網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

the cases of Wiley and Higbee. The former had been a student at Danville for several years; he returned home to Garrard county just before the election, voted, and came back to the college in Mercer soon after the election, to pursue his studies. The other was a student at the law school in Lexington, Fayette county. He came down to his father's, in Jessamine, a few days before the election, voted, and returned to Lexington. In both cases the committee decided these votes to be good; and, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania said of the appointment of Mr. Grant, no one complained of our decision. They both voted for Mr. Letcher. Apply the same principle to the other students at Danville, who came there from distant States and counties, and their votes must be excluded. It was upon this principle the committee decided; and, in the opinion of a majority, ten votes were necessarily stricken from the polis as illegal. Another decision of the majority has been the subject of animadversion. I allude to the votes which are alleged to have been improperly entered upon the poll-book, or to have been omitted by the clerk entirely. There are several of these on both sides, and proof was taken by the parties to establish the facts. Under all the circumstances, the committee deemed it safer to rely upon the poll-books, the records made by respectable men under oath, than to permit individuals to come forward and change the whole face of the poll-book, and the result of the election, by swearing that they voted, and their names have not been recorded; or that they voted for a different candidate from the one in whose favor their names are recorded. We were not prepared to say that a case might not be presented in which it would be proper to alter the record by parol testimony; bat we were clearly of the opinion that this was not such a case. No change, therefore, was made. The committee were strengthened in their position by the decision of the Senate of Kentucky, in the case before referred to of Williams and Mason. I saving such respectable authority in aid of the reasons which arise from the nature of the question, and which will suggest themselves to the mind of every gentleman, we determined to leave the poll-books as we found them. Mr. Speaker, the case of Wilkes and Luttrell has been introduced here during this debate, and for what purpose I know not. Is it believed by the gentleman to be an *** case? In what does the analogy consist? Do they fear that this case will be improperly decided, as that unquestionably was? If it should be, I ardently hope, sir, that some modern Junius may be found who will rouse the public attention to the subject, and never lay down his pen until he has the satisfaction to see his opinions universally adopted as a standard, and the erroneous judgment of this House expunged from our journals. It is some time since I read the history of the case under consideration. According to my recollection of it, Wilkes was expelled by a vote of the House of Commons. The people re-elected him, by a very large majority, over his competitor, Colonel Luttrell. He appeared at the door of the House of Commons, and demanded his seat; but the House determined that his previous expulsion disqualified him from holding a seat, and that the votes given to him were void. Upon these principles they decided, and gave the seat to his competitor. They did wrong in this. Such a disqualification as they recognised, arising from expulsion, was wholly unknown to the constitution and laws of England. Even Judge Blackstone, who had written expressly upon this subject, and had not mentioned any such disqualification, was induced to come out in defence of the decision of the House. But with all his ability and learning, he was unable to sustain it, and those who took the other side of the question had no difficulty in holding him up to the public gaze as a fit

subject for the ridicule of all who ranged themselves under the banner of constitutional freedom. How do the principles of that case apply here? Who sets up new rules in this controversy Do we? No, sir, we ask for no innovation. We want no new test. We do not complain of the criterion by which such cases have been formerly determined; on the contrary, it is the very thing we desire. We call upon the House to conform to it. We deprecate all rules, except those which are derived from the constitution and laws of our country. One word more, sir, and I am done. I have now given my views of this subject, with some of the reasons that induce me to entertain them. It is for the Ilouse to decide who is right and who is wrong. With that decision I shall content myself, let it be what it may; believing that I have discharged my duty, and that other gentlemen will discharge theirs, according to the dictates of their own understandings. But I shall be pardoned for saying that I do most solemnly believe, if the principles advanced by the majority of the committee are adopted, then we sanction a rule that will secure to us all the privileges guarantied by the charters of American liberty. On the contrary, if the doctrines maintained by the gentlemen who oppose us shall be ratified by a decision of this House, and carried out to their legitimate consequences, we adopt a rule of the most pernicious character; a principle which, like a slow and deadly poison, will infuse its balesul influence through all our political institutions, until the proud and glorious fabric, erected by the labors, and cemented by the blood, of a valiant ancestry, wiłł crumble into dust in the presence of their descendants, who will have lost the power to preserve an inheritance of such in estimable value. When Mr. 11 AM ER had concluded— Mr. BINNEY rose in support of the amendment, and in opposition to the report of the committee. He contended that the prescription, of time, place, and manner of election, was not intended to restrain, but to promote the exercise of the right of suffrage; that these were not essential, but circumstantial forms; and that the House was bound to give effect to the voice of the people, whether these forms were observed or not. Mr. B. illustrated his views by a great variety of analogies and cases, and contended that, upon the facts presented, the votes referred to in the amendment ought to be taken into the computation. Mr. B. also contended that the votes of the theological students, at Danville, rejected by the committee, ought to have been allowed to Mr. Letcher, which, with those referred to in the amendment, would give that gentleman a majority of two votes over Mr. Moore. These positions were argued at length upon the laws and constitution of Kentucky, which alone were, he said, applicable to the case. The precedents and cases determined by the House had no bearing; the House being, by the constitution, made the judge of the qualifica. tions of the elected, but not of the electors—which belong exclusively to the State. Mr. B1 N N EY having concluded his argument— Mr. THOMAS, of Maryland, asked leave to present the report of the committee appointed to examine the affairs of the

