rests its claim for that approval on its former accuracy alone. I will, sir, permit an officer of Government in a court of justice, or in enforcing obedience to his official commands, to show, in his justification, that all the formalities of law have been observed by him. But here, sir, at the bar of this House, or at the bar of public opinion, I will allow no such justification. The act must be right, not only in form, but in substance also. Not only the body must be perfect, but the animating principle also.

[H. OF R.

discussed was the proper reference of the letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, assigning his reasons for the removal of the deposits. That honorable member then stated that the Secretary of the Treasury sustained the relation of umpire between the bank and the Congress. Mark, Mr. Speaker, the relation of umpire. That gentleman is a distinguished lawyer, and he well knows the character of an umpire. It is, sir, that of perfect independence of the parties between whom he is to decide. No stronger figure could be used to show that the Secretary is not the agent of the Congress, and the bank, or of either of them. The honorable member asserted that the Secretary was the umpire, and his decision the award, and that through that award Congress derived its whole power of action over the subject, as an appellate tribunal. That the power in Congress, now to act in this matter, was not an original, but a derivative power, derived from the action of the Secretary, and, consequently, that we were confined in our action to the review of the reasons assigned by the Secretary of the Treasury.

It has been found necessary, in the support of this argument, to assert that the Treasury Department is a legislative department, and that the Secretary of the Treasury is the fiscal agent of the Legislature. Let us, for one moment, examine this matter. An agent is a person appointed to execute the will and purposes of his principal. A legislative agent is a person appointed to execute the will and purposes of the Legislature. How does the Legislature give expression to its will and purposes? By the enactment of laws, and by the enactment of laws only. A legislative agent, therefore, is a person Sir, there is nothing in all the noise we have appointed to execute the laws of the Legislature. heard about despotism and usurpation, but the And here, sir, we have arrived at the precise clamor of politicians who are hungering and definition of an executive officer, such as the thirsting after place. There is nothing in any Constitution of the United States has declared of the measures of the administration, in respect the President to be. To give the Secretary of to this whole matter, that cannot find a precethe Treasury, as a legislative agent, the power dent in all the administrations since the estabto execute laws independently of the Executive, lishment of the Government under the existwould not only be a robbery of the powers of ing constitution. Sir, the powers of this Govthe President, but also a usurpation on the part ernment in relation to the Congress and Execuof Congress, and a most flagrant violation of tive are well defined. Congress has absolute as the constitution, which has placed the law-mak-well as plenary power over the revenues and ing and the law-executing powers in different moneys belonging to the Government. It can hands. The executive authority of this Govern- direct the place where they shall be kept, by ment is vested exclusively in the President by whom kept, when removed, and for what purthe constitution, and as well might the Presi- pose removed; but it is, nevertheless, the duty dent create an agency to make laws as Congress of the President to see that all laws made by an agency to execute laws, insubordinate to the Congress respecting them are faithfully executconstitutional Executive. But, sir, it is said, ad-ed, and of this power he cannot be divestedmitting the Secretary of the Treasury to be an he cannot even divest himself of it. executive officer, that, by the act chartering the I rejoice, sir, that all the arguments that have bank, the power given to him was distinct from been introduced against the removal and in that of his office. Independently of the consti- favor of the restoration of the deposits, in the tutional objections that might be successfully connection of these measures with the prevailurged against this proposition, I answer, a granting distress, have had reference to the question to the Secretary of the Treasury is a grant to the office, and not to the individual. The act does not grant the power to the person who, for the time being, shall be Secretary of the Treasury, but to the Secretary of the Treasury. Instead of its being a new appointment, in reference to an office, it is the enlargement of the duties of a pre-existing office.

I have authority for saying that the Secretary of the Treasury is entirely independent of the control of Congress in this matter-authority which no friend of the bank will feel himself at liberty to question. I alluded, sir, to what was said by the honorable member from Pennsylvania, (Mr. BINNEY,) at the commencement of this Congress, the first time the House had the pleasure of listening to him. The question then

of the renewal of the charter solely, and thus presenting the true question of bank or no bank. I am, nevertheless, constrained to say, from all the lights shed upon this subject, that those arguments are more pertinent to the true issue than weighty to establish the issue on the part of those advancing them.

It is a fair argument that no real cause existed, independent of the bank, for this failure of credit, when it is asserted that this failure has been caused by the prospective destruction of the bank, to which the removal of the deposits is supposed to be the prelude. The argument is, that, although the removal of the deposits did not lessen the amount of the capital, which is the basis of the issues forming the currency of the country, and therefore was not, in itself, the

H. OF R.]

Local Bank Deposit Regulation Bill.

