H. OF R.]

Removal of the Deposites.

(JAN. 20, 1834.

another, I cannot agree with the gentlemen from Penn- money chest, this officer stands but a poor security against sylvania and South Carolina. If I read the constitution such a power. I think the President, supported with the aright, the President only exercised such control over army and navy, making a descent upon your treasury, the Secretary as he had the right to do. Let me be dis- would be very apt to carry away the treasury, and the tinctly understood. The President has no right to con- Treasurer too, if he stood in his way." trol the opinions of any member of his cabinet, as to re- The principle was then settled, and has not since been quire him to adopt and support opinions which he does not disturbed, to make the heads of departments responsible entertain. If the President were to exercise such a power, to the President, and the President security for their and a Secretary were to submit to it, they would both be good behavior, and responsible to the people: and this e unworthy the stations they occupy, and the confidence of the true democratic principle. Upon what other princ the people. But, if they do not agree on vital and important principles to be carried into execution by the Secretary, and he is so far forgetful of the respect and duty he owes to himself as not to resign, it is not only the right, but it is the duty of the President to remove him. Sir, "tis strange, 'tis passing strange," and surprising, that gentlemen with whom I have the honor to be associated that gentlemen of the State rights party should wish to take the responsibility from the very person to whom it belongs-from the President, who is alone responsible to the people. The responsibility belongs to him; the Secretary is not responsible to the people. Who is the Secretary of State? Who is the Secretary of the Treasury? Who is the Secretary of War? Who is the Secretary of the Navy? The people neither know nor care. They are selected by the President, and for their conduct he is responsible to the country.

ple do all the heads of departments go out with the all, and others come in with a new administration? They a turned out "for opinion's sake." The President is en titled to have men around him, as his advisers, who agre with him in opinion upon fundamental points: it is every day's experience. If whole gangs may be discharged him, why not a single one? A distinguished member i the other end of the House has placed this matter in se clear a view, that I will avail myself of an extract from his speech.

"I cannot doubt [says Mr. Calhoun] that, under the constitution, the President has the right of removal from office; nor can I doubt that the power of removal, whe?ever it exists, does, from necessity, involve the power of general supervision; nor can I doubt that it might be constitutionally exercised in reference to the depos ites. Reverse the present case: suppose the late Sec This question was settled a short time after the adoption retary, instead of being against, had been in favor of of the constitution-not in relation to any particular de- the removal; and the President, instead of being for, had partment, as has been contended, but to all the depart- been against it-deeming the removal not only inexpedments. I will not waste your time, by again reading the ent, but, under circumstances, illegal; would any man debate which has already been brought to your notice by doubt that, under such circumstances, he had a right to the gentleman from Tennessee. I have the names of remove his Secretary, if it were the only means of preMadison, Sedgwick, Vining, Ames, and Scott, to support venting the removal of the deposites? Nay, would it not me; and I will only draw upon your patience so far as to have been his indispensable duty to have removed him? read a short extract from Mr. Madison's speech, to show And had he not, would not he have been universally and the principle; and from Mr. Scott's, the application of justly held responsible?" that principle to the Secretary of the Treasury.

