Page images
PDF
EPUB

power of legislating at his will, he would hesitate before he gave any class of men the control of an institution of thirty-five millions of dollars, without reserving to the Government a strong check on them. Mr. H. protested, with warmth, against the proscription which had been denounced against those who did not, on this subject, go with the majority of that party in the House opposed to the Administration. He disclaimed any such influence over his public conduct; he came here to act according to his own sincere convictions, and should despise himself, if he could submit to act as this or that side of the House pointed its finger. Mr. H. concluded by declaring his support of the bank bill to be disinterested; he expected to hold not a cent's worth of its stock, as he was not able to do so, but the bank, he believed, would be a great benefit to the country.

Mr. WRIGHT said he was one of those who had aided in putting down the old bank, and was sure that, a thousand years after he was buried, his vote on that occasion would be a monumental proof of his worth, and his regard for the best interests of his country. He opposed it on the ground of inexpediency as well as unconstitutionality; but the supreme judicial tribunal had decided on its constitutionality, by often recognising it as a party, and it was now too late to insist on the objection. Mr. W. argued some time in favor of the bill; and, adverting to Mr. RANDOLPH's epithet that the bank was a scheme of public robbery, and his declared intention to hold as much of its stock as he could, Mr. W. said his friend from Virginia ought to recollect that the receiver was always considered as bad as the thief, &c.

Mr. HARDIN next delivered, at length, his views of the question, objecting to the plan of a bank, as embraced in this bill, on constitutional grounds, as well as from a belief of its inexpediency. He was a member of the Kentucky Legislature at the time, and was one of those who had instructed its Senators to vote against the old bank because of its unconstitutionality; and his opinions remained unchanged, though he perceived some of those who had acted with him in the case alluded to, had changed their opinions, and were now supporters of the bank, &c.

Mr. SHARP Spoke in reply to the remarks of Mr. HARDIN, respecting the instructions from the Kentucky Legislature, and justified his opinions on the subject of the bank.

Mr. SOUTHARD made a few remarks, principally to show that it was not on the ground of unconstitutionalty that Congress had refused to renew the charter of the old bank, and that it had been recognised by the courts, &c.

Mr. GROSVENOR replied to the observations of Mr. WEBSTER, in a decided manner. He denied the right of that gentleman to lecture other members of the House for the course which their duty prescribed to them. As to the changes of principle, of which the gentleman had spoken, Mr. G. said he did not mean to inquire whether the gentlemen on the other side of the House had acted consistently, but this he knew, that last year the gentleman had been proud to shake hands with them in relation to a bank, &c. The gentleman had spoken of another change of principle, alluding to gentlemen from this side of the House who voted for the present bill. In reply to this remark, Mr. G. said, in the first place, he had something of that old puritanical principle in him, which objected to being drilled in to vote in this or that manner, on what. ever any gentleman chose to call a question of principle. Why did the gentleman call the power of appointment of five directors, given to the Government, a question of principle? The question is, whether one-fifth of the direction gives the Government a control over the bank? I say no, said Mr. G.; the gentleman says yes, and, saying so, this must be a question of principle. That, Mr. G. said, appeared to be the course of the gentleman's argument, the force of which he denied. He showed, that, in the State banks in New York, (not undertaking to say how it might be in New Hampshire) such features had

been incorporated, even whilst Gen. Hamilton was in the full vigor of his life and influence, and it was done by his party too, &c. The gentleman has said this control would be a lever in the hands of the Government. It was a straw, Mr. G. said, instead of a lever, and could not move an eagle, much less five and thirty millions of dollars. When, even on this side of the House, did this feature become a question of principle? Mr. G. went on to show that he had objected to the feature in question, and endeavored to procure it to be expunged; but he never considered it, nor had it been debated, but as a question of detail. All legislation, he proceeded to argue, was founded in the idea of mutual compromise as to modifications of details; and this clause, now so much objected to, could produce no possible injury to the People or to the Government. When and where did this clause grow into a principle? He could tell, he said, the way it travelled, and where it became a principle-not in the open face of day he would not, however, here relate its history. It had not been a principle with him, and never should be, Mr. G. went on to say that he had never heard a wish expressed from any side of the House, that the Government should have an absolute control over the operations of the bank, &c. When the discussion on this bill had been first opened, Mr. G. said, he had heard an able and eloquent speech of the gentleman from New Hampshire on the subject; and that very speech, in which the evils of the present system were fully depicted, had convinced him of the expediency of the establishment of this bank, as better calculated than any thing else to remedy the evil. The gentleman had concluded that address with saying, that, if Congress rose without providing a proper remedy, they would deserve the execration of the nation. Mr. G. said he believed it, and believing, as he had fully delivered his opinion the other day, that there was no remedy but the bill on the table, he should certainly vote for it. Mr. G. made other remarks to show the correctness of this conclusion, and ended by saying that, in the course he was obliged to take, nothing greived him so much as the necessity of differing, on an important question, from men whom he had been in the habit of respecting as oracles, and with whom it was generally his pride and pleasure to act, &c.

