View PDF

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

'JAN 2 0 1921
SINES®!!
(SUPPRESSED BT THE PRETIOUS QUESTION]

MR. JOHN QU1NCT ADAMS,
OF

MASSACHUSETTS,

oir mut

REMOWUJ

OF THE PUBLIC

AND

ITS

DEPOSITED,

REASONS.

WASHINGTON:
nUHTBB BT GALES AND BEATON.

1834.

Digitized by

. /

Google
J

*•»"*.

#

Digitized by

Google

•'

SPEECH.
INTRODUCTION.
On presenting to the House of Representatives the resolutions of the Le
gialature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in relation to the state o
the currency and the removal of the public moneys from the Bank of the
United States, Mr. J. Q. ADAMS, to avoid consuming the time of the House,
and thereby obstructing the reception of other memorials and petitions, confined himself to a few general and indispensable remarks, expressly stating
that he hoped, at a suitable time, to be indulged with the opportunity of ottering to the House his views upon one of the resolutions, in which the Legislature had declared their opinion that the reasons assigned by the Secretary of
the Treasury for the transfer of the public funds were insufficient to justify
the measure. It was not until after three unsuccessful attempts, on three
different days, and after an expostulation with the SPEAKER, as earnest as it
was necessary, that Mr. ADAMS was enabled to obtain, in the House of Representatives of the U. S., a hearing for the Legislature of Massachusetts; and
even then be was indebted for this hearing to the courtesp of a member from
South Carolina, who, on the FOURTH DAY of a discussion allowed by the
SPEAKER, under his administration of the rules of the House and of the lex
parliamentarian by the judicious admixture of which two authorities all the
proceedings of the House solve themselves into the will[ofthe Speaker, was
entitled to the floor, upon certain resolutions of the Legislature of Virginia*
On Friday, the 4th of April, at the instant when Mr. MCDUFFIE resumed
his seat, Mr. ADAMS addressed the SPEAKER, with the intention of delivering
his opinions upon the question before the House, which was precisely that of
the resolution of the Legislature of Massachusetts, upon which he had given
notice t)f his desire to be heard. The SPEAKER'S eye andear were in another
direction, and he gave the floor to a member from Virginia, who, by agreement concerted out of the House, was to move the Previous Question. The
Previous Question was put and carried; and Mr. ADAMS, deprived thereby
of his right to address the House, according to the SPEAKER'S understanding
of the rules of the House and the lex parhamenlaria, is, in discharge of his
duty to the Legislature of Massachusetts and to his constituents, compelled
to resort to the press to nuke public the remarks which it was his intention to
address to the House.

/<A
V)'
J
^
>

Mr. SPEAKER: Among the resolutions of the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts which I had, some time since, the honor of introducing to the House, there is one, declaratory of the opinion of that body,
exactly coinciding with the proposition now before the House, namely, that
the reasons assigned by the Secretary of the Treasury, in his report to
Congress of the 3d of December last, for the withdrawal and the withholding
of the public moneys from the Bank of the United States, are not sufficient
to justify the measure. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. WILDE] adds only that they are not satisfactory—a conclusion,
from their insufficiency, which this and the other House of Congress are
alone competent to draw.

*?i

BURTON HIST. COLLECTION
DETROIT
RCHANGE DUPI 'CAT?
Digitized bj( V j O O Q l C

4
The time of this House is the property of the people—a property precious
*nd costly, which I have no right wantonly or heedlessly to consume. Every
hour of the time of this House is at least five hundred dollars of the people's
money; every minute of it is equivalent to the daily pay of one of its members. It is, therefore, with extreme reluctance that I ever address the House
'Bt any time, and most especially upon any subject so amply and so ably discussed as has been that now under the consideration of the House.
Yet there are occasions upon which duties of the highest order command
«ne to speak. Were I to follow exclusively the dictates of my own judgment,
perhaps those occasions would be confined .to cases in which it might be
possible for me to aid the deliberations of the House, by presenting to their
consideration views of the subject before them different from those which
iiave been exhibited by other and younger members, with voices of physical
ability better armed to contend with the Herculean labor of long continued
audible articulation in this Hall. Those cases are extremely rare. - There is
-seldom any tiling left to be said upon any topic of public interest which
passes through the crucible of debate in this House. But it is sometimes
expected by my constituents that I should declare my opinions here, to the
•end that they may be known to them—a right which I acknowledge as
always belonging to them.
»
In the present instance I have the additional motive of complying with
the request of the Legislature of my native State, who, in transmitting copies
of their resolutions to my colleagues and to me, have desired the exercise of
whatever influence we may possess to give them effect, for the obtainment of
relief to their and ou/ suffering constituents.
I feel myself, therefore, under an obligation of irremissible duty to ask the
indulgence of the House for a few remarks upon the question now before
them. I cannot promise to shed any new light upon the subject; but, if I
do but repeat that which has been better said before, I will at least endeavor
to avoid any repetition which will not carry its apology in the importance of
the principle to which it will appeal.
The reasons, therefore, assigned by the Secretary of the Treasury for
ordering and directing otherwise than that the public funds should be deposited
in the Bank of the United States and its branches are insufficient and unsatisfactory:
First, because they do not show that his proceedings, in relation to this
measure, were lawful.
'
Secondly, because they do not prove that they were just.
It is within the bounds of supposable possibility, (said Mr. ADAMS,) that a
measure may be both lawful and just, and yet that the reasons assigned for
it should be insufficient. In the present case it has, to my mind, been proved
that the measure itself was neither lawful nor just. It is but too well known
"that, besides the reasons assigned by the Secretary, there were others, which
he has withheld. What they were, we have in evidence from other sources;
T>ut they are all equally insufficient to show that the measure was either
lawful or just.
To this point alone I propose to confine my argument I shall not question the. power or the right of the President of the United States to dismiss
•a. Secretary of the Treasury at his discretion, and, if during the recess of
the Senate, to appoint another; and, much as I believe that power to have
been abused, the remedy for that abuse is not, in my judgment, an alteration
either of the constitution or of the law. I shall not, upon this issue, urge
4he Techarter of the Bank of the United States, nor even the restoration of

«.

i

-~ .

,

Digitized by

Google

5
the deposites. However necessary I may deem those measures to be, the
discussion of them is not now in its place; nor shall I comment upon either
of the other resolutions proposed by the Committee of Ways .and Means,
and appended to their report. All these have the appearance of (it may, per- '
haps, not be in order to say that they are) mere evasions of the question
which the committee should Lave placed in front of all their other resolutions,
but which they have cautiously kept out of sight, and which the proposed
amendment of the gentleman from Georgia has restored to its rightful place.
The removal by the Secretary of the Treasury of the deposites from the
Bank of the United States was unlawful, and his contracts with the State
banks to receive the deposites were also unlawful. Neither of these measures was authorized by the 16th section of the Bank charter.
The language of the law there is,, that the deposites of the public moneys
shall be made in the Bank of the United States and its branches, unless the
Secretary of the Treasury shall direct and order otherwise. • Otherwise than
what? Otherwise than that the deposites shall be made there. When the
deposites have once been made there, his authority, as conferred by this section of the charter, ceases. He has no authority over it whatever, except
according to the provisions of the constitution and the general laws. When
the deposite is once made, the provision of the constitution attaches to it,
which forbids that any money shall be drawn from the Treasury unless in
consequence of appropriations made by law. All the laws which forbid the
transfer of moneys' appropriated for one object, to be applied to another, likewise attach to it; and the Secretary of the Treasury has no lawful authority
to draw it from its place of deposite, except for the purpose of making the
payment to which it is appropriated.
It is alleged that this section in the charter of the Bank confers upon the
Secretary of the Treasury no new power. No new power? It was the power
to dispense with the law. How could he possess it before the law was enacted?
It was a power to cancel a contract between the nation and the Bank. How
could he possess it before the contract was made? And as he could not exercise it before the statute was enacted, so neither could he exercise it after
the enactment of the statute, had it not been conferred by the statute itself;
and he was bound to exercise it according to the provisions end under the
limitations prescribed by. the statute. The limitation of his power was to
giving order and direction that the deposites should cease to be made in the.
Bank and its branches; and for this he was required to give, as speedily as
possible, his reasons to Congress. His power was prospective over moneys
to., be deposited. When once deposited, he could draw them from their
places of deposite only in consequence of appropriations made by law, and
specifically to be applied.
The position that the provision in the charter, which requires the Secretary of the Treasury to assign immediately his reasons for ceasing to make
the deposites in the Bank of the United States, confers upon him no new
power, carries with it this absurdity: it supposes the statute to require of the
Secretary reasons for ceasing to do that over which it leaves him unlimited
control when done. According to this version of the law, the Secretary of
the Treasury might at all times have ordered all the public funds deposited
in the Bank of the United States and its branches to be removed where and
how he pleased, without assigning to Congress any reasons for his order whatever. The statute requires his reasons only for ceasing to make the deposites
in the Bank; if he did possess the power of removing them, the law requires
of him no assignment of reasons for the removal.
It is said that the power of removing the public moneys from one place of

Digitized by

6
deposite to another has always been exercised by every Secretary of the
Treasury, and in nowise depends upon the 16th section of the Bank charter.
Surely no one doubts the power of the Secretary to receive and make remittances. That power is, indeed, incidental to the obligation of paying out
the public moneys according to their respective appropriations; the power of
making remittances to the places where the payments must be made. That
is the power which the Secretary of the Treasury has always exercised, without which the public creditors could not be paid, and for which no law requires that the Secretary of the Treasury should assign to Congress any reasons whatever. But here, sir, is a removal of public moneys from one place
to another, for other purposes. It is a colorable transaction for the purpose
of loaning appropriated public moneys to brittle, favorite banks; and loans have
been thus made to banks without charge of any interest, while those very
same banks were loaning to another department of the Government moneys
at an interest of five or six per cent. Sir, no such power ever belonged to
the Secretary of the Treasury. It was an arbitrary removal of public moneys
from the place where they had been deposited by law, to a place arbitrarily
selected by the Secretary, without law and against law.
The report of the Committee of Ways and Means struggles to sustain the
lawfulness of the removal of the deposites by the present Secretary of the
Treasury on the ground of precedent. They have given an interesting history of the public Treasury from its first institution, in July, 1775, twelve
months before the declaration of independence. On reaching this part of
their report, it occurred to me that the committee must have imagined it was
part of their duty to put down nullification, by proving that the independence
of our beloved country was the effect and not the cause of our national Union.
This institution of a common Treasury, a whole year before that of State sovereignty, has an aspect quite national, and I recommend it to the meditations
• f my very good and highly respected friends, the nullifiers, in this House.
Sir, I am scarcely less anxious to convert them to the true faith on this point,
now. that it is mere matter of philosophical speculation, than I was when
their doctrine was as terrific as the murder and assassination letters with which
we have been recently alarmed. But for my present argument, I will, with
your leave, Mr. Speaker, and that of the committee, come down to the chronicles of our own times, under the present constitution and laws of the United
States.
The Committee of Ways and Means have reported a multitude of drafts
and orders, issued by almost all the Secretaries of the Treasury, from Alexander Hamilton to Louis McLane, which they consider as precedents to justify the removal of the deposites by Mr. Secretary Taney. I undertake to
show, that NOT ONE of those drafts and orders affords any justification for the
act of Mr. Taney, and that the only precedent which has any resemblance to
his act was expressly pronounced illegal by a committee of this House, to
which the investigation of that transaction was committed, and whose report
was sanctioned by the acceptance of the House itself.
The first of these supposed precedents reported by the committee is a circular from Alexander Hamilton to the collectors of the customs, dated October 14,1789. It is an order to them to remit the moneys collected for duties
to the Treasurer of the United States, under a cover to the Secretary of the
Treasury, in what were called post notes of the Bank of North America, at
Philadelphia, or of the Bank of" New York. These notes were to be cut in
two from top to bottom, and transmitted by two successive mails. This, Mr.
Sneaker, was a mere remittance of the moneys, received by the collectors for
duties, to the Treasury.

Digitized by

7
.By the first collection act, passed July 31, 1789, [United States law*,
'vol. 2, p. 16,1 the collectors were, by the 5th section of this act, (1) authorized
to receive all moneys paid for duties, and to take all bonds for securing the
.payment of duties. By the 9th section, (2) p. 18, they were required to account in such manner and form as should be directed by the officer appointed
by law to superintend the revenue of the United States, and to pay over the moneys collected by them for duties to the order of the officer authorized to
•direct the same. And, by the 19th section, (3) p. 23, they were authorized to
take bonds, payable in four, six, and twelve months, for the payment of duties.
By the 30th section, (4) p. 27, it was enacted that the duties should be collected in gold and silver coin only.
The act to establish the Treasury Department was approved on the 2d o r
September,. 1789; and, on the 11th of that month, Alexander Hamilton was
nominated and appointed as Secretary of the Treasury, and Samuel Meredith as Treasurer of the United States. The powers and duties of those
officers, respectively, were prescribed by that act, page 48. (5)
Collection act of 31st July, 1789.
(1) SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That the duties of the respective officers, to
be appointed by virtue of this act, shall be as follows: It shall be the duty of the collector to receive all moneys paid for duties, and to take all bonds for securing the payment
of duties.
(2) SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That the collectors to be appointed, by virtue
of this act, shall respectively keep true and fair accounts of all their transactions relative to their duty as officers of the customs, in such manner and form as may be directed by the proper department or officer appointed by km to superintend the revenue of the
Untied States,• and shall, at all times, submit their b o o b , papers, and accounts, tethe inspection of such persons as may be appointed for that purpose: And the collectors of the! different ports shall, at all times, pay to the order of the officer who
shall be authorised to direct the same, the whole of the moneys which they may respectively receive by virtue of this act
(3) Sic. 19. Jnd be it further enacted, That all duties on goods, wares, and merchandise, imported, shall be paid by the importers, before a permit shall be granted for
landing the same, unless the amount of such duties shall exceed fifty dollars; in which
case, it shall be at the option of the party making entry to secure the same by bond,
with one or more sufficient sureties, to be approved of bv the collector, and made payable as followeth, to wit: For the duties upon all articles of West India produce,
within/our months \ for the duties upon all Madeira wines, within twelve months; and
for the duties upon all other goods, within six months.
(4) SEC. 30. Jnd be it further enacted, That the duties and fees, to be collected by
virtue of this act, shall be received in gold and silver coin only.
(5) From the act to establish the Treasury Department, 2d September, 1789.
Sic. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
^States of Ameriea m Congress assembled, That there shall be a Department of Treasury, in which shall be the following officers, namely : a Secretary of the Treasury,
. to be deemed head of the Department; a Comptroller, an Auditor, a Treasurer,- a.
Register.
SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the
Treasury to digest and prepare plans for the improvement and management of the
revenue, and for the support of public credit; to prepare and report estimates of the
public revenue and the public expenditures; to superintend the collection of the revenue i to decide on the forms of keeping and stating accounts, and making returns;
and to grant, under the limitations herein established, or to be hereafter provided, all
warrants for moneys to be issued from' the Treasury in pursuance of appropriation*
by law. (See above, the 9th section of the collection law.)
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the Treasurer to r e ceive and keep the moneys of the United States, and to disburse the same upon warrant*
drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury, countersigned by the Comptroller, recordedbjr
the Register, and not otherwise ,• he shall take receipts for all moneys paid by him; an*
'all receipts, for moneys received by him, shall be endorsed upon warrants signed by
•the Secretary of the. Treasury; without which warrant so signed, no acknowledgment
.•for money received into the public treasury shall be valid.