And, I will add, would not those who are now censurMr. Madison says: "It is one of the most prominent ing the President, and denouncing this measure as the features of the constitution that there should be the high- exercise of unconstitutional power, have lauded the Pres est possible degree of responsibility in all the executive ident for his fearless independence in the rightful exerofficers thereof; any thing, therefore, which tends to les-cise of his constitutional powers? There are more spectasen this responsibility is contrary to its spirit and inten- cles than those found by Major Jack Downing, with turntion; and unless it is settled upon us expressly by the let-ing screws, to present different aspects of the same subter of that work, I shall oppose the admission of it into ject. There are many politicians who possess them, and, any act of the Legislature. Now, if the heads of the ex- by the turn of a screw or two, can present different phases ecutive departments are subjected to removal by the of the same transaction, with all the varied and multiplied President alone, we have in him security for the good be- combinations of the kaleidoscope; and, sir, the patent havior of the officer. If he does not conform to the judg- right is not confined to England; they may be found in ment of the President in doing the executive duties of his this favored country, and even on this floor. office, he can be displaced; this makes him responsible to But we have been told, the sword has been committed the great executive power, and makes the President re-to the President; and if we permit him to seize the purse, sponsible to the public for the conduct of the person he our liberties are in danger. This is wholly a mistake, sir. has nominated and appointed to aid him in the adminis The sword is not in the hands of the President, but to tration of his department." carry into execution the mandates of Congress; and the The principle I have been contending for is plainly and purse cannot be, without the same authority, unless he distinctly laid down; and, notwithstanding the apprehen- steals it." Congress holds both. The money is as much sion of placing the whole Government in the hands of the in the treasury in one bank as in another. The removal President, it was applied to the Treasury Department. from one bank to another does not take it out of the Mr. Scott says: "But the constitution says that no money treasury, any more than a removal from one side of the shall be taken out of the treasury but by appropriations. vault to the other. Not a dollar can be legally drawn out This, alone, I think is a sufficient answer to all that without an appropriation by law. Congress alone has has been said, and will serve to soften down the harsh the power to declare war, and to call out the militia, exfeatures which the terrible picture I have just now men- cept in certain cases provided for by the constitution. tioned displayed. I say, sir, our money may be in the Congress, then, and not the President, holds both the treasury by millions; and without special appropria- purse and the sword. I have no fear of power at the tions by the Legislature, the President and Treasurer, "white house" on yonder hill, till this "white house" is either or both together, cannot touch a farthing of it, corrupt enough to support it; and this House dare not unless they steal it. This being the case, I see as little give that support till the people have become too corrupt security to the treasury, in the independence of this to deserve that liberty purchased with the blood of their officer, as danger arising from his dependence, without fathers. Look to the history of the ancient republics of a single exception; for if the President, with a strong Greece and Rome. The loaded ass of Philip" could army at his back, comes violently to lay hold of the never enter a Grecian city till the people were depraved

and corrupt enough to receive him. Cæsar would not have dared to seize the treasury of Rome till the people were prepared to cry "Hail Cæsar!"

[H. OF R.

officers, to prevent plunging the country into a war; and why may it not have been equally convenient for the bank, almost "imperium in imperio," to disavow the act I am so far from objecting to this exercise of power by of its agent in this business? I have in my mind's eye a the President, that I should have thought him unfaithful memorable instance of a Government disavowing the act to the trust reposed in him, and to the people, if he had of its officer. In the Seminole war it was important, to failed to exercise it. I lay down this position: whenever insure complete success to the American arms, to cross any head of a department differs with the President, not on the Florida line and take possession of Pensacola and St. minor points, but on vital and fundamental principles, it Mark's, from whence the Indians were supplied with muis his duty to himself and to the country to remove him; nitions of war; and it was very important that the United and cases might occur where he would not only be un- States should not be involved in a war with Spain. Orders faithful, but would be guilty of little less than treason, if were not necessary; a "hint" was sufficient. The "hint" he were not to remove him. I will put a strong case. was given, the line was passed; St. Mark's and Pensacola Let me suppose this country and Great Britain again at were taken; the Indians were conquered. The act was war; that the enemy had landed on our coast, and were disavowed, and Pensacola and St. Mark's were restored, marching into the interior; and the Bank of the United to avoid involving us in a war with Spain. It is someStates were loaning money to the commissary of the British what remarkable, that, among the charges of violation army to enable him to furnish supplies; that the President, reported by the committee against the bank in 1819, was hearing of the fact, inquires if it is known to the Secre- one very like this same three per cent. transaction, and tary of the Treasury? Yes, sir. Do you not mean to remove the deposites? No, sir; the law has confided to me the discretion, and I shall not remove them, nor will I resign. If the President did not remove him, he would be guilty of misprision of treason, and would bring down upon his head the curses of an indignant people, and deserve the execration of posterity.

