Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

H. OF R.]

Removal of the Deposites.

[DEC. 30, 1833.

president of the bank by the committee of investigation had said they were not permitted even to know what was in 1832, was, "Are the discounts authorized by that the correspondence carried on by the president of the committee laid before the directors for their approval or bank. If this was all denied, he desired a committee of rejection?" investigation; and for a further object, that they might And the answer to this, from Mr. Biddle, on his oath, ascertain its truth, and also to ascertain the truth of other was, "Not necessarily, nor generally, except for inform- matters, which they could not otherwise know, except by ation; they are acted upon definitively by the committee." rumor; that they might ascertain whether large sums had Thus, the charter of the bank, which requires seven not been paid to persons who were not printers, but directors to be present, for the transaction of business, treasurers of political committees, for the circulation of has been palpably violated; and the most important busi-political essays.

ness, the discounting of large notes and bills of exchange, The bank had not only done all this, but more. It had is transacted by this committee, consisting of less than set itself up to thwart the financial measures of the Govseven; and no report is required to be made to the board ernment; it had interfered with the Government in the except for information. By the fourth fundamental arti- payment of the public debt. But the gentleman from cle of the bank charter it is provided "that not less than South Carolina asks, "why bring up the old affair of the seven directors shall constitute a board for the transac- three per cents?" And he repeats, in substance, the tion of business;" yet we see that the most important statements contained in the bank manifesto. He takes it business of the bank is intrusted to a secret committee of for granted that all which was there stated must be true. less than seven, appointed by the president, and, as we Mr. P. observed, that he had last year an opportunity of are informed by the president himself, in his examination examining into this question, as a member of a committee before the committee appointed by Congress in 1832, this of this House; he did not now intend to repeat to the committee are "authorized to discount any paper, the House all the developments in relation to it which that security of which they might approve;" their powers are examination had brought to light, but would briefly state not confined to the discounting of bills of exchange, but to the prominent points of the evidence. In March, 1832, notes also. The Government directors, by their exclusion the Government, having the funds on deposite in the bank, from these committees, are deprived of all knowledge of, determined, and gave notice accordingly, that on the 1st or any participation in, the transaction of the most import- of July and October following they would pay off a large ant business of the bank. Could the public deposites be portion of the three per cent. stocks. The bank applied considered safe and secure in such hands? to the Government to postpone the payment from July to Mr. P. said that he considered this delegation of power October. The fact of this application to the Government to these secret committees as a clear violation of the for postponement was afterwards denied by the president charter; but, said the gentleman from South Carolina, if of the bank, in his examination before the investigating this were so, why did not the President order a scire committee of this House. In that examination, the presifacias, to revoke the charter? The answer was, that the dent states, "I have made no application to the Governbank charter would probably expire before a legal deci- ment, nor have I requested any suspension of any paysion could be had; but even if a scire facias had been or- ment of any portion of the public debt;" and he states dered, would it not have been the duty of the head of the further, that on the part of the bank I sought nothing, I Treasury to have removed the deposites under the circum- requested nothing." The bank manifesto, page 21, takes stances which had come to light? But the manner in the same ground, and, by tearing from its context an isowhich the transactions of this secret committee were lated part of the report of the same committee, this manimystified and concealed from the Government directors festo makes the committee say "they are fully of opinion of the board was well illustrated by the celebrated "fair that the bank neither sought for nor requested a postbusiness transactions" which the editors of the New York ponement of a payment by the Government," omitting Courier and Enquirer had with the bank. He would not altogether the closing part of the sentence, "as stated advert further to it, but to show that even their transac- in the declaration of the president;" omitting also the tions were not regularly entered on their books; for of declaration of the committee, that "but for the postpone the large sum given to the editor of that paper on the ment, the bank would not have possessed the ability to 26th of March, 1831, there was no entry made on the meet the demand for the money on deposite for the paybooks of the bank until the 2d of January following.ment of the stock."

66

Need he refer to the case in which the president had him- He ought, perhaps, here to call on the honorable memself, without even the authority of his exchange commit- ber from Georgia [Mr.CLAYTON] to step forward in vinditee, discounted largely for a gentleman who held at the cation of his own report, against this attempt of the bank time a public station, and who, as the president states, to misrepresent it. No man knew better than he did the had gone to the bank in haste? What were we to think of injustice of such an attempt. He was well acquainted an institution so conducted? And with the knowledge of with the whole transaction, and had ability to expose this all this, could it be said that the public funds were safe? base attempt of the bank to palm upon the country a -safe, in an institution where all its funds were at the will falsehood, and throw a responsibility created by themof one man, to be expended as corruptly as he pleased, selves upon the Government. The bank charged that without giving any reason for the expenditure or voucher the Government, after having advertised a payment of for it? who might suborn, muzzle, or corrupt the press, the three per cent. stocks in July, 1832, had, notwithby the corrupt use of the public money? Again, look to standing their strong desire to pay it, sought to postpone the transactions of this exchange committee with Gales it until the October following; while, in fact, this very and Seaton, in which the by-laws of the bank were violat-postponement was sought by the bank itself. This veritaed, and large accommodations granted on unusual and un-ble bank manifesto, in speaking of the President of the certain security. Was not the bank, to all intents and United States, in reference to this postponement, further purposes, the bona fide owner of the National Intelli-states: "The impression here intended to be conveyed is, gencer; and, in point of fact, was it not the real, if not that the president of the bank, in order to relieve the inustensible and nominal printer to that House?* We had stitution from a demand which it could not sustain, asked seen that the Government directors of the bank, appoint-an indulgence, which was conceded by the Government; ed to watch over the public interests, had been excluded now the truth is, that the Government wished to make from all its committees; nay, they had said more; they this postponement, but could not do it without the aid of the bank." *See note at the end of the speech.

Now, sir, (said Mr. P.) I affirm, and will prove, not

DEC. 30, 1833.]

Removal of the Deposites.

[H. or R.

withstanding the statement of the president of the bank had no funds? But even so, the bank would make the that the bank "neither sought for nor requested" a Government appear to be guilty of the miserable folly of postponement, that the bank did, in fact, through its first advertising that they were ready to pay off this porpresident, seek that very postponement; and I will prove tion of the debt, and yet that they were not prepared for this by the evidence of Mr. Bevan and Mr. Eyre, direct-its payment.