Google

Digitized by

8
The circular from the Treasury Department of October 14,1789, is pregnant with instruction to prove the indispensable necessity of a bank for the
collection and disbursement of the revenue* The law was express that the
'duties should be paid in gold and silver coin only. The shortest term for
•payment of the bonds taken was four months. The collection act commenced
operation early in August; the first bonds became payable the first or second
week in December. The very first payments of duties in specie brought up "the serious and embarrassing question how the remittances to the Treasury
- should be made. As early as the 22d September, the Secretary, eleven days
-«nly after his appointment, had directed the collectors to receive payment of
the duties in the notes of the Banks of North America and of New York. That letter the Committee of Ways and Means have not thought proper to re' ^port; but, in this letter of the 14th of October, which they have reported, he
"directs them to exchange whatever specie they had received, or might receive,,
-for notes of the same banks, reserving only sums to a small amount to answer
the drafts which the Treasurer might draw upon them. And, in his letter of
the 20th of November following, (the second document reported by the Com• inittee of Ways and Means,) he directs the collectors of Massachusetts to
receive, in payment of the duties, the notes of the Bank of Boston, as well
as those of the other two banks before named. By the Bank of Boston he
meant the Massachusetts Bank, the only one then existing at that place; and
-those three banks were the only ones then existing in the United States.
In the same letter, of the 20th of November, 1789, Mr. Hamilton gives the
reason for his direction to the collectors. It was to avail the public of the
.revenues arising in the State, without draining the specie out of it, by facili. taring the negotiation of drafts. This passage of the letter discloses the overruling necessity of a bank agency for the remittance of moneys between the
places of collection and of payment throughout this extensive territory. It is
"not the inconvenience, and trouble, and hazard of making remittances in the
precious metals that constitutes its principal difficulty; it is because extracting
specie from any city where a bank exists diminishes the circulating capital
- -of the place to many times the amount extracted. It is well ascertained at
this time that, speaking in round numbers, for about twenty-five millions of"
-"gold and silver existing in the United States, in the vaults of all their banks,,
there are nearly two hundred millions of bank notes and bills. Seven, eight,
and nine dollars of paper for one dollar of specie are the proportions exhibited by all the statements of the affairs of banks which have recently been
, published. I do not believe it possible that this distention of the banking blad- .
der can long continue—it must be relaxed, or it will burst. At the time when
Alexander Hamilton wrote this letter, banking was but in its infancy. There
<•• was but one bank in Boston, one in New York, one in Philadelphia. A circulation of notes and bills to three times the amount of the specie represented
hy it, would have been considered at that time fool-hardy gambling. We are
now told, even by Mr. Gallatin, that experience has proved that the enormous
- issues of the present day may be safely made in ordinary times; that is, when
•they are not brought to the test—
The spider's most attenuated thread
Is cord, is cable, to that tender tie.
But this letter of Alexander Hamilton discloses the unyielding necessity of
* a bank for the remittance of public moneys to and from the Treasury. The
•
collectors could receive payment of the duties only in gold and silver; but the
merchant who paid the duties borrowed of the bank the specie to pay them.
, Then the collector took, instead of the gold and silver, the post notes or bills-

Digitized by V j O O Q l C

9
of the bank, and transmitted them to the Treasurer of the United States,
at New York, under cover to the Secretary of the Treasury. This was, for
the purposes of the Treasury, precisely equivalent to gold and silver; and
the revenues arising in the State of Massachusetts were made available to tho
public without drawing the specie out of it.
The Bank of North America had been chartered by the old Congress of
the Confederation, and afterwards by the Legislature of the State of Pennsylvania. It had been extorted from the necessities of the public service, in
the midst of the revolutionary war, immediately after the universal bankruptcy of paper money. The instant that became so discredited that noone would receive it in payment for any thing, and at any discount—the instant there was a return to hard money payments—the want, thejoverruling
want, was felt of a bank.—Journals of Congress, vol. 3, pages 470, 624,.
706. (6) It was incorporated by an ordinance of Congress of December 3 1 ,
(6) The following extracts from the journals of the Congress of the confederation,
exhibit that necessity in the strongest light:
Journal of Wednesday, June 21, 1780.
A letter of this day, from the board of war, was read, informing that a number of
patriotic persons have formed a plan for the establishment of a bank, whose object is the
public service) that the directors have applied to that board to represent to Congress the desire of the company that a committee of this body may be appointed to confer with the inspectors and directors on the subject to-morrow morning : Whereupon,
Ordered, That a committee of three be appointed for the purpose above mentioned. The members chosen, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Duane, and Mr. Scott.
Thunday, June 22, 1780.
The committee appointed to confer with the inspectors and directors of the proposed bank brought in a report, which was read.
The committee also laid before Congress the plan of the bank, communicated to
them at the said conference; which being read, Congress thereupon came to the following resolutions:
Whereas, a number of the patriotic citizens of Pennsylvania have communicated
to Congress a liberal offer on their own credit, and by their own exertions, to supply
and transport three millions of rations, and three hundred hogsheads of rum, for the
use of the army, and have established a bank for the sole purpose of obtaining and
transporting the said supplies with greater facility and despatch: And, whereas, on
the one hand, the associators animated to this laudable exertion by a desire to relieve
the public necessities mean not to derive from it the least pecuniary advantage; so, on
the other, it is just and reasonable that they should be .fully reimbursed and indemnified : Therefore,
. Betohed, unanimously, That Congress entertain a high sense of the liberal offer of
the said associators, to raise and transport the before-mentioned supplies for the army,
and do accept the same as a distinguished proof of their patriotism.
Betohed, That the faith of the United States be, and the same hereby is, pledged
to the subscribers to the said bank, for their effectual reimbursement and indemnity in
the premises.
Betohed, That the board of treasury be directed to deposite in the said bank, bills,
of exchange in favor of the directors thereof, on the ministers of these United States,
in Europe, or any of them, and in such sums as shall be thought convenient, but not
to exceed in the whole £150,000 sterling; that the said bills are to be considered
not only as a support of the credit of the said bank, but as an indemnity to the subscribers for all deficiencies ot losses and expenses which they may sustain on account of
their said engagements, and which shall not, within six monthsfromthe date thereof, be
made good to them out of the public treasury; and, in case of failure, such a proportion of the said bills as shall be requisite to make good the said deficiency, shall be
negotiated for that purpose, by the said directors, and the residue thereof returned
into the treasury.
Betohed, That upon representation made that the bank stands in need of occasional
assistance, Congress will advance as much of their current money as can be spared
from other services.

Digitized by
a

10
•1781; and, in 1789, no sooner was the Government of the United States organized under the present constitution, no soonerdid tbey begin to raise a revenue, than the indispensable necessity was felt of a bank. The revenue was collected in gold and silver coin only, but it was remitted to the Treasury in bank
bills, from the necessity of the case. The necessary consequence must have
been the opening of an account by the Treasury Department with each of
those banks, which thereby became depositories of public moneys. But the
only object of the Secretary of the Treasury was to effect the remittance of
the revenues from the places of collection to the Treasury. What analogy
has this to the act of Mr. Secretary Taney in transferring moneys already in
the Treasury to other places, and to be used for other purposes than those
to which they have been appropriated by law? What vested right was impaired? What pecuniary profit was taken from one set of men, and transferred to another? taken from a corporation, one-fifth part of whose profits
belong to the people, our constituents, and given to a corporation, a part of
whose profits accrue to the Secretary himself? Neither the Committee of
Ways and Means, nor Mr. Taney, must go to Alexander Hamilton for a precedent to justify that.
The document marked C, reported by the committee, is a circular to the
-collectors in the State of Georgia, excepting Savannah, dated April 6, 1790,
and directing them to remit the duties collected by them to the collector of
that port, John Habersham. There was no bank existing in the United
States south of Philadelphia. Mr. Habersham was made the depository of
all the duties collected in the State of Georgia; but he was not authorized.to
Boohed, That a standing committee of Congress be appointed to confer with the officers of the said bank, as occasion [may require: the members chosen, Mr. Ellsworth,
Mr. Duane, and Mr. Scott.
The next notice of a bank, is of
Saturday, May 26, 1781.
Boohed, That Congress do approve of the plan for establishing a National Bank in
these United States, submitted to their consideration by Mr. H. Morris, the 17th of
May, 1781; and that they will promote and support the same, by such ways and means,
from time to time, as may appear necessary for the institution, and consistent with the
public good.
That the subscribers to the said Bank shall be incorporated agreeably, to the principles and terms of the plan, under the name of the "President, Directors, and Company of the Bank of North America," so soon as the subscription shall be filled, the
-directors and president chosen, and application for that purpose made to Congress
by the president and directors elected.
Besohed, That it be recommended to the several States, by proper laws for that purpose, to provide that no other bank or bankers shall be established, or permitted within the said States, respectively, during the war.
Besohed, That the notes hereafter to be issued by the said Bank, payable on demand, shall be receivable in payment of all taxes, duties, and debts due, or that may
become due or payable, to the United States.
Betohed, That Congress will recommend to the several Legislatures to pass laws,
making it felony, without benefit of clergy, for any person to counterfeit bank notes,
or to pass such notes knowing them to be counterfeit; also making it felony, without benefit] of clergy, for any president, inspector, director, officer, or servant of
the Bank to convert any of the properly, money, or credit of the said Bank to his
own use, or in any other way to be guilty offraudor embezzlement, as aa officer or
servant of the Bank.
v
Saturday, December 29,1781.
An ordinance for incorporating the subscribers to the National Bank was .read a
first time.
Ordered, That Monday next be assigned for a second reading.
Monday, December 31,1781.
The ordinance was read a second and a third time, and agreed to.

Digitized by

Google

11

convert them to his own use. Neither will that precedent serve as a screen
• for the present act.
The use of the three existing banks, however, was soon found altogether
inadequate to the purposes of collecting and disbursing the public revenues.—
{Resolution, August 9,1790.) (7J
In December, 1790, Mr. Hamilton, in answer to this resolution, reported
to the House of Representatives a plan of a National Bank; and the act to
incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States was approved
by President Washington on the 25th of February, 1791.
The United States were owners of one-fifth part of the stock of this Bank;
and from the time of its institution, neither Mr. Hamilton nor any one of his successors ever dreamed of making deposites of the public moneys in any other
bank than that where the profits of the use of the people's money would be
shared by the people. The capital of this Bank was ten millions of dollars;
and its notes, by the 10th section of the charter, were made receivable in all
payments to the United States, as equivalent to gold and silver. By this
provision, that of the 30th section of the first collection law, that all the dn>ties should be paid in gold and silver coin only, was virtually repealed. It
had, in fact, never been executed. The bills of the three existing banks had,
by the arrangements of the Treasury, taken its place; and, as they were all
at all times convertible into gold and silver, they were " so like truth, they
served the turn as well."
By the 3d section of an act of Congress of May 10,1800, (vol. 3, p. 385,)
the collectors of Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Baltimore, Norfolk, and
Charleston, were directed to deposite, for collection, in the Bank of the
United States or its branches, all the bonds taken for duties. The committee have also reported a document, marked D, being a letter from Albert
Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury, to Robert Purviance, collector of Baltimore, dated November 16, 1801, announcing the appointment of Thomas
Tudor Tucker as Treasurer of the United States, in the place of Samuel
Meredith, resigned. It requests that his deposites in bank may, after the
30th of November, 1801, be passed to the credit of Mr. Tucker. This was
, a transfer from one Treasurer to another, but not from the Bank of the
United States to another. It is not germane to the purpose. So long as the
first Bank of the United States existed, there never was a thought of transferring any of the public deposites from it to any other. But, when its charter expired, a resort to other places of deposite became, of course, indispensably necessary.
The document reported by the committee marked E (p. 42) is accordingly
a letter from Albert Gallatin to the collector of Philadelphia, dated the 25th
of February, 1811, a very few days before the expiration of the Bank charter, directing him thenceforward to cease making further deposites in the
Bank of the United States, and to withdraw bonds already deposited payable
after the then ensuing 3d of March, and leaving to him the selection of the
banks in which the custom-house bonds should thereafterwards be deposited.
Mr. Gallatin himself had foreseen and foretold the evil consequences which
would ensue from the expiration of the charter of the Bank, and had earnestly
(7) On the 9th of August, 1790, immediately before the close of the second session
of the first Congress, and when the collection law had been about one year in ope• ration, the following order was adopted by the House of Representatives:
Ordered, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to prepare and report to
.thisHouse, on the second Monday of December next, such further provisions.as
'..may in his opinion be necessary fir eatabluhing the public credit.

t
Digitized by
! * # " « • » " •

"

"

V

"

Google

12
recommended to Congress its renewal. The terms upon which he prescribes
in this lettffr that the deposites should be transferred to the new depositories,
afford practical expositions of such inconveniences. He makes it a condition
that the selected banks, in making their discounts, shall give a preference to
persons having custom-house bonds to pay; and he prefers that two banks
should be employed in the same place rather than one.
Mr. Speaker, I know not who it is that made the arrangement of the documents appended to the report of the Committee of Ways and Means; but
it is a striking exemplification of the condition into which the currency, the
credit, the revenue, and the finances of this country fell, after the expiration
of the first Bank of the United States. It is chaos come again. We have
just been descanting upon document E, page 42. I must request those members of the House whose patience can follow me into this Arabia Deserta,
this parched wilderness of discussion, to make a lover's leap over the letters
of the alphabet from E to P,and from page 42 to page 48 of the report; and
there, under the letter P , they will find, first, a letter from Louis McLane,
Secretary of the Treasury, dated 29th October, 1832, short and sweet, but
having no more right to be there than the nettle had to grow on the monk's
grave at Cajais, visited by the sentimental traveller, Yorick; for immediately
after it comes a letter from Albert Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury, to
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, dated the 8th of January*
1812, reporting, in answer to a resolution of the House, a statement of the
several banks in which the public moneys had been deposited after the expiration of the charter of the Bank of the United States. To this report sundry other documents are annexed, and, among the rest, a duplicate of this
very letter of 25th February, 1811, upon which I have been commenting
under the letter E. However, this is a small matter.
Let us see if we can draw order out of this chaos. The report of Mr.
Gallatin, made within less than a year after the expiration of the charter,
and the documents annexed to it down to near the bottom of page 56 of the
appendix to this report of our Committee of Ways and Means, show with a
pencil of phosphorus the expedients to which the Treasury Department had
already been driven, for the mere safe-keeping and transmission of the public
moneys, from the moment when the Bank of the United States had ceased
to exist. The public moneys had been deposited in twenty-one State and
District banks; and do you wish to know what has become of some portion
of these moneys even then thus deposited? Go to the vaults of your Treasury
for the iron chest of your unavailable funds, and there you will find them.
Mr. Gallatin had foreseen these consequences. He had urged upon Congress the recharter of the Bank of the United States; but Congress had determined it should die, and die it did. His report, eleven months after, in
January, 1812, presented the case as favorably as he could. But even then
some of the banks had rejected the indispensable conditions which he had
prescribed for placing the deposites with them. Those conditions were not
always agceptable, nor always admissible by the banks. The revenue was
not so well collected as before, and the Treasury had already been obliged
to extend, from four to six months, the credits upon which the Banks of Marietta and Kentucky had agreed to make payments in one of the Atlantic
cities.
These were but the beginning of sorrows. The consequences of the extinction of the first Bank of the United States have recently (about three
years since) been set forth by that same eminent financier, Albert Gallatin,
now no longer Secretary of the Treasury, but President of a State bank in

Digitized by

13
the city of New York. Among, the fictitious charges which a heartless poli' tical slander has heaped upon the Bank of the United States, has been that
of hostility to the State banks of New York. This charge, to which the
Governor himself of the State has not refrained from giving his countenance,
is totally disproved and annihilated by die far more enlightened and selfAuthenticating testimony of Mr. Gallatin. Had such hostility existed, and
been exercised, as that denounced by the Governor of New York, upon mere
suspicion, it is impossible but that it should have been known and felt by Mr.
Gallatin. The institution over which he presides must have been among the
first to feel and suffer from its effects. It would have been at once his duty
and his interest to denounce i t Sir, he declares directly the reverse. He
testifies to the fair and liberal treatment of the State banks by the Bank of
the United States. He speaks of what he knows. The Governor of New
York—I forbear.
In January, 1831, while the death-blow to borrowed capital was yet rankling in the bosom, whence it has since been dealt, under die disguise of constitutional scruples against the power of Congress to incorporate a.bank, and
had not yet matured into a veto message, Mr. Gallatin published an essay
on the currency and banking system of the United States—a small but valuable treatise on this most important branch of political economy. It has
been trumpeted abroad, as one of the grievous transgressions of the Bank,
that some thousand copies of this pamphlet have been gratuitously circulated,
at its expense. Sir, if it had been honestly read, in the pure pursuit of truth,
by the statesmen, whether of the parlor or of the kitchen, who rule this nation,
many an awful foreboding of ruin, many a bitter cry of distress, many a
deep and agonizing execration of wretchedness, would have been spared to
our constituents, and to our own ears. No man, with a mere human portion
of malignity, or with any portion short of that of a fiend, could have read
that pamphlet, and then rushed headlong upon the experiment under which our
country now writhes in torture.—(Read pp. 42, 44,45, 46,47, 48,50,84.)
Consideration* on the Currency, by JUbert Gallatin, page 42.
The capital of the State banks existing' in the year 1790 amounted to about
2,000,000 of dollars. The former Bank of the United States was chartered in 1791,
with a capital of #10,000,000. The charter was not renewed $ but in January, 1811,
immediately before its expiration, there were in the United»States eighty-eight State
banks, with a capital of 42,610,000 dollars, making then, together with that of the
National Bank, a banking capital of near 53,000,000. In June, 1812, war was declared
against England t and in August and September, 1814, all the banks south and west
of New England suspended their specie payments.
Considerations on the Currency, page 44.
The creation of new State banks, in order to fill the chasm, was a natural consequence of the dissolution of the Bank of the United States; and, as is usual under
such circumstances, the expectation of great profits gave birth to a much greater number than was wanted. They were extended through the interior parts of the country,
created no new capital, and withdrew that which might have been otherwise lent to
Government, or as profitably employed. From the 1st of January, 1811, to the 1st of
January, 1815, not less than one hundred and twenty new banks were chartered,
and went into operation, with a capital of about forty, and making an addition of near
thirty millions of dollars to the banking capital of the country.
Considerations on Banking and Currency, page 45.
The increase of issuesfromforty-five and a half to sixty-eight millions, or of about
fifty per cent., within thefirstfifteenmonths of the suspension of specie payments, was
the natural consequence of that event.
Considerations on Banking and Currency, page 46.
We have stated, all the^immediate and remote causes within our knowledge, winch
•centred in producing that event j and, although the effects of a longer continuance

Digitized by

Google

14
of the war cannot 'be conjectured, it Is our deliberate' opiniott that the suspension"
might have been prevented at the time when it took place, had the- former Bank of
the United State* been still in existence. The exaggerated increase of State banks, occasioned by the dissolution of.that institution, would not have occurred. That Bank-'
would, as before, hare restrained within proper bounds and checked their issues i
and, through the means of its offices, it would have been in possession of the earliest
symptoms of the approaching danger. It would have put the Treasury Department
on Its guard t both acting in concert, would certainly have been able at least to retard
the event. And as the treaty of peace was ratified within less than six months af-'
ter the suspension took place, that catastrophe would have been altogether avoided. .
We have already adverted to the unequivocal symptoms of renewed confidence
shown by the rising value of bank notes which followed the peace. This would have
greatly facilitated an immediate resumption of specie payments, always more easy,
and attended with far less evils, when the suspension has been of short duration.
The banks did not respond to that appeal made by public opinion j. nor is there any
evidence of any preparations or disposition on their part to pay their notes in specie,
until after the act to incorporate the new Bank of the United States had passed. We
are' inclined to ascribe this principally to the great difficulty of bringing the various
banks in our several commercial cities to that concert which was indispensable. Bat it
cannot be concealed, that, in such a situation, the immediate and apparent interest of
the banks is in opposition to that of the public. It is well known that the Bank of
England, though apparently disposed at first to resume its specie payments, found a
continued suspension extremely convenient and profitable; that, during that period of
twenty years, its extraordinary profits, besides.raising the usual dividend from seven to
ten per cent., amounted to thirteen millions of pounds sterling, and that it accordingly
threw obstacles in the way of the resumption. The State banks of the United States
were only inactive in that respect, and did not impede that desirable event; but they
used the advantages incident to the situation in which they were placed; and to what
extent their issues were generally increased has already been shown.
Considerations on Banking and Currency, page 4,7.
It will be found, by reference to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, of December, 1815, that his recommendation to establish' a National Bank was, in express"
terms, called « a proposition relating to the national circulating medium," and was
exclusively founded on the necessity of restoring specie payments and the national,
currency. He states it as a fact incontestably proved, that the State banks could not,
at that time, be successfully employed to furnish a uniform national currency. He
mentions the failure of one attempt to associate them with that view ; that another attempt, by their agency in circulating Treasury notes, to overcome the inequalities of
the exchange, has only been partially successful; that a plan recently proposed, with
the design to curtail the issues of bank notes, to fix the public confidence in the administration of the affairs of the banks, and to give to each bank a legitimate share in the
circulation, is not likely to receive the general sanction of the banks •, and that a recurrence to the national authority is indispensable for the restoration of a national currency. Such was the cotemporaneous and deliberate opinion of the officer of the Government, who had to struggle against the difficulties of a paper currency, not only depreciated, but varying in value from day to day, and from place to place.
It was not till after the organization of the Bank of the United States, in the latter
part of January, 1817, that delegates from the banks of New York, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, and Virginia, assembled in Philadelphia, for the purpose of agreeing to
a general and simultaneous resumption of specie payments. A compact, proposed
by the Bank of the United States, acceded to by the State banks, and ratified by the Secretary of the Treasury, was the result of that convention. The State banks engaged
to commence^nd continue specie payments, on various conditions, relative to the transfer and payment of the public balances on their books, to the Bank of the United
States, and to~the sum which it engaged previously to discount for individuals, or,
under certain contingencies, for the said banks; and also with the express stipulation,
that the Bank of the United States, upon any emergency which might menace the
credit of any of the said banks, would contribute its resources to any reasonable extent
in support thereof, confiding in the justice and discretion of the banks, respectively, to
circumscribe their affairs within the just limits indicated by their respective capitals, as
soon as the interest and convenience of the community would admit. To that compact, which was carried into complete effeot, andtothe importation of more than seven
millions of dollars in specie from abroad, by the Bank of the United States, the esnav
mushy is indebted for the universal restoration of specie payments, and fer their har-

Digitized by

1»
ing been susKi&ed, duKn* the 'period of great difficulty,- and of unexampled exportlK
tkm of specie to China, whteh Immediately ensued.
Amonglhe difficulties which the Bank had to encounter, most be reckoned-th« effort made to alleviate the distress which always attends the returnfroma depreciated
to a sound' currency.
Considerations m Banks and Currency, page 50.
The distress tint took place, therefore, at thattime,(1819,) may be clearly traced
to the excessive number of State banks incorporated subsequently to the dissolution of
thefirstBank of the United States, and to their improvident issues. Those of the country banks ofPennsylvania alone amounted, in November, 1816, to 4,756,460 dollars, and
baa been reduced in November,' 1819, to 1,318,976 dollars. A committee of the Senate ofthat State, appointed in December, 1819, to inquire into the extent and causes
of the present general distress, ascribe it, as we do; to the improvident creation of somany banks, as will appearfromthe following extract from their report:
"At the following session, the subject was renewed with increased ardor) and* '
bill, authorizing1 the incorporation of forty-one banking institutions, with capitals
amounting to upwards of seventeen millions of dollars, was passed by a large majority'. This bill was also returned by the Governor with additional objections ; but
two-thirds of both Houses (many members of which were pledged to their constituents
to that effect,) agreeing on its passage, it became a law on the 21st March, 1814;
and thus was mJRcted on the Commonwealth an evil of a more disastrous nature than
hat eter ban experienced by ill citizens. Under this law thirty-seven banks, four of which
were established in Philadelphia, actually went into operation."
Consideration* on Banking and Currency, page 50.
We have an account of 165 banks that failed between the 1st of January, 1811, and
the 1st of July, 1830. The capital of 129 of these amounted to more than twentyfour millions ofdollars, stated to have been paid in. The whole amount may be estimated at near thirty millions, and our list may not be complete. The capital of the
State banks, now existing, amounts to about 110 millions. On a total capital of one hundred and forty millions, failures have amounted to thirty, or to more than one-fifth of
the whole.
Considerations on Batiks and Currency, page '84.
The manner in which the Bank checks the issues of the State banks is equally
simple and obvious. It consists in receiving the notes of all those which are solvent,
and requiring payment fromtimeto time, without suffering the balance due by any to
become too Urge. Those notes on hand, taking the average of the three and a half
last years, amount always to about a million and a half of douart \ and the balances doe
by the banks in account current, (deducting balances due to some,) to about nine
hundred thousand. We think that we may say, that, on this operation, which requires particular attention and vigilance, and must be carried on with great firmness
and due forbearance, depends, almost exclusively, the stability of.the currency of the
country.
Mr. Speaker, we have found nothing in the documents bearing the signature of Albert Gallatin, reported in the appendix to the report of the Committee of Ways and Means, to warrant the removal of the deposites by Mr.
Taney. Let us now go back to page 43, letter F, where will be found a
letter dated December 14,1815, signed A. J. Dallas, Secretary of the Treasury, to the Treasurer. It is a mere order to him to make a remittance to
the. cashier of the Manhattan Company, at New York, of three hundred
thousand dollars. The precautions, both of concealment and of disguise, re, cdmmended in this letter, add to the mass of evidence heaped upon heap OB
all the rest, to prove the want of a National Bank. In making this remittance*Mr. Dallas dreads the chances of loss by the robbery of the mail. He
recommends to the Treasurer to address the notes to the cashier of the bank,
uniJer cover to the collector, to have them franked by the Register of the
Treasury, to give them the appearance of ordinary marine papers, and to

Digitized by

16
take care to avoid publicity. But here again is a mere remittance of money;
no right of any one impaired; no wrong done to any one; -no resemblance
whatever to the transfer draft of Mr. Secretary Taney to the same Manhattan Company, to sustain their credit; that is to say, to pay their debts.
We now come, Mr. Speaker, to the transactions of Mr. Crawford with the
deposite banks of his time; and to understand the bearing of the documents
under his signature, reported by the committee, it will be necessary to take
a view of the circumstances under which they were written.
Turn the page to letter G, from W. H. Crawford, dated 29th December,
1819, to the Treasurer, directing him to deposite in the United States Branch
Bank, in this city, a draft, in favor of its cashier, for $16,000, upon die
Bank of Washington. Whether the committee consider this as a precedent
for removing deposhes from the branch bank, I know not. It has to me the
aspect of a restoration of deposites, and, as such, is a precedent very fit to
be followed.
Then succeed five letters, signed Richard Rush, lettered from H to M, and
dated from 16th August, 1825, to 23d December, 1828, all relating to deposites in banks where there was no branch of the United States Bank, and
where, of course, his power to make deposites was discretionary. There
are, subsequently, two letters (marked N and O) from Samuel D. Ingham,
dated in 1830, of the same character; and then, lastly, follows the aforementioned letter P, from Louis McLane to the Treasurer, ordering a transfer from one District bank in Alexandria to another.
Well, sir, this volume of documents, from A to P, proves, beyond all con- '
testation, what I believe never was contested—namely, the power of the Secretary of the Treasury to cause remittances of the public moneys to be made
from the places, where they have been collected to the Treasury, and from
the Treasury to the places where they are to be paid away, according to appropriations made by law. They prove nothing more; above all, they furnish not a scintillation of proof of the right of the Secretary of the Treasury
to convert the public moneys to his own use. This is what Mr. Taney has
done, by transferring them from places of deposite where the use of them was
of pecuniary profit to the people, to others, in one t>f which, at least, it was
of pecuniary profit to himself. Nothing like it is traceable in any one of the
documents reported by the Committee of Ways and Means.
The committee have reported, however, another set of documents; being
a selection of reports and letters relating to the transactions of Mr. Crawford
with the banks while he was Secretary of the Treasury. In these papers,
much controverted matter is reproduced of times gone by, and collisions, I
trust, never to return. But to estimate the bearing of any thing contained in
these upon questions now before us, we must advert to the circumstances
under which those transactions occurred, and to the special powers* vested in
the Secretary of the Treasury, while Mr. Crawford was in that office, but
never transferred to his successor.
We have seen the consequences to the credit and revenue which immediately followed the extinction of the Bank of the United States-—the multiplication of State banks; the cataracts of bank paper; the suspension of
specie payments; the dislocation of every joint of credit, public and private. '
In January, 1814, less than three years after the expiration of the Bank charter, the necessity of a National Bank had already forced itself upon the judgment of majorities in both Houses of Congress; and on the 14th of October, '
1814, Alexander James Dallas, then just appointed Secretary of the Trea-

*

Digitized by

17
miry, wrote thus, in answer to inquiries from the Committee of Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives. [Bank documents, p. 481.1 (8)
After long and reiterated debates, a bill to establish a new Bank of the
United States passed both Houses of Congress, which, on the 30th of January, 1815, was negatived by President Madison. But at the next ensuing
session of Congress, the increasing gravitation of political necessity broke
down all opposition. This was then the language of the Secretary of the Treasury, in bis annual report on the finances. [Bank documents, p. 612] (9)
A bill for a National Bank was again introduced, received the sanction of
(8) Extract of the reply of the Secretary of the Treasury to the Chairman of the Committee of Wayt and Meant, dated Xiih October, 1814.
The establishment of a National Institution, operating upon credit, combined with
capital, and regulated by prudence and.good faith, is, after all, the only efficient remedy for the disordered condition of our circulating medium. While accomplishing
that object, too, there will be found, under the auspices of such an institution, a safe
depository for the public treasure, and a constant auxiliary to the public credit.
But, whether the issues of a paper currency proceed fiwm the National Treasury, or
from a National Bank, the acceptance of the paper in a course pf payments and receipts, must be forever optional with the citizens. The extremity of that day cannot
be anticipated, when any honest and enlightened statesman will again venture upon
the desperate expedient of a tender law.
It is proposed that a National Bank shall be incorporated for a term of twenty
years, to be established at Philadelphia, .with a power to erect offices of discount
and deposite elsewhere. [Legislative and Documentary History of the Untied State*
Bank, page 481.]
(9) Extract from the Report of Me Secretary ofthe Treasury, on the ttate of the finance*,
December 6, 1815.
Of the services rendered to the Government by some of the State banks, during the
late war, and of the liberality by which some of them are actuated in their intercourse
with the Treasury, justice requires an explicit acknowledgment. It is a fact, however,
incontestably proved, that those institutions cannot, at this time, be successfully employed to furnish a uniform national currency. The failure of one attempt to associate
them with that view has already been .stated. Another attempt, by their agency, in
• circulating Treasury notes, to overcome the inequalities of the exchange, has been only
pattialhr successful. And a plan recently proposed, with the design to curtail the issues of bank notes; to fix the public confidence in the administration of the affairs of
the banks, and to give to each rank a legitimate share in the circulation, is not likely
to receive the general sanction' of the banks. The truth is, that the charter restrictions of some of the banks, the mutual relation and dependence of the banks of the
same State, and even of the banks of the different States, and the duty which the directors of each bank conceive they owe to their immediate constituents, upon points of
security or emolument, interpose an insuperable obstacle to any voluntary arrangement, upon national considerations alone, for the establishment of a national medium,
through the agency of the State banks. It is, nevertheless, with the State banks that
the measures for restoring the national currency of gold and silver must originate; for,
until their issues of paper be reduced, their specie capitals be reinstated, and their
specie operations be commenced, there will be neither room, nor employment, nor
safety, for the introduction of the precious metals. The policy and the interest of the
State bank must, therefore, be engaged in the great fiscal work, by all the meant
which the Treasury can employ, or the legislative wisdom shall provide.
The establishment of a National Bank is regarded as the best, and perhaps the only
adequate resource, to relieve the country and the Government from the present em?
barrassments; authorized to issue notes, which will be received in all payments to the
United States, the circulation of its issues will be co-extensive with the Union; and
there wOl exist a constant demand, bearing a just proportion to the annual amount of the
duties and taxes to be collected, independent of the general circulation for commercial
and social purposes. A National Bank will, therefore, possess means and the opportunity of supplying a circulating medium, of equal use and value in every State, and in
eveiy district of every State. [Legislative and Documentary History of the Bank of the
Unite* St&et, page 612.]
,

2

V.

Digitized by

•

18
both Houses, and, on the 10th April, 1816, the approving sign-manual of Jamea
Madison. That bill is the charter of the present Bank of the United States.
At the time of the enactment of this law, all the revenues of the Union
south of New England consisted of Treasury notes, and deposites in banks
whose payments in specie were suspended. To compel the resumption of ,
Specie payments was one of the primary objects for which the Bank was
instituted; and immediately afterwards, on the 30th of April, 1816, the following joint resolution was adopted and approved by the President. [U. S.
laws, vol. 6, p. 163.] (10)
Armed with the extraordinary power conferred by this resolution, Mr. Dallas, before it was possible to accomplish any part of its purposes, retired from
office. Mr. Crawford was his successor, and entered upon the discharge of
the duties of Secretary of the Treasury on the 22d of October, 1816. The
circular of the 28th of January, 1817, (appendix to the report of the Committee of Ways and Means, p. 56,) is a notification to all the deposite banks
in the States of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, that the Treasurer
had been instructed to transfer the public moneys deposited with them to the
Bank of the United States, which, with the new year, had first commenced
operations.
It appears by Mr. Crawford's letter of 10th December, 1817, to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, (p. 63,) assigning his reasons for
not transferring the deposites from some of the State and District banks to the
Bank of the United States, that he entertained doubts whether the provisions
of die 16th section of the bank charter did impose the obligation of transferIng to the Bank of the United States the deposites previously made in the
local banks. He did, nevertheless, communicate his reasons for ordering and
•directing otherwise than that the deposites should be made in the Bank of
(the United States, whether they had been previously deposited in the local
banks or not. . A single moment of reflection will show that the transfer of
-deposites from local banks, not paying specie, to the Bank of the United
•'States, which could pay in nothing but specie, must have been made under
this resolution of Congress of 30th April, 1816, and upon principles altogether
inapplicable to the present case. The object of the Secretary of die Treasury was, by one and the same operation, to compel the'local banks to resume
specie payments, and to withdraw from them the public deposites, to place then
in the Bank of the United States. That Bank could receive diem only as
equivalent to specie, for so only was it bound by its charter to pay them out.
It was impossible, then, effectively to withdraw them, but by a simultaneous
resumption of specie payments by the banks from which they were to be
withdrawn.
(10) A resolution relative to the more effectualcollection of thepublic
Resolved,fythe Senate and Bouse of Representatives of the United /States of America,
in Congress assembled, That tbe Secretary of the Treasury be, sod. be hereby is, re<juiredand directed to adopt such measures as he may deem necessary, to cause, as
coon as may be, all duties, taxes, debts, or sums of money, accruing, or becoming pay, able to the United States, to be collected and paid in the legal currency of tbe United,
States, or Treasury notes, or notes of the Bank of the United States, as by law pro-vided and declared: or in notes of banks which are payable and paid on demand, in the
«&id legal currency of the United States; and that,fromand after the 20th day of February next, no such duties, taxes, debts, or sums of money, accruing or becoming payable to the United States as aforesaid, ought tobe collected or received otherwise than
in the legal currency of the United States, or Treasury notes, or notes of the Bank of
of the United States, or in notes of banks which are payable and paid on demand 'jm
the said legal currency of the United States. (Approved 30th April, 1816.)

Digitized by

19

*
uira

t

' T o obtain their assent to this twofold measure, then, Mr. Crawford felt fate
self justified in giving them assurances' of all the aid from Government necessary for its accomplishment; and particularly that in effecting the transfer
of die deposites from their vaults to those of the Bank of the United States,
<hereshould be no advantage taken of them by any unnecessary pressure which
should render the operation injurious to them. There can be no doubt that
he was fully justified in giving them these assurances. T o the liberality with
which the Bank of the United States co-operated to the accomplishment of
these purposes, the letter of Mr. Crawford, of 10th December, 1817, bears.
; signal testimony. [Rep. p. 66.]
It is equally certain that indulgences were afterwards extended to several
-of the local banks, beyond what was warranted by law. They furnished the
grounds of investigations and inquiries by both Houses of Congress, and, at
one time, of direct charges made by Ninian Edwards against Mr. Crawford".
The letters of that officer of the 25th of February, 1823, (p. 66,) to the Senate, of the 24th of February, 1823, (p. 72,) to the chairman of a committee
of the House of Representatives, and of the 8th May, 1824, (p. 76,) to the
chairman of a committee of the House, appointed to investigate the charges
of Ninian Edwards, exhibit statements of several instances in which he hrid
•caused deposites to be transferred to the local banks for the purpose of sustaining them. In justification of the practice, he alleges frequent instances In
which it had been resorted to during the interval between the first and second
• Banks of the United States; and he cites, as analogous cases, several instances
t*>f delays to the payment of custom-house bonds, during the existence of the
•first Bank of the United States. But so far as such proceedings ever had
taken place as expedients to rescue banks from danger, the committee of the
House of Representatives, upon die charges of Ninian Edwards, expressly
•declare that this is no legal employment of public funds; it is nothing but a
gratuitous loan. (p. 83.) Such was the decision of a committee, the general
tenor of whose report was highly favorable to Mr. Crawford. It may now
be added, that it is precisely of such gratuitous loans that the million and a
half of unavailable funds in your Treasury are composed. None such had
«ver been made since that report, until the present Secretary of the Treasury
.revived the practice; and it is not one of the least astonishing incidents of our
present times, that a Committee of Ways and Means of this House have adduced, in support of the legality of Mr. Taney's transfers to sustain his select. <ed banks, that very report of Governor Floyd which declares all such gratuitous loans illegal.
Mr. Speaker, I have now gone through; the whole series of documents annexed to the report of the Committee of Ways and Means, as precedent* to
Justify the present Secretary of the Treasury in the transfer of public moneys
from their places of deppsite, prescribed by law, to local banks, for the purpose of sustaining their credit.
I trust I have shown that not one of those documents will bear out the
'Secretary in the measure upon which we are now to decide; and that the only
precedents having any analogy to his act, are, and have been, by this House,
authoritatively pronounced illegal.
1 pass over the extract from the letter of Samuel D. Ingham, of 5th- October, 1829, reported by the committee, (p. 84.) It is a mere brutumfobnen,
indicative quite as much of die temper as of the intellect of its author.
*£ven if it could countenance by example the vindictive rancor of die removal, it furnishes not a color of justification for the transfer drafts. It
«nay, indeed, be considered as evidence how long this project of threatening

' Digitized by

20
and of bullying the Bank, to break it down into a political engine, was f o s tered in the soul, before it was exchanged for constitutional scruples of conscience against the Bank itself.
' Thus, then, Mr. Speaker, I have proved, to the very rigor of mathematical,
demonstration, that the Committee of Ways and Means, to bolster up the
lawless act of the Secretary of the Treasury, in transferring public moneys,
from their lawful places of deposite, to others, in one of which, at least, he
had an interest of private profit to himself, have ransacked all the records
of the Treasury from its first institution in 1775, to this day, in vain. From,
the whole mass of vouchers to authenticate the lawful disposal of the public
moneys which that department can furnish, the committee have gathered
fifty pages of documents, which they would pass off as precedents for this
flagrant violation of the laws; and not one of them will answer their purpose• One of them alone bears a partial resemblance to the act of the present Secretary, and that one the very document adduced by the committee themselves
pronounces and proves to be unlawful.
By the 8th section of the act to establish the Treasury Department, it is
provided, " that no person appointed to any office instituted by this act shall,,
directly or indirectly, be concerned or interested in carrying on the business
of trade or commerce, or be owner, in whole or m part, of any sea vessel,,
or purchase by himself, or another in trust for him, any public lands or other
public property, or be concerned in the purchase or disposal of any public
securities of any State, or of the United States, or take or apply to his own.
use any emolument or gain for negotiating or transacting any business in the
said department other than what shall be allowed by law."*
The office of Secretary of the Treasury is one of those instituted by that
act And it is a circumstance deserving of deep consideration, that this Department of the Treasury is the only one established at the organization o f
this Government^ the officers pf which are laid under this interdiction. The'
Secretaries of State, of War, and of the Navy, may be merchants, owners
of ships, and dealers in public securities, without violation of the law. Even
the clerks in the Treasury Department, to whom, by an act of the 3d of
March, 1791, this same prohibition had been extended, were afterwards, by
the 12th section of an act, 8th May, 1792, released from it,^excepting " so far
as respects the funds or debts of the United States, or of any State, or inany kind of public property." To that extent every clerk in the Department
of the Treasury is to this day restrained from being concerned in trade, commerce, or brokerage. The restraint upon the Secretary himself, the head of
.the department, remains in force to this day. I believe both the spirit and
the letter of this law to have been violated by the present Secretary of the
Treasury, when he transferred the public funds from the Bank of the United
States to the Union Bank of Baltimore, he himself being a stockholder
therein. And so thorough is my conviction of this principle, and so corrupting and pernicious do I deem the example which he has thereby set to future
Committees of Ways and Means to cite as precedents for yet ranker rottenness, that if there Were a prospect of his remaining in office longer than till'
the close of the present session of the Senate, I should deem it an indispensable, albeit a painful duty of my station, to take the sense of this House
upon the question. And, sir, if after this explicit declaration by me, the
Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means has not yet slaked his thirst
for precedents, he may gratify it by offering a fifth resolution, in addition teethe four reported by the committee, as thus:

Digitized by

21
" Resolved, That the thanks of this House be given t "Roger B. Taney,
•Secretary of the Treasury, for his pure and DISINTERESTED patriotism in
-transferring the use of the public funds from the Bank of the United States,
where they were profitable to the people, to the Union Bank of Baltimore,
where they were profitable to himself."
The reasons of the Secretary of the Treasury, then, for abstracting the
public moneys from the places where they had been deposited by law, are
not sufficient to justify the measure, because the measure itself transcended
his lawful authority.
And the purpose itself for which these arbitrary and lawless transfers
were made was utterly unwarrantable. It exhibits a Secretary of the Treasur y tampering with the public moneys to sustain the staggering credit of his
selected depositories. The transfers were made to supply those worthless favorites with the means of meeting engagements which they could not have
met with their own resources. The very measure itself stamps with insolvency
the depositories so judiciously chosen as substitutes for the Bank of the United States. The Secretary of the Treasury withdraws the public treasure ,
from its place of safe keeping provided by law, scatters it abroad, distributes
it among swarms of rapacious political partisans, and the first earnest of its
safety is, their resort to him for millions of appropriated public moneys to pay
their debts and save them from breaking.
But although the 16th section of the Bank charter did not authorize the
Secretary of the Treasury to remove from the Bank of the United States
and its branches the public moneys already committed to their custody,
•it did authorize him to direct and order that they should cease to be so deposited for the future, and required of him to assign, as soon as possible, to
•Congress his reasons therefor.
Are the reasons which he has so assigned sufficient to justify that part of.
-the transaction which was within his lawful competency—the order and direction that the Bank of the United States should cease to be the depository
of the public revenues? I think not.
It is very remarkable that the reasons are of two kinds; if not altogether
'incompatible with each other, yet so totally different in their characters, that
-either of them, if of any consideration whatever, would render the other unnecessary and useless. The first is the mere approximation of the time
when the charter of the Bank is to expire. The second is gross and corrupt
misconduct in the president and a part of the directors of the Bank. Now,
if the approach of the time when the charter of the Bank was to expire furnished any reason whatever for seeking other depositories of the public
moneys, it would have been an office as useless and unnecessary, as it is
-odious and discreditable, to accuse men of fair and honorable characters of
dishonesty and corruption, as a pretext for depriving them of their rights.
If, on the other hand, the Secretary of the Treasury could have proved upon
the president and directors of the Bank that misconduct which he is so
•ready to impute to them, he would have been under no necessity to assign
the other reason, the approach of flie termination of the charter. The very
assignment of these two .classes of reasons proves tnte total want of confi• dence of him who assigns them in the validity of either. Each of them
I s substantially the refutation of the other.
'
Sir, that the first reason of the Secretary—the approximation of the time
•when the charter of the Bank will expire—is not sufficient to justify the
•change of the depository, has been proved by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who first addressed the House on this subject, with such force of de-

Digitized by

22
monstratioo, that A t an attempt even has been made to reply to him. N o rational reply con be made to it. " I will not gild refined gold." There i s .
only one, consideration.upon which I shall permit myself to add one word to
his argument on this head. It is a consideration of public faith; it is the
word of honor of the nation. Mr. Speaker, I address myself to every individual member of this House. I say to him, b not your word of honor
dearer to you than your life? and are you not here the guardian of the word
of honor of your country? Is the word of honor of your country less dear to you than your own?* I speak to silent voices, but I know that the heart
of every man who hears me answers—no. Then, I say, that ihepublic faith,.
the word of honor of the nation, is pledged to the corporation, the president,,
directors, and company of the Bank of the United States; that unless for
good and sufficient reasons it should be otherwbe ordered, the deposites of"
the public moneys shall be made in the Bank and its branches during the
continuance of the act of incorporation. To withdraw the deposites, therefore, before the expiration of the charter, merely because that term is drawing near, is a violation of the plighted public faith; a forfeiture of the word
*of honor of the nation. That reason is prohibited by the very letter of the
charter. [Bank charter, sections 15,16.] (11)
Well, sir, here if a bilateral contract; each of these sections b a consideration for the other. The 15th section prescribes burdensome duties to be performed by the Bank, gratuitously, for the benefit of the nation; and the Bank
stipulates to perform diem during the continuance of the act.
The 16th section b the counter-stipulation, pledging the faith of the nation
that, unless for good and sufficient cause, the deposites of the public moneys
shall be made in the Bank and its branches. Now, that good and sufficient
cause cannot be the approach of the term when the charter will expire, because the stipulation of the Bank is to perform the services during the con~
tinuance of the act; and the 16th section is not only the counter-stipulation
of the nation, but it furnishes the only means by which the Bank can perform
its own engagement in the 15th. The two sections are inseparably connected
together, and must be of commensurate duration. So clear and obvious is
thb, that the Secretary of the Treasury, by removing the deposites, has forfeited the right of the nation to claim of the Bank the fulfilment of its own
stipulations in the 15th section. By the very act of removing the deposites,.
he makes it impossible for the Bank to give the necessary facilities for transferring the public funds from place to place, without charge, commission, or
dbcount. The Bank stipulates to perform thb service during the continuance
of the act. The Secretary of the Treasury takes from the Bank the neces(11) Bank Charter.
Sic. 15. Jnd be it further enacted, That, DCBIKB THX coirriatuiJCE or THIS ACT, and
whenever required by the Secretary of the Treasury, the said corporation shall give the
necessary facilities for transferring the public funds'from place to place, within the
United States, or the Territories thereof, and for distributing the same in payment o f
the public creditors, without charging commissions, or claiming allowance, on account
of difference of exchange; and shall also do and perform the several and respective
duties of the Commissioners of Loans for the several States, or of any one or more o f
them, wherever required by law.
Sac. 16. And be it further enacted, That the deposites of the money of the United
States, in placet in which the said Bank and 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, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall immediately lay before Congress, if in session, and if not, immediately after thecommencement of the next session, the reasons of such order or direction.

