amendment in the Senate just as well. I know what the amendment is. I desire to have action on the amendment I have pending first. Mr. RAMSEY. Very good.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on concurring in the amendments made as in Committee on the Whole. The question will be taken on the amendments collectively, unless a separate vote be demanded by some Senator.

Mr. SHERMAN. I call for a separate vote on the amendment to the fifth section. I desire to offer an amendment to that amendment. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That amendment will be reserved. The question is on concurring in the other amendments.

The remaining amendments were concurred in.

Mr. SHERMAN. Now I offer my amendment to the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky to the fifth section in the nature of a substitute, and I ask that it be read.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment; which was to strike out all of the fifth section, as amended, after the enacting clause, and to insert in lieu thereof:

That to secure a better distribution of the national banking currency there may be issued circulation notes to banking associations organized in the States and Territories having less national banking circulation than five dollars per inhabitant; but the amount of such circulation shall not exceed $20.000,000; and the circulation herein authorized shall within one year be withdrawn prorata from banks organized in States and Territories having a circulation exceeding that provided by the act approved March 3, 1865, entitled An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to provide a national currency, secured by a pledge of United States bonds and to provide for the circulation and redemption thereof;"" to ascertain which the Comptroller of the Currency shall make a statement showing the amount of circulation to be retired by each of such banks, and shall make a requisition for such amount upon such bank; and upon failure of such bank to return the amount so required within the year aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the Comptroller of the Currency to sell at public auction in New York an amount of the bonds deposited by said bank as security for their circulation equal to the circulation to be withdrawn from such bank, and with the proceeds to redeem so much of the notes of such bank as may come into the Treasury as will equal the amount required from them.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I do not know what the word "pro rata" means in that amendment. It seems to me it leaves it very dubious.

Mr. SHERMAN. The word "pro rata" is used in the law, and its effect is perfectly clear. This retirement of the circulation of banks having an excess is to be pro rata upon the amount of their circulation; that is, a bank of $100,000 would have to give up half as much circulation as a bank of $200,000. It is pro rata upon the circulation. The same expres sion is used in the original banking act. I think I have drawn this amendment very carefully. I have submitted it to several Senators. In my opinion it expresses the idea as near as it can be expressed in a few words.

Mr. RAMSEY. I should like to inquire of the Senator from Ohio how this surrender of their circulation by the banks is to be enforced?

Mr. SHERMAN. This proposition provides the mode, if the Senator had listened to it.

They are required to surrender the amount of circulation assessed upon them within one year. If they fail to do it, the great body of this circulation comes into the Treasury of the United States or the sub-Treasury at New York, and the Treasurer will be bound to retain the notes of those banks, and the bonds of those banks to the amount of the circulation called for from them are to be sold for the purpose of redeeming these circulating notes. the only way in which it can be done The objection to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky is that it did not point ou a mode in which this circulation could be retired.

That is

Mr. RAMSEY. Then I hope the amendment of the Senator from Ohio will be adopted. Mr. SHERMAN. That is the only difference that I know of between the two.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I move to

amend the substitute by offering in lieu of it the original proposition which I made in committee, striking out all after the first word of the one and inserting the other. I ask the Secretary to read the amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. This amendment is in the third degree now, I understand.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I suppose that anything that is offered as a substitute may be amended.

Mr. SHERMAN. I suppose the proper way is to vote on the pending amendment. Then the amendment of the Senator from Vermont is to the original fifth section. This is an amendment to the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, or rather an amendment to the amendment of the committee.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Yes; but after having adopted the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, it will then be too late for me to offer my amendment, and therefore, in order to get a vote upon it, I must offer it now. I ask the Secretary to read the amendment. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It will be

read for information.

The Chief Clerk read the proposed amendment, as follows:

And that upon the issue of any increased national circulation provided for by this section the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and required to permanently withdraw an equal amount of United States notes.

Mr. SHERMAN. That is clearly not in order. We are now acting upon the action of the committee. That action of the committee is the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky, and I offer a substitute for that.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I am proposing to amend the amendment of the Senator.

Mr. FESSENDEN. The Senator from Ohio offers a substitute for the section. Before that substitute is acted upon the Senator from Vermont proposes to amend the section by adding these words to it.

Mr. SHERMAN. But the section is out of the way.