ors of the bank, and members of the exchange commit- It was useful (Mr. P. said) to scrutinize closely these tee, and by the evidence of A. Dickens, esq., chief clerk false statements, for they conclusively showed what genin the Treasury Department, taken before the Committee eral credit should be paid to all the other statements of of Ways and Means, at the last session of Congress. On this bank manifesto, which seemed to be regarded as true that examination, the following interrogatory was pro- by the gentleman from South Carolina. The truth was, pounded to Mr. Bevan, to wit: On the 24th of March, that such had been the excessive extension of the busi1832, the acting Secretary of the Treasury notified the ness of the bank, to the enormous amount of twentypresident of the bank of the intended payment by the eight millions of dollars, (within a period of sixteen Government, on the 1st of July following, of one-half of months,) that it found it inconvenient, if not impossible, to the three per cents. Did not Mr. Biddle, immediately contract its business in time to meet the payment deupon receiving this information, come to Washington, and manded by the Government, and therefore it sought the solicit the Government to postpone this intended payment postponement. Having sought and obtained the postfrom the 1st of July to the 1st of October?" Mr. Bevan ponement upon false pretences, it now, unblushingly, and answers: "Mr. Biddle came to Washington some time in in the face of the evidence of its own directors, denies the latter end of March, and an arrangement was made the fact, and charges the President with having commuwith the Government to postpone the payment to the 1st nicated to his cabinet and the nation a statement which of October, the bank agreeing to allow the Government was not true. What is to be thought of an institution the interest. I have no doubt this arrangement was made capable of thus acting? Can it be a proper depository of by the Government, at the solicitation of the bank." Mr. the public funds? Eyre, on his examination, was asked, "When Mr. Biddle In regard to the second postponement, to the amount left Philadelphia for Washington, did you not know that of five millions of the three per cents negotiated by a the object of this visit was to ask of the Government a secret agent abroad, the bank had also attempted to throw postponement of the intended payment, from July to the responsibility of the measure upon the Secretary of October?" He answers, "I knew that was the object of the Treasury; but so conclusive and irresistible was the the visit." Mr. Dickens, in his examination, in answer to testimony on this point before the Committee of Ways an interrogatory of similar import, states, "I wrote the and Means of the last session, that it could not be resisted letter mentioned in the interrogatory to Mr. Biddle, as even by the bank majority of that committee. The matherein described. He represented verbally, and upon jority of that committee, in their report, expressly state: grounds similar to those stated in his letter of the 29th of "It is due, however, to the Government to express the March, that it would be desirable to postpone the pay- opinion, that, in the arrangement made by the agent in ment of the three per cents for another quarter, and I England, for the purchase of the three per cent. stocks, think it was upon my suggestion that he put his sugges- and the detention of the certificates, (which measures tion in the form of a letter. His letter of the 29th of were subsequently disclaimed by the bank,)the institution March was accordingly written, which, though dated at exceeded its legitimate authority, and had no warrant in the bank, was written by Mr. Biddle at the Treasury. the correspondence of the Secretary of the Treasury." During the interview with Mr. Biddle, Mr. McLane, the And yet this bank manifesto unblushingly and untruly Secretary, came to the Department: he had been confin- affirms that the report of the Committee of Ways and ed to his house by indisposition, and, as well as I recollect, Means is "in decided contradiction to the assertions of he came out for the purpose of seeing Mr. Biddle. The the President" in relation to this very matter. postponement was again urged by Mr. Biddle, and upon He could not go into detail, but would state the promigrounds similar to those presented in his letter. Mr. nent facts in this latter transaction. The Government had McLane however, did not, at that time, give any positive given notice to the holders that the three per cents would answer. I believe it was one or two days before the mat- be paid off at the Bank of the United States, on the 1st ter was finally settled; and the consent of Mr. McLane of October, 1832, and in January, 1833. The bank, with was communicated to Mr. Biddle, verbally, on condition the public moneys on deposite, which it held without the that the bank should pay the quarter's interest which payment of interest, and which it was bound to pay out would accrue by the postponement. The application for on the demand of the Government, by order of this secret postponement was on the part of the bank, and was exchange committee, without the knowledge of the Secgranted by the Government, not because of any appre-retary, or any member of the Government, without the hension of want of funds to meet the intended payment knowledge of the Government directors of the board, or on the 1st of July then next following." even of many of the stockholder directors of the board,

It was thus clear that the bank, and not the Govern-despatched General Cadwallader, in July, 1832, on a sement, had sought the postponement; and yet this bank cret mission to England, with power to do--what? With manifesto unblushingly affirms what is so clearly disprov-power to negotiate a postponement with the foreign holded by the testimony I have just referred to, and asserts ers of the three per cent. stocks, to the amount of five that the report of the committee in 1832, at the head of millions, for a whole year beyond the period at which the which was the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. CLAYTON,] Government had given notice the reimbursement would "was in decided contradiction to the assertions of the take place. That this mission, and the objects of it, were President" of the United States, in the statement made secret, and intended to be kept so, is proved by the testiby him to his cabinet on the 18th of September. If Mr. mony, on oath, of the Government directors of the bank, P. had not sufficiently exposed the misrepresentation and of a portion of the stockholder directors, and by the testifalse statements imputed by the manifesto to the commit-mony of General Cadwallader, the agent himself, taken tee of 1832, whereby they are made to say directly the before the Committee of Ways and Means at the last reverse of what they do say, he trusted the gentleman session of Congress. This secret agent proceeded to from Georgia, who made that report, would vindicate the England, and made a contract on behalf of the bank, work of his own hands, and supply the defect. And, through Messrs. Baring, Brothers, and Co., whereby they after all this, will it be pretended that the postponement were authorized to make an arrangement with the holders was sought by the Government, because the Government to postpone the presentation of their certificates for pay

H. or R.]

Removal of the Deposit es.

