and other officers of the bank, to be appointed as is usual in similar institutions.

12. That the directors of the national bank shall appoint seven persons, one of whom to preside, as the managers of each office of discount and deposite, and one person to be the cashier.

13. That the general powers, privileges, and regulations of the bank, shall be the same as are usual in similar institutions; but with this special provision, that the general accounts shall be subject to the inspection of the Secretary of the Treasury."

In making a proposition for the establishment of a national bank, I cannot be insensible to the high authority of the names which have appeared in opposition to that measure, upon constitutional grounds. It would be presumptuous to conjecture that the sentiments which actuated, the opposition have passed away; and yet it would be denying to experience a great practical advantage, were we to suppose that a difference of times and circumstances would not produce a corresponding difference in the opinions of the wisest, as well as of the purest men. But, in the present case, a change of private opinion is not material to the success of the proposition for establishing a national bank. In the administration of human affairs, there must be a period when discussion shall cease, and decision shall become absolute. A diversity of opinion may honorably survive the contest; but, upon the genuine principles of a representative government, the opinion of the majority can alone be carried into action. The judge, who dissents from the majority of the bench, changes not his opinion, but performs his duty, when he enforces the judgment of the court, although it is contrary to his own convictions. An oath to support the constitution and the laws, is not, therefore, an oath to support them under all circumstances, according to the opinion of the individual who takes it, but it is, emphatically, an oath to support them according to the interpretation of the legitimate authorities. For the erroneous decisions of a court of law, there is the redress of a censorial, as well as of an appellate jurisdiction. Over an act, founded upon an exposition of the constitution, made by the legislative department of the government, but alleged to be incorrect, we have seen the judicial department exercise a remedial power. And, even if all the departments, legislative, executive, and judicial, should concur in the exercise of a power, which is either thought to transcend the constitutional trust, or to operate injuriously upon the community, the case is still within the reach of a competent control, through the medium of an amendment to the constitution, upon the proposition, not only of Congress, but of the several States. When, therefore, we have marked the existence of a national bank for a period of twenty years, with all the sanctions of the legislative, executive, and judicial authorities; when we have seen the dissolution of one institution, and heard a loud and continued call for the establishment of another; when, under these circumstances, neither Congress nor the several States, have resorted to the power of amendment; can it be deemed a violation of the right of private opinion, to consider the constitutionality of a national bank as a question forever settled and at rest?

But, after all, I should not merit the confidence, which it will be my am bition to acquire, if I were to suppress the declaration of an opinion, that, in these times, the establishment of a national bank will not only be useful in promoting the general welfare, but, that it is necessary and proper for carrying into execution some of the most important powers constitutionally vested in the Government.

Upon the principles and regulations of the national bank, it may be sufficient to remark, that they will be best unfolded in the form of a bill, which shall be immediately prepared. A compound capital is suggested, with a design equally to accommodate the subscribers, and to aid the general measures for the revival of public credit; but the proportions of specie and stock may be varied, if the scarcity of coin should render it expedient; yet, not in so great a degree as to prevent an early commencement of the money operations of the institution."

OCTOBER 21, 1814.

The House resolved itself into a committee of the whole, on the foregoing report and letters, and made some progress therein. And, on the 22d, Mr. NELSON, from the said committee, reported that the committee had again had the said report and letters under consideration, and had made certain amendments to the first and second resolutions contained in the report, which they had directed him to report to the House, and ask leave to sit again upon the residue thereof.

OCTOBER 24, 1814.

The House proceeded to consider the above report of the committee of the whole House, and the question was stated, to concur with the said committee in their amendments to the said first and second resolutions:

When, on motion of Mr. EPPES,

Ordered, That the said first and second resolutions do lie on the table, and that the committee of the whole House have leave to sit again to-day, on the residue of said report and letters.

The House, afterwards, resolved itself into a committee, and Mr. PITKIN reported that the committee had again had the said report and letters under consideration, and made amendments to the fourth and fifth resolutions; also, that they had further amended the said report, by adding thereto three new resolutions, to come in as the 6th, 7th, and 8th.

