The memorial was referred, in the Senate, to a Select Committee; in the House, to the Committee of Ways and Means. The Chairmen, Mr. Dallas, in the Senate, and Mr. McDuffie, in the House, were both Democrats. The bill reported by Mr. Dallas was the one adopted in both Houses. It passed the Senate, 28 to 20; the House, 107 to 85; but it was vetoed by the President; for which act he was severely censured by some of his political friends, as well as nearly all his opponents. He assigned various reasons for the veto; but they failed to satisfy the friends of the Bank. The opinions of the Supreme Court, he contended, ought not to control the coördinate authorities. "The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others." And he said the President was independent of both Congress and the Judges.

Nowhere was the President more severely censured for the veto than in Pennsylvania, where he had enjoyed great popularity. At a meeting in Philadelphia, it was declared, that his rejection of the Bank bill, his assaults on the prin ciple of protection to American industry, upon the Supreme. Court, and upon the independence of Congress, had "severed the ties by which the people of Pennsylvania had been connected with him ;" and they declared that, reëlection of a President whose official path had been strewed with violated pledges, would be a national calamity."

"the

In the House of Representatives, a Committee was appointed to inspect the books and examine into the proceedings of the Bank. Numerous acts of misconduct had been alleged against the Bank as furnishing ground for the inquiry. The majority of the Committee reported six cases of alleged wrong doing, which were designed to show that the Bank had violated its charter. But the Committee would not express their opinion as to their force. Allegations were also made of corrupt management, designed to show that the Bank was no longer entitled to public confidence. A counter report was made by the minority, in which the allegations of the majority were met and

severally disposed of. A third report was made by John Quincy Adams alone, who had joined with his two colleagues of the minority, McDuffie and Watmough, in the second report above mentioned. This report of Mr. Adams discloses the cause of the first attack upon the Bank. The facts reported by Mr. A., though published among the public documents, are known to but a small portion of the American people. He says: "They are not noticed in the report of the Chairman, but in the opinion of the subscriber, are more deserving of the attention of Congress and of the nation, than any other papers commented upon in the report."

It appeared that Isaac Hill, editor of a Democratic paper in Concord, N. H., and chief director of the party in that State, who had recently been appointed a Controller of the Treasury at Washington, had, in June, 1829, three months after the Inauguration of Gen. Jackson, sent to his friends in Philadelphia two petitions, to one of which he had obtained the names of about sixty members of the New Hampshire Legislature, and which his friends were to present to the President and Directors of the Bank, asking for a change in the Board of Directors in the branch at Portsmouth. Several Jackson men were named in the petition for directors.

Soon after, the Secretary of War wrote to Mr. Mason, President of the branch at Portsmouth, directing the books, papers, and funds of the Pension Agency to be delivered to a Mr. Pickering, of Concord, for the benefit, as is evident, of a small bank, of which Mr. Hill was the president before his removal to Washington. Mr. Mason objected to this order, as contrary to law. The charter made it the duty of the Bank to disburse the public moneys for the Government; and for this purpose the pension funds were placed in its branches; and Mr. Mason denied the legality of the order and his own right to surrender the funds and papers as required.

On the 11th of July, 1829, Mr. Ingham, Secretary of the Treasury, transmitted to Mr. Biddle, President of the Bank, a confidential letter from Mr. Woodbury, of N. H., containing a complaint against the President of the branch at

Portsmouth, and charging that the influence of the Bank was used "with a view to political effect." He said also that the people desired Mr. Mason's removal, many of whom had requested him (Mr. W.) to ask his (Mr. Ingham's) influence, at the mother Bank, in producing a change. He said, further, that similar complaints had come from Kentucky, Louisiana, and other places.

In a letter to Mr. Biddle, Mr. Woodbury said that the charges against Mr. Mason "originated exclusively with his political friends." This statement Mr. Biddle thought irreconcilable with that of the same person in his letter to Mr. Ingham, that the Bank was managed "with a view to political effect." An examination was instituted; and Mr. Biddie went to New Hampshire for that purpose. After a thorough investigation, the Board found that the accusations were groundless; that the most zealous of Mr. Mason's enemies did not venture to assert that he had ever, on any occasion, been influenced by political feelings; and that what had been represented as public opinion, was nothing more than the personal hostility of a few individuals. Mr. Mason was therefore immediately re

¿lected.

In view of these facts, who can doubt, that it was the object of leading Democrats to get control of the Bank, "with a view," either "to political effect," or to their pecuniary advantage; and, failing in this, they invoked the aid of the President, whose popularity they well knew how to appreciate, in demolishing an institution which they could not make subservient to their selfish ends?

The defeat of the Bank bill by the veto of the President took place a few months before the Presidential election of 1832. The Bank question being one of the principal issues between the parties, the veto gave increased activity to the canvass. Mr. Clay, the candidate of the National Republican party, was a devoted friend of the Bank; and a large portion of the Democrats, especially in Pennsylvania, being in favor of its recharter, the friends of Mr. Clay hoped the veto would inure materially to his advantage. It is probable, however, that Gen. Jackson

lost not a single electoral vote in consequence of his re jection of the Bank bill. He received of the electoral votes 219, and Mr. Clay 49. South Carolina gave her 11 votes to John Floyd, of Va.; and the 7 votes of Vermont were given to William Wirt, the candidate of the AntiMasonic party.

CHAPTER III.

Administration of Andrew Jackson.-Second Term.

PRESIDENT JACKSON entered upon his second term on the 4th of March, 1833. Considering his reëlection, as a decision of the people against the Bank, he was encouraged to continue his hostility to the institution. And the next measure to be executed was the removal of the public moneys from the Bank of the United States. Of this the public were apprised by his last annual Message (Dec., 1832) before his second Inauguration; from which it appeared that “measures had already been taken by the Secretary of the Treasury to enable him to judge whether the public deposits in this institution were entirely safe." As this fact must be established in order to justify their removal, and as the power of the Secretary might prove inadequate to this object, the President recommended the subject to the attention of Congress. An inquiry into the transactions of the Bank and its branches, he said, was "called for by the credit which was given throughout the country to many serious charges impeaching its character, which, if true, might justly excite the apprehension, that it was no longer a safe depository of the money of the people."

The measure taken by Secretary McLane to ascertain the safety of the deposits, was the appointment of Henry Toland to make the investigation, who reported to the Secretary the 4th of December, the day of the date of the Message, that the liabilities of the Bank amounted to $37,296, 590; and the fund to meet them, $79,593,870; showing an excess of $42,296,920. As all liabilities must be first paid in case of insolvency or dissolution, he considered the security of the public money unquestionable. Nor was there any doubt of the solvency of the Bank.

In the House, the subject was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, who, after due inquiry, reported that the resources of the Bank were upwards of $43,000,000