[DEC. 30, 1833.

ment for a whole year, and to leave in their hands the one-fifth of the bank was owned by the Government, oneGovernment certificates, as collateral security. The Ba- fifth of that amount was paid by the Government. For rings were also authorized, if it could not be postponed, what were these expenses incurred? We will see for to purchase in the debt for the bank, in direct violation what they were, in part, incurred. In a letter from Genof that provision of the charter which prohibits the bank eral Cadwallader to the president of the bank, dated Lonfrom purchasing or dealing in the Government securities. don, 14th September, 1832, he says: "The purposes of Of all this the Government remained uninformed, and it my mission being now closed, as you will receive the rewas by the merest accident that it became possessed of sults of the doings in Holland through Messrs. Barings, it is the information. It became at last possessed of it, through my intention to cross from Brighton to Dieppe on the the public newspapers, in the manner he would state. 18th instant, and, after frolicking in Paris for a brief space, The Barings, who were the agents of the bank in this we shall retura in the Havre packet which sails on the matter, issued a circular, addressed to the foreign holders, 10th of October." in which they state that they have the authority of the Here was an instance of a heavy expense for a mission, Bank of the United States to make the arrangement. A paid to thwart the plans of Government, one-fifth of which copy of this circular, by accident, made its way to this went out of the pockets of the people. country, and was published in the New York papers on But under what article of expenditure, under what acthe 12th of October; and through this channel the Gov-count, was this sum for frolicking in Paris to be found ernment was first informed of this secret mission of the classed on the books of the bank? It was not found along bank's agent, and of the arrangement made by him, with with the other items of defence." It might be, that, foreigners, to defeat the cherished policy of our own after hunting through all the bank accounts, some foolish, Government, in the payment of its debt. It appears fur- prying Government director found it classed-where? ther, from the testimony of General Cadwallader himself, Why, sir, under the head of foreign exchanges. Yes, sir, that the bank was informed of the arrangement on the the expenses of a secret mission, intended to defeat the 1st of October, 1832, and, of course, must have known Government in the speedy payment of its public debt, that that portion of the contract which authorized the smothered up in the bank, and charged to the account of purchase of the stocks for the bank was in direct violation foreign exchange! Can it be possible that such an insti of the bank charter. Yet this part of the contract was tution is any longer fit to be trusted as the fiscal agent not disavowed by the bank until after the appearance of of the Government?

the circular of the Barings in the New York papers, and This brought him to refer to that part of the bank manwhen it became evident it could be no longer concealed ifesto which related to the draft drawn on the French from the Government. Then, indeed, on the 15th of Government. The Treasury, according to this bank manOctober, that part of the contract is disavowed. ifesto, was under a deep obligation to the bank: the bank Here, then, was a palpable interference of this secret had, in fact, paid the amount of the draft twice over, and committee of the bank, without the knowledge or con- made it in some way appear that the Government had not, currence of the board of directors, to prevent the Gov- in fact, the money in the bank to meet it when it was reernment from the payment of its debt. When the whole turned. It was for the House to mark the accuracy of matter was discovered, the first apology of the bank was, this statement. The bill was returned to this country on the pretended apprehension that the Government might|the 26th March; notice of the protest was given on that not have sufficient funds, on the day, to make the pay-day. The bank manifesto asserts that on the 22d March ment; and an attempt is made to throw the responsibility there were not funds enough in the bank to take up this on the Secretary of the Treasury, although, as it appears, draft; that the public deposite was only $1,827,048; whilst he was never consulted about the measure, and knew the monthly statement of this very bank shows that, on nothing in relation to it. The fact was, there was money the 2d April, the public deposites amounted to $8,466,sufficient in bank on the day. That, then, would not do. 830 15, and, of this amount, there was then in the PhilThe next pretence was, that the bank wished to retain adelphia office, $2,433,207 43. On the 1st May, there the funds to extend facilities to the importing merchants was $8,324,432 57; and on the 3d June, $6,418,345 84; to pay their duty bonds; but it appeared, from the bank on the 9th February, 1833, when the draft was drawn, statements, that there was, in fact, a curtailment, and not there was $2,869,146 70 to the credit of the Treasury; an extension of accommodation, in the commercial cities, and on the 20th April, exclusive of the amount of the where the duties were chiefly payable. That, then, could draft on France, there was $2,479,577 07; the lowest not have been the true reason. The next pretence was, amount of deposite at any one time, from the date the the appearance of the cholera, and the fear that the trade draft was negotiated, being nearly three millions. In the of the country would be deranged by it; but when the June statement, and every statement since, is the followfirst postponement was asked, in March, the cholera had ing item: "Due by the United States, for damages on not made its appearance on the American continent, much protested bill of exchange on France, $158,842 77." less in the United States; and when it was determined Thus there were funds all this time belonging to the Gov to despatch General Cadwallader to Europe, it had not ernment, and standing credited in the books of the bank made its appearance in Philadelphia. Can an institution, itself, more than sufficient to cover this amount. which would thus act, be a faithful fiscal agent of the Gov- But he maintained that this bill negotiation ought not ernment? And he here re-affirmed that the conduct of to be deemed an ordinary money transaction, as between the bank, in this transaction alone, furnished sufficient man and man. No money at all had been paid over for reason why the public money's should be withdrawn from it by the bank to the Government; for, when the bank its keeping. Yet the gentleman from South Carolina received the draft from the Government, instead of adcomplains that this old matter, as he terms it, is again vancing the money, as they would have been obliged to brought up. There was one other precious item of infor- do if they had purchased from private individuals, the mation, connected with this subject, which he begged to money remained in the bank, being simply transferred state to the House. The secret agent, as appeared in the from the credit of the bank to the credit of the United testimony before the Committee of Ways and Means, an States, and went to increase the public deposite. The agent of the bank, and not of the Government, was paid Government, by treaty, were entitled to receive this mofor his services, not by the board of directors, but by ney from France, and gave their bill for it to the bank. order of the secret exchange committee, the sum of 5,000 The bill was protested in Paris, and the bank makes a dollars; and the expenses of himself and part of his fami- large demand against the Government for damages. When ly, amounting to an equal or greater sum, were paid. As the bill returned here, there was, in fact, but a very tri

DEC. 30, 1833.]

Removal of the Deposites.

{H. OF R.

