ceeding July, which amounted to about $6,500,000. The President of the Bank came immediately to Washington, and upon representing that the Bank was desirous of accommodating the importing merchants at.New York, (which it failed to do,) and undertaking to pay the interest itself, procured the consent of the Secretary, after consultation with the President, to postpone the payment until the succeeding first of October. Conscious that at the end of that quarter, the Bank would not be able to pay over the deposits, and that further indulgence was not to be expected of the Government, an agent was despatched to England, secretly to negotiate with the holders of the public debt in Europe, and induce them by the offer of an equal or higher interest than that paid by the Government, to hold back their claims for one year, during which the Bank expected thus to retain the use of $5,000,000 of public money, which the Government should set apart for the payment of that debt. The agent made an arrangement, on terms, in part, which were in direct violation of the charter of the Bank, and when some incidents connected with this secret negotiation accidentally came to the knowledge of the public and the Government, then, and not before, so much of it as was palpably in violation of the charter was disavowed. A modification of the rest was attempted with the view of getting the certificates without payment of the money, and thus absolving the Government from its liability to the holders. In this scheme, the Bank was partially successful, but to this day the certificates of a portion of these stocks have not been paid, and the Bank retains the use of the money."

Two cases of procrastination of payment are here distinctly alleged against the Bank. The facts are, with regard to the

First, that in March, 1832, the Secretary of the Treasury informed the President of the Bank of the intention of the Government to pay, on the succeeding first of July, to each stockholder, one-half of his three per cent, stock, remarking "if any objection occurs to you either as to the amount or mode of payment, I will thank you to suggest it." The President replied, that so far as the Bank was concerned, no objection occurred to him; it being sufficient that the Government had the necessary funds in the Bank. He suggested, however, that in the existing state of the commercial community, with a very large amount of revenue (nine millions) to be paid before the first of July, the debtors of the

Government would require all the forbearance and aid that could be given them; that the proposed payment of several millions to European stockholders, tending to diminish the usual facilities, might endanger the punctual payment of the revenue; and that, therefore, it might be advisable to postpone such payment until the next quarter.

This suggestion was supported by letters from Mr. McDuffie, chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, and Mr. Cambreleng, chairman of the Committee of Commerce. The Government wished the postponement; and the only difficulty, arising from a desire to save the quarter's interest,. the President of the Bank removed, by an agreement to pay the interest, as the money would remain with the Bank,-a provident and laudable bargain, certainly, for the institution, since it paid three, and would receive six per cent. on the amount. The committee of investigation, before whom the whole subject was, in 1832, by their majority, reported, "that they were fully of the opinion that the Bank neither sought for, nor requested a postponement of the payment by the Government;" being, however, hostile to the Bank, it added, "yet if such postponement had not been made, the Bank would not, on the first of July, have possessed the ability to meet the demand, without causing a scene of great distress in the commercial community." The ability of the Bank is no longer to be doubted, and its efforts to save the commercial community from great distress, merit the grateful acknowledgements of the country. And yet this transaction is represented by a President of the United States as a cause for discrediting the fiscal agent of the nation, at home and abroad. With regard to the second postponement, it appears, that in the year 1832 the country was heavily indebted to Europe for large importations of 1831; it was desirable that time should be given to pay the debt, from the annual earnings, and that no addition should be made to the foreign demand. But there were more than twenty-five millions of the public debt payable in that year, of which more than fifteen were to be paid in nine months, and between eight and nine of it, to foreigners. The Bank, from its exhibits, was prepared for the first payment on the 1st of October, 1832.

"In this state, the Bank, had it considered only its own interest, would have been perfectly passive, since it was perfectly at ease. But it had other and higher interests to consult. From the communication with the Treasury in July, it was probable that the funds of the Government might be

insufficient to pay the debt_advertised to be paid-and that even if these funds were adequate, the operation would exhaust all the means of the Government, and require that the community should repay the whole amount of the public funds distributed among them. It was further manifest, that the ability of the Government to meet its engagements, depended entirely on the punctual payment of the revenue in the commercial cities, from July to January, which was estimated at about twelve millions of dollars.

"That resource was threatened with the greatest danger by the appearance of the cholera, which had already begun its ravages in New York and Philadelphia, with every indication of pervading the whole country. Had it continued, as it began, and all the appearances in July warranted the belief of its continuance, there can be no doubt it would have prostrated all commercial credit, and seriously endangered the public revenue, as in New York and Philadelphia alone, the demand on account of the foreign three per cents was about five millions."

The Bank, therefore, made an arrangement with the foreign owners of this stock to the amount of about four millions, to leave their money in the country for another year, assuming to pay the interest instead of the Government.

