of merchants and bankers as well as to members of Congress, &c. He hoped the House would see the propriety of this course. There was no question as to the correctness of the course taken on the occasion which he referred to by the president of the Bank of the United States. He tendered unreserved communications, and they were made in such a shape as was desired by the committee. He did not believe that the president had any design, in making them, to impose any misstatement on the committee. The papers presented were merely transcripts from the books of the bank, made by the clerks. He did not think any charge could be made against the officers of the institution, in relation to the paper alluded to. The committee thought it unnecessary to lay it before the House or give it any publicity, for the reason that it related to private transactions of an unimportant character. As to the amendment now offered, he would prefer that it should be so modified as to leave it discretionary with the committee to report private transactions or not; but he should vote for the proposition in any shape in which it might be offered, believing, as he did, that it was improper in any public functionary to deal with banks and receive favors from them.

Mr. BEARDSLEY said he agreed perfectly with the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, in reprobating every thing like slander, in whatever form it might be presented; and it was because he reprobated slander so much as he did, that he thought the occasion that offered that morning warranted him, nay, more, required of him, that he should make the explanation he did. The charge, as it appeared on the paper Mr. B. saw, was calculated, if he might judge from the face of the paper, to produce an impression that the individual referred to had borrowed the sum of four, five, or six thousand dollars, or whatever the amount was, of the Bank of the United States, immediately before the time the investigation took place, or within some few months of it. He was not indicted as an endorser, but as one directly indebted to the bank. Now, knowing that to be utterly untrue, and knowing it on its face calculated to produce a slanderous impression, Mr. B. had thought, and still thought, it his duty to expose it. He was, he said, against all slanders, whether they came from the Bank of the United States, or from any other quarter, and was as ready to denounce them as the gentleman himself.

There was one remark of the gentleman to which Mr. B. would particularly recur. He understood the gen tleman to say that this was either a base charge in its nature, on account of transactions to which Mr. B. had pointed, or else that it was base to make the charge. If the gentleman desired to be understood in the former sense, Mr. B. agreed with him, and was willing to let it be judged by the public. He had not, and should not characterize more strongly than the gentleman himself had done. But if the gentleman meant that it was base for a man, who was himself slandered, to expose the charge, Mr. B. would tell the gentleman that it did not comport with what he considered a proper self-respect. He held it right to speak out in such cases, in all places, in public and before the world, fall where it might. Mr. B. did not say who was guilty. The gentleman from Maryland had said the information was furnished by the bank, and Mr. B. said the statement was untrue. Surely it was not base to state the fact! The original fabrication might be base, but the exposure of it could not be so held. He would forbear to say any more on the subject. He had said thus much, because he deemed it due to the occasion and to himself.

With regard to the views entertained by the committee of investigation at that time, Mr. B. had no concern about it. He was not on the committee, and he cared

[DEC. 31, 1835.

little whether the inquiry was published or withheld. If some members of the committee thought the inquiry proper, and others reprobated it as improper, they might adjust the matter as they pleased. And if, after obtaining the information, they choose to suppress it, he was equally as indifferent as he was to the subject of inquiry itself. But if the honorable member meant to have it understood that this paper was exhibited to Mr. B. in a secret and clandestine way, or that it was shown to him only, and not to others, the gentleman was mistaken. It came to Mr. B. in no such light, and in no such manner. He supposed at the time it was to have been published entire, though he cared not whether it was or not; and he never dreamed that this statement was omitted, until some time afterwards, on looking into the report, he found it had been left out. What became of it he knew not, nor ever heard till to-day; or, if he did, it escaped his memory. He was not able to say from recollection whether the minority report of the honorable member from Massachusetts named all the members of Congress or not, or whether the individual he referred to was named in it.

Mr. ADAMS briefly explained. He had referred to the names of all who had received favors from the bank, by having their payments as members made before the appropriation was made for it.

Mr. BEARDSLEY said he had misapprehended the remark of the gentleman, but was satisfied by the explanation. The honorable gentleman and himself seem. ed to entertain the same opinion of the real character of the transaction which he had referred to; they differed only upon the propriety of speaking of it. Gentlemen might suppose it base and slanderous to speak of it, because it pointed to the president and directors of a large moneyed institution; and such seemed to be the view of the honorable member from Massachusetts. Mr. B. thought the transaction not the less reprehensible on that score. If those who conducted the affairs of the bank, as was now ascertained from two or three mem. bers of the committee, did furnish information he knew to be untrue, he held that he was at all times at perfect liberty to expose it before the world, and should always feel it his duty to do so, be the parties who they might.

Mr. HOWARD called for the reading of the amendment, and said that his object was to inquire from the mover whether he intended the period in the latter clause to be the time when public money was first deposited in any District bank, or the time when the change took place over the country. Ile remembered a document in which it was stated that the public mo. ney had always been deposited in one or more of the District banks. If that were the time to which the inquiry was proposed to be extended, he had no objection; but if it were intended to limit the investigation to the last two years, he would sooner that the limitation should be stricken out. It might be that the gentleman from Pennsylvania intended to show that these loans to officers of the Government and the members of Congress were useful to the public, and necessary, in consequence of the great delay in passing the annual appropriation bills, whereby it was sometimes absolutely necessary to anticipate salaries. Mr. H. said that he remembered a document in which he, in common with every other member of the House, was reported as a debtor to the Bank of the United States, when, in fact, he had never owed the bank a dollar in his life. circumstance arose from the bank's charging every member of Congress with his per diem as he drew it from time to time, not deeming itself at liberty, until after the passage of the appropriation bill, to transfer a portion of the public money to the credit of the proper officer of the House. If it were intended to draw an inference from these loans that those corporations were

This

It

useful, the inquiry might as well be pushed further back than the last two years. But it might also happen that the object of the limitation might be to show that these corporations had recently made these loans, contrary to their former practice, and, by so doing, interfered with the money concerns of the Government. seemed to be probable that the business of some of these banks might have become more extensive lately, in consequence of the contraction of the business of the Bank of the United States; but it was also probable that a portion of their business had always been that of furnishing facilities to persons connected with the Government, from the cause abovementioned; and if the House should limit its inquiry to a very moderate date, the inference would necessarily be, that all this was fresh business, arising from some recent cause, whereas it might be nothing more than a continuation of their cus tomary proceedings. He did not like to vote for any amendment which would prevent access to this information, and would be obliged to move to strike out the latter clause of it.

Mr. GRENNELL, of Massachusetts, rose and said the reasons for this amendment to the instructions had not been stated by the mover with sufficient distinctness to enable him to comprehend them, and none had occur. red to his mind of sufficient weight to command his vote for the present proposition. The object of the original resolution, said Mr. G., was perfectly justifiable, name. ly, to inquire into the past conduct and present condition of the banks in this District; and for a twofold purpose: first, to guide the judgment of this House on the question of recharter; and, secondly, to show to this community the causes and the authors of their embarrassments or sufferings in the matter of the bank currency of this District. Mismanagement and abuse of powers have been charged against several of the District banks to such extent as to work a forfeiture of their charters. Of the justice of these charges I pretend not now to judge. But we have witnessed enough to justify a rigid investigation of their concerns and conduct; it is due to this community, and to this Legislature, from whence these corporations emanated.

But, sir, is the inquiry proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania at all germane to this original object? It seems to me not. What is it? Why, sir, hardly less than an arraignment or trial of members of Congress and officers of the Government. It would be to raise injurious suspicions against them, most of whom may have been members of a past Congress, and who cannot be here to protect themselves, or explain their transactions with the banks. Yes, sir, we are to inquire, first, into mismanagement committed by the banks, fraudulent and corrupt, as is alleged; and then, by the same committee, at the same time and by the same inquest, to ascertain what members of Congress have taken loans; as if they had been participating in such mismanagement, or in some bad way connected with these institutions. Now, sir, if this branch of the instructions pass, who does not see that some portion of the public may connect the motives and actions of members and officers of the Government with the improper proceedings of the banks thus accused? Who does not see that odium may be cast upon honorable gentlemen for money transactions as innocent and fair as any that take place in the dealings of men? If you adopt this amendment, the public may suppose, and with some reason, that your commission is not only an inquest against doubtful banks, but against gentlemen as honest and honorable as any in the country. Sir, I do not know any member of Congress, the present or past, who has been a borrower at the banks of the District. If there have been such, I doubt not their transactions, and the motives that influenced them, have been fair and upright. And I will not allow myself to

[H. OF R.

inquire or to suspect what member or what officer of the Government has had loans at these institutions, nor what party in this House or country may be affected by the proposed inquiry. I am opposed on principle to searching into, and displaying before the world, the pri vate transactions of individuals with banks; and so have uniformly been my votes in this House whenever such questions have been tried. Especially am I opposed to an inquiry which, without light or reason, presupposes improper connexions of members of Congress with the accused institutions. I can imagine no benefit to result from the amendment proposed to the instructions, but much evil and injustice.

