charged. The removal of the deposites is the theme of their newspaper tirades; it is the burden of all their petitions to Congress; it is the topic on which Bank orators in that body have exhausted their eloquence, and well nigh exhausted the English language of its terms of invective and reproach. We take it then, that the removal of the deposites is the measure which is relied upon to prove the Executive a tyrant and usurper.
It is not necessary to the purpose of this article that we should establish either the policy or the constitutionality of that measure. Let us first examine if our opponents are sincere in alleging that their warfare is in defence of a violated Constitution, not in defence of the United States Bank. If they are really not a Bank party, but a Constitutional party; if their object is not to perpetuate a huge moneyed institution, too powerful for a free people to risk, and too corrupt for a virtuous people to endure; but to re-establish the Constitution in its original strength and simplicity, before the spirit of expediency had strained any of its provisions to larger issues than its framers designed, and before the fatal precedent had been pleaded to justify subsequent perversions if—our opponents are governed by such motives, no wonder that they reject with scorn the appellation of Bank party.
But if we look back to the history of their hostility to the Executive, shall we find that it commenced with the
removal of the deposites? Shall we find that before that act they yielded him their support, joined with him in
censuring the corruptions of the Bank, and manifested no desire for the renewal of its charter? Shall we not on
the contrary, find that a large portion of those who now fight against the administration under a common banner, and shout a common war-cry, were as decidedly opposed to Andrew Jackson before he was elected chief magis-