BANK OF The UNITED STATES.

Mr. WATMOUGH objected; not because he wished to impede the consideration of the subject of the report, but because an important subject was now before the House, the discussion of which he was not willing to have broken in upon.

After some minutes’ conversation,

Mr. WATMOUGH withdrew his objection.

Mr. THOMAS then made his report, and moved that it be laid on the table, printed, and made the order of the day for Tuesday week.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Mr. MASON said he hoped the gentleman from Mary

land [Mr. ThoxAs) would not insist upon the motion to lay the report upon the table. Mr. THOMAS assenting, the motion was restricted to printing, and making the report the order of the day for Tuesday week. Mr. SELDEN called for a division of the question. It was divided accordingly, and, being put upon the printing, it was agreed to. The question then recurring on making the consideration of the report the order of the day for Tuesday week— Mr. WATMOUGH said he was desirous that the subject of the report should be brought up in time to receive the action of the House; but he could not but consider it as somewhat hasty to appoint, at this time, so early a day as Tuesday week, especially when so important a question as that now before the House was not decided, nor likely to be for some time; besides which, there were a number of bills of paramount importance still unacted on, besides other things which might be disposed of before the attention of the House should be concentrated on the subject of this report. He did not like to make a motion to lay the report on the table, as that might be considered invidious; but he would move to amend the motion by substituting Tuesday two weeks. Mr. CLAY suggested that, if the House should not be prepared to proceed with this subject on the day first proposed, it could then be postponed. Mr. WHITTLESEY remarked that, if this was a good reason, it was good against ever fixing a day for the consideration of a subject. He would submit to gentlemen from the West that not a solitary bill had yet been passed for Western objects, and he would put it to then whether they would vote for any special order which was likely to defeat, by deferring, all the bills in which they were interested? For one, he was not willing to postpone all matters of this kind, to bring back the bank question. Mr. VANCE said he was not opposed to the fixing of any day the committee might prefer. He hoped his colleague would withdraw all opposition to the proposition. Mr. WATMOUGH said, that as he had received from the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. MAsos) and a gentleman on his left, the assurance that it was not the wish or purpose of the committee to interrupt the consideration of the appropriation bills, and other measures of general importance, he should withdraw his amendment. The motion of Mr. Thom. As was then agreed to; and the consideration of the report of the bank committee made the order of the day for Tuesday week. Mr. E. EVERETT, from the same committee, then presented a report from the minority, which was, in like manner, ordered to be printed, and made the order of the day for the same day. Mr. VANDERPOEL moved for the printing of an extra number of ten thousand of both reports. Objection was made. Mr. CLAYTON moved an adjournment. Qn this motion, Mr. BEARDSLEY demanded the yeas

and nays. - * They were taken accordingly, and stood: Yeas 87, nays 92.

So the House refused to adjourn.

Mr. MILLER now asked leave to move for the printing of an extra number of the reports.

Objection being made, he moved to suspend the rule.

The CHAIR pronounced this motion not to be in order. . Mr. MILLER then moved to postpone the consideration of the subject now before the House.

On this motion Mr. JONES demanded the yeas and tions.