Mr. CONKLING. If the Senator from Maine will hear a suggestion, that is not, I submit, what the Senator from Vermont proposes to do. The Senator from Vermont proposes to amend the original section as it stood. That was stricken out in Committee of the Whole, and an entirely different section, to which this amendment is not applicable, was substituted. Now, the Senator from Ohio moves to strike out that substituted section and to insert the amendment which he offers. The Senator from Vermont proposes to amend the original section, which was stricken out in Committee of the Whole, and is not before us at all.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Mr. Pres ident, as the section now stands, as proposed to be amended by the Senator from Ohio, it will take from New England about twenty million dollars of banking capital. While I prefer that to a positive increase of our amount of circulation, yet I submit that it is not so well as it would be to adopt the original proposition as presented by me, which will make no disturbance in the amount of banking capital held by anybody, but will increase the amount by retiring an equal amount of United States

notes.

I agree with the Senator from Oregon that this section will create a very considerable derangement of the business of New England, and that other portions of the United States have as much interest in her prosperity, in keeping the machinery at work in New England, as New England herself. The amount of banking capital there is used for what purpose? To keep the business of the country going. Take Rhode Island or Connecticut or Massachusetts. When their people purchase wool in Ohio or Illinois or Vermont they have not a sufficient amount of capital to go there and buy it from their own means; but ninety-five per cent. of all the money that is paid out for wool is obtained from banks in their own neighborhood. They could not get disccunts

in the western banks if they were to go there. The names that they would offer are entirely unknown there. Take the amount of stock that is purchased by drovers in New York, Vermont, Illinois, and Kentucky. When these meu come from their own neighborhoods, they get discounts from their own banks; but if they come from the Atlantic coast they have to obtain discounts there; and it requires a great deal of money to move the amount of stock, of sheep, of wool, and of horses that is taken to market.

I only desire, Mr. President, to call the attention of the Senate to the difference between the propositions. It seems to be the general opinion that ere long we shall reach a system of free banking. Will you, then, for this little interim of time compel these banks to withdraw the amount of circulation that they now have out, to be restored to them in twelve or eighteen months hereafter? It seems to me that this is an unnecessary revolution. It is a difficult matter. It will make a fractional sum to all these banks that have to be curtailed; and then the question arises whether you are to take it from the large banks or the small banks. In all parts of New England a very considerable portion of this circulation is distributed in banks of a small amount of cap. ital of $50,000. The law sets forth that no bank shall be organized for less. Are you going to diminish these little banks? I submit that there are a great many difficulties about this question when you reduce it to this shape.

I suggested to the Senator from Kentucky a proposition which I think would be fair; that is, that when any of these banks should fail in New England, or should, from any reason, be wound up, then you should take the circulation of such banks and give it in quarters that were destitute. That would operate no hardship upon New England. But it seems to me that to take these banks and strip them according to a certain given percentage, big and little, great and small, is a species of oppression. The alternative which I present works no hardship upon anybody. It only retires an equal amount of United States notes and allows this increase. What is the objection to it? I trust that the amendment that I have proposed to the substitute of the Senator from Ohio may meet with the favor of the Senate.

Mr. SHERMAN. I desire to know whether this proposition is in order or not before I make a brief reply to the Senator from Vermont?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair has some doubt whether it is strictly in order; but at the same time perhaps the most convenient way and the simplest way would be to take a vote upon it.

Mr. SHERMAN. I have no objection. Now, Mr. President, let us look at the way in which this case stands. I am surprised at the position of the Senator from Vermont. The Committee on Finance, after the most careful consideration, settled a difficult question. A deinand was made upon us for some circulation in twelve States of the Union, and we finally agreed rather than disturb the volume of legal tenders, to give them $20,000,000 of increased bank circulation. As a matter of course this did not affect the State of any Senator represented in the Committee on Finance, except the State of my friend from Missouri, [Mr. HENDERSON.] That was the proposition. In my opinion it is altogether the wisest; but the Senate has, on the question being presented by a motion of the Senator from Vermont, refused to decrease the amount of legal-tender notes in order to make room for this $20,000,000. That was done by a decided vote. Then the Senate, by a decided vote, aided by the Senator from Vermont, declared that these $20,000,000 should be deducted from the existing bank circulation. The Senator from Vermont advocated and supported that proposition. Every other member of the committee voted against it. He forced this proposition upon us. voted for the proposition of the Senator from Kentucky.

