Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

DEC. 31, 1836.]

Deposite Banks.

[H. OF R.

Mr. D. J. PEARCE said he had voted to lay the resolution and amendment on the table, because he was opposed both to the one and the other.

amendment now proposed as pertinent to the resolution. Still, he would vote for it. He would ask, however, were these deposite banks chartered by the Government of the United States, or did they owe any responsibility He was in favor of any resolution directing inquiry to the Government, except so far as they had entered into any department of the Government where, in the into contracts? They did not; and if the banks thought nature of things, it was proper the inquiry should be proper to expend their money in the employment of an made. He considered the whole proposition as a work agent at Washington, or elsewhere, they had a right to of supererogation. He would vote for the resolution, do so, so long as they did not expend a dollar of the if any gentleman who viewed the subject in a different public money. If it could be shown that there was any light from himself would put it in a proper shape. If the improper connexion between R. M. Whitney, the indi- gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. HARLAN] wanted a comvidual so often referred to, or any other person, and the mittee appointed on the part of the House, to ascertain Treasury Department and deposite banks, he (Mr. G.) whether the Secretary of the Treasury had assumed was willing to know the truth, and to correct the evil, if banking privileges; whether R. M. Whitney was stationit existed. It had been charged that the friends of the ed here as the agent of the deposite banks, with a administration wished to conceal hidden fraud and cor- view of giving him privileges above other individuals, ruption. Let them meet the charges coming from a and of receiving from the Secretary of the Treasury a gentleman politically opposed to them; let him have as protection which the Secretary could not correctly confull an inquiry as possible; and, although he (Mr. G.) fer upon another man, nor legally upon him, (R. M. could not consider the amendment as intimately connect-W.;) if, in short, the question was to resolve itself into ed with the resolution, still he would never close his eyes one of malfeasance or malversation in office, he (Mr. upon any fraud, corruption, or mismanagement, come P.) was willing, for one, that the committee should be from what quarter it would; and he would never deny raised, that the gentleman from Kentucky should be at any inquiry which might lead to its detection. He did the head of it, and that he should fully investigate all not believe that fraud or corruption could be discovered, charges, so far as they can be made against the Secbut he was desirous to give the opportunity. retary of the Treasury.

Mr. THOMPSON, of South Carolina, expressed the gratification which he had felt in listening to the sentiments expressed by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. GARLAND.] Without reflecting on the motives of others, he (Mr. T.) thanked that gentleman for the manly and honorable course he had taken in this matter.

The subject of Reuben M. Whitney's connexion with the Treasury was one of deep excitement in every part of the Union. He (Mr. T.) had ferborne to make any charges or insinuations, until he had evidence before him. Now, he desired that the evidence sought by the amendment should be procured, for it had a most important bearing on the whole subject. And he must be permitted to say that, if he did not raise the cry of democracy so loudly and so constantly as some men, he was yet democrat enough to have confidence that the people of this country would do what was right, when they understood what was right; and any opposition to this investigation would come with an ill grace from those who professed themselves to be the friends of the people. He wished to know what was the nature of R. M. Whitney's connexion with these banks, and what compensation he received. Let the suspicions which were abroad be either put down or confirmed. Whatever this individual's connexion might turn out to be with the banks, he (Mr. T.) believed it to be an absolute autocrasy; he believed that the "sic volo, sic jubeo" of R. M. Whitney placed money in the banks and took money out of them. He believed such to be the fact, though he did not know it; and if R. M. Whitney had this power, was it not all-important that the people should know it? He (Mr. T.) had nothing to say about his character; but he desired to know whether R. M. Whitney was not influenced by douceurs from these banks; whether it was true that he received fifty thousand dollars a year, as had been stated. A bank which had a million of the public money on deposite, which was yielding $60,000 per annum, could readily afford to pay a part of the compensation named. He (Mr. T.) thought his suspicions that such a sum was paid would be confirmed. In any event, he desired to submit the case to the American people, with a full knowledge of all the circumstances. hoped the gentlemen opposed to him would meet him fully in this instance. If all was fair, as it should be, and as he trusted it might prove to be, let the friends of the administration have all the benefit which would result from the refutation of the charges.