Wol. X.--266

Mr. MILLER withdrew his motion to postpone, and moved to lay the report of the Committee of Elections, together with the amendments thereto, on the table. Mr. JONES demanded the yeas and nays. Mr. MILLER withdrew the motion. Mr. McKINLEY moved to adjourn. Mr. BEARDSLEY demanded the yeas and nays. Mr. GHOLSON demanded that the hour be recorded on the journal, (viz.: half past four o'clock.) It was ordered. Mr. CLAY insisted that a motion to adjourn was not in order, as the House had negatived such a motion a few minutes since, and no action of the House had been had since. The CHAIR admitting the motion— Mr. CLAY took an appeal, but afterwards withdrew it. The yeas and nays were then taken, and stood: Yeas 92, nays 88. So the House adjourned to Monday next.

Mox DAY, MAY 26. GLOUCESTER county (VA.) MEMORIAL. The consideration of the memorial presented by Mr. Wise, on the 13th instant, with the resolutions, &c. moved by him, which were the special order for this day, was (owing to the absence of Mr. W.) postponed, on motion of Mr. E. WHITTLESEY, until Monday next.

York county (PA.) MEMORIAL.

The memorial from the inhabitants of York county, Fennsylvania, for the restoration of the public money to the Bank of the United States, and for the recharter of the Bank of the United States, coming up as the unfinishcd business— Mr. BARNITZ moved that the said memorial be referred to the Committee of Ways and Means with instructions to report— “That the removal of the deposites of the moneys of the United States, made prior to the 1st of October last, was not authorized by law. “That the reasons assigned by the Secretary of the Treasury for removing and withholding the deposites from the United States Bank are insufficient. That a bill be reported to recharter the United States Bank, with such limitations and modifications regarding the capital stock and the powers and duties of the directors as the committee deem expedient.” In support of the resolution, Mr. B. entered into an argument embracing views of the policy of the Government in relation to the custody and legal disposition of the revenue, the powers of Congress, and the rights, duties, and obligations of the bank; and not having concluded his remarks, the further consideration was postponed until Monday next: Ayes 79, noes 42.

NORFOLK (VA.) MEMORIAL.

The memorial and resolutions adopted by a meeting held in Norfolk county, Virginia, in favor of the restoration of the deposites of the public moneys to the Bank of the United States, being taken up—

Mr. LOYALL said that the memorial and resolutions before the House, from one of the counties of his district, disapproved, in strong terms, the course of the Executive, in relation to the Bank of the United States. They are signed by largely upwards of four hundred persons, represented to be a majority of the voters of the county; and as one of the resolutions of the series instructs me, said Mr. L., as far as these memorialists can instruct me, to vote for the restoration of the deposites, it is incumbent upon me to state the grounds of the vote, which your journal will show, I have already given upon that proposition; contrary, Iown, to the wishes of a large portion of my con

stituents, yet under a deep sense of all the obligations of

[ocr errors]

the trust confided to me. This duty I should have asked leave to discharge, when the proceedings of this meeting were first presented, but for the lateness of the hour. As I am perfectly aware of the impatience of the House, under any further discussion connected with the deposite question, I now promise to acquit myself of this obligation in a very concise manner. Although, Mr. Speaker, prior to the opening of the present session of Congress, opposition to this act of the Executive did not exceed, at least in a great degree, the opposition generally manifested to the prominent measures of every administration, within a brief space after the representatives of the States and of the people had assembled here, it assumed a most lowering aspect, and the cry of usurpation and tyranny was soon echoed back to the Halls of this building, from almost every quarter of the Union. A most intense sensation suddenly pervaded the public mind. By what agency it was mainly produced, and has been sedulously kept up, every one will determine for himself. Be that as it may, the “quick contagion” of the panic soon reached the good people who sent me here. Public meetings were held in almost every county and town of the district, and the proceedings of such as condemned the removal of the deposites, when transmitted to me, were laid before the House, at the earliest moment allowable by the rule. Notwithstanding the extraordinary excitement, and, 1 doubt not, the actual distress which prevailed among a portion of my constituents, to a degree perhaps as great as in almost any other part of the country, down to the period when the sense of this body was taken upon the resolution reported from the Committee of Ways and Means, declaring that the deposites ought not to be restored to the Bank of the United States, the aggregate of signatures upon memorials received, instructing me to vote for their restoration, amounted to about eight hundred, of all sorts; which, together with the signatures upon the one now submitted, make the whole over twelve hundred. Admitting then every name upon the several memorials which had reached me, when I was called upon to vote for or against the resolution of the committee, as a duly qualified voter, the sum total, as I have stated, was about eight hundred. The meeting which adopted this memorial was held on the 6th day of March, more than two months previous to the date of its reception; leaving me, during this tedious lapse of time, without even notice of its adoption, from any one authorized to communicate it, whilst, too, no doubt could be entertained that the question upon which it was proposed to instruct me would, in the interval, be disposed of. Holding myself in all things bound to submit to the guidance and control of a majority of my constituents, to give effect, in all cases, to their expressed will—implicitly to obey that sovereign mandate, except when it cannot be done without dishonor and a perjured conscience—-I anxiously looked, from the earliest movement in my district upon this question, for such an expression of popular sentiment as would indicate the path I should pursue. Is this such an expression of that sentiment as should satisfy me that I stand opposed to a majority of the voters of my district? Does it, taken in connexion with other circumstances, furnish such strong presumption of disagreement as to require of me either the surrender of the clearest and strongest convictions of my deliberate judgment, or of my seat here? These are inquiries with which I have no wish to trouble the House; but I will proceed to state very briefly the reasons that have brought me to conclusions which, I regret to say, are not sustained by this very respectable portion of my constituents. Having ever held the opinion that Congress, in incorporating the Bank of the United States, acted without authority from the constitution, and that serious evils have resulted from this assumption of power, I could not hope

[blocks in formation]

that my opinions upon the deposite question would be altogether free from the bias of those long-settled convictions. I have, as far as possible, however, divested my mind of all prejudice derived from the impure origin of this institution, and endeavored to view the question in its more direct connexion with the powers of the Executive, and its influence upon the great interests of the country. I do not propose, sir, to trespass upon the House by entering at large into the discussion of these grave matters; but merely to touch a point or two, suggested by this memorial. The pain I experience in finding myself at variance with the memorialists is somewhat alleviated by the moderation of their views, contrasted with the inflammatory denunciations too often heard here. They speak, in the first place, of this as a “movement undertaken by the Executive upon his own mere responsibility, without the concurrence of Congress.” If, in this, they have reference to that section of the bank charter which authorizes the transfer of the deposites, whether the responsibility rests with the President himself, or the Secretary of the Treasury, or with both, it is the first time I have heard a doubt suggested from any quarter that the transfer may not legally and properly be made, before any action of Congress upon the subject. The charter prescribes that “the deposites of the money of the United States, in places in which the said bank or branches thereof may be established, shall be made in said bank or branches thereof, unless the Secretary of the Treasury shall at any time otherwise order and direct; in which case, he shall immediately lay before Congress, if in session, and if not, immediately after the commencement of the next session, the reasons of such order or direction.” It is obvious, then, that this “movement,” as the memorialists term it, may be “taken” not only without the concurrence of Congress, but it is not until the Secretary has exercised the power reserved by the charter, that the concurrence or non-concurrence of Congress is called for, or can be had. This, I dare say, is a view peculiar to the author of the memorial, and was, doubtless, overlooked by many in the hurry of signing their names, which we may readily imagine often happens in such cases. When the Secretary of the Treasury, under this section of the bank charter, which is nothing more than the express reservation of a pre-existing power, shall direct the deposites of the money of the United States to be withdrawn from the said bank, or branches thereof, and has proceeded to lay before Congress the reasons which induced him to give the order, the whole matter is under the control of Congress, subject to such further direction as in their wisdom may seem fit. Now, sir, this angry and protracted controversy has arisen out of the act of the President in displacing one Secretary, who would not withdraw the deposites from the Bank of the United States, and appointing another, who caused them to be withdrawn; and it involves the extent of the President’s control over his cabinet officers, together with the right of the Secretary of the Treasury to withdraw and withhold the deposites of the money of the United States from the bank, under a just and fair construction of this provision of its charter. These questions lie within a very narrow compass, and if we could by any means disentangle them from the fierce struggle of conflicting parties which has been carried on, if not in

this House, most certainly elsewhere, with far different

views than to settle them according to the constitution and law, we should find them neither difficult nor complicated. The Executive power of the United States being vested by the constitution in the President, it is his para

mount duty, and almost his sole function, to superintend

the several departments established by Congress, and see that the laws are faithfully executed. He is required, by