[JUNE, 1834. Mr. STEWART said: What were the objects to be accomplished by this premature removal of the deposits from where the law had placed them, and where Congress, at the close of its last session, by a vote of more than two to one, had declared they were safe and should remain? The objects and ends of this measure were these:

1. It would force from General Jackson many men who were coming into favor, and who were regarded with jealousy; it would restore party lines and party feelings, so indispensable to the success of a certain aspirant, and give him again the exclusive control of the President and his followers.

2. It would also give him the control of the money as well as the patronage of the Government, by which to purchase the mercenary, seduce the ambitious, and corrupt the venal and profligate portion of the community.

3. It would retain about fifteen millions of dollars now collected in New York, in that city, to sustain the safety-fund banks, instead of sending it to the United States Bank at Philadelphia.

necessary cause of the curtailment of those issues-yet, in the midst of the most extended commercial prosperity, there is a general disruption of currency and of credit, arising from an event which strongly proves that the charter of the bank will not be renewed. I deny, sir, that it is possible, in the midst of such prosperity, in the absence of real causes, to create a panic, that is to be at once the cause and the effect of its own existence. Our people are too wise to believe that their fate is indissolubly interwoven with that of the bank, and too prudent to borrow trouble in advance. I repeat, sir, that when the friends of the bank assign as cause for the prevailing distress that which is wholly insufficient, it is strong presumptive proof that the fault is with the bank. But we have also other proof; the bank has lessened its discounts-its millions here, and its million at this branch and at that, and where it was most necessary to have its power felt. The screws of that institution are not only powerful, but the chief engineer who turns those screws understands thoroughly the time and place for their most effective application. To this real existing cause, and that of cash duties 4. This blow at the bank might, it was suppaid under the new revenue laws, add the un-posed, recover some of the popularity in the founded alarm that has been created, and we South which had been lost by the proclamation. have the true causes of the hardness of the times. This unfounded alarm was also chiefly the work of the bank. In proof of this assertion, I have only to point to the individuals who are most industriously engaged in sounding the trumpet of alarm in the Atlantic cities. Who are they, sir? The detected purchased instruments of 1832. The bribed agents of the bank. I have no disposition, in an argument, to call hard names; neither do I feel a disposition to call things by any other than their right names; and I do, therefore, repeat, they are the bribed agents of the bank who have raised the cry of distress. Look to New York, and who are they that decried the State banks, and labored assiduously and insidiously to destroy their credit, the local, the general credit? They are those, sir, who have been proved to have "the facility" of conversion from one faith to another in the twinkling of an eye, under the influence of the "facilities" furnished from the breeches pocket of Nicholas Biddle.

I shall pursue this subject no further. The day of passion will soon have passed away, and the madness of party will soon have subsided. The veil of deception, which aspiring men have thrown around this matter, will then have been removed. Sir, how can they then hold up their faces in the presence of an insulted community? Will it be any apology that these men were in the pursuit of objects of personal ambition? Will their miserable scramblings for office constitute an atonement for the distress they brought upon their fellow-citizens? No, sir, it will be the just cause of their condemnation. The country is again prospering, but this prosperity is to them as the light, they cannot bear it, for they prefer darkness rather than light.

5. It would divert the attention of the people from the true and great points, the merits, qualifications, and public services of men, and fix it on a false issue between a popular President and an unpopular bank.

6. It would destroy one bank, supposed to be unfavorable, and establish some fifty or a hundred others as depositories of the public funds, with a perfect command and control of their political action, as was exerted over the safety-fund banks of New York.

Examine these motives and objects, not one of them could influence the course of General Jackson, if left free and uncontrolled by that magical spell which seemed to impel him, against the advice of all his cabinet, to the adoption of measures destructive alike to his friends, his fame, and his happiness. Who has this measure benefited? It has benefited the bank, increased its friends, and may revive its hopes of a recharter before extinguished. It has united the opposition, impossible without it, strengthened the opponents of the President, and made enemies of thousands who would have otherwise remained his friends; and who has it injured?

It has sacrificed the poor to the rich; the debtor to the creditor; the merchant to the bank; the borrower to the lender. The miser and the stockjobber, who now lend at fourfold interest, and speculate and feast on the miseries and misfortunes of mankind, are alone benefited by this unfortunate experiment. It has, all admit, prostrated many of the President's friends here and elsewhere; especially those elected by small majorities. The political changes it has produced are all one way. It has drawn down the curses of thousands, who

JUNE, 1834.]