One word, said Mr. G., as to the duration of this commission proposed by the gentleman from Maryland. He proposes to extend it through this Congress. I should be better satisfied if he would limit it to the present session.

Mr. HOWARD again asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania if he would accept his amendment as a modification.

Mr. MCKENNAN could not, he said, accept the amendment, and the House would therefore pass upon it. He bad himself a distinct object in view, which was, to ascertain the loans made during a certain period.

Mr. EVERETT, of Vermont, remarked that the proposition of the gentleman from Pennsylvania would, he hoped, be understood as having been offered on his individual responsibility, and not that of the party with which the gentleman usually acted. He considered the proposition as totally wrong in principle, and should therefore vote against it. Mr. E. made some few remarks in opposition to the motion, which the reporter did not hear.

Mr. HOWARD said that, after what had fallen from the gentleman from Vermont, he would, for the present, withdraw his motion, to see what form the amendment might ultimately assume.

Mr. THOMAS rose, he said, to say a few words to put himself right before the House in regard to a subject which had been alluded to. Before the committee of investigation proceeded to act, the question of power was mooted by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS.] At the very first meeting of the committee at the United States hotel, the gentleman from Massachusetts assumed the position just stated by him, that it was improper and incompetent for the committee to investigate any trans. actions between the bank and its debtors, and the gentleman was particularly opposed to singling out for publication the transactions between the bank and members of Congress. The committee decided against the position of the gentleman, on the ground that unless they examined every transaction, and became acquainted with the nature of the security given for loans, they could not execute their instructions, nor report whether the bank, in their opinion, was solvent or not. As to the publication of the documents obtained, he (Mr. T.) reserved to himself the exercise of his discretion; and he would not consent now to report private transactions of a nature unimportant to the public, unless expressly so command. ed by the House. He was furthermore opposed to the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, because it was confined to the loans of one bank. There were other banks in the District which had at various times been depositories of the Government money, besides the bank referred to in the proposed amendment. Before he sat down he would modify his resolution by inserting the words "at the present session" after the word Con. gress, which words were omitted in transcribing the resolution, so that the committee might take charge of the memorials in relation to the renewal of charters or creation of new banks in the District, which might be offered during the present session.

Their reasons, sir, (said Mr. M.,) for their refusal to give testimony then, will be the same now, if you again make the attempt to procure it by the exertion of your powers. Those reasons, Mr. Speaker, were surprising to the committee, the House, and the country. The application of the principle of magic transformation from personality to impersonality was again resorted to by considering "themselves as corporators, directors, and parties to the proceeding," and therefore not bound to give testimony. They availed themselves of that wise maxim in the rules of criminal evidence which declares that no man is bound to criminate or dishonor himself; but Mr. M. said that he had not before then contemplated that a public corporation, established professedly as a necessary public agent, without personality, or the corporate capacity to be guilty of criminal offences, and amenable to the laws as such, could undertake to shield the mysteries of "its sacred confidence," under a rule of criminal evidence which can only be applicable to those who have personality, and "have souls." It seemed to have been forgotten then, and probably will not be remembered now, that the attempt to shield the bank from examination, under the principle stated, that it was a part of the very contract or charter of its existence, that its proceedings may be examined by a committee of either House of Congress," and that when its agents and servants, by its corporate command, refuse such exami. nation, and to give testimony necessary to unfold those proceedings, the very principles of such existence are violated. If, however, the directors in their refusal then, acted in their individual and natural capacity, and meant to avail themselves, as citizens amenable to the laws, of the protection of this obvious and merciful rule of criminal evidence to screen their own actions, in their own agency as directors and officers, from the scrutiny and examination of the public authorities, proceeding according to the forms of law, to vindicate the justice of that Jaw, then I cannot but admit, Mr. Speaker, their right to do so when arraigned before the judicial tribunals of the country, in its fullest legal extent. It is a right secured alike to the most humble as well as the most exalted citizen. It should, however, be recollected that the duties of a committee of this House are not judicial. They cannot arraign, condemn, nor punish, but simply inquire and report the result of those inquiries to the body from whom they emanate. To conduct those inquiries, they are authorized to examine witnesses on oath. In their first step, they are told by the witnesses that they claim to be parties to the proceeding, as if they were arraigned by that proceeding before the bar of a judicial tribunal, and prepared to respond, "guilty or not guilty," and therefore not bound to respond to any other question. Sir, said Mr. M., if you send a committee to the bank, with the purposes indicated by this amendment, you will meet with the resistance to your authority which has been opposed to your inquiries before, and with such reasons for that resistance as were met before, to some of which I have alluded and commented upon, as well to show their existence as their futility and effrontery. It can, in my judgment, said Mr. M., be of no service, therefore, to renew the effort, unless the House are now prepared to vindicate their authority. In respect to the main questions now under consideration, the resolution to commit the petitions from the banks of this District to a select committee, with the instructions proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. MCKENNAN,] to inquire into their pecuniary relations to the officers of the Government, I am, said Mr. M., in favor of both propositions. It is well known to the other members of this House that the Committee on the affairs of this District, standing in the place of its local Legislature, is burdened, and sometimes almost overwhelmed, with its business. The renewal of

