strumentality of a corporate body. One man may be a banker, as well as a corporate body; a Government as well as an individual. Gentlemen war against the power of incorporation; but the real danger is in the power of banking; and of all the modes of which that power can be exercised, the most odious, I repeat, and the most dangerous, is that by its own direct agency; in other words, a Government or Treasury bank, such as we have just created.

Gentlemen tell us again, that all duties must be uniform, and that this provision presupposes the right to establish a national bank. No, sir, it requires nothing more than to exert the power vested in Congress to coin money and regulate its value. When this is done, all duties are easily made uniform by requiring them to be paid in the same currency, or in other equivalents. It requires no bank to do that.

There is yet another ground: the plea which justifies every usurpation-the plea of necessity. Congress may make all laws necessary and proper to carry into effect its granted powers; and we are told that a bank is necessary to enable the Government to collect and disburse its revenue. I deny the necessity or propriety of such an institution for such a purpose. That institution cannot be regarded as necessary or proper, in the contemplation of the constitution, which did not exist for years after it was adopted; without which we conducted our fiscal operations from 1811 to 1816, and from 1832 to the present moment. We have the authority, too, of Mr. Madison, recently after its adoption, uncontradicted, that the power to grant corporations was applied for, and refused. It would be a reflection upon the understanding of the sages who framed that instrument, to hold that the incorporation of a bank was necessary and proper, and yet that all power of incorporating such an institution was denied.

Sir, to assert the necessity of such an institution is to fly in the face of facts, and to endow Congress with a discretionary power to do whatever they may choose to declare necessary. power.

It is to assume absolute and unlimited

If the constitutional right of Congress, however, sir, were undisputed, I should still oppose a national bank as inexpedient. I concur, sir, most fully, with my colleague, [Mr. HUNTER,] that the credit system needs no artificial stimulus; or, if it does, that it has no claim to derive its aliment from the public treasure. I am no enemy to the credit system within its legitimate bounds: that credit which rests upon anticipated returns of capital or labor will deserve aid and encouragement; but a credit having no such solid foundations leads to far different results. The facilitics afforded by an undue increase of banking capital, often tempt those who rest solely on borrowed means to engage in wild and reckless adventures; speculations in fancy stocks, in lands yielding no produce, in cities without a house, harbors without a ship. If the gambler in these lotteries should fail, the loss falls on the laborer or the capitalist. If he succeed, it is often at their expense. His palaces rise like exhalations, and he lolls in his magnificent coach, while the farmer or the mechanic, often with ten times his substantial capital, can scarcely afford an humble dwelling or a one-horse chaise.

But the gentleman from New York [Mr. HOFFMAN] informs us that the credit system works well; not, I believe, sir, just at present. Doubtless it has worked well, through the aid of the Bank of the United States; at least in the North, and so it may again. But what has been its effects at the South? Upon this subject, my friend from South Carolina [Mr. PICKENS] has given us some interesting details. Look back, sir, to the condition of the South before and since the establishment of the first national bank, and you will not fail to be struck with the rapid advance of the Northern States compared with the Southern. It may be that other causes have conspired to increase the

[Oct. 11, 1837.

relative prosperity of the North, and depress the South. But the result is most striking. Virginia, with one of the finest harbors in the Union-with three large rivers leading to the interior; rich as she is in vegetable and mineral wealth-is tributary to the North for most of the foreign goods she consumes. And is it not reasonable to suppose that much of this may be attributable to the cause I have mentioned? Would not the necessary effect of such an institution be to afford superior facilities to those among whom its capital was principally divided, and render it impossible that the Southern merchant could come in competition with the Northern ?