Local Bank Deposit Regulation Bill.

have been ruined by it, on the President; and | their curses, instead of their blessings, will follow him into retirement, and mar his peace and happiness forever. And why and wherefore all this mischief? Why remove the deposits from where they were safe, and place them, without the authority of law or the concurrence of Congress, where they are less secure, and less accessible for the public service? Was it to promote any interested view of the President? No. But to promote the ambitious view of one who aspires to the succession, and who will reach it, if he must, over the ruins of his country.

Mr. MILLER said: The public deposits have been removed from the Bank of the United States, in pursuance of the reserved authority of the Secretary of the Treasury, in the 16th section of the bank charter, in consequence of the alleged misconduct of the bank; and he had no hesitation in believing that there was much in the conduct of the bank, if not to render it absolutely necessary, at least to justify the course that had been taken. In this opinion a majority of this House had concurred, by declaring that the public moneys ought not to be restored to it.

The recent conduct of the bank, in refusing to permit an examination of its affairs except in its own way, had strengthened the correctness of this decision. There are many men in this House who, in the early part of this session, were in favor of a restoration, that have since become dissatisfied with the course of the bank, and are now in opposition to that measure, amongst whom he was happy to find his colleague, (Mr. COULTER.) What, then, are we to do with the public deposits? is the question now presented. They are not to be returned to the Bank of the United States. The idea of locking them up in an iron chest, where the community can derive no benefit from them, in the shape of discounts, is hardly seriously entertained by any one. There is no place, then, for them at present, where they can be deposited with any advantage, but in the State banks; and the only important question left for us to determine is, whether we will leave them at the entire and uncontrolled discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, or whether we will regulate, limit, and control his discretion in regard to them, by law?

Surely, said Mr. M., gentleman who have been so loud in deprecating executive influence and patronage, cannot hesitate which alternative to choose. He had not examined the details of the bill very minutely, but from the examination he had given, he did not perceive any insuperable objection to it. He would therefore vote for it; but he was very far from considering its adoption as having any direct bearing on the question of whether there should be a national bank hereafter established or not. That was a question not now under consideration. The charter of the present

[H. OF R.

bank will not expire until March, 1836, and until then it seems to be generally admitted no new bank can be put in operation, even if there was a disposition to do so.

We must, therefore, have some place to keep the public moneys in the mean time, even if a new bank should be hereafter created; and, as he could perceive no better system, for the present, than that proposed in the bill now under consideration, he trusted the House would adopt it.

Mr. CHILTON said that he had risen to submit a motion, to which, under other circumstances, he should be opposed. We had now five remaining days of the session. Very much important and indispensable business remained unacted on; and unless this subject should be immediately disposed of, must necessarily remain unacted on, for the residue of the session, to the great detriment of the country. Sir, said Mr. C., I am opposed to the bill under consideration; firmly and immovably opposed to it. Yet that it will pass this House is perfectly evident to every member on his floor. Why, then, should we disregard our other high duties to the country, and consume the little remnant of our time in fruitless opposition to the will of the majority in this House, when we know that our position is powerless? The majority here can pass the bill; they will pass it, and theirs will be the responsibility of its passage. My reliance, sir, is elsewhere. I confidently trust and believe that there is elsewhere a reliance, and a safe one, too, in regard to this subject, on which the country may anchor its best interests. But, sir, as nothing can be gained by continuing this debate, and as much would be lost, in discharge of a solemn duty, which I owe to my constituents and my country, I demand the previous question.

The motion was seconded.

The previous question being put, Mr. H. EVERETT demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered, and stood-yeas 113, nays 77.

On the question of engrossment they were also taken, and stood-yeas 111, nays 86.

The bill was put on its final passage, and decided as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. John Adams, William Allen, Anthony, Beale, Bean, Beardsley, Beaumont, Blair, Bockee, Bodle, Boon, Bouldin, Brown, Bunch, Burns, Bynum, Cambreleng, Carmichael, Carr, Casey, Chaney, Chinn, Samuel Clark, Clay, Coffee, Connor, Cramer, Day, Dickerson, Dickinson, Dunlap, Forester, Fowler, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, Gholson, Gilmer, Joseph Hall, Halsey, Hannegan, Joseph M. Harper, Harrison, Hathaway, Hawkins, Hawes, Henderson, Howell, Hubbard, Abel Huntington, Inge, Jarvis, R. M. Johnson, Noadiah Johnson, Cave Johnson, Seaborn Jones, Benjamin Jones, Kavanagh, Lee, Leavitt, Lyon, Lytle, Abijah Mann, Joel K. Kinnard, Lane, Lansing, Laporte, Luke Lea, Thomas Mann, John Y. Mason, Moses Mason, McIntire, McKay, McKim, McKinley, McLene, McVean, Miller, Robert Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Murphy, Osgood, Page, Parks, Parker, Patton, Patterson, D. J. Pearce, Franklin Pierce, Pierson, Plummer, Polk, Schenck,

So the bill was passed and sent to the was not of that finished order which, if a Senate.

