ing his complaint that he had received no notice of it, he says: "On the next day Mr. Memminger assembled his committee, and I was called before it, when I was informed that I was at liberty to state my views on the bill." After some objection made on his part, he goes on to say: "The chairman said the committee desired, as I was present, to hear my views, that they might affect the course of its members in the House, or they could get the bill re-committed, if my views convinced them the bill ought not to pass. I then gave my views, and exposed the ruinous operation of the measures it proposed."

The president of the bank would have saved us much trouble if he had made this statement at the first, instead of charging, as he did, "that this measure taken up in the Committee of Ways and Means, decided on and reported to the House without calling the president of the bank before the committee, or giving him an opportunity of explaining its effects on the bank. And that this was omitted, although it had been made, ever since 1823, the duty of the president of the bank to attend the session of the Legislature, for the purpose of giving information regarding the bank."

Although upon a critical analysis of the language, it may be made out that the original charge merely affirms that he was not heard by the committee before they reported, while the new statement admits that he was heard after they reported; yet to every reader the idea was conveyed that he had not been heard at all; no one could imagine that the time only was in issue and not the thing. This difference exhibits most strikingly another of those concealed back doors, with which the bank abounds. But even the difference, thin as it is, has been removed by the other admission of the president of the bank, viz.: that the chairman said that the committee would have "the bill recommitted if the views of the president of the bank convinced them that the bill ought not to pass."

What the effect of his views was can only be inferred from the fact, that no one proposed to recommit the bill, although some of the ablest friends of the bank, and two of its then leaders in the House were on the committee.1

3. At this point, however, I am met by a renewal of the allegation that the bill was dropped on account of the exposure which it thus underwent, and that as it was not discussed before the House proves that the original design was a surprise upon the House.

Answer: I have no doubt that the public are somewhat surprised with the prominence which the president of the bank has given to a bill of

1 Much complaint was made of the facility of this committee. The best answers to it is in the character of its members. The following is a list of their names: C. G. Memminger, F. W. Davie, A. H. Belin, 8. M. Earle, L. J. Patterson, Albert Rhett, E.G. Palmer, Joel Smith, A. T. Darby, and Henry Gourdin.

which few of the people have ever heard. But he is right. The various facts and statements made by him, and a reference to the journals, have refreshed my memory, and enables me to speak of details, which are now brought to my recollection. This bill, although never passed or even discussed before the House, produced most important results, and saved the State from being absolutely infolded in the coils of this bank, as I shall proceed to show.

By referring to the journals of 1841 it will be seen that a member from Richland, a friend of the bank, introduced a bill to remove the Bank of the State from Charleston to Columbia, and to establish a branch at Charleston; that petitions had come up to establish branches at Aiken and Hamburg. A leading member of the House, a friend of the bank, offered, at the same session, the following resolution:

Whereas, the Bank of the State of South Carolina was established for the benefit of the whole State, and the city of Charleston has had its full share of the benefits of the fire loan, and a surplus of the same remains on hand; and whereas, from the petitions of the towns of Aiken and Hamburg, it is evident that a portion of the funds of the bank might be usefully employed in establishing agencies in those places; be it, therefore,

Resolved, That the balance of the fire-loan bonds remaining unsold in the Bank of the State, be considered, according to the third section of the fire-loan act, a portion of the capital of the Bank of the State of South Carolina, and that the president and directors of the said bank be authorized, whensoever they may deem it expedient, to establish agencies at Aiken and Hamburg, or to increase the capital of its branches at Columbia and Camden.

It must also be borne in mind that at this time the State was in the midst of her contest with the private banks in relation to the suspension of specie payments, and the scire facias to vacate their charters was then pending before the courts. The excitement against the private banks was at its height, and the Bank of the State had now the opportunity, which many of its friends desired, of making itself a great central money power, with branches extended over the State, and these various propositions were merely various developments of this scheme. My position at the head of the Committee of Ways and Means was a most difficult one. I had felt it my duty to condemn the suspension of specie payments, and to advise the Legislature to issue legal proceedings against those banks who would not come to terms. On the other hand, I disapproved still more the measures proposed for extending the power of the Bank of the State, and it was obvious that unless prompt and decided measures were taken, the excitement of the hour would fasten upon us a policy from which we could never be disentangled. Public debt was to be its ailment. I, therefore, determined to strike at the root

of the evil, by taking away the borrowed money with which the bank project could alone be effected. The fire-loan bonds, then in the hands of the bank, were the primary object, and I appealed to the just public sentiment which had grown up, by proposing to reduce the public debt.

The result showed that I judged aright. The public opinion responded to my bill-it check-mated all the propositions to increase the power of the bank. But it came in too late in the session to stand any chance of being passed, except it were pressed with the greatest energy. It was, therefore, reported as speedily as possible by the committee, and by a vote of the House, made the special order for Friday, the 10th of December. Friday was occupied in voting upon amendments of the Constitution, which much engaged attention then, and it could not be reached. It fell back into the general orders, and as the Legislature had only a week more to sit, it was impossible to pass it in the form of a bill. I, therefore, put its leading proposition, namely, the rescue of the fire-loan bonds, in the simpler and more speedy form of a resolution. This underwent an angry and boisterous discussion; but even in this simple form, I could not get a vote until the day before the adjournment, and that vote was not direct, but a side-wind to lay the resolution on the table.

