places where offices were then in operation-New-York, Boston, and Baltimore." They then add, that the tctal amount of these loans, at Philadelphia and Baltimore, was $338,250; that at New-York and Boston they were "to a very trifling amount, if any;" and that, in other parts of the Union, the coin part of the instalment was paid in coin. This view of the committee would prove, that all the coin part of the second instalment had been paid in coin, excepting about $338,250. We have, however, the clearest proof of the real state of the fact in table V, among the docu

ments.

It appears from that table, that, in February, 1817, there were in the vaults of the bank in Philadelphia, Boston, New-York, and Baltimore, in specie, exactly what the committee state

$1,724,109 00

But there were at the same time due from the commissioners for receiving subscriptions, $8,559,764 95, the coin part of which must have been received in coin, and would be rather more than

Making together

2,000,000 00

$3,724,109 00

4,200,000 00

The total amount in coin required for the second and third instalment, was

So that the total deficiency arising from discounts at Philadelphia, Boston, New-York, and Baltimore, did not exceed

Of which there were in Philadelphia and Baltimore $338,250.

$475,891 00

It thus appears that the amount is much less than seems to have been supposed; that it could not have occasioned the necessity of importation "to supply the deficiency the evasion had occasioned;" that it could not have injured the punctual stockholders, nor materially affected the operations of the bank. On the contrary, it may, I think, be assumed as probable, that the mere knowledge of the fact, that this

accommodation might be obtained, kept down the price of specie, and really benefited the stockholders, as well as contributed to bring about the resumption of specie pay

ments.

But, small as it is, there is a much stronger ground of justification. I allude not now to the circumstance, that an inquiry was instituted by Congress at the time of these transactions, and they not only escaped censure, but appeared to be approved. That would, and ought to be, an answer here, for Congress might then, by interposing, have arrested the proceeding. But the necessity, which then justified it in the sight of Congress, still affords it a justification. The bank was bound to go into operation on or before the first Monday in April, 1817. It was the wish of the government, founded upon the exigencies of the public, that it should commence much sooner; and, yielding to that wish, it did commence, before the second instalment was payable. What were its operations? Receiving deposites, discounting, issuing paper-each of which, to a certain extent, disabled it to enforce the precise literal terms of subscription. They could not refuse to discount for a stockholder, merely because he was a stockholder; they could not refuse to receive their own notes, or checks upon the bank, as equivalent to coin. That would have been absurd, as they were bound to pay coin for them, and would, besides, have been a substantive violation of charter. They might have refused the notes of state banks. Yes, they might, but what would have been the consequence? They must have violated the compact that had been entered into, and thrown every thing into confusion. I am discussing the matter as if it were established that they did receive the notes of state banks. It does not appear whether they did or not. And, after all, what harm has been done? Is the bank in a worse condition, or the public injured? It cannot be pretended.

The third item of complaint is too small, in itself, to merit much attention. It appears, (Documents, page 114)

that dividends to the amount of $1460, were paid to four stockholders, who had been in default when the dividends were declared. There is an unintentional ambiguity in the mode of stating the charge, in the report, which might induce a belief that the instalment had not been paid at the time of paying the dividend. From the documents it will be seen, that the instalment was paid, and that interest was charged upon it from the time when it became payable. The utmost loss that could have been incurred, would have been the difference between four per cent. and three per cent. for six months; equal to three hundred and sixty-five dollars. It was not, perhaps, so much; for the interest was probably charged up to the time of paying the dividend, which was more than six months. Whether these payments were made by mistake, or whether there were any peculiar circumstances to justify them, does not seem to have been inquired into, and cannot be ascertained. But every one must be satisfied, that, whether the payment was intentional, or whether it was by mistake-whether it was right, or whether it was wrong-the consequences cannot extend beyond those who were concerned in it. The money might perhaps be recovered back, or the officer be charged with it as a wrongful payment. It can never forfeit the charter.

The only remaining article is that which regards the elections-particularly the first. This charge is, in substance, neither more nor less than that votes were received which the committee believe to have been illegal, and that the judges of the election, the directors and officers of the bank, "perfectly well knew the facts," which, in the opinion of the committee, made them illegal. As there were no directors till after the first election, I do not see how they can be implicated in the charge, so far, at least, as relates to that election. But waiving that, and waiving, too, the inquiry whether the judges had any right to refuse the votes, (a very doubtful matter, to say the least of it) let us examine the complaint a little more closely, with a view, not to its foundation in fact, but to its legal results. I have

never understood, nor do I believe, that any number of illegal votes will make an election void. There are circumstances that will undoubtedly avoid an election. If an armed force, of soldiers, or others, were to surround the polls, and by violence, or the menace of violence, prevent the electors from voting, or otherwise interfere with the free exercise of their franchise, the election ought to be held void. But the mere circumstance of illegal votes being received, is of no importance, unless the election is contested. And what is then the rule? The chairman of the committee of elections will answer that question. Where the election is by ballot, the illegal votes are all deducted from the majority. Suppose there is still a majority, is the election void? No: The highest on the return is the person elected. Suppose there was no opposing candidate, is the election questionable? I believe we have never heard of such a thing. Again, sir-Suppose the election not to be contested; the returned member takes his seat, and holds it till his term of service has expired. Is his right afterwards questionable, or the validity of the acts he has done? I have never so understood it. These are the ordinary rules applicable to such cases. How do they apply here? Illegal votes, it is said, were received. Was there any opposition, or were all the votes, legal and illegal, given for the same ticket? Was the election contested? Has not the time for contesting it gone by? Supposing it still open to contest, can any one inform us how many legal and how many illegal votes were given; or what would be the state of the poll if the illegal votes were deducted from the majority? These are matters necessary to be ascertained in the first instance, and until they are ascertained, at all events the election is good, and the acts done under it valid. Even where an election is contested, the returned candidate takes his seat, and holds it, with all its rights, voting and acting, with others, until the contest is decided. But, again-Was it ever heard that the mere fact of receiving illegal votes at the election of corporation officers, was a forfeiture of the charter? Every cor

poration in the United States might tremble if that were the law. No; you may invalidate the election before the proper tribunal-you may set it aside. The judiciary may inquire into it-may expel those who have been introduced by illegal means may introduce those who have been by illegal means kept out. These are the appropriate and allsufficient remedies, which we have frequently seen employed, and employed with effect. They apply directly to the evil where it is found; correct that evil, but leave the innocent corporation, and the innocent corporators, in the enjoyment of their rights, which these remedies are intended to preserve, and not to destroy.

I had intended to have noticed the propositions brought forward by the chairman of the committee. It would be unpardonable to consume more of the time of the house. A single remark upon them, and I have done. Among those propositions there are several that would be highly advantageous to the bank. If they were offered to its free acceptance, perhaps they would be accepted. But, under the threat of a scire facias, they ought not to receive a moment's consideration.

( A. )

Statement of Public Deposites, from January, 1817, to