He

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. If the Senator will allow me, I say now I shall vote for it; but I do not think it is as good as the original proposition. I am against expansion. I am perfectly consistent. While I shall vote for this, if I cannot do better, I prefer to do better.

Mr. SHERMAN. Now, I ask the Senator, a member of the committee reporting this bill, having once tried his proposition fairly, and having been voted down by ten or fifteen majority, is it worth while now, on this hot day, to waste more time? Suppose I should pursue the same course after having reported this bill, not having the slightest feeling in regard to it; suppose I should insist on having these ques tions debated and voted upon, and then voted upon all over again, the Senate would be out of patience with me.

Now, sir, the proposition of the Senator from Vermont is to retire $20,000,000 of greenbacks. Does anybody suppose that that can be done and receive the assent of both Houses of Congress at this session? It is perfectly idle to attempt to send such a proposition as that to the other House. Indeed, even in this body, a proposition to increase the volume of greenbacks would receive more votes than a proposition to diminish the volume of greenbacks. That was tried here early in the session, and I believe but five Senators voted to diminish the volume. Perhaps I am mistaken in that; I do not pretend to be accurate about a vote so long ago; but the Senate almost by a unanimous vote declared that there should be no further diminution of the volume of greenbacks. Why, then, renew the struggle? The question now is between getting this $20,000,000 by curtailing the greenbacks, or by curtailing the bank circulation.

I was glad to see, and I commend it as patriotic, many of the New England Senators, representing States that would be affected by this proposition, vote for surrendering up a portion of their circulation in order to make up this deficit in the southern States. I was glad to see it. The Senator from Vermont so voted. All the difference between my proposition and the proposition of the Senator from Kentucky, which I took as the sense of the Senate, is simply that this provides a mode and manner of effecting what the Senator from Kentucky desired to effect. I submitted it to him, and he agreed to it as probably the easiest and best way.

Many difficulties might suggest themselves. I can state many. The Senator from Vermont suggests one, that probably we had better take this off the banks of larger circulation. How can you regulate that at this time? It is utterly impossible. A reduction pro rata will affect any of these banks but very little; and I have no doubt that it will be made within a year with scarcely a perceptible flurry in the States that will be affected by it. If we intend to give to the southern States any national circulation we cannot do it on a better basis than the one we have now adopted. It is a mere temporary expedient. If we now refuse to equalize this circulation, or to take any step in that direction, what will be the result when twenty Senators come here on this floor to participate in our deliberations and demand some participation in the benefits of this national banking circulation?

It is said that it is now of no service to the States who have it. Then, if it is of no service to those States, why hang on to it so vigorously? But it is of service to every community to have a local bank, because its circulation is loaned out in the community; and we ought to do that much at least for the benefit of the southern States.

I believe myself that the result of our action and the result of all this long debate on this bill, the vote that has been taken refusing to correct the gross and palpable abuse by which national banks are drawing interest on their reserve, will react against the system more than anything that has transpired in Congress. When

the national banks are not content with the benefits conferred upon them by law, but will insist also on drawing interest to the last dollar of their reserve, it will do more to weaken the whole system than anything that has transpired.

But I do not want to debate that over again. I trust that the Senate will stand by its action. It was made against my vote, and with the vote of the Senator from Vermont. Let us settle this question, and get it out of the way of other business that is now pressing upon us. The other sections of the bill, to which there is no opposition, I regard as important and as strengthening the banking system; and I desire to save what is left of this bill."

Mr. CONKLING. Before the vote is taken, that we may give it intelligently, I should like to inquire what the situation of this amendment is, and what is to follow it? The Senator from Vermont proposes now, I understand, to amend the amendment of the Senator from Ohio. If the amendment of the Senator from Vermont is carried, I inquire upon what will the Senate then be called to vote?

The PRESIDENT protempore. As the Chair understands the amendment, it substitutes for the fifth section the proposition of the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. If the Chair will permit me, it leaves the section so that an increase of $20,000,000 will be allowed, but will require a withdrawal of an equal amount of United States notes.

