under the direction of Congress; but that act contains an express provision, in its 17th section," that Congress may, at any time hereafter, enact such laws, enforcing and regulating the recovery of the amount of the notes, bills, obligations, or other debts," &c.; and this power exists as well after the expiration of its charter, for the purpose of a final settlement and liquidation of its affairs, as before. Is it not, then, competent for Congress to legislate so as to regulate and control, and even punish the conduct of the officers of the old bank? And if they so far mismanage its affairs as to authorize or permit its notes to be reissued and put again into circulation, after they have been once redeemed, I ask if it is not a fair and legitimate subject for the legislation of Congress, and one which demands our serious and grave deliberation? Again: at the last session of Congress, an act was passed authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury, as the agent of the Government, to settle the claim of the United States, as a stockholder, with the bank. By his report, which has been laid upon your tables, it appears that duty has been discharged, as far as it could be on his part; but no satisfactory information has been given by the officers of the bank how much is due to the Government, or when or in what manner it shall be paid. Iastead of settling up the affairs of the institution with the Government, its largest stockholder, now no longer a stockholder, according to the provisions of the act of Congress of last session, we find its officers, (if what is said be true, and it has not been denied,) being also officers of the new bank, practising a gross fraud upon this Government and this nation, treating with neglect and contempt your agent authorized to settle with them; and its president, at the head of the great broker fraternity, commencing an unprovoked attack and making war upon the measures of your administration. I do not deisre that the proposition I have made should be drawn into a partisan discussion or assume a political character; it is one which affects the great interests of the country, and in that light only do I wish it to be considered, and in that point of view it must be apparent to every one as demanding mature and grave consideration, as well as prompt and decisive action. I am aware that it opens a field for discussion, upon which much might he said, to show the extent and depth of the evil, the various remedies which might be proposed, either those operating by mere inducement, or those by direct provision or legislative sanction. But I think I have said enough on this mere question of reference; it is time enough to go into more detail when the subject is referred, and brought back again on some distinct proposition.

Then, to what committee should this branch of the subject embraced in the memorial be referred? It may be said that all subjects relating to the Bank of the United States have already been committed to the Committee of Ways and Means, in the disposition of the President's message. But, sir, it is well known that the appropriate and legitimate duties of that committee are of a financial rather than a judicial or general characterto take into consideration propositions relating to the revenues of the country and appropriations of money. This part of the memorial seeks for legislative remedy against a supposed evil of a general nature, not peculiarly affecting the revenue, but the community at large; rather of a judicial than financial character, but partaking partly of both, and therefore not exclusively appropri ate to either, but the proper subject for a select committee, more broad and general in its inquiries.

I have said thus much, by way of explaining the views and objects of the memorialists. I have endeavored to discharge my duty to them, as well as to the nation whose interests I am bound, as far as my feeble abilities will enable me, to serve, and whose constitution I am

[DEC. 29, 1836.

sworn to support. I have sought to give to the memorial the direction to which I thought it, from its importance and peculiar character, entitled. If its purpose be com prehended, I am satisfied. It remains for the House to give to it that disposition to which it may be thought entitled.

Mr. LINCOLN said that he hoped no such reference as had been proposed would be given to the memorial. His attention had been casually drawn to its character, and he trusted that, before any disposition was made of it, it would be better understood by the House.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GALBRAITH] had said that the memorial was of a various charac ter. He (Mr. L.) believed that, when analyzed, it would be found to be of a very extraordinary character. Such an appeal, he would venture to say, had never be. fore been made to the consideration of Congress. It was altogether peculiar and anomalous. It had been brought up from the files of a former session; and from an abstract of the contents of the paper, as given in the Globe of this morning, the House might learn something of its object.

