others." "I requires a corrective." And the, of a bank prevents it from owning funded stock,) committee have proposed a bill which they consi-that long loans to individuals may not properly be der as adequate to its correction. Can it be, when made-but he was afraid to engage in this digres "the greatest evil and the origin of all the others," sion

is one which it is not only so practicable, but so He had as yet said nothing as to the violation of easy to correct, that we shall destroy where we the charter. It was, indeed, in his view of the might cure? matter, a subject of no great importance to deter He should say but a few words as to the present mine whether a legal and technical violation had condition of the bank, and the character and safe been committed. If the public interest requir ty of its debts. The views which could be taken of ed that the institution should be preserved, the lesuch a subject, must certainly be very general ones. gislature would preserve, for the same reasons He did not mean to speak of the safety of the holders for which they had established it. The question of bank notes. That would be perfect, if half the of law would be much better discussed by those debts of the institution were bad. But he did not who were acquainted with its intricacies, and he believe that any of the errors imputed to the bank had detained the committee so long upon the other had impaired or endangered its capital. The branches of the argument, that he would comment notes secured by a pledge of stock had been mos objected to. So far as the stock was pledged at par, it was evident that the security was perfect if not in all cases for the prompt, yet in all for the eventual payment of the notes. For information on the subject of those notes and their security, he referred to table 42, among the documents which had been published.

very briefly upon this. He differed, he believed, upon this subject, froin all the members of the committee. He thought that none of the acts alleged amounted to a violation of the charter.

The first violation of the charter, as alleged in the report, was that of purchasing two millions of public debt. The bank, when engaged in import ing specie from Europe, had sold two millions of its The whole value of the stock, as the security funded stock in England. This stock, in the hands estimated at par, exceeded the whole amount of of the bank, was redeemable at the pleasure of the the loans which it was pledged to secure by up-government. Before it had been subscribed to the wards of $1,898,000. But there were particular bank, it had been, by the condition of the loan, irloans which exceeded the value of the stock pledg. redeemable until the year 1825. The bank supposed to secure them (if the stock were estimated at ed that it was restored to this irredeemable characpar) by 450,273 dollars. This then was the whole ter when it again became private property. He amount of the stock loans which exposed the capi confessed that he thought so; and he believed it to tal of the bank to any hazard. (The stockholder be a common, and even the general opinion. The who owed the par value of his stock was equally secretary of the treasury thought otherwise, and indebtor and creditor of the institution-the opposisted upon the right to redeem the stock which site quantities neutralised each other.) It was to had been sold in England. The loss which the these 450,000 dollars, that the enquiry applied: was purchasers would in this way have sustained would the personal security given for that amount suffi-have impeached the credit of the bank. To maincient? the report stated "that the provision requiring tain it, the secretary of the treasury proposed that an indorser for the excess above the par value, was the bank should purchase, on account of the governin many instances effectually evaded by some of ment, the same amount of stock which it had sold; the largest borrowers becoming indorsers for each and it did so.

other."

How far the indorsers were responsible The charter provides that the bank shall not men, he did not know. This mutual indorsment purchase any public stock. The merest verbal was one of the evils which the practice of lending construction of the sentence, the interpretation to upon stock tended to remove. But when it was be obtained from a dictionary, would be, that the considered that the whole amount of stock loans, bank should not "acquire by buying," that it should for the safety of which personal security could be not become the owner by purchase, of the public at all necessary, was in Philadelphia $173,450, and stock. And it did not. There was not a moment in Baltimore $276,823, it must be admitted that during which the bank was the owner of the stock, there might be a very free exchange of names in which was at once transferred from the individuals those cities, and those inconsiderable amounts be who sold it to the commissioners of the sinking yet effectually secured. He thought it not unlike-fund. But he would willingly waive the verbal ly that the committee had fallen into the error of question. What was the intention of the provi comparing the personal security not with the sion? That the bank should not become the moderate sum to which it was applicable, (the owner of funded stock, so as to enhance the price excess of the loan above the par value of the when the government wanted to buy, or to re. stock,) but with the large sum, for which there duce it when it wanted to borrow. And how was another and an adequate security, (that of the could either of these evils result from its buying stock.) at the instance of the government, and for the be