There is another and obvious injury which a national bank may inflict upon the South. The able man who presided over the last, has boasted, it is said, of his power, whenever he pleased, to crush the banking institutions of the States. This power--the power materially to affect our prosperity, by sudden expansions or contractions of its loans-may never be exerted. But it is one too dangerous to be entrusted with those whose interests are not indentified with our own. Money, sir, it has been often and well said, is power. We should not be satisfied to look at the mere expediency of the moment! We should look to the future, as well as to the past. In all free States, collisions may be expected to arise. An oppressive tariff has once, already, nearly shaken our confederacy to its centre, and brought us to the very verge of civil war. A restless band at the North are even now plotting the destruction of our domestic institutions. We have heard of a Pennsylvania legion of ten thousand ready to draw the sword at the command of the Executive. Such threats should not disturb us; but for one, sir, I frankly declare that I should be unwilling the South should contribute the means which may be employed for her own destruction. A national bank was never a favorite measure in Virginia. Even in 1816, though many yielded to the pressure of the times, a majority of her delegation voted against it, and in 1791, when the original sin was committed, it received the support of but three members of the entire representation from the south side of the Potomac. I trust the attempt will never again succeed.

Sin

I say not this, sir, in an invidious spirit, or with any unkind feeling to the North. But the common treasure the credit of the Government-should not be made the means of aggrandizing one section of the Union exclusively, still less made the instrument of oppression to another. It is for these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to see a national bank ever re-established. cerely approving the principle which the bill upon your table proposes to carry into practice, I would have it as free as possible from all serious objection; that this Government may be once again, and forever, separated from any direct interest in the business of banking corporations, and they cease to have any influence over the political movements of the Government. That principle, assailed as it has been by argument and ridicule, every friend of our free institutions should wish to see successfully adopted. It is not, as my colleague [Mr. WISE] supposes, a novel one, originating in an agrarian spirit. It claims a much loftier origin. It received the sanction, many years ago, of Mr. Jefferson. Sir, it is my habit to lean upon the authority of great names; but it may be regarded as among the evil auguries of the times, that the opinions of Mr. Jefferson are made the theme of ridicule, while the ultra federal doctrines of Mr. Hamilton are quoted with approbation in this hall. No man was ever more ardently devoted to the cause of liberty than Mr. Jefferson; few ever possessed a more vigorous or original mind, or more independentiy expressed the opinions he entertained. It is to him, as much at least as to any of the great statesmen of his day, that we are indebted for what is most valuable in the free institutions under which we live.

But, sir, we need not the aid of his name to vindicate the principle we maintain. Our own history gives us proofs that it is neither a new idea, nor had its birth in a factious spirit. We need only go back to the session of 1834 to find it supported by men whose patriotism and sound republican principles will not be questioned. Early in that session, Mr. Gamble, of Georgia, moved an inquiry into the practicability of dispensing with banks in our fiscal operations. Subsequently, when the deposite bill was before the House, General Gordon, then my colleague, proposed his plan for what is now called the sub-Treasury. Approving the principle, but believing it imperfect in details, I had the honor of submitting a motion to recommit the bill, with instructions to amend it so as to dispense with bank agency. On this motion the yeas and nays were called ninety-one members, including General Gordon himself, and the opposition party almost to a man, voted in favor of the motion; one hundred and fifteen, almost exclusively the friends of the administration, voted against it. Were those who sustained it agrarians, or actuated by a spirit of factious opposition? None will assert it. For myself, I can truly say the motion was made in good faith. It was placed upon the ground of the insecurity and danger, both in a pecuniary and political view, of a connexion between this Government and banking corporations. On the contrary, the administration party derided the proposition; those particularly who have since occupied conspicuous stations in the House. The present Speaker, then chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, warmly commended the State banks as every way competent, and worthy of all confidence. The present chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means [Mr. CAMBRELENG] also opposed it. He has reminded us of his speech, in which he said he concurred with me in the principle, but did not think that the proper time to assert it. Yes, sir, I remember it well. He approved the principle, but refused to carry it into practice. He spoke in favor of the proposition, and voted against it. The bill providing for a general deposite of public money in the State banks was passed. It was the favorite measure of the party in power. But, sir, strange to say, those who, seemingly at least, favored the principle of separation, now denounce it as factious and chimerical; and its opponents have become its warmest advocates. It is not for me to question the sincerity of either party. That is between them and their consciences. We have to do here with measures, not motives. I think now, as I thought then; and will not change my course, because the administration party, or the opposition party, may think fit to change theirs. I have never so far enlisted under the banners of either, as to give up the exercise of my own judgment, nor consented to submit to the dictation of any party, or of any man in this House, or in the other House, or in the White House. Still less will I yield up the convictions of my own mind, because my political adversaries have acknowledged their truth. The experience of the last two years has been enough to open their eyes; and I will hope, sir, they have seen their error. To adhere to an opinion, when reason and experience show it to be erroneous, is to be a bigot or a hypocrite. It is equally true that those who desert their own principles, and act in opposition to their own judgment, are slaves, mere puppets, moved by the will of another. Maelzel could construct a House of Representatives as fit to exercise the functions of legislators—yes, sir, speaker, orators, and all, down to the previous question.

But it is asked, why legislate upon the subject now? The separation has taken place, and the sub-Treasury scheme is in full operation. True, sir, but how has this been effected? By the simple mandate of the Executive. Is it not obvious, too, that this plan itself, as now practised, is insecure, and stands in need of legislative provisions? It is the duty of Congress to provide for the safety of the VOL. XIV,-90

[H. OF R.

The

public treasure. We cannot justify ourselves if we abandon it to the control of the Executive. I is a power never safely entrusted to any but the immediate representatives of the people. Yet our legislation is almost wholly shaped, so far as concerns the revenue, by the other House, or by the Executive. We have even received bills for raising supplies from the Senate almost without a murmur. bill for depositing the surplus with the States, it has been said, was amended at the White House, so as to meet the views of the President. Look, sir, to the history of the Treasury circular-a measure adopted in known opposition to the will of Congress, and the act repealing it pocketed by the President, and, for aught we know, now at the Hermitage. Look to the course pursued for years past, in regard to the custody of the public money-removed from the place where you had appointed it to be kept, to places you had never authorized to receive it. Yes, sir, you had ordained a union between the Government and the national bank; not, perhaps, strictly in the bonds of lawful matrimony. This union lasted for years; it was severed by the Executive fiat; our Chief Magistrate cut the knot with as little ceremony as Henry VIII, and then took up with almost as many wives as surrounded King Solomonforty or more-eighty, sir, it is said around me. The State banks came into favor. It was an illicit connexion; the banns had never been celebrated. We were called upon to sanction both acts-the divorce, and the new union, and we complied most obediently. The State banks, in turn, have given offence, by too faithfully obeying the orders of their lord and master; and now the royal edict has gone forth, and the cry is "off with their heads." The chamber of Blue Beard never exhibited a more bloody spectacle. Yes, sir, in little more than two years, these new favorites are discarded; and, after the flattering picture drawn of the entire security of the State banks, we now behold upon our table a bill to settle up our accounts with the late depositories of the public money. The Executive has again taken the public treasure into its keeping, or, rather, has scattered it throughout the land, without the authority of law, in the hands of thousands of individuals. I repeat, sir, it does not become us to leave it in that condition. We may avoid the danger to which it is exposed, in my humble judgment, by placing it as a special deposite in the local banks, and, in making that deposite preserve, substantially, the principle which the sub-Treasury scheme is designed to assert. Special deposites no more imply any pecuniary or political union between the Government and the banks, than such a union would spring from employing a railroad or steamboat company to transport the mail or munitions of war. I trust, therefore, sir, we shall have the aid of the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means to amend the bill in the way I have had the honor to suggest. It would be the most effectual means of rendering the measure successful, and putting an end to the hopes of those who look to its failure as resulting in the establishment of a national bank.

Mr. GARLAND, of Virginia, thought it his duty to make some remarks on the amendment he had proposed. After replying to some arguments of his colleague in relation to the Virginia banks, he adverted to the present bill. He was sure the Government would never prosper when divorced from the banks, between whom and the people there still existed a matrimonial connexion. It was his opinion that, in less than eighteen months after the passage of this measure, the Government would seek to reunite itself with the banks. The relief now proposed to the people in lieu of the State banks, reminded him of a certain criminal, who, when on his way to the gallows, was offered a reprieve on condition of his marrying an ugly, wrinkled old woman. The man, after a moment's reflection, exclaimed,

"A sentence hard you do impart;
The woman's worse-drive on the cart,"

And thus preferred hanging to a wedding on such terms. So the sentence was more preferable to the people than the system now proposed. The object of the divorce bill was to take the money from banks and to deposite it with subagents. But, in his opinion, taking into consideration the frailties of human nature, it would be a dangerous scheme. He did not mean to say that the officers of Government had less integrity than other men; but when the lamentable instances were called to mind where individuals of high standing had sacrificed an unblemished character for a mere paltry amount, it ought to teach a lesson to guide them in the present instance. He would repeat the words of his colleague this morning, who had said even the words of our Saviour were, "lead us not into temptation." He advocated the plan of keeping the money in the vaults of the banks, as more secure, and particularly if the amendment last offered were adopted, which provides that the banks shall receive the money as a special deposite, and without using it in any way whatever. He denied that the banks were insolvent, as had been stated. He had been informed on unquestionable authority, that they were as sound now as before they suspended specie payment. As regarded the proposed separation, he had always understood that our system of Government, although necessarily divided into many branches, was all one. But now they talked of a separation from those institutions of which the States had laid the foundation, and which they had cherished to this time. How fearful would be that time, should it ever occur, when this Government should consider it as its duty to make its action independent of the States! He did not say that gentlemen designed this, but he would entreat them to reflect whether the present measure would not pave the way for such a state of things. The true policy of Government was to cement itself more closely with the States, and he had no doubt but that the issue of Treasury notes would speedily afford relief, and enable the banks to resume specie payments. It had been said that these notes would lay the foundation of a Treasury bank, but he had no apprehension of that kind, for the restrictions to that bill would render such a result impossible. He contended that the bank note system had not had a fair trial, and referred to the Bank of France, and other institutions, in support of his position. At the conclusion of his remarks,

On motion of Mr. HAYNES, the committee rose and reported the bill to the House, without coming to any resolution thereon; when,

On motion of Mr. BRIGGS, the House adjourned.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12. FLORIDA WAR.

The House proceeded to the unfinished business of yesterday morning, which was the motion of Mr. MCKAY to postpone the consideration of the resolution of Mr. WISE for a committee of inquiry on the Florida war till the first Monday in December next.

Mr. McKAY made a brief explanation, stating, in substance, that he had moved the postponement because all the important points in the resolution were already within the province of different standing committees, or had been investigated before courts martial or of inquiry. As to the expenses of the war, he had no objection to a strict investigation of them; but this could be prosecuted through the standing Committee on Expenditures in the Department of War, whose duty it was to report on that subject at the next session.

Mr. ADAMS said he was happy to hear the explanation, and to learn that the gentleman from North Carolina (to whose vigilance he paid a compliment) was not, as Mr. A. had before understood him, of opinion that no investigation was necessary. Mr. A. made some remarks going

[Oct. 12, 1837.

to show that the committees to which the several subjects of investigation had been formerly referred, were not likely to prosecute the inquiry with any practical efficiency. Indeed, he was of opinion that no standing committee of the House ever would conduct a scrutiny of this nature-with effect, and insisted that none but a select committee, and that appointed by ballot, would be likely to do any thing to the purpose in the matter.