May 26, 1834.]

and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint all officers of the United States, whose appointments are not otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. The participation of the Senate was intended only as a check upon the power of appointment, which, without some such check or guard, might be exercised, on occasions, to confer offices on persons unworthy, or manifestly unfit to fill, them. To this single object, of seeing that competent individuals are appointed to office, the action of the Senate is confined, the power of supervising and directing those who execute the laws resting exclusively with the President. The Treasury Department, as well as the other Departments, unquestionably exists by the will of Congress: they are created by the Legislature, and the same power may, at any time, destroy them. But, so long, as by the constitution, the power of appointment, qualified as I have stated, rests with the President, the heads of these several Departments are, in all matters appertaining to the duties of their offices respectively, subject to his supervision and control, and to removal under responsibility for the rightful exercise or abuse of the power. And the power of removal does not depend upon legislative grant, (though confirmed, after full debate, by a solemn expression of the sense of the Legislature in the act of '89,) but flows directly from the Executive office, and is restrained only by the discretion of the President, under the constitutional guarantees against its undue exercise. It matters not, then, by what name we may please to call the Treasury Department, whether. Legislative or Executive, (no one, I presume, will be disposed to baptize it Judicial, though some of its functions partake, in a degree, of that character,) the duties devolving upon the officer who presides over it are, in their very nature, strictly Executive; and it is, therefore, not only the right, but the duty of the President, in whom the Executive power is vested, to superwise and control, and, when necessary, to remove him. Any argument drawn from the possible or probable abuse of this power, is altogether illogical, and, if entitled to any notice whatever, goes to impugn the wisdom of those who framed the constitution, and does not touch the question properly before us. This, sir, I have ever considered as the true theory of the constitution, carried out in practice under every administration. But a new faith has suddenly sprung up, and all who will not subscribe to its dogmas—maintaining that “unity and competent powers are essential to the Executive”—are branded as the advocates of usurpation and despotism. For myself, I utterly repudiate this spurious reading of our fundamental charter, which aims to strip the Executive of all power, and practically to annihilate one of the great co-ordinae departments of this Government. I will never consent to shist a solitary particle of the power, vested by the constitution in the Chief Magistrate, to other hands than those chosen by the People, who look to the President, and hold him responsible for the faithful execution of the laws. In England, “the King is unaccountable for his administration—the council furnishing a substitute for the prohibited respon. sibility of the Chief Magistrate.” With us, “the ingredients which constitute safety, in the republican sense, are: a due dependance upon the people, a due responsibility.” And when we look into the constitution for the guarantees of this responsibility of the President, we find them amply provided in “his election once in four years by persons immediately chosen by the people for that pur. pose, and his being at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office, incapacity to serve in any other, and to the forfeiture of life and estate, by subse. quent prosecution, in the common course of law.” If the recusant Secretary, in this case, had insisted on the removal of the deposites against the judgment of the President, and his removal from office had become neces

Norfolk (Va.) Memorial.

sary as the only means of arresting a measure deemed by
the President not only inexpedient but illegal, I appre-
hend we should have heard but little, at all events, from
the friends of the bank, of this tremendous responsibility,
this alarming usurpation, tending to the concentration of
all power in the hands of one man, and just as little of the
discretion reserved by the bank charter being exclusive-
ly confided to the head of the Treasury Department.
No one now seriously maintains, I believe, that the
right to remove the deposites depends for its exercise
merely upon the safety of the public money; nor that the
refusal of the bank to comply with any of its stipulated
engagements constitutes the only ground on which the
deposites can be withdrawn. The terms in which the
power is reserved are too broad and comprehensive to
give even a shadow of pretence to any such construction.
Whether or not the reasons which, in compliance with
the requisition of the charter, the Secretary of the Treas-
ury has laid before Congress, are such as rendered the
measure expedient and proper—whether or not it was
called for by the public interest or convenience—it would
be out of place to discuss here. As far as the rights of
the bank are concerned, however, I feel no hesitation in
saying that the removal of the deposites from its custody
was entirely justified by transactions which clearly show
a deliberate, systematical design, in that corporation, to
acquire strength and influence, in utter disregard of the
essential objects of its creation, and the fundamental arti-
cles of its charter. If the charter has been violated by
the removal of the deposites, the bank is unquestionably
entitled to remuneration. Yet we have heard, from no
quarter, that compensation ought to be rendered for this
alleged invasion of its rights. . The truth is, there is about
the same foundation for the charge of broken faith in the
one case, as for the assumption of unconstitutional power
in the other.
I am instructed, as far as this portion of my constituents
can instruct me, to vote for the restoration of the depos-
ites. If, sir, I entertained a different opinion in relation
to this Executive proceeding—if I really conceived that
the President has assumed the exercise of a power over
the treasury not granted to him by the constitution and
laws—-that the act of the Secretary of the Treasury, di-
recting that the deposites of the public money shall not
be made in the Bank of the United States, was illegal,
and should be regarded as the bitter source of all the dis-
tress, embarrassment, and ruin, already endured, and, as
we are warned, still greater in prospect--if I had enough
of the genuine Whig spirit to stand up against this mon-
strous usurpation——even in that case, believing as I do that
to restore the deposites would inevitably lead to the re-
charter of the bank, I could not, in common decency,
vote for their restoration. My opinion upon this consti-
tutional question was openly declared, and severely can-
vassed throughout the district; and elected as I was with
a full knowledge of my uncompromising opposition to the
bank in every possible aspect, I could not, without a fla-
grant breach of the trust confided to me, record a vote
here, tending directly, according to my view, to prolong
the existence of this corporation beyond the limitation of
its charter, and thereby eventually, through its vast
moneyed influence, to build up an extraneous power,
setting at defiance the utmost control of the Government;
for rail as we may about lawless pretensions and Executive
encroachments, I would rather encounter the most
daring usurpations which, masked under any other forms
of law and the constitution, the reckless ambition and un-
holy passions of the very worst men could bring to bear
against the liberties of the people, than meet this corpo-
ration, secure in her dominion, and arrayed in all her
chartered privileges, during another term of twenty
eats.
y The memorialists pray Congress “to take speedy meas-

H. of R.] Norfolk (Pa.) Memorial. - [May 26, 1834.

ures to return to the Bank of the United States the public
revenue, to quiet the people, to restore confidence to the
country, and prosperity to the land.” These are certain-
ly most desirable ends. But is it the part of wisdom and
prudence to take the measure proposed, for the purpose
of relief, of mitigating the existing pressure, and allay-
ing the general discontent, when, if the charter is not to
be renewed, all the multiplied evils of pecuniary embar.
rassment and suffering now alleged to prevail must fall
with redoubled severity upon the country within a period
of less than two years? If the bank is to be rechartered,
I grant, the sooner the deposites are restored the better,
for then their removal would no longer be used to sub-
serve the purposes of party—the excitement, agitation,
and panic which have produced snch distressing effects
would disappear, and we might hope to escape, at least
for a season, from the throes of that furious struggle, in
which, under the auspices of a most formidable political
league, the bank and press are engaged to break down
this administration.
This corporation seems to be regarded by its more ar-
dent friends as the “staple article of our moneyed sys-
tem.” It was created not long after the late war with
England, with the confident prediction that it would bring
about a thorough reform in the currency of the country.
It was alleged that by means of such an institution only
could the mischiefs of a depreciated paper currency be
arrested, the tendency of the local banks to overtrading
be controlled, and a sound and healthful circulation main-
tained. “In the preference given to its notes by the
Government, and its being made the depository of the
public revenue, had its operations been conducted on sound
principles, doubtless this bank might have effected much
good in relieving the community from the evils of a gene-
ral suspension of specie payments by the local banks.
But, instead of going to work in good faith to realize the
predictions of its advocates, its beneficence was display-
ed in a total departure from all the established principles
of banking, its benefits were illustrated by temptations
thrown out, without stint or measure, to cupidity and ex-
travagance, in the disastrous results of extensive loans to
farmers, manufacturers, traders, speculators, and to stock-
holders, to enable them to pay for their shares of the
capital.” The bank commenced active operations in Jan-
uary, 1817, and, within a little more than two years, we
were told by Mr. Cheves (who, at a most critical junc-
ture, had been invited to preside over its affairs) that “in
Philadelphia he found no one, in or out of the bank, who
entertained a sanguine belief of its being able to sustain
its payments much longer, and that the nation was about
to suffer the calamity of a currency composed entirely of
irredeemable paper.”
The great object proposed by the establishment of this