Having disposed of these objections to the conduct of the President and Secretary, we shall be better able to examine the reasons for the removal.

which I will read to the House: "The committee, then, are of the opinion that the charter of the Bank of the United States has been violated in the following instances: 1st. In purchasing two millions of public debt, in order to substitute them for two millions of similar debt, which it had contracted to sell, or had sold, in England, and which the Secretary of the Treasury claimed the right of redeeming."

Warned by the report of that committee, it was not only convenient, but important, that the bank should disavow the purchase made by General Cadwallader, to avoid a difficulty with the Government of the United States.

I shall first call your attention to the old three per cents. It is not my intention, nor can it be necessary, to go into a labored investigation of the circumstances in The next point I will present to the notice of the House relation to them; they are generally well understood. It is the interference of the bank in elections; and on this I cannot be denied that it was the intention of the Govern- will be brief, as it was extensively considered by the genment to pay them, and the payment was deferred at the tleman from Tennessee. I will merely recall the recolsuggestion of the bank, and on her agreeing to pay the lection to the republication of the reports of Mr. MCDUFFIE interest; that General Cadwallader was sent as an agent and of Mr. SMITH in favor of a recharter of the bank. by the bank to Europe, to make arrangements with the But, we are told, this was done in self-defence, and to holders of the stock for the interest of the institution; give information to the people of the United States. It and that he did make arrangements to purchase it for the may not be improper here to inquire whether it is not the bank; that the Barings, for the purpose of completing duty of Congress to publish a sufficient number of such the purchase, published a circular, which was wafted documents for the information of the people, and whether across the Atlantic, and republished in New York. We those reports were not published as other documents? may be told that General Cadwallader exceeded his in- Again: immense sums have been loaned to individuals, structions, and the purchase was disavowed by the bank. particularly to the conductors of two papers of extensive This may be so. After the publication of the circular of circulation. When we take into view the time when the the Barings in New York, and after some noise was made loans were made, the period for which they were made, about the purchase in the newspapers, the purchase was and the security, or rather the non-security, upon which disavowed. But it is very strange; General C. had long they were made, can any one doubt the consideration? I been a director, and sometimes president pro tem. of the will not stop to inquire whether the property was mortbank, and it is reasonable to presume that he knew the gaged for more or less than it was worth, nor will I go intention of the Government, and that the Bank could not, into a detailed estimate of the value of the establishments; without a violation of its charter, purchase the stock. It but I will submit it to the conscience of every man in this is reasonable to presume that he had full and ample in- House to determine whether he does not believe it was structions from the president of the bank in relation to the the intention of the bank to buy up those presses, and to object of his mission. It is reasonable to presume that as sustain them, that they might sustain the bank, and exert soon as he had made arrangements in Europe, he gave a their influence and powers to obtain for it a new charfull and circumstantial account to the president and di-ter? and whether this is not entering the electioneering rectors of the bank. It is unreasonable to presume that arena? General Cadwallader violated his instructions; it is un- The gentleman from South Carolina has charged the reasonable to presume that he would violate the charter Secretary of the Treasury with making a false statement without instructions; it is unreasonable to presume that in regard to the increase of discounts during the year 1831. the president and directors were ignorant of his proceed- The Secretary is correct, and the mistake is with the ings, and only came accidentally to the knowledge of such gentleman from South Carolina. The Secretary says: an important transaction by a publication in the newspapers. And it is drawing very largely upon our credulity and courtesy to require us to believe that, with a knowledge of the transaction, and an intention to disavow "The documents which have been heretofore laid beit, that measure should have been delayed till a clamor fore Congress, and are now on its files, will show that on was raised in the newspapers about the purchase. It is the 31st of December, 1830, the aggregate debt due the strange, I repeat; it is passing strange! Sir, it is some-bank was $42,402,304 34, and that on the 31st of Detimes convenient, and we have known Governments under cember, 1831, it was $63,026,452 93, being an extension the necessity of disavowing the acts of their agents and of its loans, in a single year, of $20,000,000, and an inVOL. X.-156

"There is sufficient evidence to prove that the bank has used its means with a view to obtain political power, and thereby secure a renewal of the charter.

H. OF R.]

Removal of the Deposites.

(Jan. 20, 1834.

crease of nearly fifty per cent. on its previous accommo- not affect the corporate credit and resources alone, but dations. much more the credit and resources of the Government. "And, as if to leave no room to doubt as to the motive In fine, it is not an institution created for the purposes of of this extraordinary conduct, it continued to add rapidly commerce and profit alone, but much more for the purto its loans; and, on the 1st of May, 1832, while its peti-poses of national policy, as an auxiliary to the exercise of tion for the renewal of its charter was yet pending before some of the highest powers of the Government. Under Congress, they amounted to $70,428,070 72, being an in- such circumstances, the public interest cannot be to crease of $7,401,617 79 in the four preceding months, cautiously guarded, and the guards proposed can never and making altogether an addition of $28,025,766 48 in be injurious to the commercial interests of the inst the short space of sixteen months, and being an extension tution. The right to inspect the general accounts of of more than sixty-six per cent. on its previous loans. the bank may be employed to detect the evils of a mal Such an increase, at such a period of its charter, is with- administration; but an interior agency in the direction of out example in the history of banking institutions." its affairs will best serve to prevent them." This extract

By a reference to the table I have already placed before was written expressly in relation to the appointment of the House, and which is extracted from the table fur-five directors by the Government, one of whom, accord nished to the special bank committee for the years 1829, ing to his plan, was to be president of the bank, who vis 1830, 1831, and 1832, by Mr. Biddle, it will be seen that to be appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, with the whole discounts of the bank on the 31st of December, the approbation of the President of the United States. 1830, were only $42,402,304 34, and on the 31st of De- Now, sir, if I understand the meaning of English words, cember, 1831, they were $63,026,452 93, being almost there is the slightest shade of difference, if any, between $21,000,000 increase in that year. But the gentleman from the object for which Mr. Dallas intended their appoint South Carolina supposes the Secretary has taken different ment, and the purposes for which the directors contend periods of the year for his calculation, which might make they have been appointed.

a great and unjust difference to the bank; that the Sec- On a motion to strike out the power given to the Pres retary had run his calculation into the spring months, when ident and Senate to appoint five directors, Mr. Forsyth the discounts of the bank are usually greater, to afford says: "It was not a bank, but a bank of peculiar char facilities for the purchase of produce. Here, too, he is acter, which was required; we had banks enough already: again mistaken. The same period of each year is taken- they rose, like mushrooms, from every bot-bed in the the 31st of December; and besides, sir, if we extend the country. It was not a moneyed bank only; a bank excalculation to the 1st of May, when the discounts had in-clusively regulated by the moneyed interest, and governcreased to $70,000,000, we shall not find an increased ratio, ed by the jealousy, avarice, and factious views of moneyed but a regular increase, up to that time, of $67,000,000 men, capable of being made the instruments of artful and for every four months. In February and March, 1832, designing combinations to cramp your resources, and dewith $6,000,000 specie, and $24,000,000 circulation, her stroy your capacity to make either permanent or tempodiscounts continued to increase to $70,000,000. Now, rary loans. It must be a bank having a national charwhen the deposites are removed, with $10,000,000 specie, acter, regulated by the national interest, and under the and only $18,000,000 circulation, and $60,000,000 dis- control of the national councils. If it was not of this counts, she is curtailing down to $54,000,000. Can any character, its failure or success was indifferent to him. man doubt it was the intention of the bank, by issuing It seemed to be admitted on all hands, that we ought to publications, making large loans to editors, and extending have an interest in the proposed institution. It was ad accommodations in 1832, to interfere in the elections mitted, too, that we ought to have an influence; and the It is hardly denied by the bank. Read the exposé pub- dispute was between a direct influence, by the appointlished by the bank, and you will find it is not denied; but ment of directors, or an indirect influence, by the opera she alleges that she has done so in self-defence. Self-tion of the revenue system. It would not be difficult to defence!-against what? The message of the President demonstrate that an indirect influence would be wholly to Congress, in which he has expressed himself unfriendly insufficient." Permit me to ask, how this bank can have to the renewal of its charter. He who can doubt the ex- a national character, be regulated by the national interest, istence of this charge against the bank has more scepti- under the control of the national councils, and a direct cism than ordinarily falls to the lot of man. influence, by the appointment of directors, if those dễ Another ground of objection to the bank, and urged as rectors are cautiously excluded from the important com a reason for the removal of the deposites, is, the conceal-mittees by whom all the business of the bank is regulated ment of the proceedings of the bank from the directors and transacted? How can that bank be national, and appointed by the Government. This is distinctly alleged regulated by national councils? How can the Govern by the Government directors, and is not denied by the ment have a direct influence, by the appointment of digentleman from Pennsylvania, nor by the directors them-rectors, when those very directors are not permitted even to have a knowledge of the business transacted, and the

selves.

The honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania has given avowed object of that concealment from the directors is you the reasons for their almost entire exclusion from the concealment from the Government and from the councils business and from a knowledge of the proceedings of the of the nation?

board. Let us see whether they are sufficient, and whe- Mr. Telfair says: "According to these views, then, ther the Government directors have mistaken the object the interest of the stockholders is not to be considered as for which they were appointed. You have their memo- holding a priority of station to that of the Government; rial upon your tables, setting forth their opinions, and the on the contrary, the institution is to be looked upon as manner they have been treated. I can form but one the property of the nation, and that of individuals for po opinion upon it; and to show that they have not so greatly litical considerations." erred, and did not deserve such treatment, and also for Again: "The true policy, in the creation of a bank, what purposes they were appointed, let me invite your then, is to give it a double character; to combine in it the attention to the letter of Mr. Dallas, and to the debates elements of public and private interest, but to secure to at that time. the former a control over the latter; for the Government He says: "The national bank ought not to be regarded which creates this institution is responsible for its fullsimply as a commercial bank. It will not operate upon ment of the great objects of its creation; and it is wiser the funds of the stockholders alone, but much more upon to use means of precaution, than to rest upon ultimate the funds of the nation. Its conduct, good or bad, will means of correction. The interest of the bank should be

JAN. 20, 1834.]

Removal of the Deposites.

[H. OF R.

made subservient to the interest of the public-of the sisting of not less than seven. It may be, sir; but if the people; and hence I wish for some control in its direc- powers granted to that committee do not include the busition." Does the interest of the public hold a priority of ness of the bank contemplated by the charter, my faculty station to the interest of individuals? Can this bank be of perception is too obtuse to perceive what is that budeemed the property of the nation, and of individuals for siness. The gentleman from South Carolina, aware of political considerations? Can this Government be respon- the provision of the charter, and believing that what ought sible for the fulfilment of its great objects? Are the in- to be done has been done, has taken it for granted that terests of this bank made subservient to the interests of regular reports were made to the board for their approthe public, by a control in the direction? Can you use the val, and says, the board met so frequently, that all the means of precaution, for prevention, by an interior agen- business done by the committee may be said to be virtucy in the direction, rather than the ultimate means of cor-ally done by the board. Even this excuse is taken away rection, for the mal-administration of its affairs, when by the testimony of Mr. Biddle. When asked, "Are your directors are carefully excluded from all knowledge the discounts authorized by that committee laid before the of the most important concerns, for the avowed purpose board for their approval or rejection?" The answer is, of concealment from you of its conduct, and to prevent "Not necessarily, nor generally, except for information. your interposition? The gentleman from Pennsylvania They are acted upon definitively by the committee." must surely have overlooked the objects of the creation of the Government directors, or he never would have ventured the remark-"There is not a shadow of difference between the rights and duties, the powers or the obligations, of any of the directors."

It must be useless to pursue this branch of inquiry. The fact of concealment is admitted. The motive of that concealment is avowed, and defended by the advocates of the bank; and the defence only aggravates the offence.