If the loans on stock were considered safe, the nefit of the government, any amount of stock whatonly class of debts which the committee, from any ever? But it did not act (the report says) as an information before them, had reason to suppose ex-agent in the purchase of stock, because it contri. posed to risk, (and they had that reason only from buted out of its own funds, a part of the price.— their magnitude,) was that of the debts due in the The committe appeared to him to have confounded western states. He had admitted that some years two acts, which were very distinct. The bank, if must pass before the greater part of these could the secretary were right, was clearly bound to pay be paid. But, although the circumstances of those the difference between the par value of stock and states made it likely that they could not be prompt-its actual price, to those to whom they had sold it as ly paid, he saw no reason to believe that they irredeemabie, but in whose hands the secretary demight not be paid eventually. In the mean time, termined to redeem it. It was as well to pay it they might be considered as diminishing the capi- to the government. Suppose it to have done so, tal of the bank. It is, however, by no means true, and it substantially did, where was the law which (where the condition of the country or the charter forbade it (although it had contributed a part of

the funds) to act in its usual and convenient cha-[If specie were drawn from a state bank in one racter of the agent of the government? hour, they would properly lend it to the bank the If the purchase in question be one which is pro-hour after. Did not this imply that they might hibited by the charter, the directors who sanction prolong the credit of the subscriber, and receive ed it are liable, by law, to a very heavy fine.the note of the bank? Would any member propose that they should be The observations which he had made, applied to prosecuted for this act of defence and benefaction the discounts for instalments generally. There to the government? Could it be that this purchase, were peculiar reasons in favor of those which was not such a "dealing in stock” as could sub were made between the 3d and 23d of Janua ject the individuals who made it to personal re-ry, 1817, under the resolution of December 18, sponsibility, and yet that it should subject the in-which made the conduct of the bank, in relation to stitution itself to the penalty of dissolution? them, not only allowable, but wise. He had neither

The second alleged violation of the charter con- strength nor time to enter into the enquiry; but sisted in not requiring the payment of the second he had on his table the names of all the discounor third instalments in coin and funded debt.-ters, and an examination would shew that they What are the powers of the directors, as to the were not in general large stockholders, and that debt due to the institution generally? They may the greater proportion of their notes was paid at change the security, they may prolong their credit, maturity.

they may vary both the time and place of payment. But the report says that the directors abandon. M. L. did not see, when the bank was once in ope-ed the means of coercion given by the charter, and ration, that the power of the directors, in respect gained nothing. It was true that, in discounting to instalments, was not precisely the same as in a note for a subscriber, to enable him to pay his inevery other debt. The committee say, that the stalment, they gave up the means of coercion bank should have insisted upon "the specific thing." which the withholding the dividends might furnish. When a bank is once in operation, it must consi But, did they gain nothing? Was it not notorious der its own notes as specie; and, under the com-that, under the common construction of the char pact with the state banks, the national bank was, ter, it was considered fair, and not discreditable, in fact, obliged to consider their notes specie.-to postpone payment of the instaiment, and abanThe question, indeed, resolves itself into two: 1. don the dividend? No man's credit has been hurt Ought notes of the national or state banks to have by this delay in paying the instalment. The first been admitted in payment of the instalments? 2 gain of the bank, then, was that of pledging the Ought any discounts to have been made to sub. personal credit of the subscriber to his punctuality. scribers to the bank? The second advantage which the bank gained, it

