gress would not recharter the Bank, for that very reason there was equally good ground for supposing that it would make proper and seasonable provision for the keeping of the public moneys elsewhere. How could the Secretary doubt that Congress would omit to do that which he avers to be one of its appropriate duties? The question is, not what measures Congress might be expected to adopt-whether the rechartering of the Bank, or what other measures; but whether it ought not to have been presumed that it would adopt some measure, and that a seasonable and proper one, according to its power and its duties; and whether, therefore, this anticipation of the action of Congress, on the eve of its session, is to be justified.

The Bank charter declares that the deposits of the public money shall be made in the Bank and its offices, and that the Bank shall continue till March, 1836. Where does the Secretary find his power to decide that the deposits shall be so made but for seventeen years from the date of the charter, instead of twenty? If he may thus withdraw the deposits two or three years before the expiration of the charter, what should restrain him from exercising the same authority five years before its expiration, or ten years? A plain and cogent necessity, the existence of a case which admits of no reasonable doubt, and which is too urgent for delay till Congress can provide for it, can alone justify an interference with the public moneys, lodged in the Bank by law, for the double purpose of safe-keeping, and fulfilment of solemn contract.

But, supposing it not reasonable for the Secretary to have expected the interposition of Congress, and admitting that he might consider the withdrawing of the deposits as an act which was to be done, at some time, by himself, how can it, nevertheless, be argued, that so early and so sudden a withdrawal was necessary? The committee can perceive no possible reason for this, in any state of facts made known to them.

The withdrawal of the money, left on deposit, from a bank whose charter is about to expire, is naturally one of the things longest postponed. It is as safe the last day of the existence of the Bank, in common cases, as at any previous period. The Bank expects the recall of its deposits, near the period of its expiration, and prepares itself accordingly. The operation, if made gradually, produces, when thus conducted, the least possible disturbance in the business of the community. Former experience would seem to have held out a salutary light for the guidance of the Secretary in this part of his official duty.

At the time of the expiration of the charter of the former bank, Mr. Gallatin was Secretary of the Treasury, and the public deposits were in the bank. The charter of the bank was to end on the 4th of March, 1811; and it does not appear that Mr. Gallatin

thought it necessary to make any provision whatever for removing any part of the deposits, except by drawing on them for the common uses of Government, until late in the very month preceding the expiration of the charter. A large amount of those deposits remained, indeed, in the vaults of the bank after the charter had expired, and until they were wanted in the general operations of the Treasury. And why should it be otherwise? Why should that be done suddenly now, which the Secretary thinks could not be done suddenly hereafter without great inconvenience? Is it not the just inference, from his own argument, that the thing should not have been done suddenly at all? As to the idea that the credit of the paper of the Bank will be depreciated near the time of the expiration of its charter, or that it would be inconvenient for it, at that time, to be called on for the deposits, the committee are utterly at a loss to see the slightest foundation for such an opinion. Experience is against it; and all reason, as the committee think, is against it also. There is nothing to render it in any degree doubtful that the bills of the Bank will be in as good credit the last day of its charter, and even after that time, if any shall be outstanding, as they are now; and there is as little to render it doubtful that then, as now, the Bank would be competent to answer all demands upon it. In the opinion of the committee, the withdrawal of the fund was both unnecessarily early and unnecessarily sudden. It might have been made gradual; it might have been deferred; and it might have been, and ought to have been, as the committee think, not ventured upon at all, until the attention of Congress itself had been called to the subject. The committee, therefore, entirely dissent from this first reason reported by the Secretary. They see nothing which proves to them the existence of the slightest occasion for taking this important step at the moment it was taken. So far as it depends on this reason, the committee think the removal was made without necessity, without caution or preparation, with a suddenness naturally producing mischievous consequences, and in unjustifiable anticipation of the legislation of Congress.

But the Secretary thinks there are other reasons for the removal, growing out of the manner in which the affairs of the Bank have been managed, and its money applied, which would have made it his duty to withdraw the deposits at any period of the charter.

Of these reasons, thus arising from the alleged misconduct of the Bank, the first is, that many important money transactions of the Bank are placed under the control of a committee of exchange, of which committee, no one of the public directors, as they are called, is allowed to be a member, instead of being transacted by a board of seven directors.

This charge consists of two parts:-first, that the discounts of bills

are made by a committee, and not by a quorum of the board; second, that the public directors are not allowed to be of this com

mittee.

First. It is not alleged that, in the discounts of bills by this committee, any indiscretion has been committed, or any loss incurred, or that, in consequence thereof, any facility to the mercantile community has been withheld, or any duty of the Bank to the Government violated. The objection is, simply, that bills are discounted by a committee. Supposing this to be an irregularity, or illegality, in the proceedings of the board, how is it to be corrected by withdrawing the deposits? What connection is there between the two things? It is not pretended that this mode of discounting bills endangered the deposits; it is not pretended that it made the Bank either less able or less willing to perform every one of its duties to Government. How should the withdrawal of the deposits, then, be suggested by the discovery of such an irregularity, real or supposed? The committee are not able to perceive the least propriety in applying the power of removal to a proceeding of this kind, even if it were admitted to be rregular or illegal. But is the practice illegal? It is believed to be not at all unusual. It is believed to be quite common, in banks of large business, for bills of exchange, which are presented every day, and almost every hour in the day, to be discounted either by a committee of the directors, or by the president, or even other officers, acting under such general orders and instructions as the directors, at their stated meetings, prescribe. A large board of directors cannot assemble every day -perhaps not oftener than twice a week. If bills of exchange could only be discounted at these periodical meetings, the business of exchange could not go on with the promptitude and despatch so important to commercial men in such transactions.

The committee suppose the truth of these remarks will be at once admitted by all who have knowledge of business of this kind. The general management and control, the authority of examining and supervising, of contracting or enlarging the amount of daily discounts, according to the state of the Bank, and of giving every other order and direction on the subject, still remains with the directors, and is constantly exercised by them. They still manage the affairs of the Bank, in the language of the charter, although they may depute to a committee the authority of inquiring and deciding upon the credit of persons whose names are on bills of exchange offered for discount, and on the rate of exchange current at the day. The legal question would be, whether the directors, by rule or by law, may not authorize a small number of their own board to discount bills. The Bank has been advised that it might rightfully do this; and if it be not clear that this opinion is right, it is certainly far from clear that it is wrong; and in this

state of the question, the general practice of other banks, under similar provisions in their charters, may well relieve the directors from the imputation of intentional mismanagement.

If, in all this, the Bank has violated its charter, what other banks of extensive business have not done the same thing?

But the other subject of complaint, and that which seems to be regarded as the more offensive part of this regulation, is, that the public directors, as they are called, were not allowed to be on this committee.

It may be observed, in the first phce, that, if the discounting of bills of exchange by a committee, instead of the whole board of directors, be illegal, it would hardly be rendered legal by placing any or all of these public directors on the committee as members. But the Secretary seems to suppose that there was some particular object in this exclusion of these directors, as if there had been something wrong to be done, and therefore secrets to be kept, by this committee. It is not easy to see what foundation there can be for this opinion. All those discounts are matter of record. They appear every day in the books of the Bank. Every director, on or off the commitee, sees them, or may see them, at pleasure. There is no secrecy, nor any motive for secrecy, so far as this committee can perceive. Very proper causes may have existed, for aught that can be known by the Senate, for the omission of these particular directors from this particular committee. Their services might have been deemed more useful in other committees; or, however respectable in general character, or however useful in other parts of the direction, they may have been esteemed not so well acquainted as others with the business of foreign or domestic exchange. And -even if there were, or are, other causes for the omission, such as tend less to prove the existence of that harmony and mutual respect which it is so desirable should prevail in such a board, these causes cannot furnish any just ground for asserting, either that the business of exchange was illegally conducted, or that the constitution of the committee. was proof of the existence of any motive not fit to be avowed.

But the Secretary entertains an opinion respecting the character and duties of the directors appointed by the President and Senate, in which the committee do not concur. He denominates them "public directors," "officers of the Government," &c.

By the charter of the Bank there are to be twenty-five directors. Of these, twenty are to be chosen by the individual stockholders, and five appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. As the Government owned one fifth of the stock of the Bank, it was judged expedient to place in the hands of the President and Senate the appointment of one fifth of all the directors. But they are not called public directors, nor officers of

the Government, nor public agents; nor are they entitled, so far as the committee can perceive, to either of these appellations, any more than the other directors. The whole twenty-five directors are joint managers of a joint fund, each possessing precisely the same powers, and charged with the same duties as every other. They derive their appointments, it is true, from different origins, but, when appointed, their authority is the same. There is not one word in the charter intimating, in the remotest manner, that the five directors appointed by the President and Senate have any particular duty, or are the objects of any peculiar trust. The charter calls them not Government directors, not public directors, but simply the directors appointed by the President and Senate. They are placed in the direction to consult with the other directors for the common good of the Bank, and to act with these others, and vote with them on all questions. They are, what the law calls them, directors of the Bank, not agents of the Government. They are joint trustees with others in a joint interest. If any thing illegal or improper takes place in the board, they are bound to resist it by the duty which they owe the individual stockholders, as much as by the duty they owe the Government; because they are agents of the individual stockholders, and have the same au thority to bind them, by their acts, as to bind the Government; and, in like manner, it is the duty of those directors who are appointed by the individual stockholders, to give notice, as well to Government as to the stockholders, if any thing illegal take place or be threatened. All those directors act and vote together, on the smallest as well as on the highest occasions, and, by their joint votes, bind the corporation, and bind both the Government and individual stockholders to the extent of their respective interests in the corporation.

If the directors appointed by the President and Senate had been excluded by the charter from any part of the power exercised by the others; if it had been forbidden them to interfere, to the same extent, and with the same effect, as the rest, in the common business of the Bank, there might be some reason for supposing that an uncommon character-a character not so much of action as of supervision and inspection-was intended to be conferred on them. But they do interfere, and justly, in all transactions of the Bank. They do vote and act on all subjects like the other directors. Being, then, possessed of this common character of directors, and enjoying all its powers to the fullest extent, the committee know no form of argument by which an uncommon and extraordinary character is to be raised by construction, and superadded to the common character of directors which thus already belongs to them.

By granting the charter, and by accepting it, the Government