Page images
PDF
EPUB

The principal speakers in the Senate opposed to the removal were Messrs. Clay, Calhoun, Ewing, Poindexter, Preston, Wilkins, Tyler, and Leigh. Those who supported the measure were Messrs. Forsyth, Benton, Gilmer, Rives, Grundy, and Wright.

The opponents of the removal assailed it in both Houses on the ground that the right of removal was vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by law, and that the President had no power over the deposits, either by himself or his Cabinet; but that, disregarding the evident intention of the law, the present removal had been, in fact, made by him. They further denied the sufficiency of the reasons given by the President, even if he had the power.

They urged that the Bank charter was essentially a contract between the Government and the Bank; and that, so long as that institution fulfilled its prescribed duties to the Government, it had a right to the use of the unemployed public funds, as a compensation for its services in collecting, keeping, and distributing the public revenue that the alleged acts of misconduct in the Bank were all defensible; and though they had not been, they furnished no sufficient reasons for removing the deposits from a Bank where they were more safe than they would be in the State banks.

They show that, by the removal, the nation, as a stockholder, was made to incur a certain loss, under the pretext of avoiding a risk of loss which no one believed to exist and lastly, they lay a stress on the incalculable distress thus unnecessarily inflicted on the community, not merely by its present suffering, but by the alarm and anxiety for the future produced by the arbitrary conduct of the Executive.

On the subject of the public suffering, Mr. Binney, one

of the members from Philadelphia, whose fairness, as well as ability, his adversaries admitted, thus speaks:"The change produced in this country, in the short space of three months, is without example in the history of this or any other nation. The past summer found the people delighted or contented with the apparent adjustment of some of the most fearful controversies that ever divided them." After a glowing picture of the prosperity of the country, and the contentment of the people, he added: "One universal smile beamed from the happy face of this favored country. But, Sir, we have had a fearful admonition that we hold all such treasures in earthen vessels; and a still more fearful one, that misjudging man, either in error or in anger, may, in a moment, dash them to the earth, and break into a thousand fragments the finest creations of industry and intelligence."1

[ocr errors]

The friends of the measure maintained that the act of Congress respecting the deposits never intended to interfere with the control of the President over his Cabinet; and if it had, that such an interference would have been beyond its constitutional powers: and they ask their opponents what would have been their doctrine if the Secretary had been disposed to deprive the Bank of the deposits improperly, and the President had interposed his controlling power to protect the Bank. But if he could interpose his authority in that case, he could equally do so on the present occasion.

They show that the removal was justified by numerous acts of the Bank, which had shown itself an unfaithful agent in thwarting some of those fiscal measures of the Government which it was especially appointed to discharge, and in endeavoring to turn the disappointment

'Register of Debates, Vol. X., Part II., page 2321.

of the Government (in the case of the French bill) to a source of profit to itself: that it had forfeited all claims to continued favor from the Government by various other acts of misconduct-in making loans, and administering the affairs of the Bank in violation of its own charter and by-laws.

They reproached it for withholding information from the Government Directors, and of systematically defeating the cautionary and defensive purposes of their creation; with lending money upon insufficient security to editors; with using their money and patronage to influence the elections; with circulating pamphlets and documents to defame the President, and to bring the Administration into discredit; with enlarging or contracting its loans, so as to influence public sentiment in support of their particular policy and views: in a word, they insisted that the Bank, instead of being the mere fiscal agent of the Government, and of the mercantile community, had been transformed into a political engine, equally formidable by its wealth, activity, and corrup

tion.

To name all who engaged in the discussion of the removal of the deposits, or of topics growing out of the numerous memorials connected with it, would be to comprehend more than half the members of the House; but those who took the most distinguished part in the debate against the removal appear to have been Messrs. M'Duf fie and Pinckney of South Carolina, Binney of Pennsyl vania, Adams and Choate of Massachusetts, Archer, Gordon and Wise of Virginia, Burges of Rhode Island, Chilton and Hardin of Kentucky, and King of Georgia: while the leading supporters of the Administration were Messrs. Polk, Peyton and Grundy of Tennessee, Cambreling and Beardsley of New York, Forsyth, Gilmer, Jones

and Clayton of Georgia, Patton and Loyall of Virginia, and Clay of Alabama.

During the debate in the House, a most remarkable incident occurred, by which all party feelings were suddenly suspended by an appeal to the sympathies of our common nature.

Mr. Bouldin, of Virginia, when about to speak against the removal of the deposits, rose and remarked that, before he said any thing on the question then under discussion, he must advert to a rebuke which he had received from his colleague, Mr. Wise, who had truly stated in his place, that when Mr. Randolph died, he was a member of this House, and yet his death had not been announced on this floor. He said that his colleague had not kindly suggested this matter to him, but that another colleague had most delicately done so; and had intimated to him that, as he was Mr. Randolph's representative, he ought, even then, to mention his death. He must tell this colleague, this House, and his constituents, the reason why Mr. Randolph's death was not announced. Then, after one or two incoherent remarks, he swooned, fell on the floor, and soon afterwards expired. The House immediately adjourned.

Mr. Bouldin was a self-educated man, of unimpeachable integrity, and of superior native powers, as well as of business habits. He had acquired a competent estate by his talents and moral worth, which had elevated him first to the Bench, and then to a seat in Congress. Several of his colleagues, and among them Mr. Wise, did justice to his rare merits.

On the fourth of April, further discussion in the House having been arrested by the previous question, a resolution, that the Bank ought not to be rechartered, was adopted by one hundred and thirty-four yeas to eighty

two nays. A second resolution, that "the Bank deposits ought not to be restored to the Bank of the United States," was passed by one hundred and eighteen yeas to one hundred and three nays. A third resolution, that the State banks ought to be continued as places of deposit, and that these banks should be subject to regulation by law, was passed by one hundred and seventeen yeas to one hundred and five nays. A fourth resolution, then, by way of ascertaining the cause of the commercal distress complained of, and of inquiring whether the Bank charter had been violated, and whether the Bank has been guilty of corruption and malpractices, proposed that a select committee be appointed to examine the books and proceedings of the Bank, and to take the testimony of witnesses on oath, and to report the result of their investigation. This resolution passed by one hundred and seventy-five yeas to forty-two nays.

Among the multitude of memorials presented to Congress this session, was one from four of the Government Directors, which very copiously sets forth both facts and arguments to show that the conduct of a majority of the Board had been illiberal, unjust, and illegal towards themselves, and inconsistent with the charter and bylaws of the Bank. It was signed by H. D. Gilpin, John T. Sullivan, Peter Wager, and Hugh M'Eldery, and was dated the ninth of December, 1834.1

On the seventeenth of December, the President nominated these same gentlemen, with James A. Bayard, as the five Government Directors of the Bank; but the Senate confirmed the nomination of Mr. Bayard alone. The others were rejected by a small majority.

On the eleventh of March, the President sent a message to the Senate, in which he renominated the rejected. Register of Debates, Vol. X., Part IV., Appendix, page 83.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »