awful force to the apprehensions which had been previously indulged, of the dangerous power of such an institution, whenever it became its interest to use that power to control public opinion, or in any other way affect disastrously the credit and currency of the country. These evils are not, I think, to be apprehended from the State banks. They will derive very little aid, in point of political power and influence, from the inconsiderable proportion of the public revenue derived from the deposites, distributed as they must be amongst a great many of them. They are scattered all over the country, exist by distinct and unconnected charters of incorporations, derive their existence from the State Governments, and are themselves watched by and must keep watch upon other and rival institutions; and each and all of them having very limited capital. Under these circumstances, I must regard all that is said about the danger of a league of State banks, and the tremendous political influence and controlling patronage which is to be derived from using the State banks as places for the deposite of the public money, as entirely fanciful and deceptive.

No little hostility is displayed against the State bank system, because, somehow or other, it seems to be ima gined that it is calculated very greatly to enhance the prosperity of New York, and to work in some way or other injuriously to other parts of the country; and it is vehemently assailed here and elsewhere in this spirit. Now, I am entirely at a loss to comprehend all this. The city of New York, being the great commercial emporium of the United States, the entrepot of a very large por tion of our commerce, is, and must necessarily be, the place for the collection of an equivalent proportion of the revenue. But I do not well see how that should be a cause of envy, jealousy, or distrust, against New York, or against the State bank system. It is the city which feels the benefit, not the State of New York particularBy: not the interior of New York, any more than the interior of Pennsylvania or of Virginia. Much revenue is received there, because much commerce comes there. But no more is received than would be received if the revenue was collected by a United States Bank, or by collectors and receivers. New York will be just as much benefited by one system as the other. We ought not if we could, and we could not if we would, deprive the city of New York of the commercial advantages derived from her natural position, and from the concentration of capital there, in pursuit of the most profitable investments of it. You have neither legislative authority nor moral power to do it.

Mr. Jefferson once said that it was idle for a Legisla ture to say, by law, that there should be towns where God and nature had said there should not be towns. In the same sense, I say that any efforts you can make, by your legislation, to check the growth or to arrest the prosperity of New York, will be as vain as the efforts of an infant to fetter the limbs of a giant. You cannot do it, unless you can command the winds and the waves, and vainly arrogate the power which the courtiers of Canute persuaded him he possessed, and say to the waters of the sea, thus far shalt thou come, and no farther. All those allusions, then, on this subject, and in this debate, to the particular interest which New York feels in this question, and the no less significant and equally pertinent references and sneers at the safety fund system of that State, I cannot regard but as wholly misplaced, and having very much the appearance of unworthy appeals to prejudices of the very lowest kind.

[H. OF R.

tion now confided to the executive department, under the existing laws, so far as that discretion can be safely restrained. But I do not feel so much solicitude on this subject as some gentlemen display; nor do my anxieties proceed from the motives assigned by some others. Happening to be one of those who consider the present arrangement made by the Treasury Department for the employment of State banks as depositories of the public money, as authorized by law, and the long-settled interpretation of that law, frequently sanctioned by Congress, I am not animated by the sentiments which inspire those who say that the public money is now under the unlimited control of the Executive; that the President has seized the money of the country, and holds it without law and against law. Neither the President nor the Secretary of the Treasury have, or claim to have, any thing more to do with the money than to take care that it is deposited for safe keeping in proper places, and that it is faithfully and scrupulously and promptly applied to the satisfaction of the appropriations made by law, and that none of it is paid away but to satisfy such appropriations. For this purpose, the Secretary of the Treasury now, as every Secretary before him has done, has selected State banks as depositories, and upon such terms as he supposed beneficial to the public interests.

