and whether or not they had complied with the conditions by which their charters were extended. He called the attention of the Senator from Maryland to this subject long ago, and urged him to bring it up in time to be acted on, notifying him that it could not be got through with without the fullest investigation. All these matters were to him "confirmation strong as proof from holy writ," of the danger to this Government which existed in banking institutions. When it was seen that in that body, renowned for its intelligence and patriotism, these banks, after having violated their charters, and set the laws at defiance, could coolly walk in and claim the renewal of their charters, as if they had a right to act with impunity, and the Legislature was bound to obedience, it was enough to excite the gloomiest apprehensions. He would not go at length into this subject now, but he could not repress the deep indignation he felt at the matter-of-course way in which these banks attempted to get through with the renewal of their charters. All that was said against these abuses was answered by the cry, You are opposed to banks. He looked upon the present proposition as equivalent to a perpetual charter. They had already been chartered for two years on three conditions, not one of which was complied with; and though this was notorious, yet the Senate was about to charter them again. Where was the use of imposing conditions, if these institutions set them at defiance? It was in vain to impose conditions on them, for there was no power to punish them for violating those conditions. They had violated their charters with impunity in the face of the courts, and in the face of the Legislature which was now invoked to grant them more charters. You have not, said Mr. A. power to punish them, and yet you talk of imposing restrictions on them. Have you not already restrictions enough? Their original charters declare that they shall not suspend specie payments; they have suspended, and you have legalized the suspension. They went on to violate the conditions imposed on them, and you have legalized that vio. tion. He did not intend to go at length into this subject, but if this question was persisted in, then he and others on his side of the chamber were to be heard in behalf of the abused people of the District of Columbia. This people had petitioned for an extension of their rights as freemen; but that was not considered a matter of sufficient moment to require legislation; but the banks had petitioned for a renewal of their charters, and it was deemed a matter of such importance, that it must be hurried through, without any statements with regard to their condition, or, in fact any information what ever. Mr. TAPPAN would suppose, from the observations that had fallen from the chairman of the committee, [Mr. MERRICK] that his only object was to give to the banks time to settle up their affairs. His amendment had the same object in view; but as the Senator said that suits at law could not be determined in the time allowed, he would suggest to him that his object could be accomplished by extending it. He had no desire to press the banks to an immediate collection of their debts. He thought with the Senator from Maryland, that it would be a hardship on the people of the District, and he did not wish to impose it on them. He would suggest to the Senator that the amendment originally offered, would accomplish ali he desired, by extending the time. Mr. SMITH of Connecticut expressed his objections to the bill on the ground that Congress did not possess the power to incorporate institutions to furnish a circulating medium. Mr. MERRICK said he did not intend to enter into a discussion with the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. ALLEN.] The gentleman remarked that he gave him notice some time ago that he wished this subject brought up at an early day. Now the Senator must be aware that it was not in his power to bring it up earlier than he did. He had brought it up at the first moment that it was possible to do so. Mr. BENTON spoke at length in opposition to the bill, and to the impolicy of extending the charters of these banks, without suitable restrictions. He considered the present question as equivalent to one for a perpetual charter. Was it ever might as well tell me that you cannot eat bread Mr. MERRICK. I have seen such notes. Mr. BENTON. I understand that as soon as we passed the restriction prohibiting the banks from paying out notes under five dollars, they put the matter in the hands of a lawyer, and he told them out. how to get round and evade the provision; and that was to strike off these six, seven, eight, and nine dollar notes. Now, what is this, but making a burlesque of our legislation? But these banks, continued Mr. B. are in a different condition from others which have suspended. Their time had run Some of them had been in existence twenty, thirty, and some perhaps forty years. It was then their duly to settle up their affairs, pay off their debts, and be done with it. Instead of that, they were going upon the assumption of an indefinite extension of their charters, though refusing to redeem their promises; and Congress was called up. on to sanction all they had done. 18 He should be glad to see some vote of the Senate 22 that would give an index of the course that was to be followed. When he saw that, he should be able to judge of the course that was to be pursued. Was it right that there should exist in any country of law and Government, any institution that was superior to both, and which could not only trample on the laws with impunity, but appeal to the Legislatures to sanction its violations of law and justice? He hoped that they would be able to g prove that no institutions should exist here superior to the laws of the land; and that whenever they trampled them under foot, they should meet with the deserved punishment. 聲 3 Mr. TAPPAN opposed the amendment offered by Mr. MERRICK at length. He examined the question of the power of Congress to grant charters to banking corporations. By the Constitution we have the power to legislate for the District in all cases. But with that power is the implied restriction to pass no laws that shall bear unequally on any por tion of the community. We have power to make equal and just laws, but no power to make unequal and unjust laws. For instance, were we asked to incorporate a company or companies to furnish the inhabitants with meat, who would have the exclu sive right of furnishing that commodity to the citizens, and the public were restricted from purchasing of any others, would it be considered just or proper? If we have the power to create one monopoly, we have the power to create another. If we have the power to authorize a few individuals to furnish and control the circulating medium of the community, we have the same power to charter companies to provide meat, flour, wood, coal, each variety of clothing, &c. In short, no article of luxury, of comfort, or necessity, but what may be made the subject of monopoly. Now, if it was proposed to charter companies for any such pur poses, no one would pretend we had any power y to do so, and yet they would stand on precisely the same ground as the monopoly of the currency asked for by the corporations in this bill. Mr. T. contended that there was no equivalent benefit conferred on the community for the privileges conferred on these institutions. There was an aban dance of gold and silver circulated in the District by the operations of the General Government, to furnish a hard money currency-five times the amount that could be absorbed by the wants and the business of the District. If charters are granted to these banks, the effect is to drive this gold and silver from circulation, and gives them the monopoly of supplying its place with their own notes. If such power was granted to these corporations, it could only be on the same grounds as would justify the granting of charters to companies, with the exclusive right of supplying provisions and clothing to the community. He contended that it was be yond the power of any Legislature to pass such Jaws. It was a power they did not possess. It could not be conferred, because it did not exist in any community, and the exercise of it was a usurpation. Mr. T. called for the reading of the fol lowing memorial, which had been presented to Congress, and was numerously signed: To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: The memorial of undersigned, citizens of Wash ington, D. C. respectfully represents That the suspension of payment by the banks of the District of Columbia is a gross and palpable vis olation, by which valuable privileges were confer red upon them; that it is an outrage upon the moral sense of the community in which they are situated, 2 2 26TH CONG..........1ST SESS. BY BLAIR & RIVES. Continned from No. 29. debasing and demoralizing in its tendency and example, and a grievous injury and oppression upon those who are compelled to take their notes at their nominal value in payment for their labor. That the mere association of a number of individuals in the form of a chartered company, gives them no license for dishonesty, or impunity for crime, in their aggregate, more than in their individual capacity. That the banking institutions of the District having been chartered professedly for the purpose of promoting the interests and convenience of the inhabitants thereof, we are the best, and should be the only, judges in what manner our interests and convenience are best promoted. That, at the suspension of payments by the banks of this District, in the second week of October, 1839, they had in circulation upwards of seseven hundred thousand paper dollars, which by h that act were depreciated 12 per cent., inflicting a loss of upwards of one hundred thousand dollars on the holders thereof; that the rates of depreciation since that period, have ranged from 12 to 8 per cent., thus filching from the workingman, from oneeighth to one-twelfth of the wages of his labor. That the practical operation of this state of things in the District is, that while those who are in the service of the Government receive their compensation in gold and silver, their neighbors are compelled to receive, as a return for their labor, depreciated bank paper; thus constituting, emphatieally, one currency for the Government and another for the people. They, therefore, pray your honorable body to take such measures as may, at the earliest possible day, compel the banks of the District to fulfil their obligations by the resumption of specie payments, or that they be required to assign their property for the benefit of their creditors, and wind up their affairs. Mr. MERRICK called for the reading of a memorial, signed by many citizens of Georgetown, praying for a recharter of the banks, and that they may not be compelled to resume before the banks of Virginia and Maryland. The memorial was read. The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. MERNICK to the amendment, and decided in the affirmative-yeas 29, nays 13, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Buchanan, Clay of Alabama, Clay of Ky. Clayton,Cuthbert, Davis, Dixon, Fulton, Grundy, Henderson, Huntington, King, Merrick, Nicholas, Phelps, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Roane, Ruggles, Sevier, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Strange, Sturgeon, Tallmadge, White, and Young-29. NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Benton, Calhoun, Hubbard, Linn, Mouton, Norvell, Robinson, Smith of Connecticut, Tappan, Walker, Wall, and Wright-13. Mr. ALLEN moved an amendment, stating the fact that they were non-specie paying banks, which amendment was rejected-yeas 15, nays 27, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Benton, Calhoun, Henderson, Hubbard, Linn, Mouton, Norvell, Pierce, Robinson, Smith of Connecticut, Tappan, Walker, Wall, and Wright-15. NAYS-Messrs. Buchanan, Clay of Alabama, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Cuthbert, Davis, Dixon, Fulton, Grundy, Huntington, King, Merrick, Nicholas, Phelps, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Roane, Ruggles, Sevier, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Strange, Sturgeon, Tallmadge, White, and Young-27. Mr. BENTON moved an amendment, as follows: "Upon condition that said banks shall not issue and pay out the notes of any bank, banker, or banking institution which is in a state of suspension or non-payment of specie." Mr. B. said that he did not offer his amendment to prevent the banks from receiving such paper as they pleased, but to make them send it home for TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1840. -WEEKLY collection. It was to prevent the conventional agreements among themselves, by which they flooded the country with irredeemable paper. Each one received the paper of the other and sent it around and around in a circle, and thus, though it was nothing but counters-worthless bits of paper, the people were seduced into taking it. It was to break this chain, which enabled them to impose upon the country, that he offered his amendment. If they chose to receive this paper in payment of the debts due them or on deposite, they must send it home for collection. Mr. KING supposed that the object of the gen tleman was to limit the banks to the circulation of their own paper. He thought if he would turn to the amendment that he would find that they could issue out no paper whatever in a state of suspension. If the gentleman would modify his amendment he would vote for it. Mr. BENTON said that if the exception was made, it would give the banks express authority to pay out suspended paper. Mr. BUCHANAN was entirely in favor of the amendment of the Senator from Missouri, if he would express it in language sufficiently distinct to prevent its giving any sanction, directly or indirectly, of the suspensions of these banks. One of the greatest evils of these suspensions was, that the banks never paid out their own notes at home. If they did, the people would have an opportunity of compelling them by law to redeem these notes; but it was obvious that it would cost the holders of them too much to collect them by process of law at a distance. The consequence of such a practice by the banks was, that, as soon as specie payments were suspended, the people around each of the banks were at once, in a great degree, deprived of the paper currency to which they had been accustomed, and in which they placed confidence, and were compelled to accept the notes of distant banks, often of doubtful solvency, or get nothing. It was no hardship upon the banks to compel them to pay out their own notes alone during the period of suspension, and to send home the notes of other banks which they might think proper to receive. Under such a restriction, the banks of this District would receive no notes unless they had been issued by banks fable and willing to make exchanges with them at short intervals; and frequent settlements of this kind were a powerful restraint upon excessive issues. The amendment would secure to the people of the District that currency with which they were best acquainted, and on which they could, at any time, bring suit without being obliged to travel to a distance. He was in favor of the principle contained in the amendment. He was for giving the banks of this District time to wind up their affairs, and nothing more; and he intended, before this matter was over, to introduce an amendment declaring that such was the sole purpose for which their charters were to be extended. He had long been of the opinion that, to keep six or seven little banks here, was doing a serious injury to the people of the District. It was no time now to substitute a larger bank for those now in existence, and he was therefore willing to extend the charters of the latter, provided it was only to enable them to go on for two years, and no longer, for the purpose of winding up their affairs. Mr. GRUNDY said, the effect of the amendment, if passed in its present shape, would not be exactly what he supposed was intended. If the words "not within the District of Columbia," were introduced, he thought it would be better. Mr. BENTON said, he preferred the motion as it stood; but if gentlemen thought it would create difficulties, he would withdraw it, and they could offer it in a form m dified to suit their views. Mr. GRUNDY then offered the motion amended as he had suggested. Mr. WRIGHT said, in its present shape, the VOLUME 8...........No. 30. PRICE $1 PER SESSION. provision would countenance the emission and circulation of the notes of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal-the Washington and Baltimore Railroad Company, &c. Mr. BUCHANAN suggested a modification, by inserting the word "other" before "bank," and striking out District of Columbia; which was agreed to, and the amendment then read in the following words: "Upon condition that neither of said banks shall issue and pay out the notes of any other bank, banker, banking institutions, or corporation, which is in a state of suspension or non-payment of its liabilities in specie." The question on this amendment was taken by yeas and nays, when there appeared for it 25, against 17, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Benton, Brown, Bucha nan, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King, Linn, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Pierce, Roane, Robinson, Smith of Connecticut, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Walker, Wall, Williams, and Wright-25. NAYS-Messrs. Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Davis, Dixon, Henderson, Huntington, Merrick, Phelps, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Ruggles, Sevier, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Tallmadge, and White-17. Mr. ALLEN then moved the following: "Provided, also, that each of said banks shall,immediately upon the taking effect of this joint 'resolution, commence and continue the resumption of its notes in gold and silver coin; and that, in case either of said banks shall neglect or refuse to comply with any one of the conditions in this joint resolution, the charter of said bank shall immediately cease to exist, and all contracts and other acts thereafter made or done by or in behalf of such bank shall be null and void." On this question the yeas and nays were demanded, when there appeared for it 14, against it 29, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Benton, Hubbard, Linn, Mouton, Norvell, Pierce, Robinson, Smith of Connecticut, Tappan, Walker, Wall, Williams, and Wright-14. NAYS-Messrs. Anderson, Brown, Buchanan, Clay of Alabama, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Davis, Dixon, Fulton, Grundy, Henderson, Huntington, King, Merrick, Nicholas, Phelps, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Roane, Ruggles, Sevier, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Strange, Sturgeon, Tallmadge, White, and Young-29. Mr. BENTON moved further to amend by inserting: "And upon the further condition that the said banks, nor either of them, shall take a stay of execution on any judgment recovered against them in any case whatever, nor appeal from any such judgment, nor take a certiorari thereon, except on an affidavit of merit." Mr. BENTON said that when he first came here after the suspension, individuals were paying 12 per cent. discount on their bank paper, and he asked them why they did not sue the banks and obtain judgment. He was informed that when notes were put in suit, the banks would take the advantage of the stay laws that were in operation, by which they could keep the owner out of his money for six months. This, with lawyers' fees, &c. was generally more than the note was worth, so that the poor man, who was the owner of a five or ten dollar note, actually had no remedy, though the laws professed to give him one. After some remarks from Mr. MERRICK in opposition, and Mr. CLAY of Alabama in favor of the amendment, Mr. BUCHANAN said: It is out of all character for a bank, after forfeiting its charter, and after suffering judgment to go against it for non-payment of its notes, to take a stay of execution. It is certainly enough for us to continue their charters for two years without giving the banks a stay