Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

H. OF R.]

64

[blocks in formation]

not as pure and immaculate as they are pleased to consi- and unfounded. Yet the gentleman expressed a willingder it. The gentleman, as if hard pressed for arguments ness that the proposed inquiry should proceed, not beto sustain his novel proposition, has referred us to an cause he believed it necessary, but because it would exaxiom of the common law, which requires that persons clude a conclusion, which would otherwise be drawn, selected as triers of those who are charged with the com-unfavorable to the bank. Mr. L. said it was not merely a mission of crimes shall be taken from the vicinage--shall | pro forma inquiry that he sought for: it was not the inbe the friends and neighbors of the culprit. In virtue of quiry conducted in the spirit, and with the feelings, indi this principle, he claims that the Bank of the United cated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that would be States be tried by its friends, by men from the vicinage. satisfactory to him. He was anxious that there should be Sir, said Mr. L., those sages and fathers of the common a fair and impartial investigation: he sincerely desired to law, who lived near its fountain head, notwithstanding know whether the bank, to any extent, had been guilty their well known gravity, would have smiled, could they of the abuses and malpractices imputed to it. His final have anticipated that the beneficent principle here ad-vote upon the question of rechartering the institution verted to could ever have been applied to a heartless, might depend upon the result of the examination. If it soulless corporation. But if this was not a sufficient shall appear, after a full and fair inquiry, that the bank is answer to the gentleman on this point, it might be added not justly obnoxious to these charges, and that, in its opethat the principle of the common law, which he had rations, it has neither abused nor transcended its powers, sought to draw to his aid, has, in fact, no practical exist- it would certainly afford to his mind a strong recommen ence in the United States. In every State in the Union,dation in favor of its continuance. It would place that ineither by constitutional provision, or legislative enactment, stitution before this House, and before the nation, in an it is required that every criminal shall be tried in the attitude much more favorable than it now maintained. And, county where the offence is committed, without reference in this view of the subject, it had struck him with astoto the place of his residence. nishment, that even a symptom of opposition to the inquiry But, said Mr. L., the honorable gentleman from New had been manifested on the part of the friends of the York has charged those who advocate the reference of bank. He had anticipated a different course: he had supthe bank inquiry to a committee appointed by the Speaker posed that, instead of opposing the inquiry, or endeavorof this House, according to the usual mode of appointing ing to thwart and embarrass its progress, the friends of committees, with a desire to procure a packed jury" for the institution would have courted the investigation, and the investigation of the charges against the bank. Sir, would have rejoiced at an opportunity to throw open for upon what foundation does the gentleman predicate this inspection their most secret recesses, that the light of the charge? noonday might shine upon, and exhibit their doings to the Although he has disclaimed any intention of implicating world. the Speaker in moving this amendment, yet, if he had In conclusion, Mr. L. said he hoped the amendment of not thus explicitly disavowed such an intention, the infer- the gentleman from New York would not prevail. He adence would have been irresistible that he did not confide monished gentlemen, that if the bank expected to retain in the integrity and the impartiality of that officer. Mr. L. the confidence of the American people, it should not said he could not look upon the proposition of the gentle-shrink from the proposed investigation: nor should the man in any other light than as implying a distrust of the friends of that institution resort to, or sanction any efforts honorable Speaker. If this be not so, why has the gentle- calculated to thwart or embarrass the inquiry. He regret. man proposed this extraordinary mode of obtaining a comted to say that manifestations of a disposition to do this mittee, and why has he indulged in his remarks respecting had been already, in the progress of the resolution of the a" packed jury Mr. L. asked who it was that desired gentleman from Georgia, too palpably and too frequently a packed jury?" Is not the inference strong that it is evinced. He hoped and trusted that, henceforth, gentlethe gentleman himself? What are the facts? The honor-men would pursue a course in relation to this inquiry, able gentleman submits a proposition that the committee which, instead of depressing, should elevate the standing of inquiry shall be elected by ballot, and he accompanies of the Bank of the United States, and which, instead of the proposition with the declaration that his object is to rendering darker and more lowering the clouds of susobtain a committee friendly to the bank, and opposed to picion now overhanging it, should have the effect to scatthe inquiry. It is, then, the gentleman who secks for a ter and dispel them. "packed jury," a jury composed of the warm friends of Mr. DANIEL said he was in favor of the amendment. the bank, and who, before the inquiry commenced, have No gentleman would accuse him of friendship to the adjudged the bank to be innocent of the charges against it. bank. He was opposed to it, not on specific charges, but And suppose, continued Mr. L., that the amendment of on its general character. He was against all investigation, the gentleman from New York should, be adopted, and for he was afraid it would result in the vindication of the that a committee shall be elected composed of the most bank from the charges which he now believed to be true. high-toned friends of the Bank of the United States, will He was in favor of mediate action on the question of rethe inquiry into the charges exhibited against the bank be chartering, in order that the President might veto the b.II, satisfactory to this House, or to the nation? Do gentlemen and a new bank of a different character might be esta indulge the belief that those who entertain the most ele-blished. No man could doubt but the President would vated notions of the purity and integrity of that institu- veto the bill, who would read his first message, and undertion, and who say, upon this floor, that the allegations stood the English language. By the twenty-third secagainst it are either false or frivolous, will enter upon this t on of the bank charter, the committee to investigate the investigation with that zeal and ardor, and that fixed de-affairs of the bank were to be appointed. By whom? The termination to ferret out the truth and the whole truth, Speaker of this House? No. By the representatives of which the advocates of this inquiry, and which the people the American people. He was in favor of the amenddesire? Mr. L. said he could not but advert here to the inent, for he wanted a committee who were hostile to the ideas thrown out, and the course pursued, by a gentle-bank. He should vote against the bank, unless he was man from Pennsylvania, [Mr. CRAWFORD,] in the remarks instructed to the contrary by his constituents. The bank which he submitted to this House some days since upon was under the highest obligations to the State of Kentucthe resolution of the gentleman from Georgia. That gen-ky, for it would have failed at an early period had it not tleman commenced with a high-wrought culogium upon been for $300,000 sent from that State. The president the Bank of the United States, and an avowal of his belief of the bank stated, if the money had come three days later, that the allegations now made against it were entirely false [the bank must have filled, it hd done the State Lutle

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

MARCH 12, 1832.]

it.

[blocks in formation]

good, and great injury. He strongly expected to oppose of the Whole House, and to recommit the bill, with inHe was in favor of a bank founded on the public re-structions to inquire, to a standing or a select committee. venues. As the bank was now organized, half the mer- This, I take it, is the true interpretation of the parliamentchants in the country were living on its bounty, and the ary rule, of which we have heard so much. At the same people on the credit given them by the merchants. He time, I am free to confess that I do not insist that this rule was opposed to such aristocratic consequences. Mr. D. refers to questions of this nature. I do not claim the bemade some remarks upon the Albany regency, and stated nefit of this interpretation, clear as it is, for the amend himself to be pleased with the old democrat, [Mr. Roor,] ment of the gentleman from New York. As a technical though he did not agree with his views in favor of the parliamentary rule, I believe that usage restricts it to matbank. ters of a more private character. The rechartering of the bank is a large question, interesting to the whole country, connected with its great interests, wearing, in some respects, a political aspect, and standing far above the class of mere business matters, to which the rule is gene rally understood to apply. But I proceed on far broader grounds than those of technical rule, in requiring that the committee should not be hostile to the existence of the institution--the grounds of common justice and common sense.

Mr. DRAYTON avowed himself friendly to the bank: he believed the country had experienced great benefits from its operation, and knew of no evils it had produced. Yet he was in favor of investigating its affairs by a committee appointed in the ordinary mode, and consequently opposed to Mr. Roor's amendment. He concluded by calling for the previous question, [the effect of which is to cut off all amendments,] but the House did not sustain the call--yeas 71, nays 98.

Analogous cases have been urged upon us. It has Mr. EVERETT, of Massachusetts, said: I am in favor been asked what we should think of an officer of this of the amendment moved by the gentleman from New House, or of the Government, who, if grave charges York, [Mr. RooT,] and will briefly state my reasons. It were made against him, should insist that the investiga has been too readily taken for granted, because this in- tion should be made by persons opposed to having the quiry is moved by a gentleman avowedly hostile to the matter inquired into. The case is idly put; for it is not bank, that therefore the parliamentary rule requires that a possible supposition that any innocent man, against the committee should be unfriendly to the institution. whom grave charges are made, should be unwilling that do not so understand the rule; I admit that the committee they should be investigated; and every man is held inno. ought to be friendly to the inquiry; that is to say, willing cent till he is found to be guilty. But this inquiry is to take if up and carry it through, in good faith, not be moved by persons who think that, whether the bank is cause there is any parliamentary rule to this effect, but innocent or not in the matter inquired into, it ought to because common sense requires it; because it cannot even be broken down. And if gentlemen wish for an analobe supposed that a committee will not cheerfully and con-gous case, what would they think of committing the inscientiously perform a duty entrusted to them by the vestigation into charges preferred against an officer of House. There is no meaning in the proposition of a com- the House, or of the Government, to persons who had not mittee friendly to the inquiry, but this--a committee friend-only declared their minds made up in regard to all the ly to doing the duty enjoined upon it.

matters to be investigated, but had avowed the opinion that, whether guilty or innocent, he ought to be deprived of office, and even life? Gentlemen tell us the bank is corrupt; that it is broken, and unable to pay its debts, and that it has been conducted in the most dis honorable and fraudulent manner; that it is a great and

But of those in favor of the inquiry, under the present circumstances, there are two classes: one such as are friendly to the bank, and think the inquiry will result in exonerating the bank from the charges brought against it; and the other, such as are hostile to the bank and in favor of instituting the inquiry, as certain to lead to delay, and oppressive evil, a curse to the country; and, finally, unlikely, in their judgment, to result in the destruction of constitutional; and then politely ask the majority of this the institution. Now, I maintain that, as far as the parlia- House, who are friendly to it, to give them, its pledged mentary rule alluded to refers at all to the case, it de- enemies, the control of this committee, avowedly to be mands that this inquiry should be committed to persons used for the purposes of delay, and, if possible, for those of the former and not of the latter class; to the friends and of destruction. Would such a proposition between man not the enemies of the institution. That rule refers to and man be thought consonant to the rules of equity? the disposition to be made of bills before the House, and This demand for a hostile committee is new; it is not what is it? It is laid down in the Manual as follows: a fortnight old. The memorial of the directors of the “Those who take exceptions to some particulars of the bank, asking for the renewal of their charter, was prebill are to be of the committee: but none who speak di-sented on the 9th of January. A debate arose whether rectly against the body of the bill. For he that would to- it should be referred to the Committee of Ways and tally destroy, will not amend; or, as is said, the child is not Means or a select committee. It was understood and to be put to a nurse that cares not for it. It is therefore a stated that, in either case, the committee was to inquire constant rule that no man is to be employed in any mat- into the manner in which the bank had been conducted, ter who has declared himself against it." The rule even if they deemed inquiry necessary. The gentleman from gues so far as to require that "when any member who New York [Mr. CAMBRELENG] wanted the great question is against the bill hears himself named of its committee, he investigated, whether the bank should be allowed to issue ought to ask to be excused." orders payable nowhere." Another gentleman from Can any thing be clearer than this, as far as the rule New York [Mr. HOFFMAN] wished all the "vices" of the goes? Can we stand on any such narrow ground as that bank to be probed. The enemies of the bank generally inquiry, which is only the acting of the committee in obe. (with a few of its friends) voted for the select committee; dience to the House--is the thing to which the committee but it was conceded on all hands, and expressly admitted is to be friendly? Certainly not. We must look to the by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CAMBRELENG,] substance. The matter in hand is the bank. The bill is that the majority of the committee would of course be the bill rechartering the bank; the bill now on the table. friendly to the bank. Nothing has occurred to change Every gentleman who has spoken to this resolution of in- the question since, nor to make it any the less proper that quiry, has spoken as directly to that bill as if it were no- this inquiry should be referred to persons who will take minally before the House. I am even of the opinion that it up on the fundamental principle of justice-that every the present motion, for this very reason, is not strictly in person shall be esteemed innocent till he is proven to be order; and that if inquiry be deemed necessary, the pro- guilty. per course would be to move to discharge the Committee

The gentleman from New York, [Mr. Beardsley,] who

H. or R.]

Bank of the United States.

[MARCH 12, 1832.

spoke at length against this amendment of his colleague, powerful instrument in their own hands, and trust for gave, nevertheless, a satisfactory reason why it ought to their justification to the manner in which they shall conpass. He really conceded the whole matter now in con- duct the inquiry? troversy. He said that though the Speaker ought to name the committee, he should do it according to some principle to be laid down by the House. What that principle was, I did not understand the gentleman to state. Still less do I understand in what way that principle is to be laid down by the House. It is the very object of the amendment to have the committee designated on some principle approved by the House. The gentleman will not trust the Speaker to name them, but upon some principle to be previously (I know not in what way) prescribed.

Mr. CAMBRELENG said that the uniform course of parliamentary practice was better than any refinement on the subject of appointing committees. The fallacy of all this might be seen by reference to the case of the Second Auditor, brought up by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. EVERETT] a few weeks since. Would the House send that inquiry to a committee favorable to that gentleman? Certainly not. The object is thorough investigation. This proposition would be deemed, out of the House, as of most unfriendly character to the interests of the bank. It was the most extraordinary thing he had lately heard, except the speeches of his colleague, [Mr. Roor,] and the response from the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. DANIEL.]

It is plain there is no way by which the House can control the principle on which a committee shall be chosen, but by choosing them itself. If, indeed, the gentleman will incorporate his rule into the resolution; if he will in- Mr. ANGEL, of New York, said he had not intended sert after the word committee, "to consist of persons to partake in this discussion, believing himself unable to friendly to the bank," I should understand his course, advance any thing which would instruct the members of and perhaps go with him. Or, if he would insert "to the House. I was disposed to listen in silence, said Mr. A., consist of the sworn enemies of the bank," I had almost and to give my vote according to my best judgment. But said I would vote for such an amendment, disclosing, as in consequence of the turn which the debate has taken, it would, the policy of this movement in a light in which I should feel myself a recreant, and unworthy to be a citi the country would understand it. It would then appear zen of the State to which I belong, were I quietly and that we are called upon to do a thing abhorrent to every indifferently to permit the deliberate and unprovoked notion of justice; and as friends of the bank, holding the abuse cast upon her to pass without notice. The ties fate of the institution in our hands, and responsible to the which bind me to that State, the duties I owe her, and country for the continued enjoyment by the people of the confidence which a portion of her citizens have rethe advantages which it is now conferring on them, I must posed in me, impel me to use my humble efforts in desay it would appear that we are asked to betray a very fending her character against the foul and groundless responsible trust. aspersions cast upon her.

I do not speak from any particular distrust of the Chair. As regards the appointment of a committee to inquire The Speaker's opinions on this great question are not into the conduct of the Bank of the United States, I do known to me; but I can well conceive that he must wish not consider it very material whether it be made in the to be excused from the appointment. There is, in fact, usual manner by the Speaker, or in the unusual manner no clear principle on which he can proceed. The House has proposed by my colleague, [Mr. RooT,] by ballot of the not laid down a principle. It is neither wholly a Govern- House. The respectful opinion I entertain of the memment question, nor wholly disconnected from the Govern-bers of this House will not permit me to believe that ment. If it be a Government question, the President the committee, in whatever mode selected, will consist of holds one language, and the Secretary of the Treasury other than honorable men, deeply sensible of their obli another. And it seems to me that the rules which guide the Chair in the appointment of committees, fail on this great and peculiar question. For this reason, it is proper that the House should take the matter into its own hands. It will, of course, appoint men incapable of blinking the question.

gation to probe its concerns, and resolved to do their duty in a manner fearless of the bank, and honest to the country. But some of the reasons assigned by gentlemen for their great solicitude to have the committee appointed by the ballot of the House, if they cannot awaken a suspicion of their motive, appear to me very extraThe degrading epithet of a "packed committee," is ordinary. While they pay the highest compliments to not, I take it, to be applied to any committee chosen by the integrity of the Chair, express the most unlimited a majority of this House. I should think myself greatly confidence in the Speaker, and expressly disclaim all sustransgressing the rules of propriety, to apply it to any picion of partiality on his part, they urge the appoint committee, however raised; but if there be any perti- ment of the committee by the ballot of the House, to re nence in it, it must sooner belong to a committee named lieve him from the responsibility which he incurs every by a single officer of the House, than to a committee day, and on every other subject, of appointing the com freely chosen by the collective act of this whole body, mittee. Why do gentlemen urge us to depart from the the most honorable mode in which a committee can be ordinary mode of appointing the committee, while they constituted. Let us choose the committee in this way, declare they have nothing to fear, and fear nothing from and we know that the inquiry will not be smothered up. the appointment of it, in the ordinary mode, by the Chair? This House does not contain seven men, who could hold To justify the extraordinary course proposed, some good up their heads, after attempting to shove aside an inquiry reason should be shown. None such has been offered, they were appointed to prosecute, and to cover up frauds or can be pretended; and I do not feel myself justified which it was their business to lay bare. I am willing to without cause to depart from the safe and ordinary mode take the responsibility of its being said that I was in of appointing the committee by the Speaker, to the unfavor of having the House perform this duty itself. I am certain and extraordinary mode of a ballot. not willing to take the responsibility of putting this en- The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. DANIEL] has ingine of delay into the hands of those who avow the formed the House that the law incorporating the bank design to use it to the prejudice of the bank, as I under-requires that the committee for inquiry into its affairs stand its interests. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. should be appointed by ballot. I have looked into the WAYNE] moved an amendment, which went to put off the section to which he referred, and find no such direction report of the committee to next winter. The gentle- in it. It speaks of a committee of the House, prescribes man from Tennessee [Mr. BELL] argued strenuously in no rule for its appointment; and as the practice to appoint favor of delay. Is it not the duty of those who think it by the Speaker was then, as it is now, almost universal, all-important to act now, to hold the control of this all- the just inference is, that it contemplated the appoint

MARCH 12, 1832.]

Bank of the United States.

[II. OF R.

ment of the bank committee in the usual manner, by the tive of effects? Is it safe, is it sound policy, to create or Speaker, and not in a manner different from that in general use on all other subjects.

continue an institution whose operations can control the administration of the Government, rival its powers, and Although the amendment seems to have limited the dis- vanquish its efforts for the common defence? No age has cussion to the choice of modes for selecting the commit- been exempt from the corruptions of money; in the hands tee, yet the range of debate has covered the whole of individuals it is powerful and often dangerous. Can it be ground of the constitutionality and expediency of re- other than oppressive and ruinous, when aggregated into chartering the bank. I will not attempt to reargue these immense masses, controlled by a favored few, endowed questions; they have already been ably argued by those with countless privileges conferred by lavish legislation? who are more able than myself to do them justice. By its charter, powers and privileges are accumulated on will remark, however, that my investigations of the sub- this bank which are denied to honest individuals, and the ject have resulted in a settled conviction that the mea- invidious distinctions in its favor are a gross and wanton sure is both inexpedient and unconstitutional. I under- violation of the equal freedom of our liberal institutions stand enough of the bank and its operations to know that of Government. The stockholders, often foreigners, and it is an odious institution, irresponsible in its action, and sometimes alien enemies, may grow rich in the oppressive threatening to swallow up the liberties of the country. exercise of their exclusive monopolies: the Government, It is well known to the members of this House, that, in when favored by the bank direction, may derive a partial 1791, Mr. Madison, then a member of it, in a lucid and benefit from the facilities which the bank may afford; but irresistible argument against the chartering of a bank, de- who can see without regret, or anticipate without dread, clared that the exercise of such a power by Congress was the destinies of the country in the hands of an odious, a violation of the national compact. The constitution irresponsible aristocracy. If the liberties of the country had then been recently framed and adopted; he had been shall ever be destroyed, and the people reduced to slavery, a member of the convention which framed it, and, while the destroyer and the tyrant must make their approaches it was pending before the people, had exerted the strong in the garb of friendship, the amiable semblance of paand vigorous faculties of his mind in recommending it triotic devotion, and the character of public benefactors. for their adoption. When, therefore, Mr. Madison, in This bank may assume the appearance of these virtues; 1791, opposed the grant of a bank charter, and declared but I see, in the vices of its constitution and nature, danit unconstitutional, the acts of the convention, their in-gers and evils more than sufficient to outweigh all its tentions in framing it, the sense they annexed to it, and promised advantages.

the sense in which it was understood by the people who I said, sir, I should not have troubled the House if the adopted it, were fresh in his recollection, and he was in- State of New York had not been attacked. Since I have fluenced by the strong sense it could not fail to produce been a member of this House, I have scarcely seen it en of the duty he owed to the convention, the people, and gaged in any important discussion, in which that State and the States. The force of his reasoning, the power of his her policy was not adverted to. This is not the first occa argument, and the circumstances under which he acted, sion on which I have seen her arraigned and abused, her have resulted in a conviction on my mind, which no sub-policy sneered at, and her public men scoffed at and desequent act of his life can impair. His views thus ex-nounced. It has been so fashionable to make that State pressed were the same as those entertained and acted on the subject of attack, that some gentlemen appear to supby Mr. Jefferson, George Clinton, and all the democrats pose there is great merit in abusing her. Her abusers are of that age. These men had witnessed the oppressions not confined to this House. By the report of a speech

of power, had been co-laborers in the work of freedom, and this unwarranted assumption of federal authority met their prompt and decided reprobation.

lately made in another part of this capitol, I perceive she has been assailed and traduced; and by whom? By a man conspicuous in the eyes of the nation, who aspires to To prove the bank expedient, it has been argued that nothing less than the first office in the gift of the people. the facilities furnished by it are indispensable to the col- He, the enemy of our hated State, the enemy of our State lection and transmission of the revenue, and the carrying policy, utters the violence and vindictiveness of his hatred on of commerce. These facilities are asserted and exaggerat- towards her, by reprobating what he calls "her ferocious ed. Without stopping now to dispute or settle their ex-politics."

tent, may they not be too dearly purchased? May not the All these abuses, proceeding from citizens of other policy which sustains this bank be productive of evils States, cruel and unwarrantable as they have been, I have altogether greater than the advantages claimed for it can been able to bear with a tolerable degree of patience. compensate? Or are these facilities of more worth than Sometimes they have had their origin in an ignorance of individual rights, public security, and the equal liberty of the truth, and at others, perhaps, in that of envy, which all to pursue their happiness uncontrolled by a moneyed the prosperous virtue of the State was calculated to excite oligarchy? If the charges made against it are true, they in narrow and illiberal minds. But when I see abuses are of the most alarming character; and their truth should be ascertained by the most scrutinizing inquiry which the ablest and most impartial committee can pursue. It is due alike to the character of the bank and the country. The charges against the bank of misconduct, and its winding and turning operations, are so various, that I will not attempt an examination of them; it is unnecessary. I am entirely satisfied of the inexpediency of rechartering an institution which, by its officers, in the papers on our tables, admits its irresistible power to crush the State banks, and control all the moneyed operations of the country. It avows its enormous and overwhelming power, and we know its perfect irresponsibility to the people. It is, in effect, a master placed over them, who are and should be the masters of all. The assertion that the institution has What, sir, let me inquire, has that State done, to call not exercised this power, whether true or false, affords forth such bitter reproaches and such cruel animadverno guaranty that it will not exercise it in future. Do men, sion? In her condition, do you find the evidence of corand especially the rich, seek power to slumber, unproduc- rupt legislation or "ferocious politics?" That condition is

heaped upon the State by one of her own representatives,
[Mr. RooT]-one whom she has adopted and honored
with her confidence-one whom she has sustained and sup-
ported-one whom she has often elevated to high and im-
portant public trusts--by one whom her bounty has fed,
and who has drawn his bread from her treasury for thirty
years, and who at this moment wears the honors of one of
her representatives--when one of her own representa-
tives, thus fostered, thus caressed, and thus treated, be-
comes so forgetful of her favors, and of his high obligations
to her, as to turn common informer against her on this
floor, the reflection is too painful, and the consideration
too humiliating, not to excite the deepest emotion, ex-
pressing itself in action and utterance.

H. OF R.]

Bank of the United States.

(MARCH 12, 1832.

which some gentlemen, on former occasions, have sought to inflict disgrace upon her; not avowedly for her patriotism, but by getting up some pretence, under the cover of which they might avenge themselves upon her, for her adhesion to the Union, and her hatred of treason and desertion.

the unerring proof of the legislation and policy by which withheld no required aid--she did not refuse you men or she has been governed. money-she opened her treasures, and poured out her Compare her condition with that of other States,best blood in your defence. She hung out no blue lights many of whom are older, and were lately more populous as a token for your enemy; nor did she hold a convention and wealthy than herself; and let that comparison attest to dissolve the Union. She lent her energies and means whether she is a fit subject to be stigmatized by charges of to support you, without murmuring or threatening to legislative corruption and political ferocity. In her finan- rebel. I have thought that these were her offences, for ces she is prosperous; though her public debt, contracted in the construction of her great works, is considerable, she has provided the means, and possessed herself of permanent resources for its easy and rapid extinguishment. Every day adds to the fund for its extinction, and every year furnishes new proofs of her increasing prosperity, Will gentlemen contend that the public improvements in New York are proofs of legislative corruption and "fero-, cious politics?" She has, unaided and alone, made greater and more valuable improvements than all the States in the Union put together. So far from this being evidence of corrupt or ferocious councils, her sister States are landably engaged in imitating her worthy and patriotic example. Her public institutions, for the administration of charity, diffusion of religion, and encouragement of learning, rival, if they do not surpass, those of any other State in the Union. Her system of education commands the admiration of the friends of science and civil liberty. In addition to colleges and academies liberally endowed, and suited to the wants of the various professors, she has a common school fund, ample and permanent, wh ch, under a wise and liberal administration, diffuses the blessings of education through every town, village, and hamlet, in the State. The means of education are within the reach of all, and she is rearing a population as enlightened and virtuous as can be found on the face of the earth.

