26TH CONG.... 1ST SESS..

Van Buren, as far as principle is concerned. Should Judge White prevail in the contest over his opponent, surely the great Democratic States which it is said will support Mr. Van Buren, will not desert their principles because their favorite leader shall have lost his election. Their cherished Democratic principles will undoubtedly continue dear to them under the lead of Judge White. Unless, then, the great body of Mr. Van Buren's friends shall desert their principles, the Democracy of the country will still be triumphant. But we cannot suppose so great and so gross a defection from principle, at least in whole States; and so those fathers of the Democracy of the country, and who it is said are so much grieved at the prospect of a division in the Democratic ranks, may dry up their tears."

Mr. BELL said his colleague was evidently making an attack upon him, and if he were permitted to proceed he hoped that he (Mr. B.) would be allowed to reply.

Mr. WATTERSON. I am making no attack upon my colleague unless the reading of his own speech is an attack upon him. I am simply showing the position which he, as one of the leaders of the White party in Tennessee, maintained toward General Jackson and his Administration. And, sir, before I take my seat I will give evidence upon evidence proving to a demonstration that not only he, but many others in that State, who are now the fiercest in their denunciations against the Democratic party, were in 1835 the loudest in their professions of Jacksonism.

The next witness which I will introduce is Hon. Bailie Peyton, well known here and elsewhere as one of Judge White's most able, zealous, and distinguished supporters. Let us hear his testimony. I find it in a speech made at a public dinner which was given to him at Oxford, North Carolina, April 2, 1835. A friend by my side says it is the best speech that Mr. Peyton ever delivered:

"It is charged that Judge White is the candidate of the Opposition, that he has separated himself from his friends, and that he has abandoned General Jackson. To gentiemen of the Jackson party here and elsewhere I have a right to speak, for I claim to be one of the most humble, yet one of the most ardent of General Jackson's friends; I have always been allowed to have at least as much zeal as discretion in everything that concerned him. I was early taught to revere him as one of the patriarchs who achieved our frontier independence; I was born, raised, and live within a few miles of the Hermitage. General Jackson is associated with many endearing recollections. He and my father toiled together in the same common cause; they went through the Indian war side by side, and ever afterward they were friends. In the late war my brothers volunteered in his army, followed him to victory, and one of them to his grave. Since I have been capable of forming an opinion, and judging for myself, my attachment to the man, my confidence in his principles, and admiration for his virtues, his patriotism, his chivalry, and his political course, have increased.

"To gentlemen of the Jackson party here and elsewhere I will say, that if these charges were true, if a doubt existed in my mind of their utter want of all foundation in fact, nay, if I did not know that it was absolutely impossible for them to be true, I would be ashamed not only to ask you to support Judge White for such an office as the Presidency of the United States, but I would turn from him myself as a hypocrite and deserter.

"Judge White the candidate of the Opposition! Judge White abandon those principles upon which he has acted through life! Who presented him to the American people? Who first unfurled the White banner, an emblem of purity and peace, under which all can repose with confidence and safety and take breath after those fierce and angry conflicts which have so recently swept over the country? It was the people of Alabama, followed by the people of Tennessee, General Jackson's most ardent friends and zealous supporters. Yes, sir, the White banner was first unfurled where General Jackson's victorious flag was first seen streaming in the wind, and by those people who cultivate his glorious battle-field, backed and sustained by the brave officers and soldiers who bore his victorious standard on the plains of Talladega and the Emuckfaw, through the fields of Tallahatchie, Tehopeka, and Enotachopko, and planted it before the gates of New Orleans, and there, in its defense, under the guidance of their chief, the most celebrated captain of the age, performed such feats of valor as won for him immortal glory, and for their country imperishable renown. Yes, sir, these are the men whose spontaneous feelings have presented Judge White as a candidate for the Presidency, without any solicitation or agency on his part. He has been presented by the earliest friends, the oldest soldiers of General Jackson, if not the best."

Mr. Speaker, could language be stronger? "What!" said Mr. Peyton, "Judge White the candidate of the Opposition! Judge White abandon those principles upon which he has acted through life! Impossible!" Why, sir, he seemed to be perfectly horror-stricken at the very idea, and under the impulse of his Jackson feelings, exclaimed, "If these charges were true," that is, that Judge White had abandoned Old Hickory and joined the Whigs, "I would turn from him

Freedom of Elections-Mr. Watterson.

myself as a hypocrite and a deserter." Comment is unnecessary.

I will now, sir, read from a letter which bears date January 1, 1835, and signed by eight members of Congress from Tennessee:

"We owe it to consistency, to principles, and to our own character, to do nothing that would so divide our party as to overthrow it, with the leading principles identified with it, and therefore if now, or at any time hereafter, there should be a probability of producing such a result by running Judge White, we ought not to take him up; or if taken up, and the danger should become imminent, it would be necessary that one or the other of the opposing candidates of our party should be withdrawn.

JAMES STANDIFER,
BAILIE PEYTON,
WILLIAM M. INGE,
SAMUEL BUNCH,
JOHN BELL,

JOHN B. FORRESTER,
LUKE LEA,

DAVID W. DICKINSON."

"Our party;" what party? The DemocraticJackson party. The "leading principles identified with it," said they, must not be overthrown, and therefore, if such a result is likely to be produced by running Judge White, "we ought not to take him up.' What more? But if he is taken up, and the "danger should become imminent,' one or the other of the opposing candidates of our party should be withdrawn." Who were the opposing candidates of" our party?" Judge White and Mr. Van Buren. Then, according to their own declarations, if Judge White had been taken off the track, they would have supported the other candidate of our party" (Mr. Van Buren) for the Presidency. Now, sir, what do we hear? Their tune is changed, and right in the face of their former assertions they roundly charge that Mr. Van Buren never did belong to "our party," ," the Democratic party, to which they professed to be attached themselves. Yes, sir, they assert (at least the most of them do) that he never was a Democrat, although they supported him for the Vice Presidency in 1832, and in a certain event (the withdrawal of White) were prepared to support him for the Presidency in 1836! And, would it be believed, they now iterate and reiterate charges against him which they pronounced false and slanderous but five years ago!

Mr. Speaker, upon the preamble and resolutions of the Legislature of Tennessee, nominating Judge White a candidate for the Presidency, a number of speeches were made by his friends setting forth the reasons why the freemen of that State should support him in preference to Mr. Van Buren. Among others, I hold in my hand one delivered by General Caruthers, the brother-inlaw to my colleague, [Mr. GENTRY.] Hear him:

"The truth is, the race is between White and Van Buren, the candidate of the people and of the Baltimore convention. These gentlemen are both talented, and have both fought in the Republican ranks. They have been good Jackson inen. White, to be sure, has done him more service, for he commenced sooner by many years, and has fought harder, for he always has been in the hottest of the action, and the old chief has never sounded his political war trump but White was in the field and at his side; he has never called for a vanguard but White has stepped forward." "White has come out on

all the vetoes and messages, and every leading measure of Jackson's administration, and is therefore pledged in print and under his own hand upon them, and will, as sure as he is an honest statesman, carry them out if he should succeed. Mr. Van Buren's situation has not been such as to make it necessary that he should take sides upon these agitating questions, and it seems to be admitted on all hands that he is one of those politicians who will not obtrude his sentiments upon the public on questions which have two sides, but is modest and retiring in his policy. There is perhaps one exception in this course. I would not do any inan injustice. On one occasion, in a toast, if I mistake not, he did say uncompromising opposition to the United States Bauk. Since what little we see of his sentiments is good, what a pity itals we cannot get more in toasts or some more solid way. But White has made lengthy arguments on that subject, for which he has been lauded to the skies by the very men who are now abusing him. He has, ever since 1817, been standing upon the strong ground that the Bank of the United States, and all banks of that kind, are unconstitutional, as well as inexpedient."

"If Judge White cannot be elected, I would much prefer his election [Mr. Van Buren's] to that of any Opposition man, notwithstanding my objections to him; for you have seen, sir, from what I have said, that I have many objections to him when compared to White; but still I would much prefer him to any man whose principles are adverse to those which have characterized and made glorious the present Administration."

This, sir, is the evidence of one of Judge White's leading friends in our Legislature in 1835. And what does it prove? That White and Van

HO. OF REPS.

Buren were both considered Republicans at that time; that they were both Jackson men. White, to be sure, had done Jackson "more service,' because he had "fought harder," and was always in the field and at his side when the old chief sounded his political war-trump. Moreover, White had come out on all the vetoes and messages, and every leading measure of Jackson's administration. Indeed, "since 1817, he had been standing on the strong ground that the Bank of the United States, and all banks of that kind, were unconstitutional as well as inexpedient," while Mr. Van Buren had been rather sparing of such "good sentiments," and had only said on one occasion, and that in a toast, "uncompromising hostility to the United States Bank. But notwithstanding these and some other objections to Mr. Van Buren, he was much preferable to any man whose principles were adverse to those which had "characterized and made glorious" Jackson's administration. I will add that the ground taken by General Caruthers was the same that all White's friends assumed, from the most distinguished down to the most humble member of the party.

Mr. Speaker, in April, 1835, a very large White meeting was held at Franklin, in my colleague's [Mr. GENTRY] own county, at which a spirited preamble and resolutions were drawn up by Hon. A. P. Maury, D. W. S. Webb, James Johnson, John Watson, Dr. Joel Walker, James Hogan, jr., General L. Nolin, W. Rucker, and T. L. Green, Esq. They were unanimously adopted. Newton Cannon acted as chairman. Here is a part of the preamble:

"Since the election of Jackson has White faltered in support of the Administration? Has he been less vigorous or less efficient than Mr. Van Buren in advocating its measures? On the contrary, has he not stood forth on the floor of the Senate as one of its ablest advocates, bearing himself so nobly as to increase the admiration of his friends and extort the reluctant esteem of his opponents? In the mean time what has Mr. Van Buren done? What recorded evidence have we that, if elected, he will carry out the measures of the present Administration ?"

My colleague [Mr. GENTRY] will recognize among the committee who reported the preamble and resolutions the name of Hon. A. P. Maury, his predecessor in Congress, and, in the chairman who signed it, the ex-Governor of Tennessee, Newton Cannon. Will he be good enough to inform the House in what company these men can now be found? Whether, like himself, they have deserted the old Democratic camp and joined the blue-light Federalists of the North? Thope, unlike him, they have not become the "slanderers and revilers" of the purest Republicans and best men of the age in order to place in power men whose principles are at war with all that our gallant State has ever held dear.

I could detain the House, sir, from this time until to-morrow morning by reading similar extracts from the preambles and resolutions adopted at White meetings in Tennessee, but I conceive it to be unnecessary, and will hasten on, as I have already consumed more time than I intended when I arose.

It will be recollected that a White paper was published in this city, in the early part of the year 1835, called the Sun, under the auspices, and, as I have understood, with the money of my colleague [Mr. BELL] and others. In their opening "address to the public" the editors said:

"Judge White is, and has long been, the firm, undeviating, and intimate friend of General Jackson, bred in the same political school, warmed by the same ardent patriotism, and cherishing the same Republican feelings."

These sentiments were echoed and reëchoed, Mr. Speaker, by all the White papers in Tennessee. The Nashville Republican, the leading White journal in the State, teemed with articles of a like kind. Hear that paper in February, 1835:

"On most of the great political topics of the day, they [Jackson and White] have thought alike, and side by side have they battled for those principles which have been pronounced by a large majority of the American people to be sound, salutary, and correct. Judge White has been an efficient, sincere, and independent, though not a sycophantic supporter of the most important measures of General Jackson's administration, and no man would, we are convinced, carry out those measures with more ability," firmness, and discretion."

*

"One

of the many causes which will induce them [the prople of Tennessee] to support Judge White is, that he has been a consistent and straightforward supporter of the Adminis tration of him [General Jackson] whom they have delighted to honor."

26TH CONG....1ST SESS.

The Knoxville Register, published in Judge White's own town, his organ and mouth-piece, held this language in April, 1835:

"General Jackson must feel assured that the great polltical principles which brought him into power, and which he has so nobly sustained, will be inviolably preserved under the administration of either Judge White or Mr. Van Buren. Their political principles are the same, and they are both supporters of his Administration."

Mr. Speaker, I shall trouble the House with no more documents. What I have already laid before them triumphantly establishes the truth of what I stated in the outset, that in Tennessee Judge White was supported not only as a Jackson man, but the better Jackson man, and that the leaders of the White party professed to be the ardent friends of Jackson's administration-to be opposed to all the doctrines and wild schemes of the modern Whigs. Sir, suppose General Harrison had been run in Tennessee instead of Judge White, how many votes would he have received against Mr. Van Buren? Not ten thousand out of more than one hundred thousand. At that time no man in the Union could have got the electoral votes of the State in opposition to Mr. Van Buren but Judge White, much less a black-cockade Federalist, who supported, and was supported by, both the elder and younger Adams.

Sir, I think I heard the word "fawn"-that, but a short time ago, I "fawned upon the distinguished leaders of the Whig party in Tennessee." This is not only incorrect, but absolutely false. Let my colleague [Mr. GENTRY] ask the man [Mr. BELL] whose spawn he is, if I ever "fawned" upon him. No, sir; no. Among all my political sins, thank Heaven, I will not have to answer for that, either in this world or the world to come. If my colleague meant to include himself among the "distinguished leaders," and to allege that I "fawned" upon upon him, that is a much greater mistake. If I would not "fawn" upon the principal, think you that I would "fawn" upon the tool? If he had in his mind one of the late Senators from Tennessee, (Mr. Foster,) and used the word "fawn" to convey the idea that I was once his friend, I plead guilty to the charge. But never since Mr. Foster voted for Mr. Crittenden's gag bill would I have supported him for any office, from the highest to the lowest. I consider that bill as well as the one now under consideration, as one of the most deadly blows which have ever been aimed by any of our country against that liberty which was achieved by the blood of the patriots of the Revolution.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, in the excess of his wisdom, has thought proper to inform the House that some ་ generous judge' gave me a license to practice law; but as to the extent of my "fees" he is uninformed! This is truly a most wonderful development, worthy of the high source from which it comes. I regret, however, that it has been made, as I fear it will as effectually blast my future prospects as Mr. GRUNDY's report in the Senate blasted, in the bud, the project which my colleague gave notice he would introduce, to "distribute the proceeds of the public lands, and to assume the debts of the States!"

My colleague, sir, has dealt in much slang of a similar kind in reference to myself, but it is so low and contemptible that I deem it beneath my notice, and therefore will pass it by as I would the ravings of a simpleton. I expected when he commenced his speech that he would endeavor to controvert the facts which I stated on a former occasion in regard to the complexion of the Harrisburg convention; but scarcely a whisper has fallen from his lips. In this he acted wisely, no doubt under due advisement. Not a single statement which I made when addressing the House upon this bill (Mr. BELL's gag bill) has he disproved. Remember that, sir.

Mr. Speaker, in replying to my colleague I have had to use strong language, but not more so than his vulgar attacks merited. I think I have shown, conclusively shown, to every member upon this floor, be he Whig or Democrat, who are the apostates, my colleague and his associates in Tennessee, who supported White as the "better Jack

son"

man, and are now for Harrison, or myself and others who did the same thing and are now for Mr. Van Buren.

Thanking the House for the unanimous consent with which I have been permitted to reply to the dignified and decent remarks of my colleague, and the attention they have paid me, I shall say no more, leaving him to enjoy the victory he has gained, the laurels he has won, by his maiden effort.

DRY-DOCK AT NEW YORK.

REMARKS OF HON. D. P. LEADBETTER,
OF OHIO,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
July 8, 1840,

On a motion to reconsider the vote on the passage of the naval appropriation bill.

Mr. LEADBETTER said:

Mr. SPEAKER: I rise to a privileged question; and I do so from a sense of duty which I owe to my constituency, as well as to myself. Having voted in the affirmative on "the passage of the bill making appropriations for the naval service for the present year," I move to reconsider the vote of yesterday, by which the bill was passed. And if the House will reconsider this vote, I shall move to recommit this bill to the Committee of Ways and Means, with the following instructions, which I send to the Clerk's table, to be read for information:

"That House bill No. 6, making appropriations for the naval service for the year 1840, be recommitted to the Committee of Way and Means, and that said committee report, without delay, the probable expense of purchasing a site, and of the construction of a dry-dock in the harbor of New York, together with the necessary fixtures, engines, &c., appurtenant thereto, and the probable length of time it would require to construct the same; and, also, as to the propriety of commencing the work at this time, under the depressed situation of our financial condition."

Sir, I stated that it was a duty which I owed to my constituency to make this motion; and I shall now proceed to state the reasons why I have not only considered it my duty to make this motion, but to offer a few reasons why the vote upon this bill should be reconsidered and recommitted with instructions, such as I have proposed.

Sir, when this bill was under consideration in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union,

HO. OF REPS.

propriation bill? Does the honorable chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means pretend to inform us how much this work will cost the people, what length of time it will require in its construction, and what the sum to be paid for a site? No, sir, no.

Sir, I have not had sufficient time to make a full examination into the history of the rise and progress of this grand scheme. But from a slight examination, I find that in the year 1835 a law was passed, and the sum of $100,000 was therein appropriated for the purchase of a site and the construction of a dry-dock in the harbor of New York. Sir, I have been informed, verbally, that some four or five thousand dollars of that appropriation was expended in making surveys. Two years since, at the second session of the last Congress, a bill was reported from the Committee on Naval Affairs appropriating $100,000 toward purchasing a site and in the construction of a dry-dock in the harbor of New York; and, sir, this bill was then defeated, and defeated at a time when the Treasury was in as good a condition as it is at this time. Sir, I should like to know what new lights have burst upon the vision of this Committee of Ways and Means, and of this House, that this appropriation must be pushed through at this inauspicious moment.

Why was not this appropriation offered for consideration at the last session of Congress? The honorable chairman was then a member of the same committee over which he now presides. Will the former members of the Committee on Naval Affairs, who are now members of the present committee, gratify me in this particular? If the members of the committee will not respond, will the immediate friends of this measure inform me why an effort was not made at the last sessions to pass this appropriation? Did they know that they had been defeated the session before? Did they consider it prudent to let the matter pass by until this Hall should be filled with new members, and then, by attaching to it the Navy appropriation bill, under the honeyed words of an unexpended balance of a former appropriation," &c., "be, and the same is hereby, appropriated," by which it might appear to the unwary as if the construction of the work had been long since begun, and the money still in the Treasury? But, sir, there is one other view to be taken in re

I then submitted a few remarks upon the impro-lation to this subject? By the law of 1835 a site priety of commencing the construction of this work at a time when the state of our finances seem to forbid it. But a test upon a question of this kind could not be made in committee; the yeas and nays could not be called. But what was the course pursued by the friends of this extravagant and unwise appropriation of money when this bill was reported to this House? Were not all propositions to strike out, in whole or in part, this item in the bill, cut off by the previous question? But, sir, the friends of true economy did not stop here; for as soon as the amendments were passed upon by the House a motion was made to recommit this bill, with instructions to strike out this appropriation; but no sooner made than New York was on her feet, and the previous question was again sprung and sustained. And such appeared to be the devotion to salt-water constitutionality, that the yeas and nays were refused upon that motion.