Mr. CONKLING. Mr. President, I beg to state now in a word the attitude of this question, as I understand it, because I am not able to tell how my vote is to count if I vote for the amendment proposed. Originally, the proposition was to issue $20,000,000 of national currency. So that this amendment applies and was to the effect that a corresponding sum of United States notes should be retired at the same time. That is all intelligible. That proposition, however, was struck out altogether, and the committee inserted the provision offered by the Senator from Kentucky, in place of all these, that $20,000,000 should be withdrawn from the national banks now in excess. The amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio is merely to revise and improve, as he thinks, this provision of the Senator from Kentucky, to make it more effectual.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Make it work better. Mr. CONKLING. Make it work better, as the Senator says. Now, the Chair will see that it is wholly repugnant to the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont. His amendment has no relation whatever to this. Suppose it were adopted; we should then have before us an amendment providing that $20,000,000 should be withdrawn from the national banks, and that the Secretary of the Treasury should cancel $20,000,000 more of greenbacks. Is that what anybody means? Certainly not. Therefore I submit to the Chair, with great deference, that unless we are lost in the mazes of metaphorical confusion, or some other confusion, this amendment is out of order, and the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, being to strike out the proposition of the Senator from Kentucky and insert this revised edition of that, is the only thing upon which

we can now vote.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I think the Senator from New York fails to understand the proposition, or else I do. My proposition is simply to come in at the end of the section as it originally stood.

Mr. CONKLING. Now, if my friend will allow me, that section is not, and cannot be, before the Senate. Why? Because the Senate is acting upon the report of the Committee of the Whole, in which there is an absence of that amendment. It was expressly stricken out, and no such thing appears. My point of order is that there is nothing here to which this amendment can attach. The thing to which the Senator seeks to attach it is absent; it is gone forever, unless we reconsider the

vote in Committee of the Whole and reinstate it in the bill.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I beg pardon; the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky attaches to the end of that section.

Mr. CONKLING. Not at all; there is where the Senator is mistaken. The amendment of the Senator from Kentucky obliterates that section and takes its place, and there it stands; and now the Senator from Ohio proposes to strike out that and substitute his section, and the Senator from Vermont offers an amendment to that which, if placed upon it, I say with all respect to him, would not only fail to make sense, but would be so repugnant as to be ludicrous.

Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. Then I will vary the proposition so as to include the whole section as it stood when reported from the committee with this amendment, which I offer.

Mr. CONKLING. That may do; then we can vote intelligently upon that, but we cannot otherwise.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. This amendment proposed by the Senator from Ohio has an ambiguous look upon it; and I should like to know what it means. If I read it correctly, it proposes now to increase the circulation $20000,000, and then in the course of a year begin a system of reduction to reduce $20,000,000. That is the way it reads. There is to be an additional circulation thrown out at once of $20,000,000, and then in the course of a year there is to commence a reduction of $20,000,000 in the circulation where it is held in excess.

If the bill

The effect of the proposition is simply to expand the paper circulation $20,000,000 now, and then reduce it again in a year. provided that this new circulation should be issued just in proportion as the existing circulation is reduced elsewhere, there would be no expansion of the circulating medium; there would be no stimulation of speculation or of prices by the action of the Senate; but if you give $20,000,000 new paper circulation now, and within a year from this time begin to reduce it again, you will have the effect of buoying us up and then letting us down again. I do not think it a wise system of finance. There is no stability in the circulation produced by this. It seems to me the amendment of the Senator from Ohio is defective in that it does not provide that the new circulation shall be issued as the old circulation is withdrawn and just in the same proportion. Then there is no expansion.

Mr. SHERMAN. I do not want to go over this so often. The law now limits the amount to $300,000,000. That limit stands, and is not effected by this provision. The total amount cannot exceed the present amount authorized by law. But this debate has grown to be a wearisome thing. I have listened to it; I have sat here and heard every thing in the world discussed except the question at issue. I do not think the limit fixed by law of $300,000,000 is at all changed.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, Mr. President, this is a new law authorizing the expansion of the circulating medium $20,000,000. The effect of the bill is to authorize the putting in circulation of $20,000,000 of paper which is not in circulation now. It then provides for in a year beginning a contraction of $20,000,000, so as to bring yourselves back again where you are now. The effect of it is to give an unnat ural stimulus by issuing $20,000,000 of bank paper, very soon to be followed by a retiring of the same $20,000,000 next year. What is the effect on credits, prices, and values? I think that unless we wish to adopt the principle of the expansion of the paper medium the amendment ought certainly to contain a provision which shall limit expansion as the other is retired during the year, so that there is no shock produced, there is no expansion produced, and there is no curtailment of the paper circulation produced by this law. The ques