The state of things, in this respect, which exists now, has existed ever since the foundation of the Republic. If the Secretary of the Treasury now errs as to his au thority under the law to do so, he errs in company with all the Secretaries who have gone before him, through the administrations of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. When the old bank went down, in 1811, in those palmy days of genuine republicanism of the old school, to which certain politicians are in the habit of referring with exultation, and contrasting with what they esteem the political degeneracy of the present day-during the presidency of the mild and virtuous Madison-the then Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Gallatin, made arrangements with the State banks to keep the public money, they had not the perspicacity to perceive that they were committing a flagrant encroachment on the powers of the Legislature; that they were seizing the public treasure, and might be suspected of a design to establish a league of banks for political purposes, endangering the liberties of the people. These are all discoveries of modern times. In 1812, on the 8th of January, Mr. Gallatin, in obedience to a resolution of this House, made a report to the House, showing all the details of the process by which he had consummated this grievous invasion of the laws, and this enormous outrage upon the principles of civil liberty, viz: that a Secretary of the Treasury should presume to direct in which banks the treasure should be placed for safe keeping, until it was wanted; and, strange to say, the Congress of 1812, like all other Congresses before and since, until the 1st day of October, 1833, were so dull in compre. hending the laws as they are, or so indifferent to the discharge of their public duty, received and printed this report, without any exhibition of apprehension for the safety of the public money, the supremacy of the laws, or the liberties of the people. The employment of the State banks has not heretofore, is not now, and I hope never will be, used as an instrument of political power. If it was desired so to use them, I do not think the attempt would be successful to any material extent.

edy for any political evil which may be seen. But, although I do not feel so much anxiety as others profess on this subject, I am willing, and even desirous, for the

H. OF R.]

[FEB. 12, 1835.

I propose to offer, at a suitable time, an amendment to the bill, in that part of it which provides that, in 1838, no bank shall be employed as a depository which issues notes under the sum of $10; and the notes of no bank which issues such notes shall be receivable in payment of Government dues. While I agree to the provision as to banks issuing notes under $5, which is to be immediately operative, I object to the prospective legislation before referred to. This is an experiment how far we can, by regulations of this description, suppress the issue of small notes, and increase the amount of specie which shall be kept in actual circulation. The object is an exceedingly desirable one, and I am willing to co-operate in effecting it, so far as we can by legislation. Its successful accomplishment, however, requires the united efforts of the States, and may be frustrated by a variety of circumstances over which we have no control. It cannot possibly be known beforehand whether the subject will be effectual, and it is better to wait and see the operation of the bill as to the notes under $5. If it be successful, it can hereafter be carried further by a new law. Our successors will be much better able than we are to decide how far it can be carried; and whether the state of things in 1838 will authorize it. This legislation in anticipation is always injudicious, when no very strong motives for it exist. It was precisely out of a species of prospective legislation, somewhat of this kind, that much of the difficulty of the contest about the deposites arose. The bank charter contained a provision by which it was declared that the deposites of the public money should be made in the Bank of the United States, with certain qualifications. It was contended that this was a contract by which all future Congresses were bound for twenty years. Whether this was truly a contract, or not, I have never given my self the trouble to discuss; for it is wholly immaterial to the question of the legality of the removal of the deposites. But, admitting it to have been of the nature of a contract, it was exceedingly unwise thus to restrain the legislative authority, even if it was not unconstitutional, as I think it was. In relation to the provision of the bill now under consideration, directing what denomination of notes should be receivable in 1838, and prescribing a rule of this sort, by which the qualification of a bank to be a depository of the Government is made, three years in advance, although not unconstitutional, it is certainly inoperative, unless to control our successors, whom we ought not thus to restrain. It may happen that Congress, in 1838, would not be willing to pass such a provision, and yet it might be impracticable to get a majority of both Houses to repeal that which we now make. For these reasons I shall propose to strike out this provision from the bill, when it is in order to do so, unless I hear some satisfactory reason why it should not be done.

said, if the amendments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BINNEY] were adopted, he should vote in favor of the bill. He was opposed to placing so much power as that of selecting the deposite banks in the will and discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. He was aware of the difficulty of the case; but his plan, he thought, would obviate it; and that was to place the money in those banks that would pay most for its use, all other things being equal, and taking care that it be perfectly secure. Such a provision was equitable, and he hoped would be adopted, and he should offer it hereafter to the consideration of the House.

Mr. WILDE rose to appeal to all parties, the friends of the amendments in particular, to bring the question to a close. There were only sixteen days of the session remaining, and the present discussion was arresting all the business of the country. Every speech made in favor of the amendment was virtually in favor of the previous question. The House had shown a disposition to permit the question to be taken directly on the sev eral amendments, and he hoped the discussion would

terminate.

The

Mr. GRAHAM offered an amendment providing that four per cent. per annum should be paid for the use of the public moneys by the banks in which they were deposited, and that the Secretary of the Treasury keep a proper book of accounts, &c. Mr. G. said: that, at this late hour, when the day is far spent, and the patience of all must be exhausted, I do not propose to detain the House, further than to explain, very briefly, the object of the proposition I have submitted. amendment I have presented for the consideration and adoption of the House is predicated, I conceive, upon just principles and reciprocal benefits. The bill under discussion proposes to deposite hereafter all the public moneys in the local and State banks. By adverting to the last annual report and estimates of the Treasury Department, it appears that the revenue collected and accruing from all sources, during the year 1834, amount. ed to twenty millions six hundred and twenty-four thou sand seven hundred and seventeen dollars; and the balance in the treasury on the 1st of January, 1834, was eleven millions seven hundred and two thousand nine hundred and five dollars, making an aggregate sum of thirty-two millions three hundred and twenty-seven thousand six hundred and twenty-three dollars. This large sum of money is the property of our constituents. It has been collected from the pockets of the people for govermental purposes. Now, sir, when we are about to commit the public treasure to the keeping of banks, and give them the profitable use of it, shall we not require of them to pay a reasonable interest, as a fair equivalent for the benefits which they will derive from holding and using the public deposites? We, sir, are the guardians of this trust fund, and a high sense of public duty imposes upon us the responsibility of making such a disposition of the national treasury as will secure both principal and interest, whenever the public service may need it. If the public money be deposited in the banks, without adopting this, or some similar proposition, will they not use it and loan it out? And who will derive the interests and profits accruing therefrom? Will the Government or the people? Not at all. Then who will reap the rich harvest, by enjoying the use and

Private stockholders; the wealthy capitalists of the country! The consequence is, the people must borrow their own money of the banks, and pay interest to private persons for the privilege of using their own money. Is this not converting public property to pri vate purposes without an adequate equivalent? The amendment I propose is neither new in principle nor in

FEB. 13, 1835.}

practice. I understand, from a highly respectable source, that the Scotch banks uniformly pay interest upon all their deposites. But we have this principle in successful operation nigher home.

I have learned, sir, (said Mr. G.,) from looking into the revised statutes of New York, that that great State deposites her immense revenues in such banks as pay the highest rate of interest for the use of the public money. This is as it should be. When we reflect what great advantages these banks will derive from their connexion and association with the general Gov. ernment; when we bear in mind how much of character, of credit, and of confidence, will be acquired and inspired by the contemplated relation of Government agent and stockholder, which the deposite banks will hold and enjoy over their equal and rival institutions; when these fortunate banks are gathering such profitable crops, and receiving such large dividends, not upon their own means, but upon our money, I think it is quite reasonable they should pay us a small share of the proceeds. I. hope, sir, the amendment will be ingrafted into the bill; and that the people may derive an interest for the use of their own treasure.

After some discussion, the amendment was rejected. Mr. BINNEY's amendment, which had been offered as a whole, was, on motion of Mr. POLK, divided into its several sections; and the question being on the first, viz: that which requires the returns from the banks to be more particular than is required by the bill, was agreed to.

The question then being on the second amendment, which requires the banks to retain an amount of specie in their vaults equal to one fourth of the whole amount of their circulation and deposites,

It was opposed by Mr. McKINLEY, and, at the request of Mr. JONES, of Georgia, was modified by Mr. BINNEY, by striking out "one fourth," and substituting one fifth." After some discussion by Messrs. JONES, POLK, PARKER, and McKIM,

Mr. BINNEY demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

Mr. CAMBRELENG opposed the amendment, which he considered as going to destroy the bill.

The question was now put, and decided by yeas and hays, as follows: Yeas 109, nays 99.