Sir, if the yeas and nays had then been permitted to have been taken upon that question, by which my constituency could have known by whom it was that this prodigal expenditure had been fastened upon them, in common with the rest of the laboring community, I might have been induced to let this bill pass on its way to the Senate Chamber unmolested. But this small boon was denied, and there was no alternative left but to make the motion which I have. And, sir, I will now put the question to this House, whether this is the proper time to commence the construction of a work which will eventually cost this nation not less than $2,000,000? And who among us is prepared to say that this dry-dock, with its fixtures, can be constructed for less? Where are your estimates, and who made them? What committee has reported upon this subject? What evidence have you of its absolute necessity at this moment, and why is it attached to the Navy ap

was to be purchased. By the bill reported in 1838 a site was to be purchased. By the bill just passed a site is to be purchased. Is the House aware that upon the passage of the law, in 1835, all the land and mud and water adjoining, or adjacent to, the navy-yard at Brooklyn passed into the hands of speculators? Peradventure this appropriation may be necessary to assist them or help them out with their speculations; but of this I know nothing and care less. It is sufficient for me to know that a purchase is to be made; the laws all require it, and this must be done without reference to the expense; and I will venture to affirm that at the next session of Congress the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means will bring into this House an item attached to the Navy appropriation bill asking us to vote the further sum of one hundred or one hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the purpose of completing the payment for a site for a dry-dock in the harbor of New York. Sir, in looking round me, I am constrained to ask what has become of the

vaunting friends of retrenchment? Shall I appeal to that party who have hung out the banner of Harrison reform?

A MEMBER rising to a question of orderThe SPEAKER said this was a question of reconsideration, and that it was not in order to discuss the question of party, &c.

Mr. LEADBETTER. Sir, I am well aware that this is a question of reconsideration, and I am well aware that it is not in order to discuss party questions, nor will I; and I am as well aware that the question of reconsideration permits me to discuss the merits of the bill, or any part of it, or otherwise it would preclude me from giving my reasons why the vote should be reconsidered. But, sir, I did not appeal to that party under any hope or expectation that they would join with me in the reconsideration of this question. No, sir; no,

notes.

If the Opposition is prepared to maintain that State banks are the safest fiscal agents of the Government after a violation of their trust, that this deposit law is sufficient, and the discretionary power of the Secretary of the Treasury harmless and proper, be it so. For my part, I never can consent that any officer of the General Government, whatever amount of confidence I may place in his integrity and capacity, shall have such unlimited discretionary power. And, sir, to my surprise did I hear honorable gentlemen of the Opposition virtually contend for the continuation of this discretionary power to the Executive, while in the same breath they were denouncing executive patronage. The advocates of this bill are for circumscribing discretionary power over the purse of the country; they are for placing such safeguards around the money of the people as will secure it against any power but the law.

Then, inasmuch as I consider the existing deposit law, in certain contingencies, as throwing the whole moneyed power of the country under the control of the Secretary of the Treasury, and inefficient in other respects, and as I believe the bill now under consideration is a safer and more stable system for the collection and safe-keeping of the public moneys, I feel constrained to advocate its adoption, and will proceed to discuss the relative advantages of a Bank of the United States, State banks, and an Independent Trea sury, as the fiscal agent of the Government.

It is a fact worthy of record in the outset that the Opposition to the present Executive have for the last two sessions denounced him for urging upon Congress the establishment of an Independent Treasury, and an entire separation of the Government from banking institutions as her fiscal agents; and during this whole time they have not ventured unitedly to propose a plan for the safe-keeping and disbursing of the public moneys. This position is an anomaly in the history of political parties, and it would have been unaccountable to me were it not that I find, from the late proceedings of this party, that one of their cardinal doctrines is secrecy, and an inquiry as to their political sentiments unbecoming and ungenteel. They also, in some respects, resemble an eastern monarch, who requested the soothsayers to interpret his dream, but would not tell them the character of the dream which was required to be interpreted. However, let them disguise their opinions as they may, the antagonistical system to the Independent Treasury is a Bank of the United States, which will lead me first to consider it as the fiscal agent of our Government; secondly, the Independent Treasury; and lastly, the causes that have produced such revulsions in our monetary system, and that have periodically affected our commercial, manufacturing, and agricultural interests.

Before 1 proceed to the consideration of a Bank of the United States as the fiscal agent of the Government, allow me to make a few remarks upon banking generally. It is important that I should do so from the fact that many honorable gentlemen have unjustly charged the friends of the Administration as destructives, as advocates of an exclusive metallic currency, and as in favor of uprooting the order of society.

We have had, in the short space of two years, two important eras in the history of our banks, and full of useful admonitions. No one who can have the best interests of his country at heart can but deplore and depretate the conduct of these institutions. No one will deny that they require thorough reformation. No one here will stand up their advocates in violating their promises. The charge, then, that the friends of the Administration (at least I speak for myself, and I believe I might say for the party) are for the destruction of all the banks of this country, and introducing an exclusive metallic currency, is unfounded. I must, however, be permitted to say that the banking institutions have shaken the confidence of the people in their usefulness, having failed in the object of their creation. Instead of providing a currency equal to gold and silver, they have overwhelmed

borer. They have, in some degree, entered the political arena, (particularly the late Bank of the United States,) to subserve their own purposes and advancement. When I admit that I am not in favor of destroying the banks, but for reform, I wish to be understood that I am opposed to nonspecie paying banks; that I am opposed to banks (and which I now believe to exist) not required for the legitimate and productive business of the country. I am in favor of banks being restrained within their fair and honest means, of their specie basis being enlarged, of small notes being discontinued, which will throw into circulation gold and silver for the small and ordinary business of the people. The great error with the States has been that they have created too much banking capital; and if continued in, and not restrained, our country must be subject periodically to the dreadful consequences resulting from their expansions and contractions. Is it not important that this Government should not encourage this wide-spread mania for banks and paper currency, if in its power, incidentally?

HO. OF REPS.

of War and other agents appointed. And shall I call to the recollection of this committee the time when this institution was struggling, with her Goliath strength, to overpower the General Government; and had it not been for the Roman firmness of ex-President Jackson the issue might have been doubtful? Seventy thousand dollars were appropriated by this bank, to be used by the president of the bank, to have speeches printed and circulated, denouncing the President of the United States as a tyrant and unworthy the confidence of the people. This was done, too, by a portion of the Government money. The issue was madethe people the arbiters. The Executive was sustained a happy result for our Republic. Shall I call your attention to a more recent occurrence, which should satisfy the most incredulous of the unsafety of employing a Bank of the United States as her fiscal agent? In the crisis of 1837 and 1839, where stands in her majesty the Bank of the United States, continued by a charter from the State of Pennsylvania, and which charter Nicholas Biddle, then president, declared, at a meeting of its stockholders, was preferable to the one that had expired, and in consequence of which the charter was accepted by its stockholders? Yes, I repeat, where did she stand at these two important periods? Did she prevent the suspension of specie payments in 1837 and 1839? As regards the last period she was the first to suspend and mainly instrumental in bringing it about.

A meeting of the officers of the banks in Phila

any previous notice as to the object, by most of them, and, to their astonishment, a proposition was made to suspend. I think thirteen banks were represented, and but three were for suspension, and one of those three was the Bank of the United States. The proposition was lost; notwithstanding, the next morning after this meeting, the Bank of the United States suspended, and thereby forced the smaller institutions, very reluctantly, however, to suspend also. Do not these facts prove, beyond the possibility of cavil, its inefficiency to control the State banks, currency, or exchanges? Does not the conduct of this bank, while the fiscal agent of the Government, satisfy you of the necessity of the prompt separation of a Government from such institutions? Does her conduct not speak volumes against renewing the union? Would it be wise, would it be good policy, to create anew such a fiscal agent? Is it not fair to infer that no great dependence can be placed upon the faithfulness of a new institution? You have no assurance that a bank will be true to her trust. And, sir, above all, if the Government, by any possibility, can be made subservient to such an institution, is it not our bounden duty to refrain from employing such a dangerous agent? Is any one, who hears me, satisfied to see their country subject to the mandate of a bank? For my country's honor, I hope not.

I will now proceed and ask, is a Bank of the United States, subject to so many vicissitudes, the most stable and safest fiscal agent of our Government? Is it such an agent that any wise Government will select, were there no constitutional difficulties? I will not deny it may have some advantages, but its disadvantages far overbalance them. By recurring to the late Bank of the Uni-delphia was called together last October, without ted States, when she acted as the fiscal agent of this Government, you will find that she neither proved the regulator of our State banks, the maintenance of an undepreciated currency, an equality of exchanges, nor the most stable and proper fiscal agent of our Government. Notwithstanding the eulogiums we have had by some honorable gentlemen upon the late Bank of the United States, I ask, where is the evidence that she regulated banks and the currency in times of difficulty and embarrassment, for then is the period when its advantages must be tested? When general prosperity pervades our land the currency needs no regulation; it regulates itself. Where is your regulator, when, by a system of over-banking, and of consequence, an excess of credit falls upon us? Need I call this committee to the recollection of the distressing period of 1818, 1819, 1820, and 1821, to prove the utter inability of the Bank of the United States, backed then by all the powers of the Government, to relieve the country and regulate the currency and banks? I refer honorable gentlemen to the history of that day for the substantiation of my assertion. During the late war we had no Bank of the United States. The State banks were then only in existence; and if any merit is due, it belongs to them, and not the Bank of the United States. It is true that these banks suspended after the war, from so great a stretch of their means to advance money to the Government, and did not resume until after the Bank of the United States was incorporated. It was not, however, brought about by the Bank of the United States; it was by the prudent course pursued by the State banks themselves. At that very time the Bank of the United States was on the brink of ruin; no dividends declared; her stockholders became alarmed; her officers changed; and only by a violent contraction she weathered the storm. But the commercial, manufacturing, and agricultural community had to suffer-yes, bleed to the core. The stock-jobber and speculator then fattened upon the distresses of our citizens through loans from this very institution to their favorites. Is not this true? Let history

answer.