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. tion is on the amendment of the Senator from

Vermont to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is on the amendment of the Senator from Ohio to the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. FESSENDEN. I wish to suggest a proviso to the section drawn by the Senator from Ohio, which perhaps he will accept; it carries out the original idea of the Senator from Kentucky:

Provided, That the $20,000,000 of additional circulation herein authorized shall be issued only as circulation shall be withdrawn as herein provided, so that at no time shall the whole amount of circulation notes exceed $300,000,000.

Mr. SHERMAN. That is almost precisely in the words of a proviso which I have drawn myself, which I will add to my amendment, in these words:

Provided, That the circulation herein authorized shall be issued only as circulation is withdrawn, and so that the aggregate circulation shall not at any time exceed $300,000,000.

Mr. DAVIS. I have no objection myself to the proposition of the Senator from Maine; I think it is a repetition of the meaning and effect of the proposition made by the Senator from Ohio. In that view of the effect of both propositions, I am willing, so far as I am concerned, to accept the proposition of the Senator from Maine.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Ohio to the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. HENDERSON. I desire to inquire whether, under the amendment as now modified, with the proviso added, it is possible for the Comptroller to withdraw the $20,000,000 without issuing them to the southern States.

Mr. FESSENDEN. He issues precisely as he withdraws.

Mr. HENDERSON. I understand that he cannot increase the total amount over and above $300,000,000; but is there any requirement that he may not decrease below that?

Mr. FESSENDEN. He is required to issue $20,000,000 more, and to withdraw for that purpose.

Mr. HENDERSON. I should like to have the amendment of the Senator from Ohio read in connection with the proviso. My understanding now is that under that proposition $20,000,000 may be withdrawn and not a dollar issued.

Mr. EDMUNDS. That would not hurt the country any.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be read.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

That to secure a better distribution of the national banking currency, there may be issued circulation notes to banking associations organized in States and Territories having a less national banking circulation than five dollars per each inhabitant; but the amount of such circulation shall not exceed $20,000,000; and the circulation herein authorized shall, within one year, be withdrawn pro rata from banks organized in States having a circulation exceeding that provided for by the act approved March 3, 1865, entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to provide a national currency secured by a pledge of United States bonds, and to provide for the circulation and redemption thereof;"" to ascertain which the Comptroller of the Currency shall make a statement showing the amount of circulation to be retired by each of such banks, and shall make a requisition for such amount upon such bank, commencing with banks in States having the largest excess of circulation; and upon failure of such bank to return the amount so required within the year aforesaid it shall be the duty of the Comptroller of the Currency to sell at public auction, in New York, an amount of the bonds deposited by said bank as security for their circulation equal to the circulation to be withdrawn from such bank, and with the proceeds to redeem so much of the notes of said bank as may come into the Treasury as will equal the amount required from them: Provided, That the circulation herein authorized shall be issued only as circulation is withdrawn, and so that the aggregate of circulation shall not at any time exceed $300,000,000.

Mr. HENDERSON. I suggest to the Senator from Ohio that after the words "circulation herein authorized," in the proviso, he insert the words "and actually issued." The proper construction of the language as it is will certainly give the Comptroller authority to

in.

The amendment, as amended, was concurred

Mr. RAMSEY. I suppose the bill is now open to further amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is. Mr. RAMSEY. I offer this amendment as an additional section:

And be it further enacted, That when any national banking association shall desire to change its name or location, the directors of such association shall file with the Comptroller of the Currency a written statement, setting forth the changes proposed and the reasons therefor, and upon the approval of the Comptroller of the Currency the first and second articles of the organization certificate of such association may be amended by a vote of the shareholders owning three fourths of the stock, so as to provide for such removal and change of name, which amendment shall be certified to the Comptroller of the Currency under the seal of the association, together with the names of the shareholders and the number of shares held by each voting for or against the amendment. Whereupon notice shall be given at the expense of the association by publication for thirty days in one newspaper published in the city of New York, one in the city of Washington, and one in the place where such association is located, or if there be no newspaper at such place, then in a newspaper published at the nearest place thereto, that said association has taken the necessary steps to change its name and location, and calling upon all creditors to present their claims for payment, and at the expiration of thirty days from the first publication of said notice the office of the association may be removed as aforesaid; but provision shall first be made for the payment of its deposits and the redemption of its circulating notes at an office in the place where said association was originally organized for six months after the removal, and after the expiration of six months all deposits not paid shall be payable, and all circulating notes not redeemed shall be redeemable at the office of the association: Provided, That none of the rights of creditors, none of the liabilities of debtors, and none of the rights or liabilities of the association shall be in any way impaired or modified by such change of name or location; and the removal shall not be beyond the bounds of the State of its first location.

This amendment is intended to supply an omission in the original banking bill, and was drawn up at my instance by the Comptroller of the Currency, and meets his approbation. I have before me a letter of his, in which he says:

"Mr. RAMSEY's bill, which I have marked as section three, was prepared originally under my supervision, and is intended to meet a want which has long been felt. Quite a number of applications have been made by national banks for the privilege of changing their names or location, all of which I should have favored if the law had given me power to do so. Several banks, organized originally in the oil regions, in localities where business was brisk and money plenty, have, by the fluctuations in the oil trade, and the failure of the oil wells, been left almost entirely without business, and have become entirely useless as banks. It would be very desirable if some provision could be made for their removal. I think the concurrence of three fourths of the stockholders and the approval of the Comptroller of the Currency, which this bill requires, would prevent any abuse of the privileges therein granted."

It so happens that two or three banks in my State were located erroneously at the inception of this banking system; and they wish to remove to other and more desirable localities; the stockholders of the banks consent, and the people of the locality to which they wish to go desire to have them. I can see no reasonable objection to allowing them to do it, and I am surprised that having this unqualified approbation of the Comptroller of the Currency before them, the Committee on Finance did not recommend this proposition.

It was natural that in the first institution of these banks throughout the country some of

prising to me that the first law did not provide in some way for allowing a change of location.

Again, doubtless there must be occasion for the change of names. Surely, that is a very harmless thing, and there can be no objection, I imagine, to allowing a bank to change its name when that is desired under proper safeguards.

I am surprised that the Committee on Finance did not see this matter in the same light that those whom I represent and the Comptroller of the Currency did. Surely no harm can come from the proposition. It is, indeed, most obviously right. Why should there not be some proposition on the statute-book to meet the case? It may be said, let each case come here on its own merits, and a special law can be passed; but where errors are so certain to be made, where there must be necessarily many mistakes, why should we not provide a general remedy and not put parties to the inconven ience of coming to Congress in every special For myself I think the proposition is obviously right, and I hope the Senate will so regard it.

case.

Mr. SHERMAN. We examined this matter of putting banks on wheelbarrows and wheeling them from one State to another and one county to another, and concluded that it would not do. If the business of a bank dies out in any particular place the law points out a mode in which it may be wound up very easily. We have provided a section here under which it can be wound up in sixty days, and then the stockholders can take their chance for a new location. The result of a proposition of this kind would be, as every Senator can see, that banking capital would concentrate in the large commercial ports with great advantage to banks and to the injury of the communities throughout the country generally. When the Senator from Minnesota comes to consider it and think of it, I am sure he will find that it is surrounded with difficulties. The Finance Committee unanimously rejected the proposition after fair examination.

The

Mr. RAMSEY. A very common mode of killing a thing that is right in itself is by giving it a bad name; and so the Senator calls this a proposition to move about these banks on wheelbarrows. Why did not the Comptroller of the Currency see it in that light? He makes no objection of that kind. whole matter is in his province, under his constant supervision, and he sees no difficulty of that kind. When a bank is mislocated and another location is desirable, what possible harm can there be in allowing it to be removed from one place to the other?