of execution for six months when sued on their notes, 466 If I had known that any such practice existed here as that spoken of by the Senator from Missouri, I would myself have offered this amendment if he had not done it. Mr. SOUTHARD could see no more impropriety of a bank taking advantage of existing laws, than of an individual doing so. If we passed this amendment, its operation would be unequal, and would make one law for the banks and another or individuals. Besides, what evidence had we of the fact that the banks took advantage of these stay laws? He did not believe there was any stay of execution in the District at the instance of the debtor, and he demanded the proof. He would not take the allegation of A B, or C D, that such and such things were matters of fact. It was not the kind or character of information that we, as legislators, should act upon. Mr. BUCHANAN expressed his astonishment at the principle which had been contended for by the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. SOUTHARD.] He thought that after a little reflection that gentleman would himself abandon this principle, well acquainted as he was with the subject of banking. What was his position? That it would be unjust to refuse to the banks the same stay of execution, after judgments had been been obtained against them, which was granted to individuals. Is there not, said Mr. B. the most striking reason for such a discrimination? Is there not a vast difference between the two cases? To the banks we have granted the privilege of issuing and circulating a paper currency. Bank notes always are, or at least always ought to be, payable on demand; and under our present banking system are, every where in this country, a substitute for money. These notes circulate upon the faith that they shall at all times be convertible into gold and silver. It is true that this faith has been often violated, and will continue to be violated, unless the States shall radically reform their banking institutions. The principle, however, remains the same. A poor man, then, has received a ten or a twenty dollar note as money, in compensation for his labor, and goes to the counter of the bank and asks that it shall be redeemed in gold and silver. The bank refuses to comply with its promise, and the holder of the note is put to the trouble and expense of instituting a suit against it, and obtaining a judgment. Would it not be the most monstrous injustice to allow this bank to avail itself of the ordinary privileges granted to individuals, of staying execution for three or six months? He thought he might venture to assert, without positive knowledge, that there was not a single State in the Union where such a privilege was extended to banks. Certainly it ought not to exist any where. The case was wholly different in regard to judg ments obtained by one individual against another, or by banks against individuals, to enforce private contracts. In such cases these contracts were voluntary, and each party derived, or thought he derived, a benefit from them, and the evidence of debt was not a paper currency. But bank notes circulated in the community as money, and every person by the force of circumstances was compelled to accept them as money. It was a great and profitable privilege conferred upon the banks to be permitted to issue them; and this was granted upon the express condition that they should always be redeemed in specie. Under such circumstances, after the banks have refused to redeem their notes according to their contract, and have compelled the holders to institute suits and obtain judgments, it would be a most unjust and extraordinary privilege to grant them a stay of execution. This bill proposes to continue these banks for two years, unless Congress shall, in the mean time, otherwise direct. Even during this limited period, we wisely reserve to ourselves the power of blotting them out of existence at any moment. The bill is a measure of necessity, not of choice. For my own part, I have often expressed the opinion that these six small banks ought never to be rechartered within this District of only ten miles square. They have no field for circulation, and no deposites sufficient to enable each of them to realize a fair profit on their capital, and at the same time keep themselves in a sound condition, We ought to establish one respectable bank here, I am influenced in adopting this course by the Mr. SMITH of Indiana concurred in the sentiment of the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri, but he thought that the Judiciary Committee had done all that was necessary on this subject, and there was a bill now on the calendar, which provided for the necessary remedy for the evil. Mr. SMITH of Connecticut said that the bill could not be amended or presented in such shape as to meet his approbation, while he entertained the opinion that the Constitution does not invest Congress, as a local Legislature, with the power to grant a bank charter to any company, either in the District of Columbia, or in any of the States of the Union. If Congress had power to establish a bank in the States, then, in his opinion, it would have the power to grant charters, and establish banks in the District without any reference to its powers as a local Legislature. The friends of this bill, I presume rely upon the power given to Congress, to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over the District." To furnish a general currency, is a business of the nation; it is an attribute of sovereignty. The Constitution has vested this power in Congress; and when we turn to the Constitution for our guide, we find that Congress is empowered "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin." This is the only currency known to our Constitution, unless Congress has power, in virtue of its local character, when legislating for the District of Columbia, to establish another currency, varying entirely in all its essential characteristics, from the general currency of the nation, which Congress is authorized and empowered to establish as a national currency, which I am not prepared to believe was ever intended. If we look further into the Constitution, we shall find provision made for guarding the currency against counterfeiting it; and which provides only for the current coin of the United States. It will, therefore, be seen that no provision is made to guard a paper currency against debasement; and it is reasonable to conclude, from this important omission, that no such currency was contemplated when the Constitution was framed. The general currency recognised in the Constitution can be circulated freely throughout the whole Union, and answer the purposes of the people as well in one part as another, while that to be emitted by a bank established in the District of Columbia, by authority of Congress, as a local Legislature, legislating only for the District, is circumscribed to the limits of the District, if the States into which it may otherwise, like other bank bills, circulate, shall think proper to prohibit it. The States were deprived of the power to emit bills of credit, or make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts. I may differ in my view of this subject with every other Senator; but I cannot come to any other conclusion than this, that Congress was empowered to "coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin." Whatever capacity it might actin, be it general or local, it could not have been intended that while it was acting as a National Legislature, it should create one kind of currency, and when acting as a local Legislature for the District of Columbia, it should create another kind of currency, differing from the other so widely as coin and promissory notes differ with each other. It is said by the honorable Senator from New Jersey [Mr. SOUTHARD] that, if the amendment prevails, the corporation will not have equal rights with individuals; that while individuals, under the law of the District, can have a stay of execution for six months, after judgment rendered against them for a debt, the corporations will be deprived of that right and privilege, which may be very valuable to the corporation. He did not intend that corporations should be placed on an equal footing with individuals in regard to the payment of their debts. He had before observed that the power to create a national currency belonged to the national sovereignty; that if this power was abstracted from the political power of the people or the nation, and conferred upon individuals, that these individuals were bound to furnish for the people a circulating medium or currency perfectly sound, and equal to that which that power given to them, if retained by the sovereiga, would enable it to furnish. It ought to be such a currency as would circulate freely and untrammeled by any laws made for the benefit of the corporation, to the injury of those who had taken and confided in it, as a sound national currency. And although he expected to vote against the bill, whatever shape or form may be given to it, if the charter must be granted, he was desirous of having the public have the benefit of it, for whose benefit it is professed to be granted. He was unable to see the necessity, if Congress has the power, of granting so many banks, and creating so much banking capital in this small District, only ten miles square. One single house in a commercial city, will probably do as much business, and require as much capital, as all the mercantile business done in this city. He had long entertained the opinion, that either the banking system of this country, or the institutions and Government of our country, have yet to undergo a great change; that both cannot exist together, and both maintain their present character. The question was then taken on the amendment, and it was agreed to-ayes 29, noes 11, as fol lows: YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Benton, Brown, Bucha nan, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Clayton, Fulton, Grundy, Henderson, Hubbard, King, Linn, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Pierce, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Smith of Connecticut, Strange, Sturgeon, Tappan, Walker, Wall, Williams, Wright, and Young-29. NAYS-Messrs. Clay of Kentucky, Dixon, Merrick, Phelps, Porter, Preston, Ruggles, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Tallmadge, and White-11. Mr. BUCHANAN then moved to insert, "For the purpose of winding up their affairs." Mr. ALLEN rose, he said, to ask the Senator from Pennsylvania what effect he intended this AN amendment, if adopted, to produce? Does he intend to restrict the banks to the settlement of their business already begun? or does he intend, notwithstanding this amendment, that they may proceed, as formerly, with all the business of banking, as if this amendment did not exist? Mr. BUCHHANAN said he did not intend at once to arrest all banking operations in this District, under the peculiar circumstances in which it was placed, without providing any substitute for the existing banks; but it was his fixed purpose never to vote for any further extension of their banking privileges beyond the two years. He desired, therefore, to express this clear intention upon the face of the bill, so that the banks might have fair notice of the purpose of Congress, and proceed in such a manner as they thought proper to wind up their affairs within the limited period. Mr. ALLEN rejoined. Then the amendment amounts to nothing, as it does not restrict the banks, and cannot restrict a future Congress. It is, therefore, worse than useless, for its effect will be to delude the country, inasmuch as the amendment professes to restrict the banks to "the purpose of winding up, but not to restrict their action to that object; but on the contrary, instead of winding up, they are to be at liberty to wind out their business still further than it is now-so that at the end of the two years, their claim to still further time to "wind up," will be increased in exact proportion to the increase of their business, under the present bill, authorizing them to wind up. I say, therefore, that the effect of this amendment is to mislead the people as to the true character of this bill, which, whether the amendment be adopted or not, is simply a bill to recharter non-specie paying broken banks, without requiring them even to pay their notes the first bill I believe of the sort that ever, in the history of the world, received the sanction of a legislative body. The amendment was lost-ayes 17, noes 17. The question was then taken on ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading, and it was agreed to-ayes 27, noes 15, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Brown, Buchanan, Clay of Alabama, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Davis, Dixon, Fulton, Grundy, Henderson, Huntington, King, Merrick, Nicholas, Phelps, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Roane, Sevier, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Strange, Sturgeon, Tallmadge, and Young-27. NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Benton, Calhoun, Hubbard, Linn, Mouton, Norvell, Pierce, Robinson, Smith of Connecticut, Tappan, Walker, Wall, Williams, and Wright-15. The following is the bill as ordered to be engrossed: "An act to continue the corporate existence of the banks of the District for two years, with certain restrictions." Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the charters of the Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank of Georgetown, the Bank of the Metropolis, Patriotic Bank of Washington, and Bank of Washington, in the city of Washington, and the Farmers' Bank of Alexandria, and Bank of Potomac, in the town of Alexandria, be, and the same are hereby, extended to the 4th day of July, 1842, unless Congress shall in the mean time otherwise order and direct, upon condition that neither of said banks shall issue and pay out the notes of any other bank, banker, or banking institution, or corporation, which is in a state of suspension or non-payment of its liabilities in specie; and upon the further condition that the said banks, nor either of them, shall take a stay of execution on any judgment recovered against them in any case whatever, nor appeal from such judgment, nor take a certiorari thereon, except on an affidavit of merit. Mr. CLAY of Kentucky said, that, since Congress could not legislate thoroughly at the present sesssion, and place the banking system on a stable and satisfactory footing, all that he thought should be now done, was to continue the existing charters for one or two years; and, in the intervening time, Congress could make a permanent arrangement. He was utterly opposed to treat ing the District and itsbanks as a subject for experiment, and to throwing those little institutions into a sort of crucible to discover the philosophical or political phenomena which, when exposed to that test, they might exhibit. He thought such a course unworthy the legislation of a great and magnanimous nation; and might expose Congress to the imputation that, since it could not reach the banks of the States, It would exercise its vengeance on the banks of the District. Mr. C. thought a temporary continuation of the banks, without condition or restriction, is all that should now be done. He had therefore voted against the amendment which prohibited the banks from paying out, after receiving, the notes of banks situated without the District. The notes of the banks, at Richmond or Baltimore, are quite as good as the notes of the District banks. And the operation of such a prohibition will be upon the debtors of the banks, and not upon the banks themselves. Upon the debtors themselves it will operate severely. For if the banks are not allowed to pay out, they will be sure not to receive the notes of distant banks. He was also opposed to the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BUCHANAN.] The amendment will accomplish, practically, nothing. It requires the banks to prepare, by winding up their affairs, for a termination of their charters, at the expiration of the period to which they are to be prolonged; but it makes no adequate provision by which the banks will be compelled to perform that duty. With respect to the object at which the Senator aims, that of establishing a single bank for the District, to be placed in Washinton, with branches in the other two cities, Mr. C. concurred entirely with him. According to his (Mr. C's) observation, those banking systems worked best in the several States, which consisted of two or three large and respectable banks, with branches conveniently located, instead of a multitude of small banks having no necessary connection with each other. And whenever there was definitive legislation upon the banking system of the District, he hoped it would assume that form. Mr. BUCHANAN had but a few words to say in reply to the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. CLAY.] He would add nothing to that which he had already said in favor of the amendment to prohibit each one of these banks from paying out the notes of any suspended bank except its own. He thought it would prove to be a most wise restriction. In regard to the amendment which he had proposed, declaring in express terms that the temporary continuance of these charters was for the purpose of enabling them to wind up their concerns, he had but one observation to make. He had accomplished the purpose which he had in view by proposing the amendment. All doubt was thus removed from his own course in relation to this subject. He regretted that his amendment had not prevailed, because it might inspire the banks with hopes which he believed never would be realized. It is true that a future Congress might be of a different opinion, and one Congress could not bind another; but yet that was no good reason why the present Congress should not express its own determination by its own legislation. Mr. CLAY of Alabama moved that the Senate take up the resolution reported by the Committee on the Militia, asking to be discharged from the further consideration of the report of the Secretary of War in relation to the reorganization and disciplining of the militia, and that the Senate concur therein; which was agreed to-ayes 24, nays 4, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Andrson, Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Fulton, Grundy, Henderson, Hubbard, King, Linn, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Pierce, Roane, Robinson, Smith of Indiana, Strange, Sturgeon, Walker, Wright, and Young-24. NAYS-Messrs. Clay of Alabama, Davis, Dixon, and Preston-4. The Senate then adjourned. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Mr. JONES of Virginia moved to suspend the Mr. WISE hoped his colleague would withdraw his motion, to enable him to submit a resolution for the adjournment of the present session on the 11th of July next. Mr. JONES thought the proper course would be to do the business of the country first, and then fix the day of adjournment. He could not yield to the suggestion. The question was then taken on the motion to suspend the rules, by yeas and nays, and agreed to -yeas 87, nays 43. INDEPENDENT TREASURY BILL. The House then resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. BANKS in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the Independent Treasury bill. Mr. POPE, who was entitled to the floor, addressed the committee in opposition to the bill, and in favor of a Bank of the United States. He said he told his constituents that a Bank of the United States alone could regulate the currency and exchanges. When the question was before Congress in 1811, he explained the subject, and formed the opinion that they must have a paper currency, either local or national. If the country have a local currency, it must of necessity have a regulator-and that regulator must be a National Bank. He voted in 1811 for the Bank of the United States; and he had no reason to repent of his vote on that occasion. He, however, thought, that neither a Bank of the United States or a SubTreasury should be passed at this session-he thought the people should be left to decide upon it in the present contest-that this contest should be first decided. Mr. P. in speaking of