necessity, the Editor of the Enquirer may justify such suspension if be chooses. We shall not. But, it appears to us that it is not only in making a distinction between the precisely similar conduct of the two great State Banks that the Editor of the Enquirer is not consistent, or least inconsistent; but war at all a State Instituas maintains one ry tion, is in such his of the making he State Governments the exclusive upon to establish right of within eveits jurisdiction. This is, however, a delicate matter-no less than a controversy growing up between the leaders of the same party 111 two of the largest States in the Union-in which, perhaps, we National politicians ought not interfeie, especially as we in perceive to stand that the their ruling party Pennsylvania mean by own Bank, which they possess the power as well as the will to defend against the Richmond Enquirer and the party which that journal represents. [National Intelligencer. The National Intelligencer hits the nail upon the head in the foregoing article. It is in vain for the Enquirer to attempt to draw a distinction between of and the Bankcapable of an the for all men, Bank Virginia `comprehending Pennsylvania argument at all, must necessarily see that it IS a distinction without a difference. And if the Enquirer doubts it. we call upon Gov. Polk. of Tennessee, to endorse our assertion. However ' ridiculous" the Euquirer may deem our remarks, it will surely acquiesce in theirjustice when they are substantially reiterated by so a as the late of the House of That Speaker distinguished Representatives. gentleman gentleman, in his late Message to the Legislature of Tennessee, if a in it is no reason for suspend Barks emphatically Philadelphia, says: "Surely Bank our " to follow the example, unless they are compelied by their own condition to do so." So that we hope the Enquirer will see that the abuse which it the Pennsylvania Bank reacts with at least equal force upon Dr. Brockenbrough's institution ! The Intelligencer another of seems to us that when beforce. It suggests gentlemen idea, go great yond the limits of their own the a sister manifest a for State all total tutions contempt of Commonwealth, Rights, State, maugre to they abuse insti- their professions on that for to interference of the with jeet Slavery the subject. We, Abolitionists example, institu- ob- the question, because it is domestic institution and laws, and with which have not our tion,--an State recognized they a protected the by shadow of a right, therefore, to interfere. But are them to are certainly their interferer.co--we we not inviting when justifying continue their aggressions we atfempt to denounce a bank, or any other Institution, laws called into being and protected by the of a sister State. We hope the Enquirer will