He

But suppose that Reuben M. Whitney was the agent of the deposite banks. He was not an agent under any act of Congress, or under any power which the Secretary of the Treasury could exercise. He was the agent by virtue of a contract between him and the deposite banks. What right had the House or the Secretary of the Treasury to ask these banks if they had an agent, or what compensation was given to him? They might answer the question if they thought proper; and if they did not think proper to answer it, the House would be no wiser by adopting this resolution.

It had been said that R. M. Whitney was seen in this city, sometimes in his office, sometimes reading newspapers; and because he was so seen, the House was to adopt a resolution making these formal inquiries from the Secretary of the Treasury. So far as any thing conld be brought to bear on the Secretary of the Treasury, showing an improper connexion between him and R. M. Whitney, or any other individual, he (Mr. P.) was willing to go for an inquiry; but as to these roving investigations, these inquisitions, he had expressed his opinion against them; he believed that no benefit was to be derived from them by the American people, and that their only effect would be to agitate the public mind. So much (said Mr. P.) for Reuben M. Whitney, who (Mr. P. apprehended) was one day to become a great man, on the ground that those who were great were indebted for their elevation more to their enemies than their friends; and who, but for the fictitious consequence which he had gathered from the thousand rumors which had been circulated against him, might have glided on to his grave with the contemptible insensibility of an oyster, so far as Congress would have had any thing to do with him.

But as to the resolution itself. When did the bill by which these deposites were regulated become a law? At the last session of Congress, he believed. These banks would, no doubt, do what they had contracted to do under the deposite bill of the last session. They were under contracts with the Secretary of the Treasury-contracts entered into subsequent to the passage of that bill, and to the requirements of which they had conformed. But the resolution of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. GARLAND] goes back to the years 1835 and 1836. What right had the Secretary of the Treasury to call for this information? What control could he exercise over the banks, independent of what was contained in the con

[blocks in formation]

tract under the deposite bill? Would the banks condescend to comply with such requirements? And if not, of what avail was the resolution, or what benefit could result from its adoption?

He saw no reason why the Secretary of the Treasury should make inquiries into these banks, rather than into any other banks, in order to know their surplus on hand. There was evil to be apprehended from the surplus on hand in all the banks; but this was the result of the banking system. If the object of the resolution really was to confer benefit on the public, then let the inquiry be extended to all similar institutions in the country. If Congress was to legislate at all, let them not legislate for the few, but for the whole. Let them legislate for the people, for the hewers of wood and the drawers of water; for those men who suffer, and are made to suffer, in consequence of these institutions.

[DEC. 31, 1836.

retary of the Treasury to respond distinctly to the point, whether such agency existed; and if so, who pays such agent. Mr. V. then submitted the following, as an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Kentucky:

"And whether the Treasury Department has any agent or attorney, to correspond or communicate with said deposite banks, in relation to the public deposites; if so, who is such agent or correspondent, what compen sation is allowed to him, and by whom is such allowance made or paid."

Pending which, the hour having elapsed, the House, on motion of Mr. E. WHITTLESEY, passed to the or ders of the day, being the consideration of bills on the calendar of private business.

The House suspended the rule to enable Mr. THOM. SON, of Ohio, to offer the following resolution, which was agreed to:

Resolved, That the use of this hall be allowed for an exhibition of the pupils of the New England Institution for the Education of the Blind, under the direction of Doctor S. G. Howe, on Tuesday next, at half past 10 o'clock A. M., for the space of one hour.

LOUIS DURETT.

The residue of the day was spent upon bills for relief of individuals and others.

Among other business,

The bill for the relief of the heirs of Louis Durett was read the third time.