In reply to remarks of Mr. McKAY, on the composition of committees, and especially of the Committee on Manufactures, Mr. A. went into a history of that committee, from the time when he had entered Congress, and had, contrary to his own earnest remonstrance, been placed at its head. He gave an account of the circumstances which had attended the report by that committee of the tariff bill of 1832; went into a history of the manner in which the celebrated compromise bill had been introduced into the House, and passed without debate by force of the previous question. He made some general observations on the practice of appointing, on all the important committees of the House, a majority of members in favor of the administration; to which he did not object; but stated that, until the late era of reform, the opposite practice had prevailed. He objected to the postponement, as the committee would want all its time, and much useful progress might be made during the recess.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, demanded the yeas and nays on the question of postponement, and they were ordered by the House.

Some conversation took place between Messrs. BOND, MCKAY, and REED, as to the necessity of the investigation proposed, and as to the abuses which exist in the Indian relations of the country.

Mr. BOND took occasion to introduce a statement of appropriations, within the last two years, for the suppres sion of Indian hostilities, all these expenditures being so much in addition to the ordinary expenses of the military establishment.

Mr WHITTLESEY, of Ohio, hoped if the motion for postponement prevailed, one good result would follow: that the Committee on Expenditures would discharge the duties assigned them. He animadverted with much particularity upon the neglect of duty which characterizes so many of the standing committees of the House, and the difficulty even of procuring meetings for the performance of their duties.

Mr. A. H. SHEPPERD, of North Carolina, made some remarks to a similar purpose, and gave an account of the manner in which he had performed his duty as chairman of the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of State; stating some facts going to show the necessity of vigilance in the discharge of their duty by the Commit tees on Expenditures in the the several Departments. SUB-TREASURY BILL.

The House then proceeded to the orders of the day, and went again into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. F. O. J. SMITH in the chair,) on the Senate's sub-Treasury bill.

Mr. RICE GARLAND made an ineffectual attempt to have the bill laid aside, to take up the bill to settle with the deposite banks.

Mr. HAYNES, who was entitled to the floor, addressthe committee as follows:

Mr. Chairman: At an early stage of this discussion, while the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union was engaged in the consideration of the bill to postpone the fourth instalment of deposite with the States, so extraordinary were some of the statements of fact, inferences, and arguments, presented by some gentlemen who took part in it, more especially the remarks made by my honorable friend from South Carolina, [Mr. THOMPSON,]

that nothing but the position occupied by me could have prevented my endeavoring to offer an immediate reply. That honorable gentleman, in his zeal to throw upon the late and present administrations the burden of the present difficulties and embarrassments of this country, was pleased to institute a comparison between the course pursued by the monarchies of Great Britain and France, in periods of commercial distress in those countries, for the purpose of contrasting their paternal solicitude for their subjects, and the grievous oppression of the American Government towards its citizens. Among the extraordinary statements sometimes ventured in this House, I was not prepared to hear an honorable gentleman speak in terms of eulogy of the conduct of the French Government in the memorable explosion which terminated the Mississippi bubble. The honorable gentleman from South Carolina surely has not lately revived his historical recollections, or he would have held very different language in reference to the conduct of the French Government at the period to which he referred. What, Mr. Chairman, is the history of the Mississippi bubble? A foreign adventurer established a bank in Paris in the year 1716 or '17, which, having been managed to apparent advantage for a few months, was purchased in the name of the King the course of the following year. Banking was then a novelty in France, and the scheme seemed to work so successfully, that an emission of paper sufficient to redeem the public debt was issued shortly after the bank became the property of the King. It would be a waste of time to recapitulate the measures which were adopted to enable this bank to monopolize the whole external commerce of France. By what means it is unnecessary to inquire, the shares, originally of the value of 500 livres, were raised, by a series of speculations, to the enormous advance of 10,000. The Government having become alarmed by the wild and reckless spirit of speculation produced by an immense issue of bank notes without a specie fund for their redemption, and fearing there might be a run upon the bank, issued an edict, under severe penalties, that no individual should have in his possession, in coin, more than the sum of 500 livres. To aid the bank in sustaining its credit, the livre, in coin, was reduced or debased to une-half its original value; and, to cover the difference between the livre in coin and the livre in paper, the latter was made to undergo such successive reductions in value as should, in the course of a few months, bring it down to the standard of the debased coin of that denomination. All would not do to sustain the credit of the bank; and, in the course of three or four years from its establishment, having afloat the enormous sum of four or five hundred millions of dollars of irredeemable paper, the notable scheme was wound up by issuing an edict reducing the price of shares to 5,000 livres; which was shortly followed by another, compelling its holders to fund the bills for the miserable pittance of an annuity for fifty years' purchase, and that, so far as I can ascertain, without interest. This, sir, is a statement of what the honorable gentleman from South Carolina has been pleased to eulogize, as showing the paternal care of the French Government for its subjects.