the opinions of General Harrison, said he would not veto a Bank of the United States if it was the will of the people to have one-that he was opposed to all internal improvements by the General Government not strictly national or for necessary and constitutional objects-that he was for a fair, just, and liberal tariff. He continued his argument in favor of a bank of the United States as a regulator of the currency, as an antagonist one to the Independent Treasury, which he said was insufficient, and inadequate, to regulate the issues of the banks of the States. He begged the Whigs not to be afraid to meet the question boldly, and contended that the issue would be between an Independent Treasury bank under the control of the Executive, and a Bank of the United States. The House took a recess at 24 o'clock. EVENING SESSION. Mr. POPE resumed and concluded his remarks in opposition to the bill. Mr. BLACK then took the floor in support of the bill. In common with other gentlemen, he had no hope of influencing the minds of any opponent of the bill, but his remarks were designed for his constituents, the people of Georgia. He congratulated the House and the country that this mea sure had for once been brought to a direct issue before the people. As had been stated by a gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. CUSHING,] this was definitely the measure of the Administration, and it was on that measure that be grounded his support of the Administration. He then showed it was evident that a National Bank was the antagonistical scheme of the Opposition. So here was a palpable and distinct issue-the Independent Treasury bill on the one hand, and a National Bank on the other. Mr. B. went on to prove that with a few exceptions the great Whig party was a Bank party. That, then, was the true issue, and under those two flags was the battle to be fought. For his part, he gloried in the declaration that he should go into that war under the banner of the Independent Treasury, and in doing so he would be supported with the consciousness that this measure was in accordance with the Constitution, while the measure of the Opposition was liable to the double objection of being unconstitutional and inexpedient. Mr. B. then went on to show that his own course in this matter was the same as that taken by the Legislature of his State, and had read by the CLERK, resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Georgia, in 1834, denouncing a National Bank as unconstitutional and inexpedient. He also adverted to subsequent resolutions of a similar character, which will appear when his remarks shall be written out in full. He also adverted to letters ad dressed by the people of Georgia to their candidates, in 1838, asking their sentiments in relation to this measure. With others, he received a letter; in his answer, he distinctly avowed his preference to it, and his hostility to a National Bank. Two of his colleagues, then on the floor, also expressed their disapproval of a National Bank. Thus, in 1838, not only himself, but his two colleagues, were against a National Bank; so it would appear that he was not only consistent himself, but that he had the approbation of some of the most eminent men from Georgia, in his opposition to the bank. Where, then, was the ground for attacking his consistency, and with what weapons could they make their attack? Mr. B. then adverted to a proposition made by Colonel Gamble, of Georgia, in 1834, for a SubTreasury bill more ultra than the present, and containing a specie clause. He did this with a view of showing, that in supporting the present bill, he was sanctioned by the course of one of the most eminent men that his State ever produced, although he regretted to say that Colonel Gamble had suffered himself to be nominated by the Whigs. After some explanations from Messrs. KING and NISBET of Georgia, Mr. BLACK proceeded to read the votes in favor of the proposition of Colonel Gamble, in 1834, for a Sub-Treasury bill, and which concluded with the name of Mr. WISE. Mr. WISE explained under what circumstances that vote was given. He never in life even countenanced, or intended to countenance, a Sub-Treasury project. That vote in 1834 was given merely to test the sincerity of the Administration party, and not with any view of favoring such a mea sure. After some further explanations from Mr. F. THOMAS in relation to the votes on that bill of 1834, Mr. BLACK resumed his remarks, and spoke until nearly seven o'clock; when, without concluding, he gave way to Mr. M. A. COOPER, on whose motion the committee rose. Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi gave notice of intention to introduce a resolution to change the hour of meeting of the House to 10 o'clock, instead of 11 o'clock. Mr. WISE moved that the House adjourn. Mr. CAVE JOHNSON called for the yeas and nays on that motion; which were refused. Then The House adjourned. IN SENATE, TUESDAY, June 16, 1840. Mr. LINN, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, to which was referred the memorials of the following named persons, to wit: Estevan Plauche, Joshua Kennedy, Joshua Howard, Joseph Robedoux, John Forbes, Thomas Power, Margaret Deveal, Littleton Bailey, Anson C. Surlls, and resolutions of the General Assembly of the Legislature of Louisiana, asked to be discharged from the further consideration thereof. Mr. L. remarked that most of the cases were provided for, so far as the Senate was concerned, by the passage of a bill in relation to the sixteenth sections. The motion was agreed to, and the committee were discharged from the further consideration of the memorials above enumerated. BANKS OF THE DISTRICT. Mr WALL hoped that the question on the passage of the bill would not be taken at this early hour, when the Senate was so thin-indeed, when here was not a quorum present. He hoped, thereore, that gentlemen would consent to lay the bill on the table, until some of the absent Senators should take their seats. Mr. KING thought the suggestion of the Senator from New Jersey a very proper one, and hoped it would be agreed to. Several Senators objecting to postponing the question, Mr. NORVELL demanded the ayes and noes, which were ordered. The question being taken on the passage of the bill, it was carried in the affirmative-ayes 20, noes 13, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Buchanan, Clay of Alabama, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Davis, Dixon, Fulton, Grundy, Huntington, King, Merrick, Phelps, Prentiss, Preston, Roine, Smith of Indiana, Sturgeon, Webster, and Young-20. NAYS-Messrs. Allen, Benton, Linn, Mouton, Norvell, Pierce, Robinson, Smith of Connecticut, Tappan, Walker, Wall, Williams, and Wright-13. While the yeas and nays were calling, Mr. BENTON rose to a point of