Sec. 2. And be it further resolved, That the sacrifices and efforts of this illustrious person, in the cause of our country, during her struggle for independence, and the affectionate interest which he has at all times manifested for the success of her political institutions, claim from the Government and peo-to pay to John Vanderlyn, out of the contingent ple of the United States an expression of condolence for his loss, veneration for his virtues, and gratitude

JUNE, 1834.]

Adjournment.

been amended by the House, was returned by | the Senate with their non-concurrence in the amendment.

[The amendment provides that the land titles shall be granted after ten years' settlement thereon, upon payment of the minimum price.]

Mr. CLAY, of Alabama, said he must move that the House do adhere to its amendment, and went into an explanation to show that the bill, as it came from the Senate, was a departure from the constitution, being a donation, for which there was not any precedent that he was aware of to authorize their making, of the public domains. One donation of the public lands had been given by Congress to certain emigrants from France, but that grant had some public ground to recommend it; those persons being required to plant the vine and the olive.

The amendment proposed by the House gave to these individuals advantages which were not given to the people of the United States, namely: if they went on the lands, after ten years they would only be called on to pay therefor the lowest price, viz.: $1 25 per acre; and this was sufficient, in his estimation, for Congress to grant.

Mr. CAMBRELENG held that Congress had the power to make grants of the public domain, with a view to their actual settlement; and said he did not believe the people of the United States generally would refuse their assent to the grant for men circumstanced as these Poles were known to be: men who had been bravely fighting the battles of liberty in the old world, and in resistance to the march of despotism. He considered this an offering in the cause of liberty, to which it was the duty of the House to respond.

Mr. J. Q. ADAMS expressed his hope that this nation would not act on a niggardly principle towards these brave but unfortunate men. He did think that we were imposing too many conditions with the grant.

Mr. BURGES Would, in reply to the constitutional doubts of the member from Alabama, inquire from every son of freedom throughout the land, if the public domain could be better disposed of than it was by this grant, given as encouragement to those who had so bravely battled in its sacred cause? The eyes of the world, he said, were upon them; and no man in the United States, no free man, would or ought to say it was unconstitutional to pass this bill.

Mr. McKIM moved the previous question; it was seconded, and the main question having been ordered and taken,

521 [H. of R.

The House insisted upon its amendment (requiring the minimum price for the land) to the bill-yeas 82, nays 68.

Post Office.

The following gentlemen were announced to compose the committee to sit in the recess to investigate the affairs of the Post Office:

Messrs. CONNOR, POLK, WHITTLESEY, H. EvERETT, BEARDSLEY, WATMOUGH, and HAWES. Mr. POLK said he perceived, from the reading of the Journal this morning, that he was placed as a member of the select committee appointed to sit during the recess of Congress to examine into the condition of the General Post Office. Mr. P. said he had never shrunk from the performance of any duty assigned to him, since he had been a member of the House. It was well known to the House that he had, during the present session, been a member of a most laborious committee, the duties of which he had attempted to perform. He had been at all times willing to give his whole time and attention, whilst Congress was in session, to the business of the House. The committee, however, were to sit at Washington during the recess. The state of his private affairs, he said, would render it very inconvenient for him to be at Washington earlier than the meeting of the next session of ConHe must therefore respectfully ask the gress. favor of the House to excuse him from serving as a member of this committee.

Mr. POLK was excused, and Mr. STODDERT appointed in his place upon the committee.

Duties on Church Bells remitted.

The bills remitting the duties on bells presented to the Roman Catholic church at St. Louis, Missouri, having been called up by Mr. ASHLEY, occasioned some debate on the constitutional question of appropriating for the establishment of religion; but the bill was at length passed-66 to 58.

Missouri Land Claims.

Mr. ASHLEY endeavored to have a reconsideration of the vote laying on the table the bill to confirm certain land claims in Missouri, but failing in that effort, he moved a resolution requiring the report of the commissioners who passed upon the claims to be submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury; which was agreed to. Adjournment.

The usual message was sent to the Senate and President, informing them that the House was ready to adjourn; and both Houses adjourned at about 7 o'clock.