YEAS-Messrs. John Quincy Adams, H. Allen, John J. Allen, Chilton Allan, Archer, Ashley, Banks, Barber, Barnitz, Barringer, Bates, Baylies, Beale, Beaty, Bell, Binney, Briggs, Burd, Burges, Campbell, Carmichael, Chambers, Chilton, Claiborne, William Clark, Clayton, Clowney, Corwin, Crane, Darlington, Davis, Davenport, Deberry, Denny, Dickson, Evans, Edward Everett, Horace Everett, Ewing, Fillmore, Foster, Philo C. Fuller, Fulton, Gamble, Garland, Gholson, Gilmer, Gordon, Gorham, Graham, Grayson, Grennell, Griffin, Hiland Hall, Hard, Hardin, James Harper, Hazeltine, Heath, Hiester, William Jackson, Janes, Seaborn Jones, Kinnard, Luke Lea, Letcher, Lewis, Lincoln, Love, Lucas, Martindale, Marshall, McComas, McKennan, Mercer, Milligan, Miner, Moore, Phillips, Pickens, Pinckney, Plummer, Potts, Ramsay, Reed, Rencher, Robertson, Schenck, William B. Shepard, Augustine H. Shepperd, Slade, Spangler, Steele, Stewart, William P. Taylor, Tompkins, Trumbull, Tweedy, Vance, Vinton, Watmough, Webster, White, Elisha Whittlesey, Wilde, Williams, Wilson, Wise, Young-109.

NAYS--Messrs. John Adams, William Allen, Anthony, Beaumont, Blair, Bockee, Boon, Brown, Bunch, Burns, Cage, Cambreleng, Carr, Casey, Chaney, Chinn, Samuel Clark, Clay, Coffee, Cramer, Day, Dunlap, Felder, Ferris, Forester, Fowler, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, Gillet, Joseph Hall, Thomas H. Hall, Halsey,

[H. OF R.

Hamer, Hannegan, J. M. Harper, Harrison, Hathaway, Hawkins, Henderson, Howell, Hubbard, Huntington, Inge, Ebenezer Jackson, Jarvis, R. M. Johnson, Cave Johnson, Benjamin Jones, Kavanagh, Kilgore, Lane, Lansing, Laporte, Thomas Lee, Loyall, Lyon, Lytle, Abijah Mann, Joel K. Mann, Mardis, John Y. Mason, M. Mason, May, McIntire, McKay McKim, McKinley, McLene, Miller, Henry Mitchell, Robert Mitchell, Morgan, Muhlenberg, Murphy, Osgood, Parks, Parker, Patton, Patterson, Dutee J. Pearce, Franklin Pierce, Pierson, Polk, Pope, Reynolds, Shinn, Smith, Speight, Standefer, Sutherland, Wm. Taylor, Francis Thomas, Thomson, Vanderpoel, Van Houten, Wagener, Ward, Wardwell, Whallon-99.

So the amendment of Mr. BINNEY, as modified, was agreed to.

Mr. POPE moved a resolution making this deposite bill, and the bill transferring the books and agency of the pension fund from the Bank of the United States to the Treasury Department, the standing orders of the day until disposed of; but, before any question was taken upon it, the House, on motion of Mr. BEATY, Adjourned.

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 13..

SOUTH SEA EXPEDITION.

The motion of Mr. PHILLIPS, heretofore submitted, to print 2,000 extra copies of the report and documents accompanying the bill in relation to a naval expedition to the South seas, was taken up and agreed to.

DEPOSITE BANKS.

Mr. PLUMMER moved a reconsideration of the vote of the House adopting the second amendment, moved yesterday by Mr. BINNEY, to the bill regulating the public deposites in certain local banks, requiring each bank to retain in their vaults an amount of specie equal to one fourth of the whole amount of their circulation and deposites.

Mr. POLK called for the consideration of the motion now; but it was decided to be out of order.

USE OF THE HALL.

Mr. E. WHITTLESEY moved that the National Temperance Society be permitted to have the use of the hall of Representatives on Monday evening next. It was objected to.

Mr. W. then moved to suspend the rule of the House, in order that he might be enabled to submit the motion; which was agreed to: Yeas 117, nays 37.

The motion was then submitted and agreed to: Yeas 103, nays 41.

PRIORITY OF BUSINESS.

Mr. POLK, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported the following resolution:

Resolved, That bill No. 563, entitled a bill regulating the deposites of the money of the United States in certain local banks, and the bill No. 564, entitled a bill to repeal so much of the act entitled "An act transferring the duties of commissioner of loans to the Bank of the United States" as requires the Bank of the United States to perform the duties of commissioner of loans for the several States, be the standing orders of the day for this day at one o'clock, and on each succeeding day at twelve o'clock, Saturday excepted, at the same hour, until disposed of; and that, until the hour of twelve o'clock on each day, the business of the House shall proceed in the order prescribed by the rules of the House; but it shall be in order to present petitions and memorials on Mondays.