order. The long established practice of the Senate was to put The no bill on its passage until the hour of 12. propriety of the practice was obvious, in the present condition of the Senate. He thought the rule was a proper one, and should not be departed from. [The rule, as stated in Jefferson's Manual, is in the following words: "After 12 o'clock bills ready for it are put on their passage."] The VICE PRESIDENT then explained the circumstances under which the bill was put on its passage. When the Senate was called to order, the CHAIR had announced that the presentation of petitions was in order; there being no petitions, reports of standing committees were called for and received; the next business on the Secretary's table was the bills on the third reading. A suggestion was made that the bill should be postponed until the Senate was full; but, after a conversation among Senators, it was not pressed, and the bill was accordingly put on its passage. Mr. TAPPAN said that the very early period at which the bill had been taken upon its passage, had prevented him from making a motion for its recommitment, in order that it might be amended in a very important particular-that of rendering the stockholders individually liable for the debts of the bank. He was engaged on business in the committee room and came into the Senate chamber at 11 o'clock and found the question was taking on the passage of the bill. Though not sufficiently long a member of the Senate to speak authoritatively on this subject, he thought it was unusual, if not unprecedented, to put a bill, involving questions of such magnitude, on its passage at so early an hour, and with a thin Senate. Having been deprived, in the manner stated, of offering the motion at the proper time, he would ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to offer the following: Resolved, That the bill be recommitted to the Committee on the District of Columbia, with instructions to report a provision excepting from its operation all such parts of the several acts incorporating said banks, as excuse or exonerate the stockholders in said bank from their legal liability upon any contracts made by such banks. Mr. MERRICK objecting, the resolution could not be entertained. The question on the title of the bill coming up, Mr. MERRICK moved to amend by substituting "An act to continue the corporate existence of the banks of the District of Columbia." Mr. NORVELL moved to amend the substitute by the following: "An act to extend the charters of the suspended banks of the District of Columbia," and asked for the yeas and nays; which were ordered. Mr. GRUNDY proposed to add to the end of the substitute of the Senator from Maryland the words, "for two years;" which was agreed to. Mr. CLAY of Alabama suggested the addition of the words, "unless otherwise ordered by Congress;" which was agreed to. Mr. PIERCE was extremely sorry to see this special pleading on the small matter of the title of the bill. He had voted against it in all its stages, but a large majority of the Senate had voted in fa vor of the passage of the bill, and to this decision he would submissively bow. He hoped the friends of the bill would be permited to give it that title which would express the intention of the body of it. Mr. ALLEN concurred perfectly in the opinion of the Senator from New Hampshire, that the friends of this bill should give it such a title as would designate the object of it, and for the pose of carrying this more perfectly into effect, he hoped they would consent to the insertion of the word "supended " before "banks." pur This was not agreed to, and 'the substitute of Mr. MERRICK, as amended, being read in the following words: "An act to continue the corporate existence of the banks of the District of Columbia for two years, with certain restrictions, or until otherwise ordered by Congress;" Mr. KING moved to strike out "or until otherwise ordered by Congress," which was agreed to. The question was then taken on Mr. NORVELL'S amendment, and it was negatived-ayes 11, noes 26, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Benton, Linn, Mouton, Norvell, Robinson, Smith of Connecticut, Tappan, Walker, Wall, and Wright-11. NAYS-Messrs. Anderson, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Davis, Dixon, Fulton, Grundy, Huntington, King, Merrick, Nicholas, Phelps, Pierce, Porter, Preston, Roane, Ruggles, Smith of Indiana, Sturgeon, Tallmadge, Webster, and Young-26. The bill, in addition to the several acts regulat ing the shipment and discharge of seamen, and the duties of consuls, was taken up as in committee of the whole, and ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. Mr. PRESTON moved that 10,000 copies of the plan of the Secretary of War, for the organization and discipline of the militia, be printed for the use of the Senate. Mr. CLAY of Alabama moved to amend, by including the report of General Knox, and the reports of General Harrison, on the same subject; & which was agreed to. Mr. PRESTON then moved that the two bills accompanying the reports, should also be append- is ed to the document; which was agreed to. 7 Mr. CLAY of Alabama then moved to amend, a by adding the two bills of 1792 and 1803, now on our statute books on the same subject; which was agreed to-ayes 27, noes 16, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Anderson, Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Cuthbert, Falton, Grundy, Hubbard, King, Linn, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Pierce, Roane, Robinson, Smith of Connecticut, Strange, Sturgeon, Walker, Wall, Williams, Wright, and Young --27. NAYS-Messrs. Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Davis, Dixon, Henderson, Merrick, Phelps, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Ruggles, Sinith of Indiana, Southard, Tallmadge, Webster, and White-16. The resolution, as amended, was then agreed to. CLAIM OF FULTON'S HEIRS. The report of the Committee on Claims, adverse to the claim of the heirs of Robert Fulton was then taken up, and Mr. PHELPS addressed the Senate at much length in opposition to the report, and in favor of the claim. Mr. MERRICK then submitted a motion to amend the report of the committee, by reversing their decision; which was negatived—ayes 17, noes 21, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Clay of Kentucky, Dixon, Fulton, Huntington, Linn, Merrick, Phelps, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Stur geon, Tallmadge, Walker, Webster, and White -17. NAYS-Messra Allen, Anderson, Benton, Brown, Calhoun, Davis, Grundy, Henderson, Hubbard, King, Mouten, Nicholas, Pierce, Roane, Robinson, Strange, Tappan, Wall, Williams, Wright, and Young-21. The report of the committee, adverse to the claim, was then adopted. Andt he Senate adjourned. |