One great point, however, was gained-the country was awakened. The discussion had set the matter before the people. Public opinion was enlightened; the bank itself, in two years more, was made to give up what was left of the pay, and the State was rescued from the toils of a great moneyed combination. Rescued? No, not yet. The managers are again collecting all their strength for another struggle, and it remains for the people at the next election to say whether the State shall yet again be free. Certain it is that at present no one can say a word against this bank, even though it be said at the command of the Legislature and in the discharge of public duty, but it is on peril of such persecution as most men would seek to avoid.

4. I have now reached the point at which I had intended to commence this number, but having occupied space enough for one morning in disposing of this episode, I will defer what I had to say for another number. Respectfully,

JUDGE WARDLAW'S LETTER.

C. G. MEMMINGER.

ABBEVILLE, 25th February, 1850.

My Dear Sir, I am very loth to connect my name with a public controversy; but as you think that my testimony is important for your defense against unjust imputations, I will give it to you; and, in doing so, will depart from the course of silence concerning my own conduct, which I had resolved upon.

My remembrance of the events of 1838 is not exact, and I have not now access to papers that might refresh it. In answer to your questions I can, however, speak as follows:

1. You had no agency in procuring the appointment which, as Speaker, I made of you to be chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, beyond such agency as is involved in the opinion from previous acquaintances with you I had formed of your fitness for the place. The particular reasons why, in considering what was best for the public interest, with due regard to the rights of individuals, I determined to put you at the head of this committee, and another gentleman, now deceased, at the head of 'the Military Committee, it is impossible for me to recollect. I am sure that no feeling of unfriendliness towards that gentleman, or towards the Bank of the State, or any of its officers, had any influence in the matter.

2 and 3. Nor had you any more direct agency in your being appointed upon the committee to investigate the bank. I have no distinct remembrance that after your appointment on this committee you brought to my notice the circumstance that you were a director in another bank, and that my reply was: "That circumstance is rather in favor of than against the appointment." Yet this matter does not strike me as new, and I recall something either of the original occurrence or of subsequent conversations about it. I am satisfied that I knew you were a director of the Planters' and Mechanics' Bank; and I think it not at all unlikely that I made the reply which has been mentioned, for it is consistent with the opinions I entertained. I believed that the bank was, in the main, well managed, and that its interest would be promoted by searching investigation. I felt that any mismanagement ought to be detected and exposed. I believed, too, that the considerations which demanded publicity to be given to the pecuniary transactions of the State were superior to, if in conflict with those which were said to require secrecy with regard to the business of banking, in which the State was engaged, and that the best committee-man for investigation was one who was predisposed to blame rather than commend; but intelligent, temperate, and fair enough to perceive and acknowledge the truth. Your prominence in the House, thorough acquaintance with the financial affairs of the State, proximity to the principal bank, business habits, clear-headedness, and candor, induced my selection of you. The experience in banking accounts and transactions, which, as director of another bank, you might be supposed to have acquired, I thought increased your qualifications. To any suggestions of unfair practices which adverse interest might lead to, my opinion of your integrity would, in your case, have given no heed; but in the case of any known enemy of the bank, according to my opinion, there was but little ground for apprehending harm to come to the bank in the proper course of its operations from his investigations. And the objections on this score seemed to me

no greater against a director than against a stockholder of another bank, or even any person connected with another institution in any of the various ways that might induce a preference of its interests to those of this bank; and no greater against a director of another bank examining this, than against a director of this being transferred to another bank.

4. Concerning the bill to authorize a subscription in behalf of the State to the Southwestern Railroad Bank, I remember no conversation between you and myself, but I recollect the following particulars:

A great effort was necessary, and was made to induce a majority of the House to confirm the subscription which Governor Butler had made. After the assent of the House to the main proposition had been obtained, an attempt was made to add to the clause, which required the bank to pay the instalments of the subscription, a proviso that if the president and directors of the bank should be of opinion that they could not pay without embarrassment to the operations of the bank, or, without involving the faith of the State pledged for redemption of State stocks by the act of 1821, and subsequent acts, then the Comptroller-General should issue stocks to pay the instalments of the subscription. The proviso was rejected in the House, and the bill passed a second reading, I voting for it on the call of the ayes and noes. The bill was returned from the Senate with the proviso in it; and thus altered, it passed a third reading in the House. As the ayes and noes were not then called, and no opportunity had been afforded to me of making known the change which the insertion of the proviso had produced in my disposition towards the bill, after I had announced that the bill was again ordered to the Senate, I said, by leave of the House, that I felt it due to myself, to prevent misconstructions of my opinion, by declaring that, if the ayes and noes had been called on the bill as amended, I would have voted against it.

I had then a decided opinion that it was better for the State to make no subscription-even to let the establishment of the Southwestern Railroad Bank fail-than to borrow money for banking. To the substance of the alternative measure, authorized by the proviso, I was then strongly opposed, and the form, too, seemed to me objectionable. Besides that, a result was attained which had not been contemplated by the especial friends of the bill; the proviso, I thought, exhibited a studied array of pledges that might embarrass the State in future dealings with its funds; and, moreover, erected the president and directors of the bank into a tribunal to decide what the faith of the State required. It was said in debate that the proviso was only a measure of extreme caution, intended to guard against unforeseen contingencies, but I thought that I had seen, in the course of the transaction, evidences that it would be made available if it passed.

With great respect, yours truly,

C. G. Memminger, Esq.

D. L. WARDLAW.