Aling expense incurred. The bank, however, makes a presentation would not have been sufficient to authorize claim for damages. the payment. The Government says to the bank, We are ready and But it was objected, in the argument of the gentleman willing to pay you all the expenses you have been put to; from South Carolina, that to withdraw the public depos you have had our money to trade with for years with-ites from the Bank of the United States, and to place them out interest, and you have no right to set up this uncon- in the State banks, was a union of the purse and the scionable claim. Were the Government right to say sword. This was the old argument to which he adverted this? The whole country will say, yes; but what says the other day, brought up in the debate which occurred the gentleman from South Carolina to this? Why, that in the Congress of 1789, upon the organization of the exthe character of the Government, for refusing to pay these ecutive departments--an argument which had then been damages, has been stamped with dishonor. The bank successfully met by Mr. Madison, and other distinguished statement shows they did not wait for the sanction of Gov-patriots, who were members of the Congress at that periernment in the matter; for, be their claim right, or be it od. But it was said by the gentleman, that the President wrong, they forthwith paid themselves by charging it, had seized upon the public moneys; and we were asked and deducting it from the amount of deposites to the credit where was the public treasure? Now, it is well known of the Government; and, if the Government ever get it that the President has no more control over the public back, their only remedy is to sue for it. In his opinion money in deposite in State banks, than he had while they the bank could not sustain this claim, even at law; in con- were in deposite in the United States Bank. By the conscience, they certainly had no claim. He apprehended stitution, no money can be drawn from the treasury but that, by the lex mercatoria, interest, cost of protest, and in consequence of appropriations made by law. The re-exchanges on foreign protested bills, were all that President could not, therefore, if he would, any more use were allowed. Damages, as such, were not allowed by a dollar now, than he could before the deposites were the lex mercatoria; they were allowed by the lex loci, or removed. This is the mere phantom of an excited mind by virtue of a positive enactment of the place where the or of a disordered imagination. The gentleman imagines bill was drawn. Damages were greater in some places great danger from the executive influence over the State than in others. In Pennsylvania, they were twenty per banks in which the public moneys may be deposited; cent.; other places, other rates. In Maryland the charge and yet, did not the same power exist in the President of was fifteen per cent. The claim for damages on the pro- the United States, from the organization of the Govern test of the present bill, drawn at the seat of Government, ment up to the close of Mr. Monroe's administration; and and in the District of Columbia, was based on the law of were any such dangerous consequences ever felt as the Maryland. The only act of that State, giving damages gentleman seems now to imagine? During the existence in cases of protested bills, was one passed in 1785; and it of the old bank charter, the executive department of the was under this law, as the District formerly was part of Government directed, at will, the places of depos that State, that the bank made their claim. By the terms of that law, however, and by no law that he was aware of, was the sovereignty of Maryland made subject to its provisions; and, if so, the sovereignty in this District, to Since the present bank was chartered, the same power which a portion of the territory of Maryland had been was claimed and repeatedly exercised by Mr. Crawford, ceded, would not be subject to its provisions. He would as abundantly shown the other day from the documentary not then argue the legal question, but simply suggest the history of the times. Yet, the dangerous consequences doubt of the legality of the claim. It was his conscien- now apprehended were never found to flow from the extious conviction that it was an unjust demand, and one ercise of that power. But the gentleman has informed that could not be maintained at law or equity. Could us that every one knows that the president of a State the House forget the circumstances under which this bank bank, which is made a public depository, will be conmade this large demand? Here was a bank fattening for trolled by the Federal Executive; that every one knows years upon the profits derived from the public money, that the president of a bank controls and governs the which it has held without interest, claiming a large amount debtors to that bank; that the city debtors to the bank of damages where it has sustained none. It appears from control the country dealers who are indebted to them, the books of the Treasury, that the average public de- and the country dealers control their country debtors. posites lodged in the bank, for each month, during the The chain, he says, is a very short one, by which the whole period from 1818 to 1833, both inclusive, was whole country indebted, directly or indirectly, to a State $6,717,253 67. Yet the Bank of the United States, with bank which is a place of public deposite, will be controlled this large amount of public deposites, not only claims by the executive authority here. This is, indeed, a fancidamages upon this protested bill, but has actually paid ful picture; but did not the gentleman reflect that, acitself the amount out of the public money, and charged cording to his own argument, the same power which he it to the United States--thus throwing upon the Govern-deprecates in the State banks, in fact exists to a much ment the necessity of bringing suit, if it should ever be greater extent in the Bank of the United States? The recovered. Can a bank, which would thus act, be a suit- Bank of the United States possesses a great central power, able depository for the public funds? He would only further add that this French bill was not an ordinary commercial transaction; it was a transaction between sovereigns.

ite for the public moneys; and the places of deposite were changed at pleasure, during the administration of Mr. Monroe, and that of all his predecessors.

controlling, by the will of a single man, all its ramifications and branches in every portion of the Union; it is, too, an irresponsible power, which can act, by its different branches, in perfect concert, in different portions of the By the French treaty, the amount of the instalments Union at the same moment. Whereas the State banks have were to be paid in Paris, as they fell due, to such person no such central power to control or direct their concerted as was authorized to receive them by the Government of movements. In fact, the State banks, from the necessary the United States. This was not a mere bill drawn by the and inevitable collision of their interests, must counterSecretary of the Treasury on the Minister of Finance in act and control the movements of each other, even if they France; for that, of itself, would not have authorized its were disposed to become the prostituted instruments of payment. It was accompanied by higher evidences-by political party. The President of the United States is an authority from the President of the United States, coun- responsible to the people; the Bank of the United States tersigned with the signature of the Secretary of State, and acknowledges no responsibility either to the Government under the great seal of the United States, authorizing its or the people. But he utterly denied that the State banks payment on presentation; and, without this authority, its either had been, or could be, the instruments of party.

H. OF R.]

Removal of the Deposites.