It was his (Mr. L's) intention, before he sat down, to propose so to amend the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania as to send the memorial to the committee already appointed on the subject of amendments to the constitution of the United States; for it seemed to him to belong more properly to one of those pigeon-holes kept in reserve for matters of this description, than to the custody of such a committee as the gentle man from Pennsylvania had in view. From the manner in which the subject is now brought forward, as well as from the place of its origin, he feared there was something con. cealed and sinister to be accomplished. He asked the attention of the House to the character of the paper, as given in the abstract to which he had referred. It com. menced with a lamentation on the encroachments of incorporated companies upon the rights and liberties of the people, and especially insists upon the danger to personal rights and civil liberty from the practice of the State Governments to create banking institutions. This is no less than an arraignment of State legislation. The wisdom if not the purity of the State Governments is impeached at the bar of this House, and that authority and discretion which have been exercised for nearly half a century, in the constitution of incorporated companies, comes now to be denounced as an abuse of power, dangerous to the liberties of the people. By whom (asked Mr. L.) is the power which is thus complained of exer cised, and from whom is it derived? By the immediate representatives of the people, deriving all their authori ty directly, by delegation, from the people themselves. The complaint is a libel upon the good sense, the virtue, and the patriotism, of the country. And was it true that there existed in every part of the Union incorporated companies, which were continually encroaching on pop ular rights, while only some twenty individuals in the State of Pennsylvania were heedful of the danger, and all the rest of the community unconsciously slumbering over their injuries? The suggestion was unworthy of serious notice.

But (proceeded Mr. L.) these pure-minded and pa triotic memorialists do not rest their allegations upon mere generalities. They point out to the attention of this House the specific violations of the constitution which State legislation has committed. The creation of banking corporations, say they, contravenes that provis ion of the constitution which prohibits the States from coining money and emitting bills of credit. National sovereignty is thus invaded, and the safeguards of the people violated! Surely the objection is presented here for the first time at rather too late a day for the intervention of the power of Congress to a prevention of the

He

evil, if the application of that power could even have been so directed. Singular, however, as was the objection, when addressed to the consideration of this House, it had not altogether the merit of novelty. The gentle man from Pennsylvania, in his speech, has seemed, indeed, to give to it the sanction of his countenance. (Mr. L.) remembered to have read, in the early history of banking institutions in his own State, something of a newspaper argument to the same point; but it had been overruled and repudiated by the judgment of wise and intelligent men, and by the uniform legislation of the States on the subject. Its serious repetition, as a practical rule of action, would now be scouted by every considerate politician in the country. He could not believe that any gentleman worthy of a seat on this floor would attempt to sustain for a moment an argument upon the objection.

But the memorialists complain of the abuses and perversions of the powers of chartered corporations, of the exclusive privileges and monopolies which they confer, and of their encroachment upon the just and equal rights of all the citizens. And what is the measure of remedy which the gentleman from Pennsylvania would propose by his select committee? Most certainly not the exercise of a supervisory authority by Congress over State legislation. This would more directly conflict with the constitution, which guaranties to the States the exercise of all the powers not granted to the Federal Government. If these powers are indiscreetly exercised by the States, redress is with the people; but if the ground of complaint be in the abuse of a limited and delegated authority, conferred by acts of incorporation, the appeal is to the source of that authority, the Legislature itself, or to the Judiciary. In either case, the remedy is not to be found here. It is at home, with the memorialists themselves, and the constituents of those who administer their Government; with the people, and those who are accountable to the people. Congress has no power over the subject. Did the gentleman from Pennsylvania pretend that Congress had such power? And was this the argument upon which this select committee was to be raised?

But he (Mr. L.) was desirous of calling the attention of the House more particularly to another part of the memorial. As if aware that neither the measure of prevention nor redress for existing greivances rested with Congress, these twenty or more memorialists gravely request that the assembled wisdom of the nation would propose to the States an amendment to the constitution of the United States, by which they may be restrained in the exercise of their own jurisdiction and sovereignty. The States were to be called upon to surrender the right which they had enjoyed for a period of time coeval with their existence, and under the authority of which institutions had been created in all the departments of business, and in aid of every important interest in the community. An amendment of the constitution, prohibiting the States from granting acts of incorpora

tion.

Is there a man weak enough to believe that such a proposition would find favor with a single Legislature in the Union; or mad enough, in the present state of the business concerns of the country, to desire its success? What! ask a State Legislature to surrender a portion of its State sovereignty, to deny to itself a salutary power, lest it may be unwisely and unprofitably used; a power now become essential to the prosperity of the people, and without which there could be no security for pressent possessions, or hope of improvement in the future! But it may be said that the restriction proposed is of banking incorporations only, and the amendment would operate but a partial abridgment of a questionable authority. It is sufficient to reply, that the authority has VOL. XIII.-75

[H. OF R.

been claimed and exercised by the oldest States, from the earliest period, and by the youngest almost as the first act of their sovereignty. Both its existence and its exercise have become indispensable to the welfare of the country. As well might the power of enacting municipal regulations be denied to the State Legislatures, as, in the present state of things, the right of granting to the operations of business the facilities of banking institutions be withdrawn. The gentleman from Pennsylvania himself, upon his own responsibility, will not venture to propose it. He adroitly and somewhat cautiously advocates sending the subject to an inquiry only, without suggesting an opinion of what should be the definite result.

