DEC. 30, 1835.]

tion.

attend to, independently of the matter under consideraIt therefore seemed to him to be proper that this proposition should be sent to a special committee. It was highly important that an investigation should be made, and thoroughly made. It was important to the people of the District that this investigation should be made, and he therefore hoped that it would be sent to a select committee, and let it be the special duty of that committee to investigate this matter.

Mr. LANE said he would inform the gentleman from New York, [Mr. MANN,] and the House, that the committee, so far from having more business than they were able to perform, had met again and again without having any business before them, and they would be obliged to gentlemen if they would give them something to occupy them. The Committee on the District has as much zeal, and as much disposition to investigate into the affairs of the banks, as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. THOMAS] had, but that gentleman seemed to want the whole management of the currency of the District himself. Perhaps he is afraid the currency of the District would overwhelm and supersede that of Maryland.

Mr. THOMAS said that gentlemen misunderstood him. He did not wish to reflect upon any committee, or any member of the House. He said his constituents were more interested in this matter than those of many gentlemen; therefore, they wished it investigated. They wished to have a sound currency in a District with which they were so closely connected.

Mr. LANE read the following rule:

RULE 62. It shall be the duty of the Committee for the District of Columbia to take into consideration all such petitions, matters, or things, touching the said Dis. trict, as shall be presented, or shall come in question, and be referred to them by the House; and to report their opinion thereon, together with such propositions relative thereto as to them shall seem expedient.

Mr. BEARDSLEY said he was very happy indeed to perceive, and he could not forego the opportunity of congratulating the House and the country upon it, that there appeared now to be a universal and concurrent sentiment on the propriety of making the examination contemplated by one or the other committee of the House. As those banks came there to ask favors at the hands of that House, and as the character of the House, and the interest of the country at large, were deeply em. barked in the applications made by these banks, it was only fit and proper towards the House itself, and towards the country at large, that they should know, and that the country should know, the condition and circumstances and past conduct of these petitioners. Every body there seemed now to agree to the correctness of that proposi tion. He recollected the time when another institution, when another bank, came there for a similar purpose, to seek for an extention of its charter; and when one class of personages in that House thought proper to propose that an investigation should be had into the circumstances and condition of that institution; then he well recollected that the unanimity of sentiment, now prevailing in the minds of members of that House, if they might infer that sentiment from what had passed in the present debate, was all discord. Then the battle was continued upon the policy, and propriety, and justice, of making a similar examination. It was ultimately carried that investigation should be had; and the results of that, and a subsequent investigation, so far as there was any subsequent investigation, were before the country. Now, however, all doubts and difficulties upon the propriety of examination are dissipated, and it was admitted on all sides that there should be a thorough investigation into the condition and circumstances of all these institutions, before the House should act on an application for the renewal of their charters.

[H. OF R

The inquiry now was, by what organ the House should make the proposed examination. By many gentlemen it was supposed that this matter was one of especial reference to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and the rule of the House had been read for the purpose of showing that that would ordinarily be the course. But the 62d rule, as it appeared to him, even if construed in the strictest manner, or in the most liberal manner, could not not be supposed to embrace subjects of this character. The rule said it should be the duty of that committe "to take into consideration all petitions, matters, or things, touching the said District," &c. This referred to matters and things that per se related wholly to the District, and to nothing out of it, and were within the range of its ordinary affairs. But was this petition from the District, or relating to the District as a District? In no sense whatever. It was a petition, it was true, for the recharter of certain banks within the District, but in no sense concerned the rights of the citizens at large; for the citizens of the District and adjacent country, and the whole community, were equally interested in the subject. It was not a petition of the District, within the words or the spirit of the rule; subjects of daily occurrence which sprung up, touching matters in which the District alone was concerned, were properly referrible to this committee, within the spirit and words of the rule. This, he repeated, was not a matter affecting the District, in any sense whatever, for it affected the citizens there in common with those of the country adjacent, and was not referrible, necessarily referrible, to its committee.

But even if it was within the terms of the rule, it would not be within its fair spirit or intent; for the rule was intended only for ordinary cases of daily or annual occur. rence, not for extraordinary occurrences, such as the location of a bank, or the renewal of a bank charter already located, within the limits of the District.

Mr. B. would make another suggestion. Many gentlemen thought it was inexpedient to establish in this place a large bank, wielding millions and millions of capital, with power to diffuse its branches throughout the Union, with or without the concurrence of the States in which they might be located. Let them suppose a petition to come there with that object, would it be referrible to the Committee on the District? Would it not with more propriety be a fit subject for the Committee of Ways and Means? Yet it would be located in the District; and, upon the idea that the Committee on the District of Columbia was to grasp every thing within that location, such an application must of consequence go to that committee. Would not such an application, within the fair spirit of the rule, and pursuant to the course heretofore pursued, go to the Committee of Ways and Means, or perhaps to a select committee? Why, if the Committee on the District of Columbia were to take charge of every thing located within the District, the House would have to abolish the Committee on Public Buildings. It would seem to him, therefore, that this subject did not belong to the former committee, and that it should be sent to some other standing committee of the House, or to a select committee.

Mr. B. did not design to cast the slightest reflection upon the Committee on the District. He had no doubt that if the duty devolved upon them it would be most promptly, ably, and impartially executed, yet the duties they had already to perform were such as to take up much of the time that should be devoted to an investiga tion of this subject. Mr. B. then referred to precedents on similar subjects, and the committees appointed by the House on the Bank of the United States in 1819, and the session 1832-'3; and, after some further remarks, concluded by stating that he should vote in favor of Mr. THOMAS's motion, in which he trusted he should be sus tained by the House.

H. OF R.]

[DEC. 31, 1835.

Mr. ADAMS moved to strike out that part of the instructions which provided that the committee should act in conjunction with any similar committee which might be appointed by the Senate.

Mr. THOMAS accepted the amendment, as a modification of his motion.

Mr. BOULDIN moved to amend the motion, by striking out so much as provided that all future memorials on this or similar objects be referred to the same com

Mr. SHEPARD accepted the amendment offered by Mr. BOULDIN, as a modification of his motion.

The question was then taken on the motion to refer the petitions to the Committee on the District of Columbia, with instructions.

Mr. MANN, of New York, asked for the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and were:

YEAS-Messrs. John Q. Adams, Chilton Allan, Heman Allen, Bailey, Bell, Bond, Bouldin, Briggs, Bunch, John Calhoon, William B. Calhoun, Campbell, George Chambers, John Chambers, Childs, Claiborne, Clark, Coffee, Corwin, Crane, Cushing, Darlington, Deberry, Denny, Dickerson, Evans, Everett, Forester, Rice Garland, Glascock, Graham, Granger, Graves, Grayson, Grennell, Griffin, Hiland Hall, Hammond, Hard, Hardin, Harlan, Hazeltine, Hiester, Hoar, Howell, Wm. Jackson, Janes, Richard M. Johnson, Lane, Laporte, Lawler, Lawrence, Luke Lea, Lincoln, Love, Lyon, Samson Mason, Maury, McKennan, Mercer, Morris, Parker, James A. Pearce, Pettigrew, Phillips, Pickens, Pinckney, Potts, Reed, Rencher, Rogers, Russell, Schenck, William B. Shepard, Augustine H. Shepperd, Sloane, Spangler, Standefer, Steele, Storer, Taliaferro, Underwood, Vin ton, Washington, Whittlesey, Lewis Williams, Sherrod Williams, Wise-88.

NAYS-Messrs. Barton, Beale, Bean, Beardsley, Beaumont, Bockee, Boon, Borden, Bovee, Boyd, Brown, Buchanan, Bynum, Cambreleng, Carr, Casey, Chaney, Chapman, Chapin, Cleveland, Coles, Connor, Craig, Cramer, Cushman, Davis, Doubleday, Dromgoole, Efner, Fairfield, Farlin, Fowler, French, Philo C. Fuller, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, James Garland, Gillet, Haley, Joseph Hall, Hamer, Hannegan, Samuel S. Harrison, Albert G. Harrison, Haynes, Henderson, Holsey, Hopkins, Howard, Hubley, Huntington, Huntsman, Ingham, Jabez Jackson, Jarvis, Joseph Johnson, Cave Johnson, John W. Jones, Benjamin Jones, Judson, Kennon, Kilgore, Kinnard, Klingensmith, Lansing, Joshua Lee, Thomas Lee, Leonard, Loyall, Lucas, Abijah Mann, Job Mann, Martin, Jolin Y. Mason, Wil. liam Mason, May, McCarty, McKay, McKeon, McKim, McLene, Miller, Montgomery, Morgan, Muhlenberg, Owens, Page, Parks, Patterson, Franklin Pierce, Dutee J. Pearce, Phelps, John Reynolds, Joseph Reynolds, Ripley, Roane, Seymour, Shields, Smith, Sprague, Taylor, Thomas, John Thomson, Toucey, Towns, Turner, Turrill, Vanderpoel, Wagener, Ward, Wardwell, Webster, Weeks-113.

So the motion to refer the petitions to the Committee on the District was negatived.

The question then recurred upon the motion of Mr. THOMAS to refer the petitions to a select committee, with instructions.

Mr. THOMAS, by unanimous consent, withdrew the call for the yeas and nays on his motion, inasmuch as the House had, by the vote just taken, indicated a decided opinion on it.

Maryland should prevail, it would preclude the possibility of a report during the present session, before which time not only the charters of these banks, but also that of the Bank of the United States, would expire, which would leave the District entirely without a banking institution. Under this state of the case, he was persuaded that the gentleman from Maryland would accede to the amendment he had proposed.

Before the question was taken on the amendment, Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, moved an ad. journment; which was carried; when The House adjourned.

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 31.

Messrs. CLAIBORNE and DICKSON, Representatives from the State of Mississippi, appeared, were qualified, and took their seats.

Mr. WARDWELL moved to suspend the rule, in order to enable him to offer a resolution prohibiting, in future, the use of the hall of Representatives on the sabbath as a place of public worship; and the motion was rejected.

DISTRICT BANKS.

The House resumed the consideration of the resolution offered by Mr. THOMAS, of Maryland:

Resolved, That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the condition of the currency of the District of Columbia, to whom shall be referred all other memorials which may be presented to the present Congress, praying for an extension of the charters of the existing banks in said District of Columbia, or for the establish. ment of any other bank or banks in their stead; and to examine into the condition of the currency of said Dis. trict; to inspect the books and to examine into the proceedings of said banks, to ascertain whether their charters have been violated or not, and whether any abuses or malpractices have existed in their management; to send for persons and papers, to examine witnesses on oath, and to appoint a clerk to record their proceedings. Mr. BOULDIN said that, on looking carefully over the instructions moved by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. THOMAS,] it did not appear to follow necessarily that all memorials and petitions should be presented to the committee before their final action on the subject. Although it did appear, from the general context, that all memorials and petitions should be laid before the committee before their final action; and although there might be, and probably was, a propriety in the commit. tee having every thing before them in relation to the subject, still it did not necessarily follow that the committee should make no report until the whole time had expired during which they had the right to receive them. Believing the committee would report as soon as possible, and that all the memorials, petitions, and views, in regard to this matter, would be laid before them as soon as possible, he would withdraw his motion to strike out. He did not wish to throw any obstacle in the way of immediate and efficient action upon this subject.

Mr. GARLAND, of Louisiana, desired to be informed whether the House had the power, under the charters of

these banks, to make the proposed investigation? His vote would depend on the answer which might be given to this inquiry.

Mr. THOMAS said that the banks of the District were applying to Congress for an extension of their charters, and it was not to be expected that they could obtain their object unless they submitted to a reasonable examination. On the other hand, if the committee transcend their powers, the directors of the banks, knowing their rights, would not submit to it. From the fact that these corporations are asking privileges, they would not restrain the committee in any reasonable examination, and the House itself has the power to adjudicate between the committee and the banks.

Mr. MCKENNAN offered the following amendment, as an additional instruction to the committee:

And that the said committee be instructed to report to this House the names and persons, dates and amounts of all loans made by the District banks to members of Congress or other officers of the Government, since the 1st day of October, 1833.

Mr. MCKENNAN said, in offering the amendment, it was not his intention to detain the House with any detailed reasons in its support. Its object was plain on the face of it. It would be recollected that, in the investigation which was made some years since into the affairs of the Bank of the United States, such an inquiry as he now proposed by his amendment was made, and, as the result of that inquiry, the names of many distinguished men were held up to the scorn of the public as being under the corrupt influence of the bank. His object was to have the inquiry as broad, as thorough, and searching, as it was on the former occasion; and he would content himself with submitting it to the decision of the House, merely asking the favor to grant him the ayes and noes on the question.

Mr. CAMBRELENG asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania to withdraw his call for the yeas and nays, as no one, he presumed, would oppose the proposition.

Mr. THOMAS, of Maryland, entertained, he said, a somewhat different view of the proposition, and could not support it, unless it was so modified as to give the committee discretionary power to report the names or

not.

This was what was done in the case of the Bank of the United States. The committee were furnished by the president of the bank with a list of the members who had had transactions with the institution; but that list never saw the light. It was not made a part of the report of the committee.

For one, he was unwilling to consent to that investigation, for the reason that there was no law prohibiting a member of Congress from borrowing of the United States Bank. Unless there was good reason to suspect some illegality or impropriety in private transactions, he was unwilling to give them publicity. He was willing that the gross amount loaned by the deposite bank to members and other public functionaries should be stated, and that individual transactions should be reported, in cases marked by any impropriety. He would ask the gentleman to modify his motion so as to give the commmittee discretionary power to disclose private transactions, where there was any ground for a disclosure. He knew no instance of any transaction of the kind, nor had he the slightest apprehension that any had taken place which could, in the slightest degree, impeach the conduct of any member on this floor, or of any officer of the Government. Should any such case be discovered, however, the individual concerned, whether friend or foe, would meet with no protection from him. He was only desirous that the instruction should not impose on the committee the necessity of making public private transactions of a nature with which the public had no concern.

VOL. XII.-133

[H. OF R.

Mr. BEARDSLEY asked the reading of the amendment, and, after it was read, remarked that he cared very little whether it was adopted or not. He did not think it of any sort of moment whether they ascertained the names of all the public officers of the Government, or of all the members of Congress, who might have borrowed money of one or other of the banks of the District, since one of the local banks became the depos itory of the public money. Let those who were interested in the inquiry take the consequences, if any should follow.

Mr. B. rose principally, he said, to notice something. that fell from the honorable gentleman from Maryland, about an examination that took place, of a similar character to the present, in relation to the debtors of the Bank of the United States. He understood that gentleman to say that a list of members of Congress, indebted to the Bank of the United States and its branches, had been furnished by the officers of that institution to the committee of investigation in 1832, and that that list had not, from that time to this, seen the light. Now, Mr. B. himself recollected to have seen that list during the session of 1832, and he was very glad to learn on the present occasion, in a public way, from one of the committee, as he heard it before stated by common report at that time, that the list possessed by the committee had been furnished by the officers of that institution; for he could state one fact within his own knowledge, touching the accuracy, or the gross inaccuracy, rather, of that statement. That list set forth, among other things, that a particular individual, then a member of Congress, who never borrowed a farthing of the bank or its branches in his life, was indebted to it in the sum of three, four, five, or six thousand dollars. That statement, so far as that individual was concerned, was in no sense true, and never was true, and those who furnished that list must have known it was not true at the time they furnished it. The list called for was of those who were indebted to the bank. The individual refer. red to, it was true, had endorsed for other persons, who were his friends, and who were themselves indebted to the bank, but the paper was never protested, and yet he was held up by the officers of that institution as an original debtor to the bank, and as one who had taken and used its money. The object must have been, as the effect would have been if the list had been published, to induce the public to believe that that individual was under the same obligations as others were. He could well imagine that those who furnished that list were utterly ashamed that it should have shown its face, for the statement referred to he knew to be untrue, both in spirit and in fact. It was very well it did not see the light, for he believed it was full of misrepresentations in other respects also.

With regard to the present inquiry, Mr. B. said, limited as it was, he did not see that it imposed a very burdensome duty upon the committee that should be appointed to make the investigation; nor did he know that it would be doing injustice to members of Congress, if such there were, who might have borrowed money of the local banks in that District, nor to officers of the Government, if they should have done so, as they might have done, for aught he knew. He hoped, therefore, that the gentleman from Maryland would assent to the proposition, and agree that the examination might be made.

Mr. THOMAS said, in reply to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BEARDSLEY,] that he rose simply to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania to modify his amendment so as to make it conform to the instructions to the committee in 1832. He was not to be understood as opposing the amendment. He merely rose to ask the gentleman to modify it.

Mr. W. B. SHEPARD said he was very sorry that the other associates of the gentleman from Maryland on the committee which investigated the concerns of the Bank of the United States in 1332 were not here to repel the charge brought against the institution by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BEARDSLEY.] It was extremely to be regretted that a grave charge of falsehood against so respectable an institution as the Bank of the United States should pass without notice, if the in- | dividual making it was himself worthy of any notice. He regretted that the subject could not undergo an investigation at once, in order that it might be seen upon whom would rest the charge of falsehood. He did not know all the officers of the Bank of the United States, but he knew them well enough to know that they were quite as incapable of falsehood as the gentleman from New York, and he believed them to be as pure as any member of this House. Yes, said Mr. S., as pure as any body of men in the world. He hoped the resolution of the gentleman from Pennsylvania would be adopted, in the exact words in which it was offered. He did not think it discreditable to borrow money of banks, and there was no reason why borrowers should be ashamed to let their names go before the public. He felt no shame when his name was published in his district as a borrower from the bank. He did borrow, and give ample secuity for the loan, and repaid the loan. He saw no reason why any transaction of the sort should be kept secret, and he was in favor of publishing the amount of the loans, and the names of those to whom they were made.