Can it be seriously contended that the bank might have been expected, could not have been ought not to have received its own notes as specie? overlooked or disputed the actual payment of You appear at the counter, with $1000 in its paper one-fourth part of each share in funded stock.It refuses to receive it, and insists that you should The third advantage was the pledge of stock, with go through the process of causing the specie to the power immediately to sell it, upon the failure be brought from its vaults, paid to you by the tel- of the subscriber to pay his note. He would venler, and then to the teller by you, and every thing ture to say that there was not one of these notes, would be formal and right. The silver might then the payment of which, at maturity, might not have be restored to its former place. So even with the been enforced by this provision. The statements state bank notes. The national bank, it is said, given by the committee, of the price of stocks ought to have received them. You must the during the year 1817, would establish this propahave drawn specie out of the state banks, paid it sition. into the national bank-the national bank, under He must here suggest the arguments which had its compact, must have lent it immediately to the been anticipated by the gentleman from Virginia. state bank from which it had been drawn; and after In January, 1817, if the transaction of which he the whole manœuvre was over, the specie must was speaking was wrong and mischievous, congress have resumed the position which it had left in the knew it-knew it in time to prevent it. A commitmorning. There was but one possible mode by tee was instructed to enquire into the subject.which the payment of the instalment "in the speci This committee reported that there was no occafic thing," could have been secured, (if it could sion for the interposition of congress, and congress have been at all secured,) by delaying the com did not interfere. A friend of his from Georgia, mencement of operations until they were paid.-proposed a resolution that the public deposites The attempt would have been very injurious to should be withheld, while the plan which the comthe country; it was incompatible with the proposals mittee disapprove was persevered in. The resol of the government, and was interdicted by the law. tion was adequate to its object. The house did not He had enlarged enough upon this subject in the take it up. Since that time how many purchasers commencement of his observations. The large have become interested in the stock, who have amount of notes which the bank threw into circu-never expected that congress would punish vindic. lation, if not a single note had been discounted for tively an act which it would not interpose to prea subscriber, would have had the effect of causing vent!

the instalments to be paid in notes, not in coin. The third instance of violation of charter, is said They would be paid in which ever of these artito consist in the payment of dividends to delincles was most easily obtained, and if the issue of it was large, the article most easily obtained mus be paper.

not.

It was hardly important, then, if they discounted at all, whether they discounted to subscribers or But why should they not? The very busi ness for which the directors were appointed, was to lend money If a subscriber paid one moment the directors might probably lend to him the next.

quent stockholders. These dividends were paid when their subscriptions were received, and they cease to be delinquent. It he understood the do. cuments, the whole amount of dividends so paid, of which he had any evidence, was $1460; but from this the interest which they paid must be deducted, and they possibly received $360 more than they were entitled to. The precise amount, indeed, isnot important. And by whom were these dividends

paid? Did the directors order-did they know it? the general most luminous and correct. Upon this He really did not think that the payment of 3 or question, however, I am forced to differ from him. 400 dollars, (however erroneous,) by a subordi- Sir, the gentleman has dwelt upon the benefits arisbate officer, could be justly punished by the loss ing from the bank. He has presented you, alone, of the charter of the bank, or, to take the test pro- the fair side of the picture. In many of his views posed by the committee, that it defeated the very concur with him, but it becomes us to examine objects of its institution. both sides of the painting. He has represented The fourth alleged violation consisted in al-this institution as vitally connected with the pros. lowing bad votes to be given at elections. Without perity of the country. Its destruction is to be atreference to the number of these votes, or to their tended with the most fatal consequences. And are effect upon the election, he was willing to leave we come to this? Shall we be forced to counte the charge, without argument, to the committee.nance speculation and fraud, from the fear of enHe had attempted to shew that the dissolution countering the evils of putting down this system? of the bank charter, as a measure of policy, was Is it so completely interwoven with our best intenot wise-as a penalty, that it was not legal. But rests, as to endanger those interests by putting it what is just? You allege that the institution has down? Does this government, indeed, rest on this been mismanaged. You admit that the stockhold corporation for stability and support? I cannot ers have been the principal sufferers, and, in re- believe it. We are not yet reduced to such a state sentment of their wrongs, you ruin them. You of degradation. Sir, if the gentleman from South censure the conduct of a direction of which you Carolina bad exerted his talents for the purpose of appointed the most active members and the head, divising a scheme by which we could have successand you mulct perhaps to the ruin of their fortunes, fully extricated ourselves from our present emthe men whose error consists in supporting your barrassing situation, I cannot but think, with all appointments, and confiding in your superinten-respect to that gentleman, but that he would much dance. more beneficially have employed those talents,

On the whole, he should vote against all the re-than by the course he has thought proper to pur. solutions before the committee. His friend from sue. If the evils of this system, as disclosed in the Virginia had said that a legislature might repeal report and testimony, be not sufficient to induce any of its acts. Can a legislature make a contract? us to direct a scire facias, in the name of Heaven, To assume the power of annulling contracts, is to demand to know, what would be considered s lose the privileges of making them. sufficient inducement?

The proposal for issuing a scire facias, had cer tainly the recommendation of being within the constitutional powers of congress. He had endeavored to shew that it had no other.

Sir, in many of the views which the gentleman has taken, I concur with him entirely. That the bank has acted correctly, in some instances, no one can doubt. That the effects of some of its mea. Mr. L. said he was too much fatigued to discuss sures have been beneficial, I am willing to admit. the resolutions proposed by the chairman of the It has facilitated the operations of the treasury; it select committee. He was,however, glad that he had may have gone far to introduce a uniform currency withdrawn the most objectionable. Of those which amongst us. I am not disposed to canvas these remained, some might do a little good, and some propositions. But, sir, the gentleman has alluded a little harm: some appeared to him to be absolute-to some expressions, in the report of the commitly nugatory, and nearly all of them unimportant. tee, which, I think, are susceptible of defence.He could not understand how the maintenance of I allude to the remarks he has made on the subject a great institution, powerful as all men allowed it of the establishment of an agency in England, to to be, for good or mischief, should be made to pay over the dividends to foreign stockholders.— depend upon such conditions. The report barely glances at the propriety or im

Mr. TYLER said, that he was aware of the propriety of the bank undertaking to deal in bills embarrassments under which he rose to ad of exchange. It was a question which the comdress the committee. The late hour of the day mittee did not feel a disposition to decide. Bet, would be enough, in itself, to advise him of its the establishment of an agency in England was exhausted patience. But a regard to the econo- esteemed as reprehensible, because of its being my of time-a recollection that but few days reviewed as a part of the system which was adopted mained for legislation, induced him to proceed-to inflate the price of stock. The theatre was enFrom the moment said, Mr. T. that the speaker iarged and the demand increased. I cannot conthought proper to confer on me the honor of an ap ceive how the domestic stockholder was to be bepointment on the committee whose report is now nefited by the adoption of the measure. It certain. under consideration, up to this time, I have felt the ly did not add one cent to the profits of the bank. responsibility of my situation. It is known to you, It did not inspire it with increased ability to enMr. Chairman, that I represent a district deeply in large its discounts, and I, like the committee, feel terested in the decision of the question now de- that it can only have been intended for the purpending. It is known to this committee, that it poses I have before stated. became my duty to present a petition, signed by Another expression has also been excepted to many of my most respectable constituents, the by the gentleman from South Carolina, viz: “that other day, to the house, adverse to the course the loans actually made were most of them unreawhich I shall pursue. I can, however, sir, neither sonable and excessive in their amount; they were look to the right nor the left-my own personal not made to the merchant and trader, but to a few popularity can nave no influence over me, when persons, consisting of directors, brokers, and spethe dictates of my best judgment, and the obliga-culators." Loans, on a pledge of stock, were cer. tions of an oath, require of me a particular course. tainly made indiscriminately to all who applied, Under such circumstances, whether I sink or swim but that most of the large and excessive loans on the tide of popular favor, is to me a matter of were made to the persons described, from my reinferior consideration. It is my misfortune, also, collection of facts, admits of no doubt. True, sir, to follow, in this debate, the gentleman from of the names of fourteen persons, which were se South Carolina, (Mr. Lowndes) whose views are in lected, not from any information previously in the