On motion of Mr. EPPES,

Ordered, That the said report do lie on the table.

OCTOBER 28, 1814.

The House resumed the consideration of the remaining part of the report of the committee of the whole, it being the 8th resolution, that it is expedi ent to establish a national bank, with branches, in the several States."

Mr. POST, of N. Y., hoped the chairman or some other member of the Committee of Ways and Means would explain the reasons on which the proposi tion was founded.

Mr. CLOPTON, of Va., called upon gentlemen in favor of the proposition to show in what part of the constitution was contained the power to establish a national bank. Having always, himself, denied the constitutional power, and the House having so decided, six years ago, he could not see what had occurred to change the nature of the constitutional question. Unless his objections on this head were removed, he must certainly vote against this proposition.

Mr. EPPES, of Va., said his sentiments in relation to this question were well known, and were not changed. However necessary he might believe the agency of such an institution at the present moment, he could not give his consent to a measure which he believed contrary to the constitution. For the reasons in favor of the resolve which he had reported, in obedience to the instructions of the committee, he referred to Mr. DALLAS's report, and to the gentlemen of the committee who favored it.

Mr. WRIGHT, of Md., expressed himself decidedly in favor of the establishment of a bank, but, in order to obviate objections some might conscientiously entertain on constitutional grounds, he was of opinion that the bank ought to be located within this district. He therefore moved to amend the resolve, by inserting therein the words "within the District of Columbia."

Mr. BURWELL, of Virginia, said he had no doubt of the power of Congress to establish a bank of the kind proposed, in the District of Columbia; but he should vote against the amendment, because he believed such a bank would not at all assist the finances of the Government. He was, also, entirely hostile to the establishment of a bank on the principles recommended in the Secretary's report as its basis, for reasons growing out of their general impracticability and inexpediency.

Mr. DUVAL, of Kentucky, said he was opposed to the proposed amendment, because it would destroy the utility of the bank, so far as regards its issuing a medium which should possess the general confidence; and he was opposed to it, also, because the adoption of it would virtually sanction the construction, which he denied, that it was not constitutional to establish a bank with branches in the several States. Mr. D. was proceeding to argue in support of the constitutionality of a bank, when

Mr. WRIGHT withdrew the amendment which he had proposed.

Mr. STANFORD, of North Carolina, moved to strike out of the resolve the following words: with branches in the several States." Some gentlemen, he said, were of opinion a bank might be established adequate to all necessary purposes, having no branches, but arrangements with some one or more banks now existing in each State. He was in favor of leaving the question as broad as possible.

Mr. DUVAL resumed his argument on the constitutional question, which he examined with no little ability and ingenuity. He chiefly rested his opinion of the power to incorporate a bank, on that section of the constitution which prohibits the States to coin money, or issue" bills of credit;" which negation of power, he apprehended, implied the existence of the power in Congress. If Congress had not power, under the constitution of the United States, to establish a bank or banks, nearly all the States had violated their own State constitutions, as well as the constitution of the United States, in authorizing the circulation of bank notes, which, call them what you will, are "bills of credit." Mr. D. went deeper stil! into this question, and concluded with expressing his decided hostility to the proposed amendment.

}

Mr. GROSVENOR, of New York, having no doubt of the constitutionality of a national bank, entreated gentlemen to vote down the proposed amendment; because, if adopted, it would hold out fallacious ideas of the adequacy of a bank without branches, to be established within this district, which would no more relieve the embarrassment of our finances than will the five and ten cents bills issued by the corporations of this city and Georgetown, &c. He should vote for the general proposition. As for the Secretary's proposition, it was a felo de se; and many of its features could not be sanctioned in this House.

Mr. HAWKINS, of Kentucky, said that one of his earliest convictions on political topics was, that this Government had no power to establish a national bank; but, if it is to be established, he was clearly of opinion it ought to be on general principles. In order to give the question full and ample consideration on the widest national, just, and general objects, he should vote against the amendment, without intending in any way to sanction the idea that Congress has the power" to establish a national bank with branches in the several States."

Mr. CLOPTON made a number of observations in reply to the argument of Mr. DUVAL. The true principle of construction of the constitution being that all powers not expressly delegated are reserved, he contended that Congress could by no forced construction derive the power to establish a national bank.

Mr. WILSON, of Pennsylvania, predicated his views in favor of the resolution, and against the amendment, on the statement of facts, and reasoning of the Secretary of the Treasury on this subject, which, combined, he believed to be conclusive.

Mr. M'KEE, of Kentucky, expressed surprise that the opposition to this measure, declared by the Secretary of the Treasury to be necessary not only to the maintenance but to the restoration of the public credit, proceeded from those who had, in every other respect, been the most zealous and inflexible in their pursuit of measures to sustain the operations of the Government. He had no doubt of the power of the Government to establish a national bank as an instrument of finance, and entered into a train of reasoning, with his usual acumen, as well to prove this, as to prove the injury which had resulted from the

refusal to re-charter the late Bank of the United States. As to the establishing the bank within this district, for all present practical purposes, it might as well be established in Abyssinia. He was decidedly opposed to the motion now under consideration.

The question on Mr. STANFORD's motion to strike out the words "with branches in the several States," was decided, by yeas and nays, in the negative, as follows: For the motion, 14. Against it, 138.

The question being stated on the passage of the resolution

Mr. POST, of New York, said, under present impressions, he should vote against it, because the idea it embraced was illusive, and its object impracti cable at the present moment; to show which, he made a number of remarks going to establish the insufficiency of such a measure to remedy the general want of confidence among individuals as well as in the banks, which at present prevailed.

The question on the adoption of the resolution was decided by the following vote:

So the resolution was agreed to, and this, together with the other resolutions, were referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, to bring in bills acccordingly.

NOVEMBER 7, 1814.

Mr. FISK, of New York, from the Committee of Ways and Means, asked and obtained leave to report a bill to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States of America; which was twice read by its title, and referred to a committee of the whole.

And the House adjourned.

NOVEMBER 13, 1814.

The House went into committee of the whole on the said bill; which having been read through, the committee rose, and obtained leave to sit again. NOVEMBER 14, 1814.

The House resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. NELSON, of Virginia, in the chair, on the bill to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States of America.

The first section of the bill having been read, in the following words:

"Be it enacted, &c. That a bank of the United States of America shall be established, the capital stock of which shall be fifty millions of dollars, and no more, divided into one hundred thousand shares, of five hundred dollars each share, and that subscriptions towards constituting the said capital stock, shall be opened on the first Monday of next, at the following places, viz: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Richmond, Charleston, aud Pittsburg, under the superintendence of the following persons, as commissioners to receive the same: At Boston, James Lloyd, Thomas Perkins, and William Gray; at New York, General John Smith, Isaac Bronson, Theron Rudd; at Philadelphia, Thomas M. Willing, Stephen Girard, Chandler Price; at Baltimore, Henry Pason, William Cooke, William Wilson; at Richmond, Benjamin Hatcher, John Brokenborough, William Preston; at Charleston, John C. Faber, John Potter, James Carson; at Pittsburg, George Robinson, Samuel Robert, and Henry Baldwin; which subscriptions shall continue open every day, from the time of opening the same, from ten o'clock, in the forenoon, until four o'clock, in the afternoon, until the Saturday following, at four o'clock, in the afternoon, when the same shall be closed; and, immediately thereafter, the commissioners, or any two of them, at the respective places aforesaid, shall cause two transcripts or fair copies of such subscriptions to be made; one of which they shall send to the Secretary of the Treasury, one they shall retain, and the original subscriptions shall, within three days from the closing of the same, be, by the said commissioners, transmitted to the said commissioners at Philadelphia, or to one of them; and, on the receipt thereof, the said commissioners at Philadelphia, or any two of them, shall immediately thereafter convene, and proceed to take an account of the said subscriptions; and if more than the amount of the said capital stock of thirty millions of dollars shall have been subscribed, then the said last mentioned commissioners shall apportion the same, among the several subscribers, in a just and equal ratio, according to their several and respective subscriptions: Provided, however, That such commissioners shall, by such apportionment, allow and