[H. OF R.

these bank charters is not ordinary business before that committee, and does not occur oftener than once in twenty years. It is conceded to be requisite that the affairs of these banks and their management and conduct of late, more particularly, because they have stopped payment, should be thoroughly probed and examined. The Committee on the District of Columbia, with great deference and respect I say it, will probably find more subjects of business for their action than will be convenient to them. It is, sir, for the interest of the banks themselves, if they expect a renewal of their charters at our hands, to submit their affairs to a thorough examination. There can be no objection to the proposition of the gentleman from Pennsylvania to examine the dealings of the public officers, or Representatives on this floor, with these banks; because, sir, I venture to believe that there is no honorable gentleman here who has such relations with them as will subject him to suspicion or censure. True, sir, I should prefer to leave the matter of the publication of those relations to the discretion of the committee, because I would not, said Mr. M., bring the private transactions of any gentleman before this House unnecessarily. But, sir, as it is intimated that there is something "rotten in the State of Denmark," let it be found out, promulged, and corrected.

Mr. WARDWELL had hoped that this question would have been sooner disposed of, and that an opportunity would have been afforded to present petitions, this being the last day that the House would sit this week. The proposition of the gentleman from Indiana had nothing to do with the original proposition. Certain banks had applied for a renewal of their charters, and an inquiry into the propriety of acceding to these applications was entirely proper. The gentleman from Indiana had, however, offered an amendment foreign to the subject, and he trusted it would be withdrawn.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, would not consent, he said, to commit a discretionary power to the committee, in regard to the proposed inquiry and report. He hoped the inquiry and report would be made full and ample, and then the House would judge of the propriety of making the facts reported public or not. He did not know what this subject had to do with the Bank of the United States. Did that institution seek a renewal of its charter? On the contrary, we were told that it was quietly winding up its affairs, and its charter would expire before this investigation could be completed.

Mr. MCKENNAN said he was reluctant again to trespass on the attention of the House, but felt constrained to say to the gentleman from Indiana, and to the persons (if any) with whom he had advised or consulted, that he had a distinct object in view, which was explicitly set forth in the amendment he had offered, and that he would not be driven from his purpose by any parliamentary management or manoeuvre which they might think proper to adopt. Let the gentleman persist in his amendment, and let the House, if they think proper, adopt it. Let the examination be as deep and as broad and as extended as a majority of the House should think proper to direct. He had no objections; but inasmuch as the gentleman's proposition was totally irrelevant to the subject-matter before the House, he, therefore, could not vote for it. The banks, into whose concerns it was proposed to make an examination, were petitioning for an extension of their charters. The Bank of the United States had presented no such application, and he could see no propriety in directing an inquiry into its affairs or its loans. But if the House think proper to adopt the amendment, let them do it. He presumed there was no one who had any thing to fear from any disclosures which could be made. Already had the names of many individuals, selected from the list obtained by the committee on a former occasion appointed to in