possession of the committee, but merely in conse-, law, to justify the idea. But, Mr. Chairman, if the quence of the amount of the loans, we were inform-position I have assumed, that a misuse of a fran. ed that seven were merchants, five brokers, and chise is a forfeiture thereof, is not sufficiently sup two not falling under either description of character. ported by reference to the principles of our govern. Yet, I wish to enquire of the gentleman, if the sement, whither shall we look for still further argu ven merchants were not actually dealers in stock; ment? and whether the loans thus made, were not owing to the fact, of the discounter having received a transfer of the stock, under the resolution of the board of directors, authorising such transfer? I donot, therefore, esteem the expression in the report liable to the exception which has been taken to it. I repeat, the most of those who obtained large loans, on a pledge of stock, were actually speculators and brokers.

The common law has been pronounced inoperative, in the courts of the Union, by many honorable gentlemen. But, sir, without stopping to enquire into the correctness of that position, I am willing to yield to those who hold a different doctrine all the benefits of the rules flowing from that source; and, under the principles of that law, I shall be able to demonstrate the correctness of the proposition for which I am contending. Nothing was Having now, Mr. Chairman, disposed of the ex-more easily effected than the forfeiture of a franceptions taken by the honorable member to some chise at common law. The statute of 18 Edward II. of the expressions of the report, I proceed to an in- was an act to restore franchises to those who had vestigation of the subject more immediately under lost them. Sandwich lost its privileges, immut consideration. The question whether it be proper nities, and franchises, for a very slight cause. It to direct a scire facias against the bank divides it- had enterred into a covenant with the abbot of St. self into two heads of enquiry. First, whether the Austin, in Canterbury, to deliver annually to the charter has been so violated as to enure a forfei- abbot a certain quantity of wine. It did not comture? And if so, is it expedient to exact the for-plete its engagement, but remained indebted on feiture? The decision of the first would preclude account thereof some twenty or thirty marks. For me from an enquiry into the second. For, sir, in this sum, a suit was instituted, judgment obtain. asmuch as I believe the creation of this corpora.ed, and an execution issued, and levied on the pro tion to be unconstitutional, I cannot, without a vio-perty of the corporation; and because some of the lation of my oath, hesitate to repair the breach inhabitants made a rescue of the property, it was thus made in the constitution, when an opportuni- adjudged by the court and afterwards sanctioned ty presents itself of doing so, without violating the by parliament, that the town had forfeited its charpublic faith. But, believing also, that it is expe- ter.

dient to put it down, and other gentlemen feeling My hon. friend from Virginia, (Mr. Johnson) re themselves at liberty to follow up that enquiry, Iferred you also to the case of the king vs. the city propose to express to you my views on that sub- of London. I will refer gentlemen to the reason. ject. ing adopted by the attorney general in that case,