Mr. WEBSTER, in replying to Mr. GROSVENOR, disclaimed any intention to dictate, &c. In regard to the feature of the bill, which was the subject of discussion, Mr. W. said he considered it a matter of principle; but attributed that opinion to the gentleman from New York no further than he had assumed the charge of a departure from principle to apply to himself. What is the matter of principle in this case? That control and influence over a great banking institution should not be possessed by the Government. The degree of that influence was not material, the principle remaining the same, be the influence more or less extensive. That principle was violated by this bill, which, he went on to say, could not be fairly compared with similar features in small banks in the State Governments. But, he added, every bank so constructed in the United States had failed to answer the purposes for which it was instituted, and was, at this moment, in the daily, habitual violation of its engagements. Could it be doubted, Mr. W. said, that, with this capital and this power over it, the Government could bring any man into terms, and make the banks act as they pleased? Gentlemen had done him honor in quoting his opinions in support of part of the bill; but he asked if it was fair to quote a part of his opinions as authority, and abuse him for the rest? Mr. W. expressed the pleasure he had enjoyed in travelling with his friends here. If, in journeying with a friend, on a road pleasant and smooth, through verdant fields, they should arrive at a part rough and disagreeable; if they should encounter gloom, and darkness should overtake them; if then his friend chose to abandon him, and seek a road more agreeable, let him not, said he, complain if I continue on the old one. To complain of him, Mr. W. said, the gentleman might as well complain of the fifty-nine others with whom he acted. The gentleman reminded him of the anecdote of the eleven obstinate jurors, and related a case in which one juror informed the judge that there would be no difficulty in making up a verdict if it were not for the other eleven, who

、were the most obstinate fellows he ever met with, and that he himself was the only candid and liberal man of the whole twelve. Mr. W. said he had shaken hands with the gentlemen last session on this subject; if they had changed their opinions, they had not made the world the wiser for them. Mr. W. said, though young, he found that he possessed antiquated notions; and that, to be useful, he ought to have been with generations that had gone by.

Mr. HULBERT said, until the gentleman could show himself divested of the frailties of human nature, he ought not to complain that part only of his opinions were quoted. Mr. H. reminded the gentleman of an authority with which he, doubtless, was well acquainted-the learned Coke-having finished his great and elaborate commentary on law, a work which would be the admiration of all ages, concludes it by advising his reader not to believe that all which he finds in that book to be law, for there was much of it which was not law. Mr. H. said, if he had had any doubts on this bill, his friend from New York, (Mr. GROSVENOR) had made a speech which perfectly satisfied him of the excellence of the bank. The gentleman from New Hampshire, (Mr. WEBSTER) had at first made the amount of capital an all-important, a fatal error; soon afterwards he came into the House and declared that the Government of the bank was a sine qua non, and for that would compromise his other objections. [Mr. WEBSTER here denied that he had said so.] I do not, said Mr. H. pretend to repeat the gentleman's words, but I appeal to this honorable House if the gentleman did not say that the government of the bank was a sine qua non with him, and if that was given up he would support the bill. I do not censure that declaration, said Mr. H. The great charter, under which we sit here, is the work of compromise-the South suffered itself to be taxed by the North, for its slave population-the spirit of compromise and concession pervades the whole instrument. What the gentleman meant by green fields, smooth roads, separation, &c. Mr. H. said he could not tell; but if he meant to attribute to him any improper influence, he disdained the insinuation; while he lived, he would act on solid and independent principles. He came here first in a time of war, and, being a young member, expected to find the party, to which he was proud to belong, as the saying was, sticking together; but he was surprised to find that gentleman often voting on this side and the other. Mr. H. said he would not part with his friends unless they thrust him off; but he would prefer parting with friends to parting with his conscience.

Mr. M'KEE spoke in support of the bill, and asked the gentleman from New Hampshire, notwithstanding he would to-morrow oppose the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, or any other unconstitutional measure, yet, if a case might not arise, in which its suspension would be proper, and he consent to it? Mr. M'K. argued that there now existed a similar necessity for this bank. The constitution had made it the duty of Congress to regulate the national currency and remedy evils therein; and the proper inquiry now was, whether this bank was a proper measure to carry the constitutional power into effect in this emergency; for this inquiry there was the most rational ground. No treasury regulation would remedy the evil; the banks would laugh at any such regulation. Mr. M'K. said he had voted for the old bank; that he had survived the storm in which his vote had involved him; experience had justified his conduct; and he hoped still to survive, should another storm succeed his present course.

Mr. SHEFFEY said he was not scrupulous as to the power of the Government to establish this bank; but he did not admit that what was unconstitutional to-day would not be so to-morrow; that instrument was fixed and eternal, and could not be got over. The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was dependent on a fact, which, if it occurred, the suspension would be proper; but if not, it was unauthorized. Mr. S. said he had voted for renewing the old bank because he thought it was necessary; and if he could be

convinced that this bank would realize the expectation of its friends, he would give up his objections. But, without any disparagement to its friends, and notwithstanding the great talents of the gentleman, (Mr. CALHOUN) who led the business, Mr. S. said the question had not been properly met and discussed. When they came to show how the promised remedy was to be produced, they dealt in generals; they did not demonstrate their assertions; it was here they failed and would fail. Mr. S. then argued at some length to show that the bank would not answer the purpose of correcting the evils in the currency, and that the expectation was visionary and delusive.

The motion to postpone indefinitely was finally decided in the negative, as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative, are,

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

The amendments of the Senate were then, after some ineffectual attempts to amend them, severally concurred in.

The bill was approved by the President, JAMES MADISON, on the 10th of April, 1816, and constitutes the present charter of the Bank of the United States.

90

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »