Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

due, and I presume been paid? Will you restore to them their stock and coin? Will you, finally, indemnify the subscribers, and the purchasers, who have bought upon the assurance of the charter, for the losses. they will sustain? A gentleman from Virginia, a member of the committee, (Mr. Tyler,) seems to have intended to anticipate some of these inquiries, by saying, that the bank, after paying all its debts, could now return to every stockholder "dollar for dollar." A most honourable concession, undoubtedly, as it respects the management of the bank, and one that goes far to answer every complaint against it. For, if the public service has been punctually performed, and the bank (after dividing eighteen per cent. in two years and an half) could now wind up its concerns, and pay to every stockholder "dollar for dollar," no man who has the slightest acquaintance with the matter can deny, that it must have been well managed. But how long would it require to gather together the funds that have been scattered over the United States, so as to be able to restore them to the stockholders? Seven years have elapsed since the charter of the late bank expired; its concerns were much less extensive in amount, as well as in the space through which they were spread; it expired, too, under circumstances highly propitious for drawing in its resources; and the management of its affairs had been uncommonly able and faithful. Nevertheless, I believe they are not yet closed. How long, then, I repeat, would it be, before this "dollar for dollar" would be restored to the stockholders? It is matter of conjecture -but still with so much of certainty belonging to it, that no prudent man would give a stockholder any thing like "dollar for dollar" for his share of the proceeds. Sir, I cannot reflect upon the mighty wreck, without astonishment at the coolness with which even the possibility of it seems to be contemplated-The organization destroyed, the fragments scattered over the whole United States, no longer obedient to any power but the power of time and chance,

which, like the winds and the waves, may drive them to the shore, or may drive them where they can never be reached or collected.

The first topic of complaint is the too great liberality towards the state banks. As a charge of error, it may not be wholly without foundation. But, it answers, fully and authoritatively, and I hope the sequel will show, satisfactorily, one of the heaviest charges commonly made throughout the country against the bank-the charge, I mean, of having acted with oppressive rigour towards the state institutions. I am glad the committee have cleared away this ground of accusation. At most, however, it proves only a mistake; a mistake on the right side, and a mistake that was almost inevitable. To bring about the payment of specie, within any reasonable period, and at the same time to avoid a severe pressure upon the state banks, and through them upon the community, it was indispensably necessary to treat those banks with the most indulgent liberality, wherever they manifested a sincere intention to return to the payment of specie. This was the inducement to the compact of the 31st January, 1817. Without such indulgence, the paper of the United States Bank, and that of the state banks, could not have circulated together. A good and a bad currency, or, if you please, a good and a better currency can never associate in circulation. They must associate upon terms of equality, or approaching to equality, or they cannot associate at all. The continental money banished gold and silver. When assignats were used in France, specie disappeared. When, by excessive issues, or from whatever other cause, the state bank paper was depreciated, coin was no longer used. Where paper is now, from the same cause, depreciated, (as in some parts of the western country,) gold and silver or notes of the Bank of the United States, equivalent to gold and silver, are not to be found. They will not be found there, until either the better currency shall obtain the entire ascendancy, by ban

ishing the state bank paper from circulation, or, by a removal of the causes that have occasioned depreciation, the latter shall be restored to an equality in value with the former, which is on every account most to be desired.

The next subject of complaint and censure is the resolution of the 28th November, 1816, for paying the dividends of foreign stockholders in London, at the par of exchange. (Report, page S--9.) I shall assume, for the purpose of treating this subject, a single maxim of justice, which every man will assent to as the only fair and reasonable rule of human judgment. It is, that, where an act is right in itself, the motives or reasons are not to be inquired into as a ground of crimination. They may strip the act of its claim to merit, but they can never expose it to criminal imputation. Charity, indeed, common charity, between man and man, that which the infirmity of our nature demands to be continually exercised towards each other, adopts and applies a much more comprehensive and benevolent rulethat even where the act is wrong, yet it may be exempt from censure, if the motives were just and good. Sir, without deciding whether that resolution was right or wrong in itself, and admitting that it was one of those "general and abstract subjects to which the resolution of the house did not direct their attention," the report condemns it as a measure adopted with a view to speculation, that is, upon what they suppose to have been bad motives. It is true, they take, also, another ground, which I will examine presently, namely, the possible loss to the American stockholders and government. But they do not deny, and I think they most clearly admit, that the directors had a right to make the arrangement.

If it had been the policy of Congress to prevent foreigners from becoming stockholders in the bank, they would have expressed it by a prohibition in the charter. The matter was not overlooked; it was considered and discussed in this house, when the law was passed. If it was the

policy of Congress to permit foreigners to become proprietors of the stock-and certainly the refusal to prohibit amounted to an invitation-would the directors have been justified in adopting measures to thwart and counteract that policy? It was their duty to execute the law in its spirit, to effectuate its intentions, to subserve, and not to defeat the policy of the government. If, substituting their own conceptions of what was politic, for the rule given to them by the law, they had pursued a different system, they would have made themselves justly obnoxious to censure and reproach. Now, sir, the resolution in question had two objects-1. The payment, in London, of the dividends to foreign stockholders: 2. The payment at the par of exchange. The first of these the report does not much object to. It was done by the late Bank of the United States, as to its own dividends. That bank also remitted to foreigners their interest upon the public debt of the United States, I believe, free of charge. This is powerful evidence that it was advantageous to the institution, for now that the whole history of the late bank is before us, its life and its death, I suppose no one will deny that it was very fairly and skilfully managed. We have the example too, of the government, in the instances of the French and Dutch loans. Why was the interest stipulated to be paid abroad? Because it was favourable to the credit of the country; it enabled the government to obtain loans which it could not otherwise have had, or to obtain them upon better terms. The mere convenience to the stockholder, the freedom from risk and from the charges of receipt and remittance, when he has his interest sent to him, instead of being obliged to send after it, is a consideration of great moment-the same consideration which induces an individual to invest his money near to where he lives, though he might make a greater profit by investing it further off. Such an operation, however, was inconvenient to the government; because it was not within the ordinary range of fiscal ma

nagement; and, therefore, the government proposed to exchange the foreign debt for a debt bearing interest, payable in the United States. As an inducement, they offered to increase the annual interest one half of one per cent. France accepted the offer; the Dutch refused it, estimating the convenience of receiving their interest at home at more than the annual one half of one per cent. Such an operation, though inconvenient and burdensome to the government, is precisely adapted to the transactions of a bank, authorized by its charter to deal in exchange, and having established arrangements and credits for that purpose. It can remit and pay abroad with as much facility as it can pay at home. To my mind, therefore, it seems, that thể measure, so far as regards the payment abroad, was not only justified by experience, by example, and by sound calculation, but, that the neglect of it would have betrayed ignorance, and want of foresight. I might instance, also, the Louisiana debt, which was taken by a single individual, or a single house, and sold at a profit by stipulating to pay the interest abroad. The second part of the resolution regards the rate at which the bank would engage to remit, and at which the stockholders would stipulate to receive the remittance of their dividends. For, we must recollect that it was a mutual contract, binding upon both parties. The bank would pay abroad upon no other terms but those which were prescribed. It cannot be denied that the directors had a right to arrange the terms. Dealing in exchange is one of their legitimate powers, expressly given by the charter, and as there is nothing which restricts them to successive, unconnected instances, there can be no valid objection to such an exercise of the authority as is now the subject of discussion. There can be no doubt, therefore, of their right to "compel the American stockholders to contribute to the possible loss" (Report, page 8) upon exchange operations; and there can be none of its expediency and propriety, provided there was a well grounded probability of profit in

« AnteriorContinuar »