How far it tallies with the history of the late and present administrations of this Government, the committee can judge. Of the parallel the honorable gentleman was pleased to institute between the course of the British and American Governments towards their subjects and citizens, in periods of pressure and alarm, I shall speak hereafter. Flat, stale, and unprofitable as it would seem to be, I was not particularly surprised to hear the American Government charged, by almost every gentleman opposed to the system of measures under consideration, with having produced the extraordinary state of things which has existed for the last few months in this country. Such is the infirmity of our nature, that what is often repeated may

[H. OF R.

sometimes come to be believed as truth, when at its original promulgation it was known to contain no one single element of truth whatsoever. And in what manner has this grave charge been supported? If it would not be disrespectful to those who have made it, would say, we have had "declamation without argument, and assertion without proof." That the late President should have come in for a full measure of condemnation is not wonderful, considering the tone in which the opposition have spoken of him ever since the commencement of his administration. But, sir, I will not imitate the example of those who have ascribed the late commercial revulsion to Executive usurpation, by relying on a mere contradiction of their charge, although, in all fairness, I might do so.

The first specification against General Jackson is, that, by refusing to sanction the recharter of the United States Bank, he opened the field for the creation and operation of State banks without limitation or control; and, as a consequence, that the country has been flooded with irredeemable paper. And here it may be proper to remark, that the opponents of the late and present administrations are not agreed whether the paper currency has, or has not, been extended to an unreasonable amount. If I did not greatly misunderstand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, a considerable portion of his remarks was intended to show that the local bank issues had, at no period, gone beyond their proper and healthful proportion to the specie in this country. If this argument be true-and for the present I shall pass it by without further examinationthis grave charge of Executive influence in producing an unsafe increase of bank capital and circulation, must fall to the ground. That the veto upon the bill to recharter the United States Bank in 1832, may have had some influence in increasing the establishment of local banks, and their consequent issues, I might be disposed to admit, if the testimony of a distinguished financer, high in the confidence of my honorable friend from South Carolina, together with considerations connected with it, did not go to establish the contrary. It is well known that the advocates of a national bank base their support of that measure on the ground that it can and will so regulate and control the issues of the local banks, as to keep them in a sound and healthy condition. For the purpose of the present argument, it is sufficient that I admit it. It is equally well known, that after a charter had been granted to the stockholders of the late United States bank by the State of Pennsylvania, its president congratulated them upon its severance of the connexion which had existed between the Government and the old bank, because it was better for both, and the bank was stronger without it than with it. Put this testimony together, and how dare any gentleman to say that the circulation of the local banks has been unsound or excessive? They shall not discredit their own witness, Mr. Biddle, for the purpose of extricating themselves from the contradictions by which they are environed. What then is the result? Either that there has been no excess of local bank paper in circulation, or a national bank is impotent to restrain it. I care not which horn of the dilemma gentlemen may select-either is fatal to their favorite scheme of a national bank. If I understood the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, he argued, or, if he did not so argue, it is a fair inference from his remarks upon the currency, that there had been no overtrading in this country. And here, too, if I am correct in my recol'ection of what was said by that gentleman, he is sustained by the testimony of Mr. Biddle, given in a letter addressed to the distinguished member from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] about the time Congress convened in 1836, in which he showed by the state of foreign exchange that this country had not overtraded.

It is true, that in a subsequent letter, addressed by him to the same distinguished individual, he did say that we had