But he (Mr. L.) would put it to the House to consider the effect of the proposition. An amendment to the constitution could have no retrospective operation. It could not impair the existence or the powers of banks already created. In restraining the States from further grants, it would but increase the influence and augment the power for mischief, if that was their tendency, as the memorialists assume, of such as were already in being. It would, indeed, be to create exclusive privileges, and constitute, during the continuance of pre-existing charters, odious moneyed monopolies. And was this the purpose the memorialists had in view? He would submit to the gentleman from Pennsylvania to answer.

Mr. L. contended that it was most obvious nothing of legitimate legislation could come of the reference of the memorial to a select committee of this House. The alleged abuses by the State banks, and the supposed danger to public liberty from the existence of such institutions, were subjects not within the cognizance of Congress. They belonged to, and might properly be addressed to the consideration of, the people. The proposition to amend the constitution in the particular pointed out in the memorial was too preposterous to be entertained for a moment. The gentleman who asks the reference will not do himself the discredit to advocate the measure. There must be something, then, in the motive for the presentation of the memorial, at this time, beyond that which meets the eye. A further reference to the document may explain the object--I would not be misunderstood, (said Mr. L.)—not the object of the gentleman, but of the memorialists; of persons not here, but elsewhere. If he recollected rightly the contents of the paper, it conveys a complaint of a violation of law by the Bank of the United States; and hence, probably, the inducement for an appeal to Congress. The Bank of the United States, say the memorialists, has reissued bills before redeemed, and which, by law, should thereafter have been excluded from circulation. What bank has committed this outrage upon public law, and what bills have been thus reissued? The Bank of the United States chartered by the authority of the State of Pennsylvania has reissued the bills of the Bank of the United States chartered by the authority of the Federal Government. Admitting the truth of the accusation, he, (Mr. L.,) upon his responsibility as a lawyer, would tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania that Congress had no power over the matter. He would plead to the jurisdiction. He denied the right of Congress to institute an investi. gation into the conduct of a bank deriving its existence and holding its powers from State authority, or of inquiring into any of its measures. The Bank of the United States incorporated by the State of Pennsylvania is such an institution. It owes no accountability to the Federal Government, and is amenable to no animadversion from this source. Whether it has issued its own bills, or reissued the bills of other banks, lawfully or unlawfully, it may well deride the authority of this body to take cognizance of the matter. It belongs to the Government of the State, and to that only, in its legisla

currency; instead of which, they have doubled the paper circulation, and now exclaim against and endeavor to transfer to their opponents the blame and responsibility for the evils they have brought upon the country. But it may be asked, how have the measures of the administration brought those evils upon the country? I answer, by the prostiation of the United States Bank; an institution which they still continue to pursue with unabated rancor, because they have not been able entirely to destroy it. I may be asked, in what measure were we in debted to the United States Bank for the soundness of our currency at the time the Government passed into the hands of the present administration? I answer, that that bank, considering itself a national institution, felt it to be a part of its duty, as well as its interest, to preserve a sound currency in the country as far as it possibly could; to accomplish which it voluntarily subjected itself to considerable expense and the liability of sustaining heavy losses. This desirable object it accomplished in the following manner: Whenever it found, by the quantity of paper in circulation belonging to any bank, city, or State, that an overissue had taken place, the bank collected these overissues whenever they were to be found in the possession of its debtors, returned them on the institutions which had put them into circulation, and demanded payment. If the banks thus brought in debt were unable to pay, which was often the case, the United States Bank, instead of oppressing or straitening them unnecessarily, made arrangements with them, and, by receiving a reasonable interest, gave them time to redeem their notes by gradual curtailments. Thus, sir, they were restrained within proper limits, and a wholesome currency preserved in the country, while the United States Bank ran the risk, in case a failure should take place of any bank whose notes they held, of sustaining the whole loss of the notes then in its possession. This wholesome check has been removed by the present administration and its friends, and the consequence predicted by the opposition has followed. The country has become flooded with State bank paper, until the authors of the evil have themselves become alarmed, and now endeavor, by every wile and stratagem which they can invent, to transfer the odium to their opponents, who labored from the first to avert the evil.