Mr. TOUCEY said he could see no objection to the resolution, nor any substantial objection to the amendment. Could any gentleman object to a simple call for facts in possession of the Department, where it was deemed important to every member that they should be in possession of Congress? The gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. PEARCE] had inquired why not as well call for this information in relation to all the banks? He (Mr. T.) would answer. By a law passed at the last session of Congress, and by the course of the Department under that law, contracts had been entered into with these deposite banks; and, as a preliminary to the formation of these contracts, the banks were required to put the Department in possession of certain information in relation to their condition and business. For this reason he (Mr. T.) would limit the inquiry to these banks. With other banks Congress had nothing to do. He would, therefore, vote in favor of the resolution, and also of the amendment. A certain agent in the Treasury Department had been alleged to be in this city, performing certain acts. The House had already received a com. munication from the Treasury Department, stating that that individual had no connexion with that Department. He had no connexion, for aught Mr. T. knew, with the deposite banks; and, so far as he was aware, there was no impropriety in their employing such an agent. But if these banks had communicated facts to the Treasury Department in relation to that agent, which it was important for the House to know, let him communicate them. The House did not ask for any information which these banks were not required to give by virtue of their contracts. They asked for information, so far as it was in the possession of the Department. He was for light; for fair investigation and inquiry; and, so far as it could properly be done, he would examine and sift the Department to the bottom. It was not for the House, nor for the Legislature, to refuse inquiry into any DepartThis was not an inquisition; it was a proper and legal inquiry into a public Department, not necessarily involving the supposition that any thing was wrong. He hoped the inquiry would be allowed, and he appealed to the House to adopt the resolution, and thus throw open the door to discovery, if any thing there was to dis-ed by the Commissioner that the bill did not furnish such

ment.

cover.

Mr. VANDERPOEL said that he apprehended that the amendment of the honorable gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. HARLAN] would not secure his object, at least if his object was to ascertain whether there was any agent, without the authority of law, connected with the Treasury Department, to correspond or communicate with the deposite banks. It had been often alleged here, as a matter of suspicion, if not of conviction, that an agent, unauthorized by law, and paid, probably, out of the public moneys, was employed by the Secretary of the Treasury to negotiate with the deposite banks. He would submit a resolution which would require the Sec.

Mr. LYON said he felt it his duty to oppose the pas sage of the bill in its present form, and would, when he had given a brief explanation of the case as he under stood it, move to lay the bill on the table. It proposed to release to the heirs of Durett all title or claim of the United States to sixty arpens of land in the city of Mo bile, of great value, and with very indefinite and uncer tain boundaries. He said he had no knowledge of the merits of the claim, beyond what is afforded by the papers referred to the Committee on Private Land Claims. It may be (said Mr. L.) that the heirs of Durett are entitled to land in or near Mobile; but he was not sufficiently advised of the facts and circumstances connected with their claim to induce him to vote for the bill before the House, or consent to its passage in its present form. When the committee reported upon this case at the last session, Mr. L. said he had examined into it with a view to ascertain how or why it was that the claim embraced the particular quantity of sixty ar pens square. It did not purport to be founded upon any French, British, or Spanish grant; and the United States had never disposed of lands by arpens, unless in con. firming grants made by other Governments. He had applied to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and requested him to examine the boundaries designated in the bill, and furnish him a map identifying the tract described in it. Mr. L. wished the information to en able him to determine if the claim would conflict with other claimants of real estate in Mobile; but was inform

a description of the boundaries of the tract proposed to be confirmed as would enable him to identify it on the map. Mr. L. said he was unable, from the want of certainty in the boundaries as described in the bill, to determine to what extent the sixty arpens square would

conflict with the claims of others.

He had examined the several reports of the differ ent boards of land commissioners appointed to examine and recommend such claims for confirmation, and the result of this examination had not satisfied bim that the present bill ought to pass. In the report of actual settlers prior to the 3d of March, 1819, who had no claims derived from either the Spanish, French, of

[blocks in formation]

British Governments, made in 1820 by the board of commissioners east of Pearl river, the representatives of Louis Durett are reported for a lot below Mobile, settled from March, 1790, to April, 1820. The size or contents of this lot the commissioners failed to specify; but, at a subsequent time, a city lot, 64 by 128 feet, appears to have been surveyed for their claim. A still later report of the commissioners of private land claims shows that Joseph Durett asserted a claim before them for sixty arpens square in Mobile, as inhabited and cultivated from 1802 to 1807. This claim was reported as not entitled to confirmation, because not provided for by

law.

An act of Congress, now in force, has created a tribunal for the examination, in the first instance, of cases like the one before the House. By the act of March, 1829, the register and receiver of the land district in which Mobile is embraced have been created a board of commissioners for the examination of cases like the present, with authority to report upon them, and, if established by proof, to recommend them for confirmation. This board is convenient to all interested, and it would be more regular and satisfactory for Congress to act upon the official report of the commissioners, than to rely upon testimony of which adverse claimants may have received no notice.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 3.
DEPOSITE BANKS.

[H. of R.

The unfinished business of the morning hour was the following resolution, heretofore offered by Mr. GARLAND, of Virginia:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury communicate to this House, if within his power, a statement of the dividends and surpluses which were declared by, and the surpluses and contingent funds remaining in, the several banks in which the public money is deposited, for the years 1833, 1834, 1835, and 1836, severally." To which resolution the following amendment had been heretofore offered by Mr. HARLAN:

"And that he state, also, whether the salary or compensation of an agent at the seat of the General Government composes a part of the expenses of the said banks; the name of the said agent, and the several sums paid to him by the said institutions, respectively."

To which amendment Mr. VANDERPOEL heretofore offered the following amendment:

"And whether the Treasury Department has any agent or attorney, to correspond or communicate with said deposite banks in relation to the public deposites; if so, who is such agent or correspondent, what compen sation is allowed to him, and by whom is such allowance made or paid."

Mr. PEYTON sent to the Chair an amendment, which substituted a committee, with power to send for persons and papers, for the Secretary of the Treasury.

The CHAIR decided that it was out of order to offer the amendment at that time.

He

Mr. PEYTON gave notice that, when in order, he would move so to amend the resolution and amend. ments as to refer the whole inquiry to a select committee, with power to send for persons and papers. called upon his friends, and those who were friendly to an investigation, not to vote for the original resolution, or either of the amendments, in their present form. To what (said Mr. P.) do they amount? To nothing more than the resolution offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. DROMGOOLE] at the last session of Congress, against which we all voted. It is simply a call on the Secretary of the Treasury-an appeal to him to send us a whitewashing defence of himself and his friend Reuben Whitney, if he chose to do so. Why call on the Secretary of the Treasury? Do you call upon him to do his duty merely, or for something over, above, be

There was still another reason (Mr. L. said) why he could not consent to the passage of the bill. A respect. able number of his constituents had, in a petition to Congress, requested that no final action should be had upon claims like the present, unless it be shown that adverse claimants had received notice of application being made to Congress to confirm them. The papers in this case did not show that any notice whatever had been given. He had no information as to the nature of any adverse claims to the land sought by the heirs of Durett; but, from the best location he could give the land, under the boundary described in the bill, it would seem to conflict with the claims of " De La Croix under Francis Collell," and "Joshua Kennedy under William McBoy," marked upon the map of Mobile in the General Land Office. He knew nothing of the nature of these claims, but it might be that they were as much entitled to a relinquishment of the title of the United States as Durett; at least, he was disposed that all should have a hearing; and an investigation into the merits of the conflicting claims could be had with more convenience to the parties before the board of land commissioners, in the country where the land is situated, and where the par-yond his official power and duty? His duty is written, ties reside, than before Congress. Mr. L. said he was unwilling to vote for a confirmation of Durett's claim, without affording the other supposed adverse claimants an opportunity of being heard. The passage of the bill might do injustice to other claimants equally as much entitled to the same land, and he was not disposed to involve any portion of his constituents in unnecessary lawsuits.

He was not prepared to say to what extent the bill would give rise to litigation; but as the case was important, and the value of the property very great, he preferred the claimants should come to Congress with a report from the board of land commissioners, setting forth all the important facts connected with the claim, and with such others as may interfere with it.

Mr. L. having moved to lay the bill on table, was requested by Mr. HUNTSMAN to withdraw the motion; and did so, in order to allow the latter gentleman to make some observations in support of the bill. After which,

Mr. LYON renewed his motion to lay the bill on the
table, but finally, at the instance of Mr. GARLAND, of
Louisiana, consented to a postponement of the bill to
Friday next.

And then the House adjourned.
VOL. XIII-77

his power is defined in the law. Is it to be presumed that, if the obligations of law and official responsibility have had no effect upon him, a resolution of this House will be more powerful in its effects? Let us advert to the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury. What does the act of Congress require at his hands?

"SEC. 3. No bank shall hereafter be selected and employed by the Secretary of the Treasury as a depository of the public money, until such bank shall have furnished to the said Secretary a statement of its condition and business," &c.

"SEC. 4. Each bank shall furnish to the Secretary of the Treasury, from time to time, as often as he may require, not exceeding once a week, statements setting forth its condition and busiuess, &c. And the said banks shall furnish to the Secretary of the Treasury, and to the Treasurer of the United States, a weekly statement of the condition of his account upon their books. And the Secretary of the Treasury shall have the right, by himself or an agent appointed for that purpose, to inspect such general accounts in the books of the bank as shall relate to the said statements," &c..

"SEC. 10. That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to lay before Congress, at the commence

[blocks in formation]

ment of each annual session, a statement of the number and names of the banks employed as depositories of the public money, and of their condition, and the amount of the public money deposited in each, as shown by their returns at the Treasury; and if the selection of any bank as a depository of the public money be made by the Secretary of the Treasury while Congress is in session, he shall immediately report the name and condition of said bank to Congress; and if any such selection shall be made during the recess of Congress, he shall report the same to Congress during the first week of its next ses

sion."

There, sir, is the Secretary's power, broad and ample. Here is his duty, plain and explicit. Has the Secretary failed in either? Has he omitted to exercise that power which has been conferred upon him for the care and safety of the public money? Or has he failed to make his annual report, as required by the act of Congress? Or, as has been intimated hy the gentleman from Rhode Island, [Mr. D. J. PEARCE,] is it a call upon the Secretary for something which he does not officially know? The resolution begins thus: "Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury communicate to this House, if within his power," &c. Now, sir, this either means to require the Secretary to give the House that information which the law made it his duty to communicate to Congress at its meeting, or it appeals to him for that which is unknown to him officially, and is placed beyond his power by the law itself. In either point of view, this call is useless, is absurd. If he has done his duty, and given the House all the information within his power, why ask him again to do so? If he has failed in this-if he has stood out in contempt of the laws of his country, in violation of his official obligations-why appeal to him by way of resolution? If there is any wellfounded suspicion of this, it would furnish a conclusive reason why a committee should be raised. But, sir, suppose the object is to call upon the Secretary, not as a public officer, to make an official communication to this House, but as an individual, to give us his private views and opinions in relation to the subjects mentioned. I am still more opposed to that course. Strip the Secretary of his ministerial robes, of his official power, and what right has he to make any communication to this House? No, sir; I wish to bring him to the book-to his oath before a committee. Any other course will be trifling with the dignity of this body.

[JAN. 3, 1837.

ing, why not take down his sign? What is he doing in the Treasury Department? How came he there? You might as well turn a horse into a new ground field, and tell him not to bite the pumpkins, as to turn Reuben Whitney into the Treasury, and tell him not to steal the money. Suspicion is aroused, it is abroad through the country every where in relation to this man's mysterious connexion with the Treasury; and the very efforts to shield him have greatly increased those suspicions. It is true that the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. D. J. PEARCE] has predicted that Reuben is to be a great man, made so by his enemies; I am willing to make him greater. I am anxious to give him an opportunity to blazon his virtues, and make him "great only as he is good." But what constitutes a great man at this day, according to that gentleman's conceptions of greatness? The first item in the account of this man's greatness is, that he was charged and convicted, by his own confes sions upon oath, before a committee of this House, of having been a traitor to his country during the last war. The second item in the account is, that he was convicted of perjury by the same committee, a majority of whom were his political friends. And, lastly, that he is sus pected, upon evidence strong enough to send a poor man to the penitentiary, of plundering the Treasury; of being a sort of general, federal rogue, employed by a company to steal by the year for them. This closes the account. And Reuben truly has a claim to greatness-a great traitor, a great liar, and a great rogue.

I wish this investigation to be made by a committee of this House, composed of men, as I hope it will be, too generous to persecute even Reuben Whitney, and too just to favor the Secretary of the Treasury. And then Reuben may point to his patriotic deeds during the war; to the evidence of his truth in his examination in 1832, and to the honesty and fairness of his conduct in relation to the public money.