I contend, then, Mr. Chairman, that this charter to corroborate and strengthen my position. These has been violated, and that, if subjected to investi- two cities, the one for the commission of a trespass, gation before a court of justice, it will be declared and the other having exceeded its powers in im null and void. I would only have you look to the posing a market toll, were declared to have lost long catalogue of crime detailed in the report-to the privileges and immunities secured to them by those practices calculated only to pamper a few, successive acts of parliament, and by ・ gna charta at the expense of the many--to the corruption itself. Compare those cases with the present case. which, by its illicit gains, almost laughs at your What is this case? Sir, I forbear to represent it. power. Shall we be told, with these facts staring I will only refer you to the mass of testimony, all us in the face, that this charter has not been violat- which goes to show that the charter has been most ed? Say that no particular clause has been violat-shamefully perverted to the purposes of stocked-that the voles were taken according to first jobbing and speculation. I do not mean to insist fundamental articles in the charter-that the that these cases are obligatory on us-far from it. $7,000,000 in specie required has all been paid in, I am, on the contrary, disposed to think, that it yet, I demand to know, if the great objects of the would comport better with our permanent good, if institution have not been defeated? You create a our courts would carve out for themselves a course thing for good, and not for evil. Yet the good, in a of decision in consonance with the principles of great measure, vanishes and the evil alone exists. our government. But, if we are to refer to argu You incorporate a company for the purpose of ad-ments arising under the common law, I repeat vancing the interests of all concerned, and the ma- again, that the argument delivered by the attorney chine thus created is managed exclusively for the ag-general, in the case of the king vs. the city of Lon grandizement of a few and not for the good of all. Is doa, is well deserving of attention. That case has not this, to adopt the rule laid down by the commit-always been quoted as an evidence of acquiescence tee, so to misuse the powers granted, as to defeat the on the part of the English judiciary, to the arbitrary objects of the charter? The most reprehensible will of the monarch. But the reasoning in the proceeding takes place-almost every object ex-case is not affected by that accusation against the pressed in the charter is disappointed, and can it court. But, in truth, we require no foreign prestill be insisted that the corporation has not for- cedents to govern us in deciding on this question feited its franchises? It is a broad and great prin- of forfeiture. The charter contains a provision ciple for which I contend. It is for the doctrine which will silence further enquiry. It expressly of responsibility due from the creature to the crea declares that, if a scire facias be directed, and the tor-the principles on which our government is court believe that any violation of the charter has founded. The president is invested with certain taken place, it shall pronounce it forfeited and null, powers; yet, if he abuses or misuses those powers, Before we direct a scire facias, we have to satisfy The forfeits his seat-the object of his election is ourselves of the same fact, and the question recurs, disappointed-so, in regard to every other officer has any such violation taken place? That it has of the government. Shall a corporation alone be have no doubt. Your great object in creating this irresponsible? There is nothing in reason, or in corporation, was to reclaim the country from a fisoï SUP. TO VOL. XVI, ૨

the answer.

