[From the Lexington, Ky. 0bseryer.l

 THE DEPOSITES.
{"character_count": 1692, "word_count": 296, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9839000105857849], "ccnet_perplexity": [820.5999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
We copy from the Richmond Whig, the following communication over the signature of "Randoph." The view which it presents of the Opposite Question is new, and at first blush struck us as untenable; but after serl- ous consideration our minds were brought to the conclusion, that 1t IS question worthy of deliberate examination, whether the assent of the Senate, as well as the House Of Re- presentatlves, be not requisite to legitimate the act of the President in removing the De- posites. The Secretary is bound to report his reasons to Congress, whenever he might think proper to take the public money from the place where it was directed to be kept bv an act of Congress. That act which prescribed the bank of the United States, as the lawful depository of the public money, required the ioint action of both Houses to make it law. The Secretary reports his yeqsogs to both Houses that they may judge of their suf}ioiieacg or iasgficaeaeg. It was for this purpose that he was required to re- nort his reasons, otherwise the clause was

 idle and unneanng. The question then IS, can the House of Representatives by atssal,- mo the power of the Secretary and the s'It,- c;encu of his reasons, repeal tdtc which had to receive the sanction of both Houses before it became law. We hold that the

 oct of the Secretary is null and void unless fl he sanctioned by Congress. The House of Representatives declares that the secre- tnrv had reasons esoagh for his justification, and tba Senate ayers that they are snsn.6I- e:saf. and that he was uniustified. Having failed to received the sanctlon ot congress, is not the act of the Secretary null and voids

 We confess that unless t be admitted that