All these things were fully explained by the Committee of Ways and Means, to whom that part of the President's message was referred, and the Committee accordingly reported as follows:

66

The arrangement made by the Bank for a temporary postponement, with the consent of the holders, of the payment of five millions of the three per cent. debt, being now substantially closed by the surrender to the Government of the certificates of stock, except for a small amount, and the whole debt itself, as far as respects the Government, paid, at an earlier period than it is probable it would otherwise have been, this question seems no longer to present any important or practical object of inquiry, or to call for, or admit, any action of Congress upon it.'

This ought to have been satisfactory, yet was the subject revived, with the addition of two distinct errors in point of fact. The first was, that the Bank 'was conscious that at the end of the quarter it would not be able to pay over the deposits'— whereas the state of the Bank, proved its entire ability to make this payment, and that its interposition was exclusively dictated by the desire to avert an additional trouble at a sea

son of pestilence. The second is, that the part of the arrangement made with the agent of the Bank was not disavowed until some incidents connected with this secret negotiation accidentally came to the knowledge of the public and the Government.' The fact is, that as soon as that part of the arrangement, which seemed to conflict with the charter, was received, the determination was made to decline executing it, before any publication, of any sort, was seen or known, in regard to it."

432. IV. The Secretary further alleges that the interest of the Bank is its ruling principle, and that the just claims of the public, are disregarded, when in collision with the interests of the corporation. The case of the French bill is the specification under this charge. We may remark, here, that so aptly, for the benefit of the nation is this Bank constituted, that it is scarce possible, for any of its acts to enure to the injury of the Government, and that the interest of the Bank is the interest of the State. And, such, on examination, will prove to be the case in relation to the claim for damages upon the protest of the bill drawn upon the French nation, by the Secretary of the Treasury.

The following is the President's statement.

66

The Bank became the purchaser of a Bill drawn by our Government on that of France for about 900,000 dollars, being the first instalment of the French indemnity. The purchase money was left in the use of the Bank, being simply added to the Treasury deposits. The Bank sold the Bill in England, and the holder sent it to France for collection; and arrangements not having been made by the French Government for its payment, it was taken up by the agents of the Bank in Paris, with the funds of the Bank in their hands. Under these circumstances, it has, through its organs, openly assailed the credit of the Government, and has actually made and persists in a demand of fifteen per cent., or $158,842 77, as damages, when no damage, or none beyond some trifling expense, has in fact been sustained, and when the Bank had in its own possession on deposit, several millions of the public money which it was then using for its own profit."

This is an unfair and partial view of the case: of which the following is the true exposition. In this transaction, the Bank was not the fiscal agent of the Government. It offered to become such, to collect the bill without charge, and to place the amount to the credit of the Government on the 2d of March, 1834, at the current rate of exchange of the best

bills, on that day, in Philadelphia, but this offer was refused; and the Government, after considering proposals from other quarters, decided to sell the bill to the Bank-the Bank paying for it nearly one and a half per cent. more than for a large amount of other bills, then purchased.

The purchase money was not left in the use of the Bank, being simply added to the Treasury deposits. But had such been the fact, no change would have been made in the nature of the question. The payment was complete the funds were to the credit of the Government, subject to its order, and as effectually out of the control of the Bank as if they had been withdrawn in specie. Not only was this the case; but the intention of withdrawal was immediately announced. Credit was given to the Treasurer on the 11th of February, 1833; and on the 6th of March, the Secretary offered to lend the money. Yet this was not all. The identical proceeds of the bill were actually used by the Government in payment of its ordinary expenses, by the 20th of May.

The Bank paid the amount of the bill in the United States in the most inconvenient form. When it was protested in Paris, the agent of the Bank paid it on account of the Bank; so that the Bank actually paid for the bill twice;-having, of course, credit for the proceeds of the sale of the bill in London; but its actual disbursements on account of the bill were upwards of $1,800,000,-and when, on the 22d of March, the protested bill came back, the whole amount to the credit of the Treasury, throughout the whole United States, with the exception of the Danish indemnity money, was not two thousand dollars more than the Bank had advanced on account of the bill. Had it been otherwise, the use of the deposits by the Bank would be no ground for the release of damages; since a full and covenant consideration was paid for that, by the stipulated services of the Bank.

Upon return of the bill the Bank called upon the Government, according to invariable usage, for principal and damages. The claim is a legal one, and there is not a disinterested merchant or lawyer of the land who does not pronounce it a just one. The demand was not only in the ordinary course of business, but was a duty to the Government, in order to enable it to prosecute with more effect, the claim which the nation, by its authorized agent, had then made upon the French Government, for the very damages due on protest for non-payment. If our Government had a right to draw the bill it has an unquestioned right to damages