of paper, irredeemable in specie. You wished a could, frame an apology for the errors of my fellow bank with a sufficient specie basis to cause its notes men, than expose them naked to the sight. But, to pass currently for gold and silver. As a great does not the fact stare us palpably in the face, that means for accomplishing this object, certain funda- the resolution of December, 1816, authorising dis mental articles were laid down. The first article counts to enable stockholders to pay up the second limited the number of votes to be given by each instalment, was intended, and actually applied, to stockholder. It was intended to deny to the large the benefit of the stockholders residing in the stockholders the power of defeating your inten. vicinity of Philadelphia and Baltimore, whose intions; and yet what is done? Evasion is resorted fluence had become overwhelming, in consequence to, and in the outset the stipulations of the con- of the violation of which I complain? The man tract were violated, and instead of giving but thirty who resided at a distance derived no benefit, no votes, one individual gives 1100, on 1100 shares. facility, under the resolution. He had not been The stockholder bas accepted a covenant on cer among the knowing ones; he had not heard a whis. tain positive conditions; be has agreed to carry it per that such a resolution would be adopted, be into execution in good faith, and yet, the moment fore its actual promulgation; he had prepared the after, he violates a fundamental article. He has specie and stock to meet his engagements, and did also expressly agreed that it shall be fulfilled or meet them. Was not this measure then not only forfeited; and still, when the fact of nonfuifilment calculated to defeat the payment of specie, but to is fully established, it is contended that no for- disappoint the very inducement you held out för feiture ensues. I should rely strongly on the punctuality? The dividends of delinquent stockground, that a violation of a fundamental article holders were declared to be forfeited, and yet this produced a forfeiture. That which is fundamental overweening influence had the effect to do away cannot be altered-cannot be changed. Can you this salutary regulation, and to cause the benefits remove the pillars of this charter, and yet expect of punctuality to be distributed to all alike. Nor it to stand? Can you remove the foundation, and did the evil stop here. This same influence proyet expect the fabrick to remain? It is only neces, duced the resolution of the 25th August, 1848, susary to state the proposition, in order to receive thorising the loans on stock at $125 per share, and The gentleman from South Carolina the stock jobbing which followed. But I go furhas contended, that this violation was the consether, and I feel myself authorised to make the quence of the acts of particular individuals, and declaration, that the present situation of this coun not of the corporate body, and that therefore no try-the distress in the mercantile world-the forfeiture ensues. How many persons were con- bankruptcies in your cities-are in a great measure cerred in the violation of this article, is at least ascribable to this very violation. What has produced problematical. Let it be recollected that Mr. the great drain of specie from the north? I will Leiper states, in his deposition, and he was not not repeat the reasoning contained in the report; only a director, but a judge of the election, that will only remind you of the excessive drafts from he divided his shares and that it was generally done Baltimore. The directors at Philadelphia saw the for the purpose of effecting the election. But, in ruin which threatened them; they protested against addition to this, it never was discountenanced by the practice. What more could they do? They the directors. They suffered the violation to take dare not act decisively: they could only supplicate place under their very noses; many of them were and entreat. And why not? George Williams individually concerned in it, and not a syllable of answers the question-names could be obtained in reprehension is uttered. But the position of the Baltimore at eleven pence a piece. These excessive gentleman from South Carolina, is not based on issues had the effect of producing a curtailment legal principles. What is the definition of a cor- on the part of the United States" bank, and the poration aggregate? A corporation aggregate is described to be "an artificial body, composed of divers constituent members, ad instar corporis humani; the ligaments of which artificial body are the franchises and liberties thereof, which bind and unite all its members together, and in which the whole frame and essence of the corporation consist." It is compared to a natural body. Sir, if any one member of my body offends, the whole body bears the punishment. If my finger violates the law, my body pays the penalty. If my hand executes murder, that hand is not lopped off, but the ligaments and arteries of my system are cut asunder. With equal propriety might the natural body complain that it was made to suffer for the misdeeds of its members, as that a corporation aggregate should complain that it was made to bear the same relation to its members. If this were not the correct rule, I demand to know in what manner you would reach the guilty person?

I

state banks were driven to the adoption of the same system, as a measure of self-defence. Ruin and bankruptcy have been the inevitable effects. Sir, eighteen months ago we were prosperous and happy. What now is our situation? Gloom and despondence in our cities-usury stalking at large, and boasting of its illicit gains, while honesty and industry are covered with rags, the melancholy image of our changed condition. Does it not follow, then, that this was such a violation as was calculated to defeat the objects expressed in the charter? We are disappointed as to the mode of voting-as to the payment of specie-as to the dividends; and every measure calculated to produce evil, has grown out of this; and yet my friend from South Carolina gravely contends that this charter is not forfeited!

I know it will be said, that the course pursued in subscribing for the stock of other banks was similar to that pursued in regard to this, and that But, Mr. Chairman, the effect of this violation the charter in itself was not sufficiently guarded. does not stop here, if it did, it might be overlooked. For myself, I can listen to no such excuse. Was I consider it the root and foundation of every evil. this stipulation entered into merely to gull and Shall I be considered as expressing myself too deceive? Did congress, at the time of creating harshly when I say to you, that I ascribe the non- this charter, introduce this article that it might payment of the 2d instalment, to this very viola-be violated? Did the stockholder, when he action. I am not conscious of being wanting in cepted it, accept it with a knowledge of this condicharity; I am not aware of having too much gall or tion-and shall he be permitted to say, "true, I bitterness in my nature: may, I would sooner, if I contracted with you on certain conditions, which