Again, sir, to guard against any abuse of this privilege, it is required that a removal shall only take place with the consent of the Comptroller of the Currency. His supervision was your only guarantee against abuse in the first location of the banks. His assent was then required, as I now require it, to any change of location. The law requires a certain population in order to justify a bank of a certain capital. All these securities still remain in the law. The proposition which I have made is not to allow banks to remove themselves about on wheelbarrows, but it is simply to allow changes of location under proper supervision by the Comptroller of the Currency. He is the officer of the Government who has special charge of banking affairs, and the proposition is entirely agreeable to him. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment. I want to see whether localities that have not been accommodated can be accommodated.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 11, nays 23; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Cole, Cragin, Harlan, Howard,

Howe, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Vickers, Wade, Wilson,

and Yates-11.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Cattell, Conkling, Davis, Doolittle, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Henderson, Hendricks, McCreery, Morgan, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessec, Sherman, Sprague, Stewart, Sumner, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, and Williams-23.

passed House bill No. 1059, to relieve certain citizens of North Carolina of disabilities, with amendments, in which he was directed to ask the concurrence of the House.

NATIONAL SAFE-DEPOSIT COMPANY.

The SPEAKER. The question in order is the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 579) supplemental to an act to incorporate the National Safe-Deposit Company of Washington, in the District of Columbia, approved January 22, 1867, reported from the Committee for the District of Columbia. The pending question is on the amendment of the gentlemen from Tennessee [Mr. MAYNARD.] Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. is it ?

What

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

The House divided; and there were-ayes 30, noes 21; no quorum voting.

The SPEAKER ordered tellers; and appointed Mr. TWICHELL and Mr. HOTCHKISS.

The House again divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 47, noes 49.

So the amendment was disagreed to. Mr. INGERSOLL. I yield the floor to the gentleman from Massachusetts for five minutes.

Mr. BOUTWELL. My objection to this bill, Mr. Speaker, is, first, to the principle of the bill. It proposes to endow a company already existing to receive on deposit articles of value and keep them in safes in a fire and burglar-proof building, and to charge commission and compensation therefor. It author izes this company to receive moneys, the savings of the poor in this District and vicinity. Now, then, it is a well-fixed rule in England and France, and in this country, that savings institutions, which take the fruit of the labor of the poor, of widows and orphans, should not be allowed by law to do any other business whatever, involving the proceeds of the industry of these people who are not capable of taking care of their money themselves. Therefore I object to endowing this corporation with any power of this sort.

Then, in the next place, wherever savings institutions are properly established they are mutual. This is not. They are authorized to receive the savings of the poor, and are to publish annually the rate of interest they will allow and take the difference to themselves. Therefore it is merely endowing this corpora tion with the authority of Congress to borrow money for their own advantage instead of holding it in trust for the benefit of the depositors.

Then, in the next place, and it is a more serious objection, they are authorized to be pawnbrokers, to receive on deposit in trust personal property and real estate; and in addition to that they are endowed with a power which no corporation under any Government ever was endowed with, and that is to dispose of real estate put into their hands in trust without any proceeding of law or equity, only having the consent of the purchaser to the transaction. The person who deposits or places in their hands real or personal property by this act has no control over it whatsoever. I believe I have said enough, if enough can be said, to

Mr. BOUTWELL. The third section of the bill as it stands authorizes them to dispose of real estate put into their hands in trust without any proceeding in law or equity whatsoever.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I desire the Clerk to read the third section, as modified.

The Clerk read as follows:

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the said National Deposit Company be hereby authorized to receive and hold on deposit and in trust estate, real and personal, including the notes, bonds, obligations, and accounts of estates and individuals, and of companies and of corporations, and the same to purchase, collect, adjust, and settle, and also to sell and dispose of the same in any market in the United States or elsewhere without proceeding in law and equity, and for such price and at such times as may be agreed upon between them and parties contracting with them.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Is that satisfactory? Mr. INGERSOLL. Mr. Speaker, in reply to some objections of the gentleman from Massachusetts urged against this bill I have to say that the city of Washington has not the population or business sufficient to sustain a corporation limited to the mere business of a savings bank. A city with a floating or temporary population of fifteen or twenty thousand, and a permanent population of perhaps twice that number, can hardly expect to support a purely savings-bank. Consequently it is found necessary to couple with it some other business. The Safe-Deposit Company, which has been in operation long enough to give evidence of its utility, practicability, and necessity, propose to extend the powers of the company under the provisions of this bill. There are no better business men, perhaps, in the city of Washington than those who have organized this Safe-Deposit Company. They are now carrying it on; but with the best business ability brought to bear upon its prosecution they have only been able to make it pay current expenses.

