Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

individuals. A parent may give to a child a fortune adequate to his support, and suited to his circumstances, but he cannot prevent him from wasting or parting with it, unless he imposes restrictions upon its use. The very phrase, "a uniform currency," implies a currency that will pass everywhere: that will flow everywhere, without any obstruction, but what arises from the expense of conveyance; of equal value everywhere, and for that very reason in unequal quantities. This is the precise distinction between the paper of the Bank of the United States, and the paper of the state banks; which, having no currency beyond certain local limits, remains within them in greater abundance than is necessary. It is the same distinction which exists between either kind of paper, when not redeemable, and gold and silver. We may illustrate it more clearly by an instance: A merchant in the state of Ohio makes a sale in Ohio, in order that he may be able to buy in Baltimore, or he sells in Baltimore that he may buy in New-York. He wishes, in either case, to receive what will pay for his purchase in Baltimore or New-York, and he carries from the place of sale to the place of purchase the amount he has received. It has happened to most of us to have some experience of the nature of this distinction. Formerly, there was great complaint by travellers in some parts of NewEngland, that the money, or rather the paper, they received in one town, would not pass in another. There, I believe, the grievance has ceased. But in other parts of the country we experience it every day; being obliged continually to inquire whether the paper put into our hands in one place will be taken in payment in another, and feeling instantly the inconvenience, if, by mistake, we carry it beyond the limited bounds of its circulation.

Where the currency has the quality I have mentioned, that is, uniform or nearly uniform value, the quantity that will remain at any given place depends upon the course of trade. The quality depends upon its solidity. The memo

rial to the Ohio Legislature, or the report of a committee of that body, (I do not know which, for I was not in the house when it was quoted by the gentleman from South Carolina,) complains, in substance, that such a currency was furnished to them. That is the amount of the complaint, for they say they were tempted to employ it in purchasing from the cities to the eastward beyond what they ought to have purchased. A very singular complaint, indeed, which charges upon others the consequences of their own imprudence! The complaint should be, that they did not keep what was given to them, or at least a portion of it, and use it, as they might have done, in the payment of their dues to the government. There is no doubt, however, that they have approached, if they have not reached, the true cause of their present embarrassments. This currency would not have wandered away, and left them destitute of the means of paying their debts, if their local circulation had not been overcharged with state bank paper, depreciated from its abundance-too easily obtained-supplying the purposes of local exchange, and failing when it was wanted for the more extensive exchange, to which the United States bank paper, from its uniform value, was exactly adapted. The paper and credits afforded by the Bank of the United States were thus banished by the local paper; they were sent off to perform the distant service of buying in the cities at the eastward, and the people of Ohio kept nothing to pay their debts but the paper of the state banks. This was their own fault, imputable to themselves alone. Time, economy, and the industry of the state, employed in producing what will buy money, or, in other words, what may be exchanged with those parts of the Union where the money has gone, will bring all right.

One of the charges made by the committee against the management of the Bank of the United States, (and which this is the most fit place to notice,) is on account of the supposed excessiveness of its loans in those states and cities

against which there was a balance of trade-those which, to simplify the idea, were debtors-particularly in Kentucky, Ohio-in Baltimore and Philadelphia. The argument they employ to sustain this charge, namely, that injustice was done to the states and cities which had the balance in their favour, or were creditors, has already been amply and conclusively refuted. It has been shown-indeed it appears from the statement of the report itself—that these loans were in the highest degree beneficial to the creditor states and cities, the money obtained by the borrowers going directly thither, and enabling them to obtain specie from the branches, to be employed in the manner most advantageous to themselves, either by their banks or by individuals. "The effect of these draughts upon the northern offices, was, to compel the constant remittance of specie there, &c." (Report, p. 4.) How, then, it can be said that those places were made tributary to Baltimore," I am altogether at a loss to understand.

But, considering the diffusion of an uniform currency throughout the United States, in sufficient quantities for public purposes, to have been, (as it is conceded to have been,) an important public object, it will be easy to show that the imputed error is far from being censurable. To put in circulation such an uniform currency as has been described, in the manner most advantageous to the Union, it was necessary, when the bank was organized, to give a preference to those states against which there existed an unfavourable balance. It would flow from them, in payment of their debts, (retaining, if they were prudent, what was required for local purposes,) where it ought to go, that is, into the creditor states, and thus the creditor states would also be supplied. But, what was thrown by the bank into the creditor states, would never find its way to the debtor states, unless it were in the shape of loans by them, which was not to be expected. If an individual, having a sum of money to lend, were disposed to lend it to one of two per

sons, each of whom he was equally inclined to serve, and in both of whom he had confidence as to their ultimate ability to repay, and it so happened that one of them was indebted to the other, would he be most likely to benefit both by lending it to the debtor, or by lending it to the creditor? The answer is obvious: if lent to the debtor, he would be enabled to apply it towards the payment of his debt, retaining what might be necessary for more urgent wants. The creditor would receive his money. Thus both would derive some advantage. If lent to the creditor, none of it would find its way to the debtor. A different course would, perhaps, have been more for the interest of the institution, as it is always better to lend to the rich than to the poor; I mean better for the lender. But, if the object was to distribute an uniform currency throughout the United States, there was no error. That such a currency has been introduced, in sufficient quantities to answer all the purposes of the government, cannot be controverted. It is undeniably proved by the fact, that the receipts and payments of the Treasury are now made in a currency of uniform value. Neither can it be controverted, that such a currency has been introduced into every quarter of the Union, in sufficient quantity. If it has not remained in the places where it was introduced, that cannot be chargeable to the bank, for the bank had no power to prevent its migration or transfer. So far, therefore, as respects this great object-an uniform currency-the duty of the bank towards the public has been faithfully and fully performed.

Nearly connected with this object, was the effort to make the branch notes payable everywhere, without regard to the place of payment indicated upon the face of them. It would undoubtedly have been a great public convenience; but it was more than the public had stipulated for, and more than the public had a right to expect. I think it easily demonstrable, that the system could not be acted upon without great inconvenience and loss, and serious danger to the

institution. It must be remembered, however, that the practice of the late Bank of the United States, whose notes were only payable or receivable at the place where they were made payable on their face, had been strongly, though I agree unreasonably, reprobated. It must be remembered, too, that many well informed men believed in the practicability of the plan first adopted by the present bank, and probably nothing but experience, the most authoritative of all teachers, would have convinced them of their error. Under these circumstances the experiment was, perhaps, necessary to be made, in order that the public might be fully satisfied. It was certainly well meant and innocent. "The wants of the country, and the interest of the bank, (says the President, in his letter of the 4th October, 1817. Documents, p. 28,) require an extensive circulation of its paper; and it is the policy of the parent board to encourage the indiscriminate use of the notes of the bank, reserving for imperious circumstances, and inevitable occasions, the exercise of the legal right which it possesses, of declining to receive or pay, except at the respective places where payment is promised on the face of the notes." The experiment has been made; experience has condemned the attempt; "imperious circumstances" have compelled the bank to exercise the right it possesses; and I am glad to find that the report of the committee approves the change, and admits that it was made in the manner least exceptionable and inconvenient. There must be an end now to the complaint made about this act of the bank.

I will now ask the attention of the committee to another branch of the public management of the bank-that which regards its duties towards the government. Of the manner in which these duties have been fulfilled, no one can be better qualified to judge than the Secretary of the Treasury; no one would more promptly feel the inconvenience of the smallest failure, as they are all intimately connected with the fiscal arrangements confided to his care. His testimony,

« AnteriorContinuar »