Mr. BEARDSLEY said he should not say that there were not gentlemen engaged in conducting the affairs of the Bank of the United States, as pure as any gen. tleman in that House, or elsewhere. Upon that he formed no opinion. He spoke of a particular transaction. They were now informed, by a gentleman who had the means of knowing, that a list of members stated to be debtors to the bank had been furnished by the bank, or rather by the officers of that institution; and Mr. B. having seen that list, and knowing one of its statements to be untrue, he was willing to state a fact to the House that was within his own knowledge. He did not say that being indebted to the Bank of the United States was disreputable; and if the individual referred to had been indebted to the bank, Mr. B. had no doubt he would have been as willing that the House and the country should know it as was the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. J. Q. ADAMS wished the gentleman from New York [Mr. BEARDSLEY] to inform him where, when, and by whom, the document which the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. THOMAS] had stated had not been reported by the committee of 1832 to the House, had been communicated to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BEARDSLEY,] and what evidence he had that the document communicated to him was the same which the committee had withheld from the House.

Mr. BEARDSLEY was just as ready to answer that question as any thing else. The paper in question was shown to Mr. B. in that hall, by one who, he believed, was a member of the committee, although he was not able to recollect the gentleman's name. Mr. B. saw the entry; the paper was represented to him as the original paper furnished by the bank, and, for that reason, he believed it to be a genuine paper.

Mr. MCKENNAN said that the fact stated by the gentleman from New York, that a list of the debtors to the Bank of the United States was in the possession of the committee of investigation, and submitted to him and his friends for inspection, furnished the best reason for his declining to accede to the proposition of the gentleman from Maryland so to modify his amendment as to leave it discretionary with the committee to report such

[DEC. 31, 1835.

names and cases as they should think proper. He wanted no secret lists, to which the gentleman from New York and his friends might have access, and from which selections might be made, so as to hold up to the public the names of particular individuals, as under the corrupt influence of any of the banks. Nor did he wish to put it in the power of the committee to be appointed to select the persons and transactions which they would report to the House. All the evidence they take, all the information they receive, ought to be submitted to the House, which is to judge of the propriety or impropriety of the management of the institutions whose affairs are to be investigated. He had no doubt the committee to be appointed by the Chair would do its duty; but he did not wish it placed in such a situation as to be exposed even to the charge of partiality. He therefore wished in this matter to give them no discre tion. He wished a deep, thorough investigation to be made, and the result of that investigation reported to the House, so that each and every member could have an opportunity of seeing it, and drawing his own inference from the facts disclosed.

Mr. J. Q. ADAMS rose and said: Mr. Speaker, I shall be under the necessity of voting against the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. McKENNAN,] and against the instructions proposed by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. THOMAS;] and that upon grounds which I have assumed, from the time that this examination into the affairs of banks was first brought before this House.

At the first session of the twenty-second Congress, sir, when the first investigation into the affairs of the United States Bank was determined upon by the House of Representatives, and a committee was appointed for that purpose, I distinctly took the ground that no examination into the private accounts of individuals with the bank was a proper subject of investigation; and, after a considerable debate, which lasted for several days, such was the determination of the House at that time, and the powers of the committee of investigation were, by the resolution which authorized that investigation, so limited and confined. I, sir, had the honor of being a member of that committee; and, upon their arrival in Philadel phia, upon their commencing the duties of their office, among the propositions and demands made by the com mittee was one to this effect: a list of the debtors of the United States Bank, being members of Congress. Sir, I resisted and opposed the motion in the committee: I opposed it to the utmost extent of my power. I con tended that it was not in the authority given to the committee by the House; that it had not been the intention of the House that such power should be exercised by that committee. The majority of the committee, how. ever, determined otherwise. The question was put. And at that time, sir, precisely the same ground was taken as is now taken--that it was not with the intention of exposing the private transactions of members of Congress with the bank--that it was not for the purpose of being able to point at this man, and say, "there is a man who has been bought by the bank," and at the same time to suppress the name of another man who was equally liable to that objection; but that it was a discre. tionary power, to be exercised by the committee for the public interest, in order that they might determine whether it would be a proper thing for them to report to this House or not. Sir, the question was put to the officers of the bank to furnish such a list. At that time, and to that committee, the president and directors of the United States Bank unfolded every thing; they did it voluntarily; and if I am not mistaken, it was accompanied, at the same time, by a notice, from the president of the institution, that the bank did not wish to exercise any reserved power of withholding evidence which the