What was her conduct further while the fiscal agent of our Government? She retained $170,000 under the pretense to pay damages upon the protested French bill. She called upon the holders of the three per cents, when due, (and the money of the Government in her vaults to pay these three per cents,) to induce them to postpone their demand of payment. They complied, thereby postponing the payment, and holding the Government security for the same. She retained the money deposited with her to pay the soldiers of the Revolution after it.was demanded by the Secretary

I have, thus far, only spoken of the expediency of employing a bank as the fiscal agent of our Government, and will now only revert one moment to its constitutionality. As there is no express power contained in the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to create a bank, and, as I believe, to carry out any one of the powers contained in that instrument does not require a bank, therefore I am irresistibly led to the conclusion that a Bank of the United States is unconstitutional. In addition, I will call the attention of the committee to a report made in 1811, by a distinguished Senator from Kentucky, to show his opinion at that time upon the question of the constitutionality of the existing Bank of the United States:

"Mr. CLAY, from the committee to whom was referred the memorial of the stockholders of the Bank of the United States, praying that an act might be passed to continue the corporate powers of the bank for a further period, (I believe one year,) to enable it to settle such of its concerns as may be depending on the 3d of March, 1811, reported, that as they did not consider the bank constitutional, they would not and could not grant the request."

I refer to this in order to show what were the opinions of that distinguished Senator at that time, and how far he carried them.

The continuation of State banks as our depositories appears to have but few advocates upon this floor; but, in candor, were I compelled to

26TH CONG....1ST SESS.

vote for a Bank of the United States, or State banks, I should give it for the latter. Yet, as they have been found inadequate to the task, and the best interests of the country call for an entire separation of the Government from the banks, I feel it my bounden duty to oppose their continu

ance.

Independent Treasury—Mr. Wagener.

peat a comparison of this system with banks irresponsible to the Government? Need I call to your recollection the inefficiency of the existing laws providing for the safe-keeping, collecting, and disbursing of the public funds? Need i remind you of the strenuous effort made by the Bank of the United States, when the fiscal agent, to overpower the Government, and force it to her terms, for its preference over banks? I am sure I would be en

large upon these several propositions, and therefore shall proceed to examine the consequences that the Opposition would fain ascribe to the effects of this bill.

1. That it creates one currency for the Government and another for the people; in other words, gold and silver for the office-holders, paper currency for the people.

The State banks by their own act have separated themselves from the Government, and not by any compulsory process on the part of the Ex-croaching unnecessarily upon your time did I enecutive. How did they separate themselves? By the laws under which they were created the depositories of the public revenue, they were required at all times to redeem their paper in gold and silver, and so soon as they failed in this they ceased to be depositories. Did not the Government act in good faith toward these institutions? Were they not continued as depositories up to the time of their suspension; and would they not have remained until this moment, performing the same service, had they acted in good faith?" To their own faithlessness must they attribute this separation. And, sir, so far from the Executive and his friends indicating any hostility to these faithless institutions, I refer you to their conduct at the extra session of 1837. Unable to pay over to the Secretary of the Treasury the deposits due the Government, Congress, instead of compelling prompt payment, allowed them from six to eighteen months to liquidate the amount due Government, and at this very moment more than half a million remains unsatisfied. Is this evidence of hostility toward these institution? Does this show a disposition on the part of this Administra-point to prove that it is not? It will even be adtion to destroy them? Disappointed in their confidence that these institutions would have been enabled to perform the duties of fiscal agents faithfully and effectually, they have become satisfied of the absolute necessity of a separation. And to show the sentiments of the Executive upon this subject, I subjoin an extract from his first annual

message:

"The discontinuance of the use of the State banks for fiscal purposes ought not to be regarded as a measure of hostility toward these institutions. Banks, properly established and conducted, are highly useful to the business of the country, and doubtless wal continue to exist in the States so long as they conform to their laws and are found to be sate and beneficial. How they should be created, What privileges they should enjoy, under what responsibilities they should act, and to what restrictions they should be subject, are questions which, as I observed on a preTious occasion, belong to the States to decide. Upon their rights, or the exercise of them, the General Government can have no motive to encroach. Its duty toward them is well performed when it refrains from legislating for their especial benefit, because such legislation would violate the spirit of the Constitution, and be unjust to other interests; when it takes no steps to impair their usefulness, but so manages its own affairs as to make it the interest of those institutions to strengthen and improve their condition for the security and welare of the community at large, they have no right to insist on a connection with the Federal Government, nor the use of the public money for their benefit."

