FEBRUARY, 1819.

Bank of the United States.

H. of R.

increasing votes by colorable transfers of stock, ment has neither inserted anything in the charter and its abhorrence of inordinate speculations by nor passed any other law to afford him redress, officers who had control of the institution; yet and probably is unable to do so, for the affair havmy distaste in this respect confines itself to moraling transpired in the interior of a State, between censure, for there is no law to prohibit the weal- citizens of the same State, neither the Constithy stockholder from using his utmost influence tution of the United States, nor any law we in elections, by so arranging his shares as to could constitutionally pass, could give the Federal count the greatest number of votes ; nor have the courts jurisdiction; and I understand that the president or directors been prohibited from buy- friends of the bank contend that the State Legising and selling stock, as other members of the latures have no authority to tax or control the community; and I had thought that history, if conduct of the United States Bank. But if the not experience, had taught our Government, that State courts had what may be taken as a right of corporations of trade, with their hosts of officers jurisdiction over this bank, it would of necessity and servants, were at all times prepared to com- be an abstract sort of power, to which the bank mit every offence which avarice could instigate, would not be tangible. The State punishes the except when restrained by the force of a whole- natural persons of its territory for crimes, by fine, some police. The fault, then, rests on the head imprisonment, or death-it punishes or restrains of this Government, which has created and sent State corporations by stipulations of charter, and forth this mighty corporation of avariee, with all its visitatorial power as the founder of such instithe exclusive privileges which could render it tutions. If you yield an authority to the State odious and dangerous, and without those checks courts to punish the United States Bank, then inwhich a due regard to public security imperi- form me how the power shall be exercised, or ously required. admit its impracticability. The State cannot certainly revoke the charter of the United States Bank, nor can it imprison it. In truth, the laws of the States only recognise and adapt themselves to ideal personages, existing by the enactment of the same public authority which spake those laws into force, and has no more application to this corporation, than to ghosts of the dead.

The 14th page of the report of the committee discloses a transaction of usury on the part of the bank, which, if imputed to any private man, would assuredly consign his character to infamy. The bank, in this instance, affects to make a loan, by discounting a note of $20,000, payable in sixty days, and receives the whole interest thereon, as if it had actually loaned the money in I differ in opinion with my honorable colleague hand, whereas it only advanced a post note, pay- (Mr. JOHNSON) who would repeal the bank charable also at sixty days, by which the bank was ter, because he believes that Congress had no Connot to advance a dollar before the note it dis- stitutional power to establish a bank. I entertain counted would become payable, and, as the dis- (as I always did) the conviction that Congress counted note and post note became payable on has power to pass a law chartering a bank, and the same day, the nominal borrower might have moreover believe that it possesses the power to claimed interest of the bank, with as much grace repeal the act of incorporation, or any other law and justice as the bank claimed and actually re- which it has previously enacted. Gentlemen who ceived it of him; and, this, it seems, is only a believe with me that the charter is Constitutional, single instance of what the bank frequently prac- and yet contend that Congress has no power to tised. Indeed the directors on the 30th January, repeal it, must chalk a new course of reasoning, 1817, adopted advisedly a resolution to enter ex- different from that usually pursued by those who tensively into the practice. The report hesitated have hitherto opposed the extension of Federal to pronounce the transaction usurious; the hesi- power. The customary allegation has been, that tation, sir, of a moment, a flitting instant; for I this or that power is not of the subject-matter conam satisfied that the superior intelligence and ferred by the Federal Constitution; but the pasforensic acquirments of the members of that com- sage of the act of incorporation, in 1816, admits mittee would, with less than five minutes reflec- a national bank may be a subject of Federal letion, have dissipated all doubt of the true charac-gislation, and, if so, we may make or repeal laws ter of this affair. Without embarking in legal or applicable to that subject. Even those who deny technical disquisition (which must always be irk- us the power to legislate on banks, will vote for some on this floor) I will venture the assertion, our power to repeal; for, if an unconstitutional that no member who has turned his attention to law has been passed, it would become our duty, the subject will deny that the transaction was by a declaratory act, to annihilate the illicit force usurious, not merely in taking more than legal of such a measure. Exclusive of the rules for the interest, but in taking any interest whatever. The government of the bank, the act of incorporation committee has recommended no provision in re- furnishes certain conditions which affect the existlation to this scandalous depravity, from a suppo-ence of the institution. The Government agreed sition that the parties have their remedy in the courts of justice. Here, with all deference, I must venture to believe the committee is mistaken, and to hazard an opinion that we have here found a mischief that will haunt our country until this mighty institution shall be no more. How shall the injured party acquire redress? This Govern

to enter into partnership with the other stockholders, and to form a trading company, to deal in exchange, &c., the capital to consist of $35,000,000. One condition not only stipulated the advance of twenty-eight millions of dollars, (the capital of the concern,) by the subscribers, but required that the funds should consist of a certain quality

H. OF R.

Bank of the United States.

FEBRUARY, 1819.

ance. A visitatorial power is found to exist somewhere over all corporations-a power competent to correct its abuses, or revoke its charter when violated and forfeited. In England, corporations are frequently created by the mere grant of the Executive magistrate; and of such corporations, the Court of King's Bench (which in that country is, or originally was, an arm of the Executive department) is the visitor, and, by mandamus or quo warranto, corrects or destroys the corporation; and the Parliament may exercise the same power without the aid of the King's Bench. The act of incorporation here, as regards its nature and incidents, must be interpreted by a reference to the common law, from whence, and not from the civil law, we have borrowed our notions on this subject. At common law, every corporation is subject to the visitatorial power of its founder. But Congress is the founder of this corporation, and therefore possessed of that visitatorial power which, for sufficient cause, may correct or destroy the institution.

so much in specie, and the residue in specie or public securities which condition was not less essential, in calling for quality, than with regard to quantity. Another important feature of this condition was, that those funds should be collected into an aggregate capital within a limited time-six and twelve months. But the essential | conditions, thus affecting the nature and existence of the institution, have failed, by the non-compliance of the subscribers, or, more properly speaking, by the default of the corporation, or its controlling officers, who were the legitimate representatives of the collective subscribers. It is true, the corporation was authorized to commence operations on the payment of the first instalment of eight millions four hundred thousand dollars of specie and stock. This sum, however, was considered as only a fraction of the capital; and the legislative expectation dwelt as strongly on the second and third as the first instalment, and considered its advance and quality as conditions which must have been material, as the amount and sort of capital is always material in the I submit another view. This mighty instituformation of companies of limited partnership. tion had its inception in an act of sovereignty; The advance of the first instalment, in the lan- and, having derived its existence from legisla guage of municipal lawyers, would be a condition tion, it seems peculiarly fit, or probably absoprecedent, whilst the payment of the second and lutely necessary, that its fate should be sealed by third instalments were properly conditions sub- a like act of legislation, if it be worthy of death. sequent; and it will not be denied that conditions The courts of England, by judgment, will oust subsequent are as material to defeat an estate, or corporations of their privileges, where those privright, as conditions precedent. If there has been ileges are merely derived from the Executive a non-performance of the conditions affecting the Magistrate, or for good cause repeal or revoke very existence of the corporation, nothing more other Executive grants; but the courts have never can be necessary, on our part, than a declaratory revoked acts of Parliament, or grants contained act of legislation, apprizing society that, the con- in them. So if Congress, by a general law, auditions being unperformed, the company of sub-thorizes the President to grant lands to soldiers, scribers are not entitled to exercise or continue and he grants land to one who was not a soldier, the corporate powers, which could not be claimed the courts would repeal the grant, as having except on a supposition of a performance of con-issued without authority. But if Congress by a ditions. In illustration of this idea, let us imagine a non-payment of the first instalment required by the charter, and that the subscribers, after paying but a tenth of that instalment, had usurped the powers of a corporation, under pretence of the charter: would any gentleman doubt the power or propriety of enacting a law declaring the nonperformance, and announcing the invalidity of the charter? Congress has the same right to announce, by a declaratory law, to the community over which it presides, the non-performance of the conditions of the two last instalments, and to make such provisions as will insure a just distribution of the funds which would revert to its individual owners. Gentlemen may talk of the unconstitutional strides of convicting the corporation or its members of offences without judicial investigation or jury trial. In the view I have this moment presented, neither the corporation nor its members are convicted of crimes, as the mere non-performance of a condition is no crime; for if you give or promise me an estate, on my performance of a certain act, and I omit the performance, no one imagines that I am to be charged with crime, or dragged to court, or tried by a jury, for my neglect: the issue of the affair is, that I cannot claim the estate without showing a perform

particular law grants land to an individual, the courts would not revoke the grant for any cause; for this would be to repeal a law, and consequently the exercise of legislative power. If it be said that Congress has conferred the power on the court by the act of incorporation to repeal the charter, I reply that this charter is nevertheless an act of Congress; that its repeal must be an act of legislation; and that Congress cannot confer on the courts the power of legislation.

The corporations of England and of every State of the Union are subject in some shape to visitatorial powers, by which they are restrained or destroyed, when they pervert the ends for which they were called into being. But this bank, if not subject to the legislative authority of Congress, is incapable of subjection by any power on earth, and may with impunity extend its ravages of injustice on the people and States of this continent, from Maine to Mexico, and laugh into insignificance the Federal compact which has hitherto afforded protection to the people, and to which the Federal family has sworn obedience. If then this great corporation has thus become too powerful for the Government, and acknowledges itself subject to no law, and yet retains all its capacity to sin, I would aim a blow at its ex

istence, even at the risk of wrenching out of joint the Constitution of the Union, which we all

revere.

H. or R.

every grant of exclusive rights to potent combinations or companies, being carved out of the previous claim of others, operates as a proporThe advocates of this bank and of the old Bank tionate alienation of the liberty of all other perof the United States deduce the authority of this sons in the community. But, above all, I abhor Government to establish a bank from its powers the thing we call a bank bonus, it being the price over the Treasury and fiscal concerns of the at which a legislative body sells to a combination Union. Admitting, as I do, the correctness of of speculators peculiar political, civil, or commertheir deduction, permit me to ask whether the cial privileges from which the people are prohib. authors of American polity could have antici-ited. The price offered and accepted at the crepated that Congress would ever find itself disabled to make, repeal, alter or modify, any of the laws in relation to the Treasury.

ation of this corporation was $1,500,000. The old Bank of the United States never insulted the Government by the offer of a bonus or bribe. Conceiving that the bank has forfeited its char- Say nothing of the pious or useful objects to ter, not only by a non-compliance with the con- which such money may be appropriated, (for it ditions, but by the commission of crime, and that can never be just to obtain money by injustice,) Congress has power to repeal the act of incorpo-let the disbursement of such money be such as ration, I have never had a moment's hesitation it may. If corporations are absolutely necessary, of the expediency of the repeal. It has been said the public good would justify their creation withthat we ought not to repeal, because the good out the immorality of selling political rights at faith of the Government is pledged to this insti- auction. But, the plea of necessity never holds tution. What is the import or force of this in these bargains, for, however proper corporapledge of good faith? These expressions are re-tions may be, the bonus is never offered for a mere sorted to on such variety of occasions, of late, as charter, but always in consideration of some pemight warrant a suspicion that they were sus- culiar and exclusive privileges which may be ceptible of application to all cases; and, if so, dispensed with. This notion of a bonus, lately ought not to be used in any case. Is it that moral so familiar as to startle nobody, has found its preobligation, perfect or imperfect, imposed on Gov-cedent in Europe, the institutions from whence ernment in consequence of a promise or prom- are annually gaining popularity with the mercanises? Be it so, unless you afford me another tile class of this country. The Bank of England definition. But, if the Bank has failed to comply is bound to renew its charter each twenty years, with the express condition on which the promise by the advance of pecuniary advantages to that of the Government depended, and has, by the Government; but it is due to the character of our enormity of repeated crimes, violated those whole- English ancestors to remember that their early some conditions implied in all charters, how can resort to this degrading practice was the conseit speak of that good faith which vanished when-quence of misfortune and evils, which gives them, ever the bank ceased to dwell under its protec-at least, the show of an excuse, to which our tion? The charter being forfeited, we are remit- Government has no pretension. I remember the ted, if we think proper to enforce the forfeiture, circumstances attending one renewal of the Engto the free condition of the Congress that granted lish bank charter, which are not materially difthe charter, with the additional advantage of two ferent from those accompanying all the earlier years' experience of the harm evinced by the renovations of charter. In 1708, Parliament, by bank in its infancy, and the ability to anticipate its vote, granted to the Queen upwards of £2,000,our fate from its growing strength. When view-000 for maintaining the forces in her pay in Spain ing the alleged violations of charter, I hold my-and Portugal, for subsidies payable to her allies, self bound to yield to every fair claim or expec- et cetera. Whilst this measure was depending, tation of the corporation, respecting its connexion the Ministers, having exhausted their ingenuity, with Government, without bias from popular feeling. But having found a violated and forfeited charter, and a corporation begging reprieve from the fatal evils of its own wrong, then it is I find the hand of my constituents on me; nor will I be so deaf to the wishes of the people or the dictates of justice as to raise the monster from the dead, or relieve it by renewing its capacity to visit the public with its complicated mischiefs.

I have acknowledged my utter dislike to corporations of traffic, by which a few favored per sonages are admitted to privileges from which the people are excluded; by which a few are permitted to trade to an indefinite extent on a definite fund without subjecting their estates to liability for their debts, whilst the rest of the people are liable, in their persons and whole fortunes, on every of their contracts. I dislike these corporations, because, the rights of all men being equal,

found it impossible to raise even a moiety of the sum, although the whole was indispensable. At that critical juncture the Bank appeared before Parliament, as a saving angel, with propositions for a renewal of charter, and an offer to advance the sums wanted. It is scarcely necessary to observe that the offer was accepted. We have no such palliative to cover our departure from principle in respect to this bank. We copy the vices of Europeans, without the trimmings to make them passable; or, in truth, endeavor, in our day of national prosperity, to imitate the traits of evil deformity which circumstances, and not choice, have imposed on European nations.

It is no cause of surprise that the State banks in every quarter of the continent are terrified by the threatening aspect of this institution of thirtyfive millions. The Government of the Union has also entered into partnership with the specu

Kentucky, Whitman, and Williams of North Carolina.

H. OF R.

Gilbert, Hale, Hall of Delaware, Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Herkimer, Herrick, Heister, Hitchcock, HopkinNAYS-Messrs. Adams, Allen of Massachusetts, An- son, Hostetter, Hubbard, Hunter, Huntington, Irving derson of Pennsylvania, Barber of Ohio, Bateman, of New York, Kirtland, Lawyer, Lincoln, Linn, LivBennett, Boden, Boss, Clagett, Comstock, Crafts, ermore, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Marchand, MaCushman, Darlington, Drake, Ellicott, Folger, Ful- son of Rhode Island, Merrill, Mills, Robert Moore, Samler, Gage, Gilbert, Hale, Hall of Delaware, Has- uel Moore, Morton, Moseley, Murray, Jeremiah Nelbrouck, Hendricks, Herkimer, Herrick, Heister, Hitch-son, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson, Pawling, Pitkin, cock, Hopkinson, Hostetter, Hubbard, Hunter, Hunt-Porter, Rice, Rich, Richards, Rogers, Ruggles, Savage, ington, Irving of New York, Kirtland, Lawyer, Lincoln, Linn, Livermore, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Marchand, Mason of Rhode Island, Merrill, Mills, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, Morton, Moseley, Murray, Jeremiah Nelson, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson, Pawling, Pitkin, Porter, Rice, Rich, Richards, Rogers, Ruggles, Sampson, Savage, Schuyler, Scudder, Sergeant, Seybert, Sherwood, Silsbee, Southard, Spencer, So the House determined, by a majority of two Tallmadge, Tarr, Taylor, Terry, Tompkins, Town-Votes, to strike out the clause imposing a restricsend, Upham, Wallace, Wendover, Westerlo, White-tion on slavery in the proposed new Territory of side, Wilkin, Williams of Connecticut, Williams of Arkansas. New York, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wilson of Pennsylvania.

There being an equal division, the SPEAKER declared himself in the affirmative; and so the said motion was carried; and Messrs. ROBERTSON, SILSBEE, BURWELL, MILLS, and LOWNDES, were appointed the said committee.