Mr. Speaker, in the Globe of this morning I read an article which squints at throwing Reuben overboard. It is time the Secretary had cut loose; that he had unlash ed himself from him. "If you will tell me who you live with, I will tell you who you are," is an adage not more trite than true. This Secretary and this same "great" man have been housed together since his ap pointment to the station he fills. I will call the attention of the House to a few facts, which will show whether Reuben M. Whitney has any claim to the shield which I am equally opposed to the amendment offered by has been thrown around him, under the name of private my friend from Kentucky [Mr. HARLAN] in its present citizen; and whether the Secretary is not the last man form, and for the same reason, because it appeals to the in the nation who should be appealed to as his judge. Secretary for information. It reads thus: "And that he Whitney has assumed the responsibility of speaking in [the Secretary] state, also, whether the salary or comthe name of that Secretary to the officers of Govern pensasion of an agent at the seat of the General Government, who are bound to obey him, and those functions. ment composes a part of the expenses of said banks; ries recognised and obeyed his instructions. This could the name of the said agent, and the several sums paid to not have escaped the knowledge of the Secretary. him by said institutions, respectively." Now, sir, I do Whitney was his friend, his daily associate, his bosom not wish to hear one word from the Secretary about that crony. Not only so, but Whitney's instructions, given agent, unless it is upon oath; and I think that my friend by authority of the Secretary, were in one instance made from Kentucky will agree with me as to the means of public in the newspapers, and republished in the jour effecting the object. I agree with him fully in the end, nals of this city. He gave instructions to the receivers and I hope we will not differ as to the best, and in my in the land offices what kind of money they should re judgment the only, means of effecting it. If the Secreceive in payment for public lands. And, in conclusion, tary is cognizant of any thing improper, it was his duty, as a faithful officer, as a man of honor, to have made it known. But, sir, I suppose he too considers Reuben Whitney a private citizen, the agent of the banks and not of the Treasury. Sir, during the present session of Congress I had occasion to go into the Treasury Department, and, on shoving open the front door, the first thing that met my eye, full in front, was R. M. Whitney, blazing in capitals as large as the sign of a livery stable. Now, sir, if he is a private citizen, what is be doing with a sign? If he has quit business steal

he holds the power of the Secretary of the Treasury in terror over the heads of the receivers, threatening them in his name, and by his authority, in case of complaint. Were these the acts of a private citizen? Does the Sec retary stand in a relation so impartial that his word, his bare ipse dixit, will be satisfactory? Sir, is it not giving Reuben Whitney power over the currency? The pow er to destroy that equality of competition for the public domain, which is the birthright of every American citi zen? How dare he say to a receiver of public money that the paper of this solvent specie-paying bank shall

JAN. 3, 1837.]

Deposite Banks.

be excluded, when offered by one citizen, and the paper of another shall shall be received? And, to insure obedience to his mandate, he threatens the receiver with the power of the Secretary of the Treasury. Here is his circular, which was first published in a new Van Buren paper in Missouri. The editor had not been long in the ranks, or he never would bave made the disclosure.

[H. OF R.

of the other deposite banks, and to each of the public
receivers, the signatures of their respective presidents
and cashiers. For this purpose, I forward with this a
list of the public receivers, with the places of their resi-
dence.

"I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
"R. M. WHITNEY."

In the course of the investigations, newspaper and otherwise, which have taken place within the last few months, it has been boldly denied that R. M. Whitney had any connexion with the Treasury Department. In his letter to the publishers of the Globe, of the 5th of March last, he represents himself as the agent "of a number of the most respectable deposite banks," em

From the Missouri Republican, May 14, 1836. THE PUBLIC MONEYS.-The Globe, in the month of September last, published the details of an arrangement made by the different deposite banks, by which the long promised "better currency," as that paper then styled it, was to be secured to the country. The details, as we have said, were given, but it did not appear that the arrangement was the fruit of Reuben M. Whit-ployed to reside at Washington, to act as their correney's labors; nor has this fact, so far as we know, been alluded to at any time. Such, however, was the case. A new Van Buren paper has been recently started at Palmyra, in this State, called the "Marion Journal," the first number of which contains a communication from Mr. Blakely, receiver of public moneys for that district, in which a "circular," imbodying the whole arrangement, with instructions from "R. M. Whitney," is inserted. The receiver commences with these remarkaable words: "I am instructed to receive in payment for public lands the notes on the following banks;" and then copies the circular, dated "Washington, August 21, 1835."