Having thus very briefly presented my objections to the reestablishment of a Bank of the United States, and to the continuation of State banks as the fiscal agents of this Government, we now come to the consideration of the system of an Independent Treasury, as contemplated by the bill before us. What does it establish?

A Treasury in which shall be deposited all the moneys collected by Government agents; that the safe-keeping, transfer, collecting, and disbursing of the public moneys shall be performed exclusively by these agents, and not by the banks; that the moneys so collected and disbursed shall be, progressively, in gold and silver, and notes of specie-paying banks, until 1843, when the whole shall be collected and disbursed in gold and silver, and additional safeguards for the more effectual prevention of frauds and peculations on the part of these agents. These, sir, are the important provisions of this bill; simple, plain, not complicated, safe, and efficient. For its security, for its efficiency, for its safety and stability, and, above all, for its republican feature, in selecting and controlling its fiscal agents, it should, and I have no doubt will, receive the sanction and approbation of this House and country. Need I refer you to the system advocated by Mr. Jefferson at the time the first Bank of the United States was chartered, similar to the one we now are considering? Need I remind you of its salutary influence, to a certain extent, upon our monetary system?" Need I re

It is important before we proceed to the examination of this assumption on the part of the Opposition to this bill, to have defined what they mean by currency. Are we to understand them that the paper currency, as it now exists, should be universal, so far as regards this Union? If so, and from the whole tenor of their arguments it is the fair inference, I take issue. There is no axiom in political economy more universally admitted than that currency should be uniform and of equal value throughout a nation; if otherwise, injury is done to one portion of it. How will this principle apply to the present state of our currency? Is it uniform? Is it equal in value throughout the nation? Need I enlarge upon this

HO. OF REPS.

junction of the law in this respect. The whole strength of the Government, he was of opinion, ought to be put forth to compel the payment of the duties and taxes to the Government in the legal currency of the country."

He holds the same strong language in a speech delivered in April, 1816, on the collection of the revenue, which I should have read did I not desire to close my remarks as soon as possible. Who upon this floor has gone further than this distinguished Senator for a hard-money currency? Who has more ably and triumphantly sustained the principle contained in the bill of the progressive payment of gold and silver for taxes and duties? Who has more impartially defended the duty of Government to preserve our legal currency and not to embark on the wide ocean of a paper currency?

The gentlemen in their eagerness to deceive the public (and all for their love of the people) maintain and proclaim that this currency of gold and silver was only for the office-holders. But what is the truth? Why, sir, of the whole collection not one tenth part of it goes to the officeholders. To whom, then, is it paid? To Government creditors. And who are they? The warworn soldier of the Revolution, whose services a country's gratitude placed on the pension list, calls upon a pension agent at Natchez (for example) for his small pittance, and is paid in the bank paper of that city, fifteen per cent. below the value of gold and silver. And the soldier and volunteer who now fights under the scorching sun of Florida is to be paid in depreciated paper; and the sailor, too, whose

"March is o'er the mountain waves, Whose home is on the deep."

And shall I go further, and tell you that the mechanic and the laborer who toil from morn to eve is to meet the same fate if the system advocated by the Opposition is to prevail? Is such to be the currency of this country? Is this evenhanded justice?

2. They allege that it will destroy the banks, credit, and currency of the country.

How is this possible? The collection of $25,000,000 in gold and silver, throughout the Union, can have but little effect upon these institutions one way or the other, and none whatever upon those that are solvent and prudent in their business. It is admitted, on all sides, that at no time can there be more than $5,000,000 of specie (when the whole dues are paid in this currency) in the Treasury, and the progressive principle contained in the bill will give the banks ample time to prepare for the change.

Some gentlemen seem very much alarmed that this amount of gold and silver, that would remain in the Treasury, might seriously affect the specie basis of the banks. One moment's reflection must dissipate such fears, if any do really exist. Assume that $5,000,000 in 1844 are in the Treasury-how much, to supply this deficiency, would each bank have to purchase? We have nine hundred banks, whose capital is $358,000,000; and one and a half per cent. upon their capital would supply that abstraction. Is it not well known that the State banks, when they were selected as depositories, immediately enlarged their specie basis, by purchasing bullion from abroad? And surely it can be no hardship for these institutions to add this small amount to their specie basis. In addition to this, it enlarges our legal currency-an effect devoutly to be desired.

It will destroy credit. This proposition is so wild and irrational that I am sure I need not detain you long upon its examination. How is it to destroy credit? Is it because the Government funds are not to be any longer used by banks? Is it because she will not countenance unsound institutions? I can imagine no other argument; and it is so brittle that it breaks with its own weight. I understand perfectly well, Mr. Chairman, the object of the effort made to ascribe to this bill the effect of destroying credit. It is for the purpose of carrying forth to the country the idea that the friends of this measure are opposed to all credit. It is not true; the charge is without the slightest foundation. No one has ever questioned the value of credit, so far as it contributes to advance productive industry, encourages a rational spirit of enterprise, and adds to the industrial capital of the country; but when, by legislation, you create