Mr. ROBERTSON, from the committee to whom was this day referred the bill establishing a separate Territorial government for the southern part of the Territory of Missouri, with instructions to amend the same, by striking out these words: "And all children born of slaves within the said Territory, shall be free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty-five years," reported the same, amended agreeably to the said in

Schuyler, Scudder, Sergeant, Seybert, Sherwood, Silsbee, Southard, Spencer, Tallmadge, Tarr, Taylor, Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, Upham, Wallace, Wendover, Westerlo, Whiteside, Wilkin, Williams of Connecticut, Williams of New York, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wilson of Pennsylvania.

Mr. TAYLOR then moved to amend the bill by inserting a provision "that, during the existence of the Territorial government of Arkansas, no slaves shall be brought into the said Territory, to remain therein for a longer time than nine months from the date of their arrival."

Mr. PITKIN supported, at some length, the amendment.

Mr. WHITMAN, of Massachusetts, addressed the Chair as follows:

Mr. Speaker, I am impelled, by a sense of duty to myself, as well as by a hope to be able to throw some light on this subject, to endeavor to exhibit the view which I have taken of it. At this stage of the debate, the House having become weary, I cannot expect to gain much attention; and, had any other gentleman exhibited the view which Mr. MERCER expressed his views of this ques-Without some explanation, the vote which I am influences my mind, I should have been silent. tion in a short speech.

structions.

The question was then taken, to concur with the select committee, in striking out the said words, and passed in the affirmative-yeas 89, nays 87, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Abbot, Anderson of Kentucky, Austin, Baldwin, Ball, Barbour of Virginia, Bassett, Bayley, Beecher, Bloomfield, Blount, Bryan, Burwell, Butler of Louisiana, Campbell, Cobb, Colston, Cook, Crawford, Cruger, Culbreth, Davidson, Desha, Earle, Edwards, Ervin of South Carolina, Fisher, Floyd, Garnett, Hall of North Carolina, Harrison, Hogg, Holmes, Johnson of Virginia, Johnson of Kentucky, Jones, Kinsey, Lewis, Little, Lowndes, McLane of Delaware, McLean of Illinois, McCoy, Marr, Mason of Massachusetts, Mercer, Middleton, H. Nelson, T. M. Nelson, Nesbitt, New, Newton, Ogden, Owen, Parrott, Pegram, Peter, Pindall, Pleasants, Poindexter, Quarles, Reed of Maryland, Reed of Georgia, Rhea, Ringgold, Robertson, Sawyer, Settle, Shaw, Simkins, Slocumb, S. Smith, Ballard Smith, Alexander Smyth, J. S. Smith, Speed, Stewart of North Carolina, Storrs, Strother, Stuart of Maryland, Terrell Trimble, Tucker of Virginia, Tucker of South Carolina, Tyler, Walker of North Carolina, Walker of Kentucky, Whitman,

and Williams of North Carolina.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Allen of Massachusetts, Anderson of Pennsylvania, Barber of Ohio, Bateman, Bennett, Boden, Boss, Clagett, Comstock, Crafts, Cushman, Darlington, Drake, Ellicott, Folger, Fuller, Gage,

about to give might seem inconsistent with that which I gave in Committee of the Whole, and should have given in the House, on a similar amendment proposed, in the case of the admission of Missouri as a State. I voted in that case against the admission of slavery into that State. I did not so vote, however, in expectation that it would diminish slavery in the United States. I do not view the subject as necessarily involving that question; and, if it be involved in it, I think it can be made manifest that the reasons are in favor of its admission, rather than its rejection, if we would promote emancipation, and provide for the amelioration of the condition of the slaves. No man would abhor more a contrary tendency than I should. I should shudder at the idea of adopting a measure tending to the increase of such misery and wretchedness.

laws now are, can oaly be increased by procreaThe slaves already in the United States, as the tion. The penalties against further importation, and the measures adopted to enforce them, are such that we cannot reasonably fear that many, if any more, will be smuggled into the Union. The permission of slavery in the Territory of Arkansas will afford no additional facilities to the introduction of this unfortunate race from abroad. The State of Louisiana, already estab