bank, besides a sound currency, was to correct the pre-
vailing “disorder of over-trading, brought on by over-
banking.” And how was this accomplished? By flood-
ing the country with its own paper, thus affording a
temptation to the local institutions to aggravate the evil
by still more extensive issues. . Within the brief period
named, the country was involved in a most disastrous state
of pecuniary embarrassment and suffering; heavy and

oppressive curtailments were resorted to. “The bank

was saved, but the people were ruined.” Every por

tion of the community groaned under the pressure—commercial credit prostrated–-trade paralyzed—“the whole

train of mercantile operations deranged”—real property

greatly depreciated—-its rents or profits rapidly declining—

the price of every staple article reduced—thousands of able-bodied men wandering about the streets of the larger cities, unable to find employment. This dismal pic

ture, taken from the journals of the day, exhibits some

of the early results which followed the establishment of

advantages claimed for it, and the greatest of all—its ca-
pacity to furnish a more uniform and perhaps a safer cur-
rency than the local banks. Still, this is no counter-
poise to my objections, even on the score of expediency.
For one, I would rather submit to the partial evils of an
unequal currency, than be exposed to the tremendous in-
fluence of a moneyed corporation, capable at any mo-
ment, from its peculiar organization and machinery, of
raising or depressing the value of every article of prop-
erty in the country. I would rather incur a small loss in
the shape of exchange, than that the price of every thing
we have to buy or sell shall be subject to the capricious
edicts of a secret, irresponsible divan in Chestnut street or
elsewhere; at one time granting extensive loans and ac-
commodations; at another, by its merciless contractions,
crushing trade, industry, and enterprise; to-day engaged
in discounts and exchanges; the next, devoting its pa-
triotic labors to politics and the press.
To what extent the removal of the deposites may have
operated as the remote cause of “the great and general
pressure, and rapid depreciation of certain staples,” of
which the memorialists complain, I am unable to deter-
mine. It cannot be said, however, that the reduction of
discounts by the bank has been governed by the amount
of public deposites taken from its vaults; for we find that
when its curtailments commenced, on the 1st of August
last, (two months before the removal of the deposites,)
the amount on deposite was $7,599,841; on the 1st of
December it was $5,162,259, making a reduction of
$2,437,582; on the 1st of August its discounts amounted to
$61,160,349; on the 1st of Dec. they were $54,453,104––
showing a very large disproportion between the re-
duction of discounts and the diminution of deposites.
How far the operations of the United States Bank con-
tributed to the state of things which led to the over-
trading and excessive importations of 1831, we may
readily conceive, when the statements, in October,
1829, show a total of discounts and bills of exchange of
$39,969,052; and in May, 1832, a total of $70,428,070.
“In the short period of two years and seven months, there
was an increase of $30,668,018 in the accommodations
the bank afforded to dealers.” Under what circumstan-
ces, political or otherwise, this enormous augmentation of
loans was made, it does not fall within the scope of these
desultory remarks to inquire; they form a part of the
history of the times; and had it pleased the President and
his associates to allow an examination into the more recent
operations and present condition of the institution, the de-
tails thus elicited, with this increase of facilities, might
have furnished together a mass of interesting information,
financial and other, calculated to clear up many points at
present not a little controverted.
I did not intend, sir, to have trespassed so far upon the
indulgence of the House. What I have said is merely in
defence of my own conduct. It is painful to me to op-
pose the wishes of any portion of my constituents. If the
vote which I have given upon the deposite question is not
ultimately sustained by a majority of the district, the trust
confided to me must pass into other hands. ... I have en-
deavored to execute it in good faith; and I feel that my
whole course, in relation to the United States Bank and
the deposites, has been governed by a most rigid and
scrupulous regard to the just demands of popular senti-
ment.
There is one thing in which I entirely agree with the
memorialists—that is, as to the importance of the present
crisis. Indeed, I question much whether there has ever
before happened a period more directly involving the fate
of popular rights—so pregnant with consequences deeply
and vitally affecting the great principles of our Govern-
ment. And what has produced this portentous state of
things? Was it the simple act of transferring the depos-

the present bank. Yet I am disposed to concede all the

ites of the money of the United States from this bank to

« 上一頁繼續 »