The opening paragraph-which, as well as those parts inserted below, was suppressed by the Globe-- reads thus: "I have the pleasure to inform you that, since my circular to you of the 25th June last, I have received communications from the greater part of the deposite banks, upon the subject of redeeming such of their notes in New York and Philadelphia as may be received on deposite from receivers of proceeds of public lands, as well as receiving from such receivers the notes of such of the deposite and other banks as redeem the same either in New York or Philadelphia; and I am now enabled to communicate to you the arrangements made with the following banks."

Then follow the "arrangements" announced, and which we have already published. Mr. Whitney closes bis circular by saying:

sponding agent, and to look after their interests generally. The Globe denied that he had any official connexion with the Treasury; and an inquiry was objected to in Congress, because he was a private citizen. The circular before us, however, unveils his true character. He has, beyond a doubt, the control of all the funds received into the Treasury from the sale of public lands; he avowedly acts under authority from the Secretary of the Treasury, and threatens all erring banks with "prompt measures to remove any just cause of complaint;" he is recognised as a Treasury officer by the receiver who published the circular; for Mr. B. expressly says, "I am instructed,' &c., and goes on to quote the letter of instructions. Either this must be the case-either he is an accredited officer of the Treasury Department, or he must be a private citizen, the agent "of a number of respectable banks," if you choose, but still having the exclusive regulation of the currency, and the control of eleven millions or more of money received for public lands annually. When before has the spectacle been presented to us of a private citizen giving peremptory instructions to Government officers, and wielding many millions of public money for the benefit of banks paying him a high price for his services?

Mr. Blakely, the receiver, commences, "I am instructed." By whom? By this private gentleman, Reuben M. Whitney? To do what? To receive in payment for public lands the notes on the following banks, &c. He (Whitney) speaks of other circulars which he had sent "These arrangements have been entered into with on before this. And what does he direct shall be done? the understanding and full reliance that each bank will That the notes of such banks as redeem the same in New act towards the other in fairness, and with most sacred York and Philadelphia shall be receivable in payment fidelity; that no one will call upon any other to redeem for the public lands. And, in conclusion, which puts it their notes which have not been received from the pub- beyond doubt that the Secretary was privy to this aslic receivers, or in payment of public dues, in cases sumption of power, he says: "Should it ever be otherwhere the banks have extended the limitation that far. wise, and any one of the banks have cause to feel ag"I have forwarded a copy of this to each of the pub-grieved, I am authorized by the Secretary of the Treas lic receivers, and I have no doubt but they will act with ury to say that he will take the most prompt measures such fairness that no injustice will be done to any one of to remove any just cause of complaint." the deposite banks. Should it ever be otherwise, and Reuben is a private citizen, and the Secretary is called any one of the banks have cause to feel aggrieved, I am on to say so, upon honor. authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury to say that he will take the most prompt measures to remove any just cause of complaint.

"It is expected, by all the banks which have come into the arrangement, that when one forwards for redemption, at the places named, the notes of any other bank, it will, at the same time, inform such bank of the amount which it has thus sent forward.

"I would suggest that, in case any one of the deposite banks which have not entered into this arrangement shall hereafter do so, they communicate the terms, &c. to me, that the same may be communicated to the others, as well as to the public receivers.

"As it will greatly increase the security against counterfeits, I would suggest that each deposite bank which has or may enter into this arrangement forward to cach

And yet

Sir, this association of the Secretary with Whitney is not creditable to him. Who is Whitney? What did the Secretary know him to be? Why did he ever countenance such a man in so responsible a station? I heard a gentleman of the first respectability, of the highest honor and most commanding talents, of the city of Baltimore, who was a personal friend to Mr. Taney, though a political opponent, say to a friend of mine in this city, during the last session of Congress, that when it was first rumored that Reuben M. Whitney was to be the agent employed by the Treasury Department to perform the duties of the station which he now fills, as it appears, under the employment of the deposite banks, he wrote to Mr. Taney, giving Whitney's character, from the time of his treason down to the day of his perjury, and expressing a hope that Mr. Taney would not

« AnteriorContinuar »