Now, what is the length and breadth of this proposition? This company propose to receive on deposit such sums of money as people see fit to deposit with it, and on sums exceeding five dollars, if remaining a definite time, they propose to pay a certain rate of interest. They propose, in addition to that, to act as agent for parties who have estates to settle or who have real estate that they wish to sell. In other words, they propose to constitute themselves a general agent, under the authority of this bill, to transact such business as any party may see fit to put into their hands within the limitations of the bill. If they have the power to settle estates, and if they have power to insure a faithful performance of the duties imposed upon any trustee, what objection is there to that? None that I can see. What objection is there if any person owning an estate selects this company as trustee, with specific directions, to appropriate the rents and profits received from that trust to certain specific purposes? Suppose within a month after the trust is assumed the party directs this company to sell it, what need is there of any proceeding in a court of equity in such a case as that? None whatever. The party owning the property, personal or real, puts it in the hands of this corporation to be disposed of in accordance with the directions he shall give. In the disposition of property belonging to minors or estates this company will be subject to the orders and decrees of the

courts.

Mr. O'NEILL. I ask the gentleman whether this bill proposes an extension of power in the franchise conferred upon this company? Mr. INGERSOLL. It does.

Mr. O'NEILL. I will then take occasion to say, with the permission of the gentleman, a very few words in regard to the result of granting such powers in Pennsylvania to companies of this kind. There is a number of

these companies that have been organized in Philadelphia within a few years past, which have had trust powers conferred upon them by the Legislature at the suggestion of the courts, and now many trust estates are being settled by such companies, either on the application of the parties themselves or upon the decisions and adjudications of our courts, not only to the great convenience of parties interested, but insuring greater safety to them. I think the extension of this franchise to this company is a most excellent idea, and I hope, from what I have known in my own experience of the carrying on of such institutions, that this House will grant the extension. It is most assuredly for the convenience of the people. I do not see what liability there is of losses, and why there is not sufficient responsibility for the funds put in their possession in trust. The power to control that trust is certainly with the courts, and any wrong doing by this company, just as I have seen it in my own State, would subject it to a decision of the courts, and they could be forced by the power of the courts to do what is right and proper, and in equity toward the parties whose funds have been placed with them in trust.

Mr. STEWART. Is the gentleman aware that this bill allows this corporation to purchase and sell real and personal estate?

Mr. O'NEILL. Yes, I am aware of that. They can do it upon certain conditions.

Mr. STEWART. They can purchase and sell any kind of real and personal estate, and there is no condition whatever.

Mr. O'NEILL. It is not an absolute power.
Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir, absolute.

Mr. RANDALL. Will my colleague tell me what act of the Pennsylvania Legislature ever gave such powers as are provided for in this bill?

Mr. O'NEILL. I can tell my colleague what acts of the Legislature of Pennsylvania conferred such powers as these, and what companies possess them. They are well known to him. Our Philadelphia Saving Fund Company has all these powers.

Mr. RANDALL. That has been in existence ninety years, and is in existence without any legislative enactment.

Mr. O'NEILL. It was chartered perhaps eighty or ninety years ago; but its powers and franchises have from time to time been increased by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, and there are other companies.

Mr. RANDALL. They have no power to buy and sell real estate except for the location of their own place of business.

Mr. O'NEILL. I do not say they have. I am speaking simply to the point of giving this corporation power to receive funds upon trust; and I know from actual experience in our own State that such companies as this, with such powers, have done and are doing great good for those whose funds are placed in their charge.

Mr. RANDALL. And some of them have done great harm.

Mr. O'NEILL. Not one of them that I know of.

Mr. RANDALL. courts at this time.

One of them is before the

Mr. O'NEILL. That is not the same kind of company. It is a deposit company. The power to which I am speaking now is the power of acting as trustees. I know there have been some worthless deposit companies.

Mr. RANDALL. There is everything embraced in this bill.

Mr. O'NEILL. I am speaking only to this one power to which, I understand, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BOUTWELL] objects. All the leading safety-fund companies in Philadelphia have power to accept funds as trustees.

Mr. PRUYN. I suggest to the friends of this bill that it be recommitted to the committee, with authority to the committee to report it back at any time, in order that it may be perfected. It is open to objections which it is almost impossible to obviate in a discussion of Those difficulties may be obviated

this sort.