The real danger to be apprehended was from the Bank of the United States; which, if the argument of the gentleman from South Carolina be true, was enabled to control all who were, either directly or indirectly, indebted to it. The gentleman from South Carolina gave us another reason why the public deposites should not be removed from the Bank of the United States. He had stated that the Government of the United States, being the owner of one-fifth of the stock of the United States Bank, would lose $140,000 yearly by the withdrawal of the deposites. He supposed he meant by the diminution of the Government dividends derived from the use of the deposites by the bank. He should not stop to inquire upon what data the gentleman had this information, but, for the sake of the argument, would take it to be true as he had stated it. It then would, in fact, lose $140,000 per annum by this diminution of its dividend, derivable from the use of the public deposites by the bank; then we have data by which to estimate the value of the renewal of the bank charter for twenty years. If the Government would lose $140,000 for a single year, its loss for a period of twenty years would be $2,800,000. The Government owning but one-fifth of the stock, the whole loss to the bank would be five times that amount, or fourteen millions of dollars. Fourteen millions then, according to the argument, is the value of the renewal of the bank charter for twenty years, arising from the public deposites alone, and independent of the value of the exclusive privileges of banking conferred by the charter; and yet the gentleman from South Carolina, two years ago, sustained by his vote the previous question, twice in the same day, to confer upon the present stockholders the renewal of the present charter, for a period of twenty years, for a bonus of three millions; he did this, too, when other capitalists, by their memorials before Congress, offered a much larger bonus for similar privileges. The effects of making deposites in the State banks will be, (said Mr. P.) that the profits will not go, as they now do, into the pockets of foreigners, but will remain in the country for the benefit of our own citizens. It is well known that a large amount of bank stock is owned abroad, and a large amount in specie is annually transported from the country. He would now come to the cotton illustration. gentleman from South Carolina has stated it as his opinion, that, in consequence of the scarcity of money, which he attributed to the removal of the public deposites from the Bank of the United States to the State banks, the southern planters had from the 1st of August, (although the deposites were not removed until two months afterwards,) lost five cents per pound on cotton, compared with the Liverpool prices of the same article, which regulates the market of the world. Mr. P. said, when he heard this positive averment made, he was astounded; and supposing it possible, (for he had not examined the facts,) he had set about to inquire the true reason. The scarcity of money, he knew, could not be the true reason; for he could not conceive how the simple removal of a given amount of money from one bank to another could make money either scarce or more abundant. The money had not been, he knew, transported, and he knew that it had not been annihilated. He reflected that there had been two successive short crops in the United States, and he had understood that the stock of cotton on hand, in the English market, in the month of July, was short, and that speculation had had much to do with the enhanced price in the Liverpool market; and he supposed, if the facts so confidently stated by the member from South Carolina, to wit, that the price of the article was five cents lower in the United States than in Liverpool at the same dates, it must have arisen from a want of confidence on the part of the American dealer in the stability of the Liverpool prices; in consequence of which, he might have been unwilling to hazard large investments in the purchase of the article.

The

[DEC. 30, 1833.

Since the gentleman had so expressed himself, however, Mr. P. said, he had been furnished by one of his com mercial friends from Maryland, and one of his colleagues [Mr. McKIM] on the Committee of Ways and Means, with a statement of the relative maximum prices of upland cotton, in the markets of New York and Liverpool of the same dates, during the months of August, September, October, and November; which statement he understood was received from a respectable house in Philadelphia, who were large dealers in the article; from which it would appear that, at corresponding dates, there had been no period since the 15th August at which the difference in the American and foreign market had been equal to three cents per pound, and generally much less.

[Mr. P. here presented the statement to which he referred to the House, as follows:]

Periods at which upland cotton has been sold at the annexed prices in Liverpool, showing what it netts in the United States at the different exchanges.

August 3, 14

3 15 cents per pound. 14 a 17

66

10,

do

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

66

24,

14 a 16

do

September 4,

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Nett produce of one pound of upland cotton, at the annexed prices in Liverpool,
what it netts in the United States at the different exchanges.

showing

១៩

[ocr errors]

30,

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

Cents.

19.19

15

17.59

16

19.99

17

16.79

17

16.71

17

17.51

17

[blocks in formation]

per cent. Cents.

Pence.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Pence.

Pence.

Cents.

[blocks in formation]
« ZurückWeiter »