But there is another subject which my honorable colleague and the petitioners have thought proper to bring before this House, with which, in my humble opinion, we have nothing to do. The United States Bank, which was chartered by the Legislature of Pennsylvania during the last session of that body, is gravely charged with reissuing the notes of the United States Bank, the charter of which expired last March. Well, sir, suppose they have. Had they not a right so to do? Must the present United States Bank be deprived of a privilege that belongs to every other bank and individual in the United States? Suppose the bank in possession of a quantity of the notes of the old bank, which have been received in payment of debts due to the present bank, (and I am unacquainted with any other means by which it became possessed of them,) and an individual should be not only willing but desirous to receive these notes for a debt due from the bank to him, why should the United States Bank be deprived of the privilege of paying them out, any more than any other bank or individual in the country? I know of no reason except that the bank happens to be in bad odor with the present administration of the Union and its supporters.

Sir, the paper of this wantonly and unjustly abused and vilified bank is at this moment the best paper currency in the country. There is not a gentleman within the sound of my voice, from the South or West, that does not know that this paper is anxiously sought and purchased in their sections of the country, at from three

[H. OF R.

to five per cent. premium. It is found to be the only paper with which they can travel through all parts of the country, without being subjected to inconvenience or loss by the payment of discounts during their journey.

But another idea is thrown out, Mr. Speaker: that the circulation of these notes by the present Bank of the United States will prevent the old bank from winding up its affairs, and subject the United States, in common with the other stockholders, to the liability of losses which they would not otherwise incur. Is this the fact? If it be, I should like to be told in what manner it can happen. The notes are liable to be lost or destroyed; will that be a loss to the stockholders? I apprehend not, as they will never have to pay them if they are not presented. This will be a gain instead of a loss to the bank, and consequently an advantage to the stockholders. But will it prevent the bank from winding up its af fairs? I apprehend not, sir. It is well known that every bank keeps a record of all the notes it issues, and that it must at all times hold itself prepared to redeem them. Now, let us suppose that this bank is desirous to wind up its affairs, and pay over the amount of stock and dividends due to the stockholders, and upon examination it finds that there is still a hundred thousand dollars of its notes in circulation. What, then, becomes its duty? Why, simply to set aside a hundred thousand dollars for the purpose of paying these notes as they shall be presented, and paying over to the stockholders the balance of assets which it may then possess, which is all to which they can lay any legal claim. Need I pursue this argument any further, to prove that the stockholders cannot possibly lose any thing by this operation, or that the winding up of the bank need not be delayed in conse. quence of some of its notes being in circulation? I have never been the advocate of banks of any description; but if we must have them, and I believe such is the general sentiment of the country, then let us not carry on a war against those that are best managed, and are calculated to do most good, and nurture those from whom we have most evil to apprehend.

Sir, the objects sought to be accomplished by the petitioners cannot be effected by this House without an alteration of the constitution of the United States, or the unsettling of the whole principles upon which your Gov. ernment has been administered ever since the adoption of the federal constitution. They ask you to take away a power which the States have always possessed-that of granting bank charters. Have you a right to deprive the States of that power, without an alteration of the constitution of the United States? A negative to this question would, I believe, be almost unanimous throughout the Union. To what committee, then, should the petition go? I answer, to the committee already appointed, which has in charge the various amendments proposed to the constitution of the United States. If you send it to a select committee, what will be the object, and what have we to expect? A report that will contradict the assertion of my colleague, that this is not a party measure, or intended for party purposes." You, sir, I predict, if you get a report at all, will get one of a most decided partisan character. Sir, I had no intention when I came in of saying a word on this subject, and regret that I have detained the House so long.

Mr. MANN, of New York, said he had no idea, when he stated on yesterday that he wished to have his friend from Pennsylvania gratified in his request, that this subject would create a debate taking so wide a range as that which the House had witnessed; and it was no part of his purpose now to extend it much further. He had perceived, however, a disposition in the House to become early possessed of some subject worthy of debate in that body, on which to hang speeches for the edification of the public. Mr. M. said he had not deemed this