Digitized by

23
•my means for performing the service while the act continues, and two years
A»d a half before its, expiration.
. Here, then, is a double violation of the public faith: first, by breaking the
stipulation of the nation in the 16th section, beneficial to the Bank; and
secondly, by disabling the Bank from the performance of its engagements m
the 15th section, beneficial to the nation.
Sir, this transfer of public funds from place to place throughout the whole
Union, this security for the punctual payment of every public debt to every
public creditor without charge of commission Or discount for exchange, is one'
of the great purposes for which the Bank of the United States was instituted.
It is one of die most admirable operations that the Government, over an extensive territory and a numerous population, active, intelligent, enterprising,
eager for the betterment of its own 'condition, can perform. It is my belief,
sir, that no other instrument than a bank, of large capital, of immense business, ably and honestly managed, and, consequently, of credit co-ajttensive
with the country over which its operations are authorized, can effectually accomplish this great national purpose.
The Bank of the United States was bound to perform it by stipulation and*
by law. The Bank of the United States has performed it faithfully from the'
time when it was instituted, until the Secretary of the Treasury interdicted
the further performance of it, by withdrawing from the Bank the means of
performance. The Secretary of the Treasury has forbidden the Bank of the v
United States to make this constant, continual, gratuitout remittance of public
moneys for the payment of public creditors, from place to place throughout •
the Union; and what has he substituted in its place? Why, sir, contractscontracts which he was authorized by no law to make; contracts, which, by
the 16th section of the act of May 1, 1820, (12) he was expre&Iy forbidden
to make; contracts with a motley multitude of State banks, bound by no law
of the United States to perform this service; beyond the superintendence and
control of Congress; dependent upon twenty different States for'their charters;
of small capitals; of limited circulation; seated in the .midst of rival banks,
and in which the United States have no interest other than the deposites confided to them. This is the substitute provided by the Secretary of the Treasury for annulling the law by which the Bank of the United States was bound
to perform, and did perform, this immensely important service! Contracts
with State banks; not even as contracts sanctioned by law! Sir, it is a bruised
reed upon which, if a man lean, it will go into his hand and pierce it! Contracts! Why, suppose, one and all these bubble banks break their contracts;
suppose they suspend specie payments; where are your deposites? Where
are ybur gratuitous remittances? Where is your remedy against all and every
one of them? Where is your remedy? State courts, stop laws, and unavailable funds! Precious consolations for the disgrace of violated public faith!
Precious indemnity for the word of honor of the nation!
• Mr. Speaker, let me not be misunderstood. 1 intend no special or personal
reflection upon any one of these banks, nor upon any individual concerned
(12) An act in addition to the several acts for the establishment andregulation of the Treasury, War, and Nam/ Departments. (Approved 1st May, 1820.)
Sac. 6. And be it further enacted, That NO CONTRACT shall hereafter be made by
the Secretory of State, OR OF THE TREASURY, or of the Department of War, or of
the Navy, except under a law authorizing the same, or under an appropriation adequate
to its fulfilment; and excepting, also, contracts for the subsistence and clothing of the
**my orn%vy, and contracts by the Quartermaster's Department, which may be made
by the Secretaries of those Departments.

Digitized by

Google

94

1

,

in the direction of them. Some of them may be safe depositories for ordinary
times; but from all the statements that have been published of their conditio*,
I believe it to be eminently perilous. There is Scarcely one of them that
has less than seven dollars of its bills in circulation for one dollar of specie ia
its vaults. The Bank of the United States has less than two dollars in outstanding notes for one dollar of specie at command. And what confidence
is due even to the statements made by these banks of their condition, may be
inferred from facts of recent notoriety. We have witnessed the explosion of
the Bank of Maryland. That bank, it is known, was one of those to which
proposals were made by the agent from the Treasury Department, that it
should become one of the public depositories. The selection was to be made
between that and the Union Bank. It has been stated in the official journal,
that the Secretary of the Treasury referred the choice between the two to the
President of the United States, only remarking that he himself had an interest in the Union Bank, and that the Bank of Maryland had a smaller capital
than the other. It is thence clearly to be inferred, that he was sensible his
interest in the Union Bank formed an objection to its being selected, and
that he had nothing to set off against that objection but the smallness of the
capital of the Bank of Maryland. Now what sort of a statement of its condition is it possible that the Bank of Maryland should have furnished to the
Secretary of the Treasury, which left him undetermined whether to take that
er the Union Bank for the public depository at Baltimore? So much so, as
to take the Preside n»of the United States for umpire between them. Bad
as was the condition of the Bank of Maryland, its directors were quite ready
and willing to contract for receiving the public deposites, and to furnish to the
Secretary of the Treasury such a statement of their affairs as to satisfy him
that they were safe depositories. And who knows how much more confidence .
was due to the statements by any of the other chosen banks, of their own
condition, than to that of the Bank of Maryland? The breaking of banks is
always fraudulent, and must always be preceded by reiterated false or fallacious statements of their condition. We have become so much familiarized
with this bursting of bank boilers, that it has become in public estimation almost a virtue, a mere ingenious contrivance to make a fortune. There are no
doubt many sound and solvent State banks, with honest, honorable, and conscientious boards of directors. But any bank, to which the aid of the public
deposites is necessary for its safety, cannot be fit for a public depository.
Upon the real condition of all the State banks in the State of New York, the
recent act of the Legislature, taxing the people of the State with a loan of six
millions of dollars, to save them from breaking, is a commentary of very unequivocal significancy. The people of New York, to the amount of six'millions of dollars are now made the collateral security for the debts of their
banks. But this is a mere substitute for a new bank with a capital of six millions; and what must be its effect? An increase of liabilities in proportion to
the capitals of all the banks; an increase of paper currency; a mere repetition,
in varied form, of the experiment made between the extinction of the first
Bank of the United States and the institution of the second. There is, indeed,
some indication in this measure of a design in the government of New York
to supply a currency to take the place of the United States Bank notes
throughout the Union. If so, the device is not destitute of ingenuity. But it
must expect, in the course of its execution, to encounter rivals; and the peopie and the Legislature of Pennsylvania will, in the process of time, be likely
to discover that there are more things in Heaven and earth than have been
•reamed of ia their philosophy.

Digitized by

as
The first reason, then, assigned by the Secretary of the Treasury forth*
withdrawal of the deposited public funds from the Bank of the United States,
is good for nothing. Are the reasons founded upon the alleged misconduct
of the Bank any better?
Sir, there is one ingredient in them, an exceedingly odious one, from
which that is at least exempt. The near approach of the rime when the
Bank charter will expire involves no dishonorable imputation upon any man.
But when dishonest and corrupt conduct is charged upon the Bank of the
United States, the reproach nominally cast upon the Bank really falls upon
living men; and upon whom does it fall? Upon the president and stock directors of the Bank. And who are the President and stock directors of the
Bank? The president is a citizen of Philadelphia, wbom any man in this
hall may be justly proud to call his friend; a man of eminent ability, of a
highly cultivated mind, of an equable an'd placid temper, and in every other
relation of life, of integrity irreproachable and unreproached; a man, too, independent in his circumstances, and to whom the loss of his office could
scarcely be felt as a misfortune. That office he holds by the choice, annually
renewed, of the stockholders. From the time when he was first chosen president, for a succession of ten years, until and including the year 1832, he
had been nominated by the President, and confirmed by the Senate of the
United States, as one of the Government directors of the Bank. And even
now, after all these charges and denunciations against him, he has twice received the honorable testimonial of his fellow-citizens, by being unanimously
elected president of the trustees of the Girard College. The directors are
chiefly merchants, with one or two'eminent lawyers, of Philadelphia; men of
good estate and good name; interested, as stockholders, in the Bank; serving
gratuitously, and never eligible more than three years in succession. Sir,
that such persons should be charged with dishonesty and corruption by bankrupts.and swindlers, by men of scarified characters and dogs-eared reputations,
or by politicians who, like the wind of a West India hurricane, ran chop round
from north to south and from east to west in the twinkling of an eye, and
blow with equal fury either way, is not at all surprising; but men of honest
fame, and such I should be willing to believe the Secretary of the Treasury
to be, should not slander one another.
Mr. Speaker, there is another idea which, in connexion with this subject,
I wish to present to the consideration of the House. In the conjectural imputation of base and corrupt conduct to men having a stake of reputation in ~
social intercourse, there should be some proportion between the heinousness
-of the offence imputed and the magnitude of the object to be attained by its
commission. In the melancholy records of human infirmity, I know it is not
unexampled to find very great crimes committed for very small purposes. But
these are exceptions and not rules. Such is not the course of things in the
ordinary moral economy of the world's affairs. What is the re^charter of
the Bank of the United States to the president and to the board of present
directors? It is of very little if of any importance to their individual interest. But as they hold their offices in trust, for the benefit of the company^
their duty to their constituents requires that they should, in a suitable manner and by lawful means, obtain a new charter if they can; their own interest in the event is nothing, or next to nothing. It is also their right as citizens,
and their duty to their constituents, to defend themselves against charges of
misconduct and corruption. And if those charges are made 'from the high
places of the land; if they are made for electioneering purposes; if they are
made not before judicial tribunals, where their honest fame would be sheltered

Digitized by

S6
by die protection of die laws, and vindicated by the verdict of their peers; i f
they are circulated by multitudes of presses, paid with die money of the people; if tiiey are held forth in Presidential messages, and vetoes, and proclamations, and cabinet consultations, published in newspapers, and denied to die'
legislative assemblies of die Union; if, in short, die rancorous and incessant
denunciations against them go forth directly to the people from dm First
Magistrate of die Union, is it necessary! is it rational?—is it consistent with
common justice or common sense—to charge them with corruption or dishonesty for defending themselves before that tribunal of public opinion, to which
die appeal is made against diem? Sir, in tracing, by mere conjectural sagacity, human actions to their motives, when you meet honesty at die threshold, it is a poor occupation to ransack dark corners and deep recesses to
detect corruption.
But, sir, die Secretary of the treasury, distrusting die validity of his
reason for removing die public deposites, drawn from die approach of die
term when the Bank charter will expire, charges the president and stock
directors of the Bank with misconduct—with corruption!
Sir, with regard to any allegation of corruption on die part of die Bank,
by which, in die opinion of the Secretary of die Treasury, the corporation
have forfeited the right of holding die deposites, I believe it not within die
competency, ekher of the Secretary of the Treasury, or of this House, to
come to that conclusion. The corporation is a moral person, entitled to die
rights of persons and amenable, not to the Secretary of the Treasury nor to
this House, but to the judicial tribunals, for the performance of its duties.
If die corporation have done wrong to die Executive Government, the Attorney General is the officer to prosecute them before the courts instituted
under the constitution to sit in judgment upon them. They are entitled to
trial by a jury of their peers.
The President of the United States has announced to Congress his opinion that die Bank had forfeited die charter, and that he would have directed
a scire facias to be sued out to prove this charge, but that there would not
have been time for die Supreme Court to bring the trial to an issue before
die expiration of die charter of die Bank. I remark with reluctance upon
this statement of die President; but do say that it is not a sufficient reason
for withholding die public deposites from the Bank. The President and die Secretary of the Treasury, by these declarations, constitute themselves die accusers of the Bank. Shall they sit in judgment upon those whom they accuse?
Shall they be the executioners of those upon whom they sit in judgment?
The removal of die deposites from the Bank, for the misconduct of die Bank,
necessarily imports all this. The Secretary of die Treasury, under the direction of die President, constitutes himself at once the accuser, die judge,
jury, and executioner of the Bank. He draws up the charge, he pronounces
sentence of guilt, he adjudges die forfeiture of die right, and he executes the
judgment. All this he does by die removal of the deposites; all this he does,
without hearing die parties accused, widiout even giving diem notice of die
charges against them. Sir, in die fictions of the heathen mythology, Rhadamanthds himself, die most inexorable of the judges of die infernal regions,
heard the culprits at his bar, after chastising them; " Castigatque auditgut."
He chastises and he hears. Our Secretary of the Treasury improves upon
die code of Rhadamantiius. He accuses, he judges, he chastises, but never
gives die culprit a hearing, either before or after his sentence.
Now, sir, I say this to shew die insufficiency of tkis reason for withholding from die Bank the deposites of the public funds; die alleged, not die
proved misconduct of die Bank.

Digitized by

Google

87

t

And this misconduct—what is it? As a moral person, the Bank enjoys
the rights of persons; and among them the right to sue and be sued, to plead
and be impleaded, to answer and be answered, to defend and be defended, in.
all State courts having competent jurisdiction, and in all the circuit courts of
the United States. The fifth article amendatory of the constitution of the
United States has expressly provided that no person shall be deprived of life,,
liberty, or property, without, due process of law. The Secretary of the
Treasury has no authority to constitute a code of criminal law, or to hold the
Bank responsible for offences not recognised as such by law. He has no>
authority to make that an offence which is not prohibited by law. Of all hischarges against the Bank, the only one that I can see which imputes a transgression of the law, is that which alleges that the president and directors have
authorized a committee of their own body, caned the Exchange Committee,
to transact business, for which, by the charter, the presence of not less than,
seven directors is required. Now, this charge arises from a misapprehension
by the Secretary of the Treasury of the import of the words to transact business. This has been so fully explained by the learned and eloquent member from Pennsylvania, that I deem it unnecessary to say a word further upon
the subject. To the weight of his character, were it possible for any testimony of mine to make addition, nothing but his presence could interdict me
from giving it. At the head of his profession, which is the law, in the State
to which he belongs, to that profession he has until even now, that we first
see him among us, devoted the labors of more than thirty years; conversant
especially with the department of commercial law, and intimately familiar
with the principles and practice of banking, as a director both of the old and
of the present Bank of the United States, his voice must carry with it, on all
these questions, an authority which it becomes me peculiarly to respect. H e
did, sir, in his speech, so unanswerably refute this allegation of the Secretary
of the Treasury, that the transaction of business by the Exchange Committee
was a violation of the "words of the charter, that it would be wasting the time
of the House to multiply words in repeating .what he has said.
But, sir, in assigning his reasons for punishing the Bank by the removal of
the public deposites, die Secretary of the Treasury has not only performed
in his own person the parts of accuser, judge, jury, and executioner, but, to
facilitate the performance of all these functions, he .has constituted himself
ex post facto the legislator of a new criminal code, and promulgated new
penal statutes, by which these heinous offenders are to be tried and condemned.
And what are these heinous crimes of the Bank for which its stockholders,
including the whole people of the Union, have, by the judgment of the selfconstituted legislator, forfeited their rights and their property? They are,
1. That the ruling principle of the Bank is its own interests.
2* That the Bank has used its means with a view to obtain political power,
'and thereby secure the renewal of its charter.
To the first charge, it is added that the just claims of the public are treated
by the Bank with but ljttle regard when tbey have come into collision with
the interests of the corporation.
Mr. Speaker, in one of Shakspeare's plays, there are two personages of
the department of the kitchen, named Launce and Speed; one of them,
Launce, takes a fancy to be married, and falls in love with a milk-maid,
who, he says, has more qualities than a water-spaniel. He communicates te
his friend. Speed a written cat-log of her conditions, that is, of her virtues
and her vices. In reading it aver, Speed finds, in the enumeration of her

Digitized by

28
vices, that she is slow in words; upon which Launce exclaims, "O villain! set
that down among her vices? To be slow in words is a woman's only virtue—
out with it, and place it as her chief virtue." Sir, when I hear it charged
upon tbe Bank of the United States, that is', upon the President and stock
directors of that Bank, that the interests of tbe corporation are their ruling
rinciple, and hear it charged as a vice of the Bank, I cannot help thinking,
ke Launce, that it should be transferred to the other side of the account,
and set down among the Bank's chief virtues. Why, sir, for what are the
president and directors of the Bank appointed but to protect, to defend, and
to promote the interests of the corporation! and what are the Interests of the
corporation but the interests of our constituents, the people of the United
States, who, as owners of oneJifth part of the stock, constitute themselves
one-fifth part of the corporation? Sir, in complaining that the interests of
the corporation are the ruling principle of the president and directors of the
Bank, the Secretary of the Treasury has given the most signal testimonial to
their fidelity to their trust Their ruling principle ought to be, as I most
sincerely believe it is, the interests of the corporation. Sir, that ruling principle cannot make them regardless of the just claims of the public; it cannot* come in collision with the just claims of the public; die just claims
of the public are identical and the same with the interests of the corporation. There is, in this charge of the Secretary of the Treasury against
the Bank, inconsistency and self-contradiction. It is precisely the same as
if he had said, so exclusive is the regard of the president and directors of
the Bank to the public interest, that they pay no regard to it at all. ' And t
sir, this inconsistency and self-contradiction run through the whole argument,
and discolor every fact adduced by the Secretary in support of his charge.
Take, for example, the case of tbe three per cent, stocks,' and the bill of
exchange upon France, which are urged by the Secretary as the great proofs
of the injustice of the Bank, in endeavoring to advance its own interests at
the expense of the interests and just rights of the people of the United
States.
What was the case of the three per cents? The Bank was required to
pay off, say twelve millions of the public debt, which bore an interest of
three per cent, a year, to pay it off at two given days, in the year 1832; the
Bank paid it off accordingly. Part of this debt, however, was due in Europe,'
say five millions. The Bank negotiated an arrangement, by which the European holders of the debt consented to wait a year longer before they should
receive payment of their portion, they taking the Bank for their debtor instead of the nation, and receiving three per cent, for the year's interest.
This was equivalent for the time to so much addition to the capital of the
Bank. It enabled the Bank to accommodate borrowers here to double the
amount, for the year, and to receive therefor an interest of six per cent. The
profit to the Bank was the difference between three per cent., which she
paid on say five millions, and six per cent interest, which she received on
double the amount which it enabled her during the same time to loan. But
suppose it enabled the Bank to loan only to the same amount She paid one
hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the use of the money, and received
three hundred thousand dollars by the employment of it. Suppose, however,
that it enabled her only to keep at discount a sum equal to that which she
borrowed. Her profit upon the transaction was one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, one-fifth of which, say thirty thousand dollars, she paid in dividends to the people of the United States. Undoubtedly, the ruling principle
of this transaction was the interest of the corporation; but where can you
find m it the slightest, the remotest injury to the interests or the just rights

J

Digitized by

Google

29

•
of the people of the United States? It brought thirty thousand dollars intft
their treasury; it furnished capital for profitable employment to thousands of
our citizens, and I am unable to perceive any interest or any right of the
public which could be impaired or injured by it to the value of a dollar.
The case of the protested bill of exchange upon the French Government
is equally justifiable. If the Secretary of the Treasury had the right to draw
this bill, there can be no question that the French Government is responsible
for the damages universally claimable on the1 protest. The protest itself
vested in the United States the right to the damages, and in the Bank the
right to claim diem, as clear and indisputable as the right to repayment of
the bill itself. These damages were equally recoverable by the laws of the
land; and they were the property of the corporation. Had the president and
directors remitted them, they would have committed a breach of trust to the
stockholders utterb/ indefensible. The loss to the public in this transaction
lies at the door either of the French Government, or of the drawer of the
bill. The pretension that the Bank were bound, in this case, to remit the
damages upon the protest, is, in substance, a claim to exemption from the
laws of the land by the Secretary of the Treasury, in matters of exchange.
The admission of it would have established a precedent liable to the most
dangerous abuse. It was nothing less than a pretension that the Secretary of
the Treasury should be released from all responsibility for damages upon
bills drawn by him on foreign Governments, and protested.
But what shall be said of the heinous sin of the Bank in using its means
with a view to obtain political power? The evidence alleged by the Secretary of the Treasury, as substantiating this enormity, is the* disclosure by the
lynx-eyed penetration of certain patriotic detectors of the politics of their
colleagues, appointed, it seems, for that purpose, by the President, with the
unwary confirmation of the Senate. They are called Government directors,
and they seem to consider themselves as ex officio viceroys and spies over
the rest of the board. The exceeding sagacity of these eager searchers into
mysteries has brought to light the astonishing fact that their brethren in the
direction of the Bank have, by recorded resolutions of the board, put the
whole thirty-five millions of dollars of the capital of the stockholders, including die seven millions belonging to the people of the United States, the
whole mass of the profits on business accumulating for distribution in dividends and a reserved fund, and the whole credit of the Bank, which can
scarcely be estimated at less than one hundred millions of dollars, at the dis' posal of the president of the Bank, to print and circulate pamphlets, in defence of the Bank, against slanderous and hostile denunciations, or, in the
construction of the Secretary of the Treasury, to obtain political poicer. Of
this sum, perhaps one hundred and fifty millions of dollars, it appears'that,
in the space of four years, an amount not much short of sixty thousand dollars has actually been expended in printing and extensively circulating a
treatise upon banking and currency by Mr. Gallatin, three or four reports'of
committees of Congress, and two or three speeches in refutation of chargesagainst the Bank.
This charge, Mr. Speaker, is two-fold. First, of the power given to the
president to dispose of the whole property of the Bank. And, secondly, o f
the expenditure by him, under that power, of a sum approaching to sixty
thousand dollars.. The substance of the charge is of wasteful and corrupt
profusion of the property of the stockholders; and the argument, by blending
together the two parts of the accusation, labors to swell die account of actual
expenditure up to the whole extent of the power delegated to the president^

Digitized by

30
so that the Secretary of the Treasury has worked himself up into a belief,
and his argument would persuade us, that the whole capital, profits, and cre^dit of the Bank had been actually wasted, or was in most imminent danger
of being squandered in printing and circulating pamphlets to obtain polideal
power.
And now, sir, what becomes of that other grievous accusation, that the
interests of tkt corporation are the ruling principle of the president and dfc
lectors of the Bank? Which of the two impeachments are we to believe? Is
the Bank a Shylock, with his knife in hand, ready to cut the pound of flesh
nearest to the heart of his unfortunate debtor? Or is' he a Timon of Athens,
to whom the world is but a word, Which, were it his, a breath would give
away? Sir, we have looked at the charge of extortion, and it has vanished
into air. Let us examine the charge of profusion, and see if it is more substantial. Look at it in both its parts. The resolution #f the directors is,
that the president of the Bank be authorised to cause to be prepared and
circulated such documents and papers as may communicate to die people
information in regard to die nature and operations of die Bank.
Sir, can any one in serious argument say drat diis resolution put die whole
property of the Bank at the disposal of the president? Suppose it had been
a resolution authorizing him to purchase a box of wafers, or a bunch of quills?
According to this argument, such a resolution would have put a hundred and
fifty millions of dollars pf the Bank's property at die disposal of die president to buy a box of wafers, or a bunch of quills. The quintessence of this
charge is, that the Board of Directors did not put this resolution in die form
of a Congressional act of appropriation. Sir, the constitution of die United
States provides drat no moneys shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in
consequence of appropriations made by law; and hence arises the necessity
of limiting die amount of appropriations. But how often, in our own practice,
do we authorise expenditures without limiting their amount? It was but die
ether day that we authorized the clerk of this House to purchase books for
the use of our members. Did we put the whole Treasury of die United
States at his disposal for that purpose? Sir, to authorize an expenditure,
and to make an appropriation, are things totally distinct from each otiier,
although nothing is more common than to confound diem.together. The
resolution of the Bank directors authorizes an expenditure without making
an appropriation. But die Secretary of' die Treasury must be at the last
gasp for an argument, to say diat thereby they put die whole property of die ,
Bank at die disposal of die president for that purpose. As die Legislature
of the nation, Congress can authorise no expenditure without making an appropriation. But no such principle is applicable to the expenditures of indi-viduals, whedier single persons or corporations. A member of die otiier
House once told die Senate, that, in die arrangement of his domestic establishment, his wife was die Committee of Ways and he was die Committee
o f "Means; but who ever heard of a man's limiting his expenses of marketing
ii»r die family, or his wife's disbursements for a bonnet, a necklace, or a
shawl, by an act of appropriation? The authority, therefore, to print and
circulate pamphlets, was precisely equivalent to an andiority to procure stationary, and carried -its limitation with itself. It was left discretionary, precisely because it was limited in -its own nature. But the Secretary of the
Treasury tells us drat "the sum actually charged to die expenses under 'tins
resolution is sufficiendy startling." Startling? Is it, indeed?
The sum actually charged in diese expenditures, in four years, amounts to
#86,265 OS, in round numbers take it to be $60,000. The Bank allege*

Digitized by

81
that all this expenditure was incurred in defending the institution against the
assaults which it was enduring from the administration and its partisans.
The President of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury con*
aider it all as electioneering against the re-election of President Jackson.
Now, if die printing and circulating of an essay of Mr. Gallatin upon bank*
ing, and of half a dozen reports and speeches made to the two Houses of
Congress upon the subject of the Bank itself and its operations, was electioneering ogaisut the re-election of the President, what was the electioneer*
ing for him? The President and the Secretary of the Treasury both con*
aider the re-election of Andrew Jackson as precisely equivalent to a judgment of the people of the United States against the Bank. What is this
but to declare that every thing said and done by the President, during the
first term of his administration, against the Bank, was electioneering for himself? All his appeals to the judgment, to. the prejudices, to the passions of
the people against the Bank, were all operations to secure his re-election.
This is ground, sir, not of my selection; it is that upon which the President
of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury themselves have
chosen to put their charges against, the Bank; and whatever I may say in
following the deductions which irresistibly flow from this statement of the
case, must be taken as the necessary inferences from premises exclusively
their own.
Thus, when, in the summer of 1829, the friends of General Jackson, in
New Hampshire, undertook to dictate, through the agency of the then Secretary of the Treasury, to the Bank, the removal of the president of the branch
bank at Portsmouth, whose offences were his eminent talents, his inflexible integrity, and his friendship for Mr. Webster; and when the same
" friends of General Jackson in. New Hampshire," and among, them sixty
members of the Legislature, sterling Jacksonmen without alloy, sent a whole
list of directors for the same branch, to be forced upon the president and directors of the Bank for their appointment; when the then Secretary of the
Treasury, with an acuteness of discrimination worthy of the keenest disciple
of Ignatius Loyola, blended together so skilfully the lines of political parity
and political prostitution, lor the use of the Bank—it was all electioneering
for the re-election of President Jackson.
When the Secretary of War, by unlawful orders, took away the payments
of pensions in New Hampshire and New York from the branch banks, and
gave them to the banks belonging to the " friends of General Jackson"—it
was all electioneering for his re-election to the Presidency.
. When, upon discovering that the Bank was not so tractable under this
management as might be desired, the President of die United States, in his
first annual message to Congress, denounced the Bank of the United States,
as unconstitutional, but recommended'a Government Bank in its stead—this
was in both its parts a mere electioneering proposition to secure bis ownre-election.
When in the subsequent annual messages to Congress of 1830, of 1831,.
and 1832, the denunciations .of the Bank of the United States as unconstitutional were repeated; and when the substance of these denunciations was
communicated by anticipation, for the benefit of certain brokers in Wallstreet, " friends of General Jackson," before the message was communicated
to Congress—this- was a mere electioneering expedient to secure his own rejection.
„
When, in July, 1832, an act for recbartering the Bank of the United
States had passed both Houses of Congress, isMneditfely after a foil investi-

Digitized by

m
gation of die aflairs of the Bank by a committee of this House, the President
put his negative upon that act, and told Congress that if they had applied to
him, he would have given them a constitutional bank—this veto was a mere
electioneering expedient, and the veto message was a pamphlet to secure his
own re-election.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that these are not positions of my own choosing; I
say they follow irresistibly from the ground of controversy with the Bank,
taken by the President of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury themselves. If the pamphlets, published and circulated by the Bank in
their own defence, are to be considered as political weapons of electioneering
against the re-election of the President, then the efforts of his administration
to turn the Bank into a political engine to* promote the purposes of his partisans, and, upon failure of them, all his subsequent denunciations of the B*ank,
and acts of hostility to that institution, were acts of mere electioneering for
himselC His hostility to the Bank was a mere courtship of popular favor,
and his mode of filling the measure of his country's glory was by using the
unpopularity of the Bank as the engine to renew his lease of the Government,
and to prolong his continuance in power. Sir, it is filling the measure of his
country's glory with sparkling champagne; all the liquor overflows, and there
is nothing left in the cup.
And now, sir, let us follow the track of the Secretary of the Treasury, and
inquire what has been the cost of this contested election to the people of the
United States. The Secretary of the Treasury tells you that the sum of
sixty thousand dollars, spent in the space of four years upon electioneering
pamphlets by the Bank, is sufficiently startling. • Startling, Mr. Speaker,
is an emotion, and not a calculation; the word is sensitive, and not medita* tive; it indicates passion, and not reflection. It is not the word or the thing
best adapted to the operations of a financier. Calculation is always cool.
Let us keep ourselves cool and compare accounts. The Bank, in the course
of four years, have spent sixty thousand dollars in printing and paper, they
say in self-defence; the President of the United States says, in electioneering against Mm, and for a recharter to themselves. This money was the
property of the stockholders, and one-fifth part of it, twelve thousand dollars, belonged to the people of the United States. Sir, the people of the
United States own seventy thousand shares of the stock of this Bank. When
the President of the United States declared war against the institution, every
one of those shares was worth one hundred and thirty dollars. What are
they worth now? At the utmfst, one hundred and five dollars a share. Compare the prices current of the two periods, and you will find that every share
of the Bank stock owned by the people of the United States, has lost twentyfive dollars of its value to them by this electioneering of the President of the
United States, against the Bank, and for himself. Twenty-five dollars a share,
upon seventy thousand, shares, is one million seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars; and this is the sum which the President of the United States has
levied upon the people, by his electioneering against die Bank and for himself.
Thus, then, stand die comparative accounts. The bank has cost die
people of die United States, in electioneering against die President, and for.
itself, twelve thousand dollars. The President has cost the people, m
electioneering against die Bank, and for himself, one million seven hundred
and fifty diousand dollars. And in* this same contest of electioneering, while
die bank has expended forty-eight thousand dollars of the money- of die
other stockholders, die President of die United "States has taxed them to die
amount of seven millions of dollars. Eight millions seven hundred and fifty

Digitized by V j O O Q l C

%

as
thousand deBars is the sum levied by the President of theUnited Skates upas*
the stockholders of the Bank, for his electioneering; and the Secretary of the
Treasury tells-us that sixty thousand dollars expended in the same contest by
the Bank is sufficiently startling.
There is, indeed, tms difference between the sixty thousand dollars money
*
-of the stockholders, expended in this contest by the Bank, and the eight millions seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars of Uw<same money levied in
the same contest by the President. With die sixty thousand dollars, industry
was employed, and for them an equivalent was received. Information was
circulated among the people upon subjects deeply affecting their own interests, and the materials were supplied for making up a correct public opinion.
But the eight millions seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars tax levied
upon the stockholder* of the Bank by the President of the United States, in
electioneering for himself, are so much property destroyed. They are M
much of the capital stock of the nation consumed a» by fire; no information
has been communicated by their destruction to the people; no industry has
been employed; no equivalent for the loss received. Far otherwise. If
there be a widow, or an orphan, whose dower or whose inheritance consisted
of ten shares in the stock of the Bank, a tax of twenty-five dollars upon
each and every one of those shares hits' been levied upon that widow or
orphan, as contributions to his re-election. So much of their property has
been taken away from them, not for the benefit of others, but to be destroyed. The capital stock of the Bank of the United States, on the first
of January, 1832, was worth, in the market, at least forty-five millions of
dollars, and every stockholder in that institution might have paid bis debts or
purchased lands with his stock, at an advance of thirty per cent To pay
debts or to purchase lands at this day, the same stock, may be applied at aa
advance of two, three, or, at most, four per cent The difference is the tax
levied by the President of the United States for his re-election, and his warfare against the Bank. Net spent in printing and circulating pamphlets, and
{ropitiatwg printers, but nullified, destroyed; sink in depreciation without
enefit to any human being.
Thus, then, die reasons of the Secretary of the Treasury, for removing
•lbs public deposites from die Bank of the United States and its branches, ant
insufficient. They are insufficient even for ordering and directing otherwise
than that the deposites should be made there, which was the whole extent of his*
lawful authority. They are worse than insufficient for removing from them,
rands which had been already deposited there; for which he had no lawful
authority, and which was usurpation.
Mr. Speaker, I believe these charges of dishonesty and corruption equally
ungenerous and unjust They are ungenerous, because they are made under
the protection of official station, against private citizens, in a Banner which
deprives diem of the means of defending themselves and vindicating their
characters. They are unjust, because made, not in the candid, open, and
explicit forms which ought to mark all official denunciations against individuals, but in a manner consciously evasive and distrustful of itself, and because they are untrue.
I say they are made under the protection of official station against private
citizens; for, sir, let it be remembered that the president and stock director*
of the Bank of the United States are not officers of the Government They
are neither appointed, nor removable by the President of the United States. ,
The United States hold seven millions of dollars of die stock. The President and Senate appoint five out of the twenty-five directors, and die charter

Digitized by

;'

Google

34
wotoins sundry provisions for making the Bank the agent of the Government
sar the performance of certain duties and services. But the president and
stock directors are prirate citizens, entitled to the enjoyment of all the rightsof other private citizens. The management of the affairs of the Bank is entrusted to them, together with the Government directors, under the general
law of corporations, of acting by majorities, and so long as they keep within
the pale of action warranted by the laws of die land, a charge of dishonesty
«r corruption against them, uttered by the President of the United States, or
the Secretary of the Treasury, is neither more nor less than slander, emitted
nader the protection of official station against private citizens. This is bothungenerous and unjust. It is an abuse of the shelter of official station to circulate calumny with impunity.
Observe, too, that those charges, deeply as they affect the character o f
private individuals, are neve* made directly against them by name. No! it.
is the Badk, that is die monster; the moneyed aristocracy; the mammoth
corporation; that is the sink of corruption; the purse-proud tyrant, corrupt
itself, and practising corruption upon the whole people! And to what an
odious extent have these charges been carried! Have you yourself, Mr.
Speaker, been exempted from the general imputed contamination? Deeply.
as you may have been dipped in the Stygian waters of Jacksonkm, are you
yet not vulnerable at the heel? Has it net been given as a reason for removing the deposites only sixty days before the meeting of Congress, that,
if the last Congress had been in session but one week longer, the Bank would
have corrupted two-diirds of the members of both Houses, and purchased a
recharter, beyond the reach of a veto? . And were not we, ourselves, was not
this, present Congress held accessible to the same corruption, in advance?
Was not this formally assigned as the reason for withdrawing die depositeswithout waiting for our meeting? And is not this infamous imputation authenticated beyond all daring of denial? Infamous, I say, to us, to the people who chose ns as their Representatives, and to the.president and stock
directors of the Bank, if true; infamous, if not true, in him who uttered it.
Now, sir, to set you, and all the members of both Houses of the Jast and
of the present Congress aside, and, I say, strip the President and the Secretary.of,the Treasury of their official stations, and neither of them wouMr
diirt to say to, or of, Nicholas Riddle, in the presence of credible, witnesses,
that he was a dishonest or corrupt man; and what I say of Nicholas Biddle,
I say of Richard Willing, of Manual Eyre, of Matuiew L. Sevan, of Ambrose. White, of John Sergeant, of James C. Fisher, of Joshua Lippincott, o f
Charles Chauncey, of Matthew Newkirk, of Lawrence Lewis, and of John
Holmes. These were the directors of die Bank who published their defence
against die denunciation of the President's cabinet rcsafyt of die 18th e f
September last. Now, I repeat, strip Andrew Jackson and Roger B. Taney
of the little brief- authority which invests them with the privilege of slandering their feDow-citiaens with impunity, and neither of them would BARS B»
charge any one of those men whom I nave named, either before their faces*
•cany, where in the presence of crediajb^impartial witnesses, with dishonesty
or corruption, either in general terms or by any one specification. Neither
oftajam would dare go to the city of Philadelphia,' and there, in any possible
manner, avow a charge against any one of those men, which.could make «4>
an issue, for a test of character by a verdict of dieir peers. It may, indeed*
be a question whether even a President of the United States, or a Secretary;
• f the Treasury, does possess the right of pouring forth slanders upon private
individuals, wholly without responsibility to the laws protective of chj»*ftctaf»

Digitized by

35
I t cannot he doubted, that, under color of the discharge of official duty, it is
in the power of those high dignitaries to blast the reputation of individuals by
groundless imputations, for which the injured party would in vain seek reparation or indemnity from the laws of his country. But, even this odious privilege has its limits. Neither a Secretary of the Treasury, nor a President
of the United States, is wholly above the law. No one will deny that both
those officers are, as individuals, liable to action or indictment lor slanders,
like others, and there seems to be a full consciousness of this, in the undeviating uniformity with which they point their official defamation at the Bank,
instead of directing their charges, as lair and honorable adversaries ought to
do, at the president and stock directors of the Bank, the real objects of their
accusations.
When the President of the United States said that if the last Congress had
continued in session one week longer, the Bank would, by corrupt means,
have procured a rechartcr by majorities of two-thirds, in both Houses of
Congress, to what portion of the members of both Houses did this honorable
testimonial of his confidence specially apply? At the preceding session of the
same Congress, a bill to rechartcr the Bank had passed the Senate by a vote
«f 28 to 20. It had passed in the House by a vote of 107 to 85, and this was
immediately after an investigation of the affairs of the Bank, by a committee
of the House, who went to Philadelphia for that express purpose, and every
member of that committee is also a member of this House. Of the 107
members of the House who voted for that rechartcr, 50 are members of this
House; of the 85 members who voted against it, 41 are members of the present House; and there is in this proportion, on both sides, a coincidence so
remarkable, that I cannot help inviting to it the attention of the House. I t
lias been assumed by the President of tho United States, and repeated by the
Secretary of the Treasury, and by the report of the Committee of Ways and
Means, that the re-election of the President, after his veto upon this very bill
4o rechartcr the Bank, is of itself equivalent to a verdict of the people against
the Bank. Mr. Speaker, I shall not inquire what sort of an estimate this position supposes the people to have formed of all the other measures of a four
years' administration. It seem3 to me an admission, that in all the rest of
his measures, the people saw and felt nothing, which could have secured to
him his re-election, hut that this crushing of the monster, was not only meritorious in itself, but sufficient to outweigh a mass of demerit, in the whole
system of the administration besides, which would have forfeited tho claim to
that approbation of the people of which the result of the election was the
test. Sir, if the President of the United States is willing that his reputation
as a statesman at the head of this Union, should go down upon the records
of this ago, to the admiration of after times, on the single and solitary
foundation of his having destroyed the Bank of the United States, I can
have no possible objection to his being gratified. He will suffer no injustice
by having that measure applied to his foot as the standard, and then inferring from that the whole man. " Ex pede Htrculcm" all the rest will be
perfectly congenial with it; and such I have no doubt will be the judgment
of posterity. But, sir, if his re-election can, with any pretence of reason, be
considered as an evidence of the sentence of condemnation by the people,
against the Bank, then I say that the re-election of the members of the
House, who voted for and against that bill to recharter the Bank, is evidence
far more conclusive and unequivocal of the sentiments of the people with
regard to the Bank and the recharter, than the Presidential election was or
could be. Now, sir, every member of this House who voted for or against

Digitized

bySjQQQlC

* ftaibm to rerebarter the Bank, has passed through that ordeal of re-election'
; since he gave that vote; and it so happens that the proportion of re-elected
members of those who voted for and against the rechartcr, is precisely the
n i n t . One member of the House who voted for the recharter, Philip Dod- dridge, of Virginia,, we soon after followed, in melancholy procession, to the
grave;' and sure 1 am, that there is not a Virginian heart who hears me, but
will respond to,me when I say that his vote was no feeble testimonial of the
: purity of purpose with which every vote was given on that occasion, which
now stands recorded in association with his. Had he lived and consented to
serve, there cat* be no doubt that he would still have been one of us. There
would then have Been 51 re-elected members of 107 members, who voted for
the recharter;. there are 41 of 85 who voted against it; and as 41 is to 85, so
is 51 to 107. Sir,, the doctrine of chances, and all the other elements which
- are mingled up in* the process of electioneering throughout this whole Union,'
has not produced' a-variation from the proportion, to the amount of a single
man; and what is the Inference that I draw from this curious and extraordinary arithmetical demonstration? Why, sir, that all the members on both
• aides of the question^those who voted for and those who voted against the recharter, faithfully represented the sentiments of their respective constituents;
and this result, so uniform, of the elections to this House throughout the
whole Union, is of itself an honorable vindication of the integrity of its members, from the baseness imputed to them by the Chief Executive Magistrate.'
This vindication, it must also be observed, is more necessary to that por' tion of the members of the House who voted against the recharter, and were
' the devoted friends of the President and of his administration, than to the
' rest. It was from the 85 members who voted against the recharter that the
v
- recruits of corruption must have been levied, to constitute with the 107 who'
bad already voted for the recharter, that majority of two-thirds which could
* bare effected the recharter in defiance of the veto. Of the 85 names which
"stand thus recorded, 2 1 must have changed their votes from the negative to
'the affirmative before the recharter could have been accomplished by a ma- ;
jjority of two-thirds; and this is what the President of the United States considered not only as practicable, but as certain to have been effected, by corrupt means, if the last session of Congress had continued one week longer.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there was one member of the last Congress
who voted against the rechartering of the Bank, who eould have been induced to change his vote by corrupt means, had the president and directors
of the Bank been base enough to attempt the use of them. I believe this
imputation to have been as unjust as it was dishonorable to both the parties
implicated in it That it was cruelly ungenerous towards die friends of the
administration in this House is my deliberate opinion; and, as I am well as-'
sored, that there was not one of them justly obnoxious to the suspicion,.
so there is no one of them who can be considered exempted from it. And
now, when we reflect that this defamatory and disgraceful suspicion, harbored or professed1 against his own friends, supporters, and adherents, was
die real and efficient cause, (to call it a reason would be to shame the term,)
but that it was the real motive for the removal of the deposites during the recess
«f Congress, and only two months before its meeting, what can we do but
bide our heads with shame? Sir, one of the duties of the President of the
United States—a duty as sacred as that to which he is bound by his official
oath, is that of maintaining unsullied the honor of his country. But how
coold the President of the United States assert, in the presence of any foreigner, a: claim to- honorable principle or moral virtue, a» attributes belonging

tb his countrytr/sn, when he is himself the first to cast the.indelible sfigur
upon them. ^Vale, venalis civitas, tan peritura, *i tmpiorem invenias?
was the prophetic curse of Jugurtha upon Rome, in the days of her deep corruption. If the imputations of the President of the United States upon hi*
own partisans and supporters were true, our country would already have fouad
a purchaser.
Mr. Speaker, the reason thus assigned by the President of the United
States to his Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Duane, for removing the public moneys from the Bank of the United States, before the meeting of Congress, is not among those which his Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Taney,
has assigned to Congress after their meeting. That it was the true and efficient cause of that removal is evident, not only from the positive testimony
Of Mr. Duane, in his third letter to the people of the United States, but front
the utter futility of the reasons assigned by Mr. Taney. There is an evidence
in facts themselves, and in the characters of men, which authenticates testimony, beyond the reach of deniak Mr. Duane states that after Mr. Reube*
Mr. Whitney, on the ^wery day when he, Mr. Duane, entered upon his duties
as Secretary of the Treasury, had communicated to him thedeteroiBiationof
the President to cause the public deposites to be removed before the meeting
of Congress, the President himself, the second day after, confirmed the information, and said, " that the matter under consideration was of vaat«onse" quence to the country; that, unless the Bank was broken down, it would
"break us down; that if the last Congress had remained a week longer inses" sion, two-thirds would have been secured for the Bank by corrupt means,
"and that the like result might be apprehended the next Congress; that suck
"a State bank agency mustfanput in operation before the meeting of Coa"gress as would show that the United States' Bank was not necessary; and
"thus some members would have no excuse for voting for it"
" My suggestions (adds Mr. Duane) as to an inquiry by Congress as fat
" December, 1832, or a recourse to the judiciary, the President repelled,
" saying it would .be idle to rely upon either; referring, as to the judiciary,
" to the decisions already made as indications of what would be the effect of
" an-appeal to them in future."
,
These, then, were the effective reasons of the President for requiring the
removal of the deposites before the meeting of Congress. The corruptibility
of the Congress itself, and the foregone decisions of the Supreme Court of
the United States—the legislative and judicial authorities were alike despised
and degraded. The Executive will was substituted in the place of both.
These reasons bad already been urged, without success, upon one Secretary
of the Treasury, Louis McLane; he had been promoted out of office, and
they were BOW pressed upon the judgment and pliability of another. He, too,
was found refractory, and displaced. A third, more accommodating, was
found in the person of Mr. Taney. To him the reasons of the President
were all-sufficient, and he adopted them without reserve. They were a l
summed up in one—
" Sic tab, tie jubeo, stetpro ratione voluntas."
It is to be regretted that the Secretary of the Treasury did not feel himself at liberty to assign this reason. In my humble opinion it ought to have
stood in front of all the rest. There is an air of conscious shamefacedness
in the suppression of that which was so glaringly notorious; and something
of an appearance of trifling, if not of mockery, in presenting a long array
of reasons, omitting that which was at the foundation of them all.

Digitized by

38
I n tho annual message of the President of the United States to Congress,at tho commencement of their last session, a complete system of administration for the future Government of this Union was set forth at full length, t h e
single principle of wiiich was declared to be to reduce the Government o f
the Union to a simple machine; and its ultimate object to sacrifice all other
interests to those of the best part of the population.
T h e simple machine
was the means—the exclusive benefit of the best part of the population w a s
the end of this system of Government. As illustrations of the great design,
the message went much into detail upon four principal objects of national
concernment, and the policy resulting from tho whole system was, the determination to give away all the public iands to the best part of the population?
to withdraw all protection from domestic industry; to renounce forever a l t
undertaking of internal improvements; and to annihilate the Bank of theUnitcd States.
The destruction of the Bank is but one of the four elements of this stu-pendous system. This, we have been told repeatedly by quasi official authority, had been resolved before ever the President left Tennessee to come and
assume the reins of Government here. The destruction of tho Bank was-'
necessary, both to the simplification of the machine, and to the accomplishment of tho end. The Bank presented ;i n obstacle to the absolute and u n limited control and disposal of the whole revenue of the country. So long
as the public funds were deposited in the Bank of the United States and its
branches, they could not be used for the purposes of political partisans, o r
for gambling in tho public stocks. So long as the Bank could sustain t h e
credit of the commercial community, it would be impossible to break all the
traders upon borrowed capital, certainly not the best part of the population,
probably, in the estimation of our Lycurgns, the worst.
T h e reason, then, paramount to all others, for the removal, by the S e c r e tary of the Treasury, of the public deposites from tho Bank of the United
States, was the will of the President of the United States. ' I t was a p a r t
of his system for simplifying the machine of Government. It was a part o f
his system for breaking all traders upon borrowed capital. It was a part o f
his system of ultimately reverting to a hard money currency, and prostrating
every other interest in the community before the holders of lands and tho
holders of slaves. The measure was admirably adapted to all these purposes^
What possible contrivance could have been so well suited to simplify the m a chine? It placed the whole revenue of the Union at all times at his disposal, for any purpose to which he might be disposed to apply it. In vain had
the constitution of the United States solemnly enjoined that not a dollar of"
public money should ever issue from the Treasury unless in consequence o f
public appropriations made hy law. In vain had the laws cautiously stationed the register, the comptroller, the treasurer, as checks upon the Secretary
of the Treasury, so that the most trilling sum in die treasury should never
be accessible to any one, or even any two men. With a removal of the d e posites and a transfer draft, millions upon millions may be transferred by the
stroko of the pen of a supple and submissive Secretary of the Treasury,
from place to place, at home or abroad, wherever any purpose, personal or
political, may thereby be promoted. All the perplexing complications o f
constitutional principle, all the jealous bolts and bars upon the gates of the
Treasury, all the vigilant sentinels stationed before them to guard them from
intrusion, all vanish before this magic wand of the Secretary. At the " Open*
Sesame" of a transfer draft,

m
• ".On a, sadden open fly,
With impetuous recoil and jarring sound,
The brazen doors, and on their hinges grates
Harsh thunder s"
•surely nothing can be more- simple!
*
To this same final object of simplifying the machine, two other maxims
shave been proclaimed as auxiliary fundamental principles of the present administration. First, that the contest for place and power in this country is a
"state of war, and all the emoluments of office are the spoils of victory. The
other, that it is the invariable practice of the President to reward his friends
and punish his enemies.
The selection of any bank as a place of deposite, is at once a loan without interest, and a grant of public money. It is a grant of all the profit
which the Bank makes by the use of the money. The Secretary of the
Treasury might himself be a stockholder in every bank which he has selected
as a public depository as well as in one. What a simplification of the ma*
chine of Government! What a glorious opportunity to reward friends and
punish enemies! What a distribution of the spoils of victory! Establish
the precedent, and the next step will be to make it a condition of selection
that the Secretary of the Treasury shall be a stockholder in the Bank. It is
"very certain that none have been, or will be, selected anywhere, but such as
, are devoted friends to General JacKson. The officers of all such banks, their
presidents, cashiers, directors, stockholders, debtors, and creditors are all linked
together, by the depositary tie, as friends and supporters of General Jackson,
and if any one of them should flinch for a moment from his fealty, % transfer
draft shall forthwith punish him as an enemy, just as a transfer draft rewarded
him as a friend. What an admirable simplification of the machine of Government! What an unrivalled device for the benefit of the best part of tht
population!
Mr. Speaker, in the review of the reasons which have been assigned, as
well as of that which has been suppressed, for this unlawful and unjust removal of the public deposites from the Bank of the United States and its
branches to institutidns unknown to your laws, and unchecked by your control, it has been my purpose to confine myself rigorously to the question before you. If any thing that I have said on this, or a former day, bearing
specially upon the conduct or character of the present Chief Magistrate, as
implicated in these transactions, should have been offensive to his friends and
-supporters here, I shall regret the circumstance, and pray the House to be
assured that I have said nothing but under the dictates of a commanding
duty. With regard to any personal relations which may have existed herd
•tofore, or may now erxist between him and me, I shall say nothing. They
form a part of the history of the country, and to the judgment of posterity I
cheerfully leave them. When, as a representative of the people, I entered
upon this floor, it Was with a firm determination to support his administration
in every measure which my conscience could approve, and to rebuke him
and his administration for every measure, if any such should occur, which I
lionestly believed derogatory to the honor or pernicious to the interests of
my country. During the time that I have been engaged in this service, I kaet
•supported his administration at more than one of its times of trial. I supported it in the tariff of 1832; I supported it in the revenue collection biH
of the last session; supported it on both occasions against men whom I respect and esteem; supported it with an opposition and resistance to them
from which I never would have receded. I hailed his proclaniation as aft

Digitized by

48
exposition of constitutional principles, in general sound and creditable, thoughr
I could neither conceal to myself, nor disguise to others, its utter and irreconcileable inconsistency with the annual message sent to Congress but six
days before. Of that annual message it became my duty to expose, by a
lull analysis, the radical, fundamental, and most pernicious errors, of which
we are now barely beginning to taste the bitter fruits.
In his rancorous and unrelenting hostility to the respectable and worthy
President and Directors of the Bank of the United States I have never sharedIt has appeared to me a passionate ebullition of anger and revenge, sophisticated into a self-conceit of unbending patriotism. I voted for the bill
to recharter the Bank, and deeply lamented, as I still deeply lament, the veto
which rejected it To that measure I look as the primary cause of all the
miseries we are now enduring, and of the deeper and deepening woes that
await our futurity. It is that veto which has been snatching from the mouth
of labor its daily bread, and calling down upon itself the curses of the widow
and the heart-rending cries of the orphan. And what have we seen as its
consequences already! A President of the United States afraid of assassination! A President of the United States barring his gates and bolting his
doors against deputations of his suffering fellow-citizens, and turning a deaf
ear to their complaints! The removal of the public deposites is but a natural
sequel to the veto of the recharter. It was' not enough to put the victim to
death unless its dying hour could be made to agonize with torture. For all
this, in the deep affliction of my soul, I say the President of the United '
States is personally responsible to this People. For every word that I have
here said,' or may say of him, I hold myself responsible to him, to my constituents, and my country. But I can have no controversy with any one, or
more of his admirers in this House, and shall make no reply to their sallies
of temper exercised upon me in retaliation for my animadversions in the discharge of my duty upon him. It would not become me to speak here in the
fear of Aim. They must not expect me to be silent for the fear of them. I
believe them moro honest than he believes them himself. If they are contented with that character which he gave of them to his confidential counsellor
and Secretary, whom he dismissed for refusing to be the servile instrument
of his will, I shall not disturb their self-satisfaction. In repelling with indignation, as a member of this and of the last Congress, his imputation of therankest corruption upon the whole body of them both, I have not departed
one hair's breadth from the subject of deliberation now before the House.
That imputed rank corruption he assigned to his confidential counsellor and
Secretary, as his reason for insisting upon the removal of the public deposites before the meeting of the present Congress. It was like all the reasons
assigned by the Secretary—unlawful and unjust.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that I cannot expect to find
myself in the majority in this House upon any question relating to this subject; but I would fain indulge the hope that the majority will take this question directly, without retreating from it, without flinching before it. Are the
reasons assigned by the Secretary of the Treasury, for changing the depository of the public funds, from places prescribed by law, to places selected at
his will—are they, or are they not, sufficient to justify the measure! With
perfect respect for the majority of this House, to'whom I now address myself,.
I say, is it not your duty to your constituents (and I mean thereby the whole
people of the Union) to answer that question ay or no? The corporation o f
the Bank of the United States, and of that body the United States themselves...
as stockholders, form a part, have formally complained of this act of the Se—

Digitized by

41
cretary as of a wrong done to them, and they have petitioned to you for re*dress. Permit me to say it will be no sufficient answer to this complaint, and.
petition for redress to tell them that the Bank shall not be rechartered. It will
not be sufficient to say the Bank is unconstitutional. It will not be sufficient to
call it a monster, a tyrant, a corrupt moneyed aristocracy; to aver that it has
used its power to control the press, to influence elections, or to produce the
present pressure. Still less will it be sufficient, after repeating from year toyear to every pillar of this House, till the very echoes are ashamed to return
the sound, that the Bank has committed all these crimes, to appoint a strolling committee to perambulate this whole Union, from Portland to New
Orleans, and from Philadelphia to St. Louis, to inquire and report to this
House whether the Bank has committed them or not! The question to be
answered is, has your Secretary of the Treasury wronged the Bank, or has
he not? Has he taken their property and converted it to the use of others?—
including himself. If you shrink from answering this question, it will be an
argument of strong prevailment, to these who shall occupy these seats, hereafter, that you dared not meet it. The complaint of wrong and the petition
for redress will survive you. " The evil that men do lives after them." The
Bank of the United States will die; but its ghost will haunt this hall, though
justice should be denied by Congress after Congress—perhaps from age to
age—and your evasion of the question will be a standing recommendation of
the claim, till importunity shall extort from your successors the reparation
sought in vain from you.
Nor is this the only.duty incumbent upon you—upon you—upon the majority;
of this House. The fate of the people and of their posterity is in your
hands. The experiment undertaken by the Chief Executive Magistrate is, in
its nature, an assumption by him of legislative power; but it cannot be consummated without your assent and co-operation. Most of you have been
elected as members of this House under pledges to support his administration. How many of you were aware that, in redemption of this pledge, you
would be called to surrender to him your own peculiar and appropriate functions of legislation?—to pervert the forms, and invert the substance, of that
division of powers without which, we have been taught from our childhood,,
that freedom is but the shadow of a shade. Your constitution has committed
its legislative powers to Congress, and the executive power to the President
of the United States. But, now, the President has constituted himself the
legislator, and calls upon you to execute his ordinances and decrees; and
you, in this House, are about to respond to his call, because you afe pledged
to support his administration. Representatives of the people of the North
American Union, is it for this that you were elected the trustees of their
interests? the guardians of their rights? Is there no way but by laying them
at the feet of Andrew Jackson that you can support his administration!
Nearly two centuries since, in the same unblessed year which restored the
Stuarts to the throne of England, the representatives of the people of D e n mark formally surrendered into the hands of their King the whole power of
the nation; and, since that time, the Government of Denmark has been a
marvellously simple machine. Is that, in the annals of nations, the examplewhich, of all others, you would be ambitious of imitating? Mr. Speaker, in
the gloomy hours of anticipation, which the actual condition of our country
has, for the last four months, forced upon me, I have sometimes cheered for
a moment my thick-coming fancies, by, imagining what, in the present crisis
of our history, the representatives of the people of this Union might be, and
what they ought to be. . I have pictured to myself a House of Represents^-

I
Digitized by

42
tives, in the short period of a two years' existence, erecting to itself a monument of imperishable renown; establishing for itself a reputation in after
times of faithful co-operation with the other departments of the Government
in promoting the welfare, and protecting the interests of the people, their
constituents, and, at the same time, of inflexible tenacity and unyielding
adherence to the principles of the constitution, and the theory of human
liberty, handed down* to them from their fathers to be transmitted to their
children. I have asked myself what {hat small but steadfast band of statesmen and of heroes, whose forms salute us as we daily pass through yonder
rotunda to and from this hall, in the very act of signing the Declaration of
Independence; I have asked myself what would be their charge to us, their
children and descendants, could they speak from the canvass as we pass them
by; would they tell us that the summit of human glory is to be scaled by
•demolishing a Bank? That the benisons of mankind are to be bought by
the closure of a broker's shop? . That half a dozen worthy and respectable
•traders of Philadelphia are tyrannizing over the nation in the guise of Bank
•directors; and that, unless we take from them the power of loaning money,
sand calling at the appointed time for its repayment, they will trample our
'laws, our constitutions, and our liberties, under their feet? Sir, could the
patriots of 1776 come down from the side of the wall, enter in solemn procession within these doors, take seats in front of your chair, and witness our
-deliberations, with what amazement would they learn the propositions submitted to us, and listen to the resolutions prepared for our adoption? Startled,
-as they well might be, at the shrieks and groans of agonizing freedom which
they would hear reverberating within and around this Capitol, would they
not inquire, what Attila, what Alaric, what Gengis Khan, had poured his
Tiordes of Goths, of Vandals, or of Tartars, over our fertile fields, our peaceful plantations, and our late flourishing farms? What scourge of God had
desolated our cities? What convulsion of nature had palsied the arm of
industry? had furled the sails of commerce to mildew at your wharves.? had
silenced the mill-clap, the shuttle, and the loom? had banished the merchant
from the exchange? had severed the ploughman from his plough? the mechanic
from his implements of toil? and the daily laborer from his daily bread?
Would they not inquire, what is of all this the cause? And how would they
Mush, or weep, to hear one half of this House respond to their inquiry, the
Bank! and the other half, the removal of the deposltes! Sir, the pressure of
the removal of the deposites is nearly past; it has ruined its thousands, and
afflicted its millions; but the simoom has blown over, and they who prostrated
themselves on their faces before the blast survive unhurt, and may rise, and
yet find their way out of the desert.
The pressure, from the removal of the deposites, is passing away. The
prosperity of a great nation cannot long suffer from so trifling an incident as
that. But the wrong is done, and its consequences will remain festering and
Inflaming the body of the community until that wrong shall be repaired.
Your President has usurped Legislative power; he has laid his hands upon
your treasure, and he is now converting it to his own purposes. He has
seized it, and now wields it as a weapon of power to himself, and an instrument of plunder to his partisans. Yet his experiment has but just commenced;
its object is not merely to destroy, but to break the Bank. His chosen State
banks are to be his depositories and engines, to restore a metallic currency.
With what intuitive sagacity are the means adapted to the end! Sir, his
State banks would land the nation, they are already hurling it, into universal
bankruptcy. His hand must be stayed, or the nation is undone! Mr.

Digitized by

43
"Speaker, thanks to the guardian angel of our Union, there is, even now,
there is a power that stays his hand. His seizure of the public treasure will
receive no sanction of law. His usurpation of Legislative power will remain
a warning, and not an example, to his successors. Sir, is it to the representatives of the people, or to die representatives of the States, that future ages
•will look back for the fortitude that withstands usurpation, and for the energy
that redeems the violated form of freedom? Shall the verdict of the next
century pronounce that WE have vindicated the rights of the people? that
•we have been true to our appropriate trust? that we have shaken off the
shackles of party spirit? that tee have burst the bonds of idolized mortality?
Or shall that crown of glory be reserved for our fellow servants in the
northern wing of this Capitol? Mr. Speaker, there stands the Muse of History* prepared to record our votes. May they be such as we shall remember
with consolation at the last hour of our lives!
.
* The beautiful statue, in the wheel of whose car is the clock behind and over the
Speaker's chair, in the attitude of recording as the hands of the clock revolve.

Digitized by


Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, One Federal Reserve Bank Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63102