Her commerce is without a parallel on this continent. It is justly the pride of the State, and too frequently the envy of her neighbors. Nor is her agriculture inferior to that of any other State. Her fields are fertile and well cultivated, and yield an ample reward to the laborer. Her manufacturing establishments are equal to any in the Union. Her citizens are governed by mild and wholesome laws, and each is protected in the right of personal liberty, personal security, and the right of private property. In no part of the world do its inhabitants enjoy more liberty, more happiness, more abundance, or more luxuries, than in New York. Nowhere are people more content, or more attached to their soil or institutions.

It has been my misfortune before to hear the attacks of the accusers of New York; but never, until now, have I witnessed one of her representatives entering into a coali tion with her accusers against her. What are the charges made by my colleague [Mr. Roor] against New York? He has charged her with adopting a ridiculous banking system, which he alleges originated in the mind of a visionary man. He stated that her Governor (Mr. Van Buren) spoke of it as a ridiculous and visionary project, and said he had no idea it would be adopted when he submitted at to the Legislature. He charged that the Legislature had been influenced by the moneyed aristocracy to adopt the system. He charged that the resolutions of the Legislature, passed against the recharter of the Bank of the United States, in 1831 and 1832, were procured by the corrupting and bribing influence of the State banks and safety fund system. In speaking of the Legislature of that State, he denounced one of its members as a base scoundrel. These are grave charges to be made by a re presentative against his own State, its Legislature, and its members. They have been made here, on the floor of Congress, in the face of the assembled representatives of the nation. They must travel into every quarter of the Union, and the State of New York must suffer under the reproach of the charges of corruption made by my colleague.

Notwithstanding the resolutions of the New York Legislature, my colleague [Mr. Roor] alleges that the people i of New York desire a recharter of the United States' Bank, and that they need the institution to shield them from the oppression of the State banks. He is mistaken. The resolutions of 1831 were fully discussed in the State Legislature; and, from the time of their adoption down For the information of those gentlemen who appear to to the election in the fall of that year, they were the subbe so deeply afflicted by what they modestly term the cor- 'ject of newspaper discussion from one end of the State ruption of New York legislation and politics, I will tell to the other. The resolutions were well received by the them that a large proportion of the population of the State | people, and were made a question at the election. The are emigrants from other States--emigrants who, to es- members of the State Legislature were chosen with a cape the evils experienced in their native States, have view, on the part of the voters, to this very subject; and come to New York to better their condition. Many of by a vote of two to one, they have instructed our Senathem, though poor, have grown rich; and all, rich and tors, and requested our Representatives, to vote against poor, have, under its institutions, been protected, and the the recharter of this bank. And yet we are told the fruits of their industry guarantied to them by the wise, people are in favor of it. just, and liberal policy of the State. Attached, from these benefits, to her soil, the laws and policy of the State, they cannot be tempted to return to the homes they had forsaken in their native States, or to abandon, on speculations of greater benefits to themselves, those they have made in New York. Many of these worthy men have been elected to most important offices and trusts; but never before this debate have I learned that any of them repaid his benefactors, in the exercise of his official duties, by contumely and abuse.

[blocks in formation]

My colleague has adverted to the benefits to be derived from this institution to the farmers, artisans, and common laborers. And he would make us believe that they are the special objects of his tender concern. He says he wants the United States' Bank to protect and shield them. Against what? I would ask. Why, sir, against themselves. These classes are the bone and sinew, the stay and support, of the country, and constitute, in New York, a large and overwhelming majority in numbers and moral force. They are the very men who elected the present Legisla ture of that State, whose resolutions have been so disrespectfully denounced by my colleague as the result of corruption. If they desire this shield of the United States' Bank, why did they elect men whose judgments they knew were adverse to it? And will my colleague charge the voters themselves with having acted deceitfully in the choice of the State Legislature, or that they are so desti.

« AnteriorContinuar »