The next in order, to which the attention of the House We have been further told by him that, "when a will be invited, is the French bill. The gentleman from charter commits the power of making by-laws to the Pennsylvania has passed lightly over this. It was best for whole body of the corporation, the general mass of cor- the bank he should do so. Her conduct, in regard to it, porators, they may delegate the power to a select body, is perfectly indefensible. I will ask for no better testiwho then represent the whole body in their acts of legis-mony than what is furnished in the exposé of the bank, lation." Sir, it is with great deference I differ from that and out of her own mouth shall she be judged." gentleman upon legal subjects; but the proposition is The Secretary complains of a charge made by the bank only partially correct. The whole body of the corpora- against the Government of $158,842 47, for damages for tors can have no power, even if the charter were silent, non-payment by the French Government of the bill drawn to pass any by-laws which are contrary to the constitution on them, and sold to the bank; and says the proceeds of or the laws of the United States: but in this the charter is the bill remained in the bank." This is denied by the not silent. The very section he has read inhibits the bank; and, that the facts may be fully understood, I will corporators from passing "any by-laws, ordinances, or read a passage from the bank exposition, (page 28.) "It regulations, &c., contrary to the constitution, or to the is not the fact that this money was left in the use of the laws of the United States." The whole mass of the cor- bank, being simply added to the Treasury deposites.' porators, the stockholders, not having the power, could "Suppose that it had been, it would not in the slightnot delegate that power to a select body, the directors. est degree affect the question of damages. When a party Therefore, the charter, which is a law of the United States, sells a bill, and is paid for it-that is, has the funds placed having provided that "not less than seven directors shall to his credit, to be drawn for whenever he chooses, withconstitute a board for the transaction of business, of whom out further notice--the party is as much paid, the fund the president shall always be one," the corporators have belongs as little to the bank, as if the party had actually no right themselves, nor can they delegate any power to withdrawn the whole sum in specie. But not only was the directors, to pass any by-law making a less number the fund, in this case, drawn from the general resources than seven sufficient to constitute a board for the transac- of the bank, and placed to the credit of the Treasury, but, tion; nor can they constitute seven, or any other number, immediately after that was done, Congress passed a law a board for that purpose, unless the president be one, to lend the money, and the Secretary of the Treasury except in cases of his inability to attend, when he must issued a notice that this money was to be forthwith lent depute some director to act for him. I cannot believe the out to capitalists-that is to say, to be immediately withgentleman from Pennsylvania will controvert this excep- drawn. The credit given to the Treasurer was on the tion to his general proposition; and the question recurs, 11th of February, 1833. The notice of the Secretary, whether the business of the bank has been transacted by dated on the 6th of March, offered to lend out this money committees, more particularly the exchange committee, after the 20th of March. Of course, the bank could make consisting of less than seven? This seems not to be de- no use of it; on the contrary, as it would probably be nied; for almost the whole general transactions of the withdrawn immediately, it became not merely useless as bank, since July and September, 1830, when these pow- a deposite, but required the bank to shape its loans to ers were enlarged, have been considered and performed others so as to provide for the immediate payment. by that committee. Now, a plain, common sense man "Nor is this all. Not only was this sum passed to the would suppose, from the name, the "exchange committee" credit of the Treasurer, not only was the early withdrawal only attended to the purchase or discounting of bills of of it from the bank announced by the Secretary, but the exchange; but, in the bank nomenclature, exchange" identical proceeds of this identical French bill were actuhas a far more extensive signification, and is made to em- ally used by the Government for the payment of its ordibrace the discounting of notes of hand, and, indeed, al- nary expenses."

most all the business of the bank done by committees, or The issue is thus fairly made up between the parties. contained in calculations. Who discounted Webb's notes? The Secretary says the money was not used; the bank says Committee of exchange. Who discounted Burrows's notes? it was. By reference to the annexed statement, made by Committee of exchange. Who renewed Gales & Sea- the bank, (on page 29,)

ton's? Committee of exchange. Who discounted Noah's "The account of the Treasurer at the bank stood thus: notes? The committee, being authorized to discount February 11, any paper, the security of which they might approve, agreed to do them."

18,

$717,264 22 1,735,460 40

1,842,658 14

1,620,699 89

(in consequence of the payment of the French bill,)

We may be told, this was not the business of the bank February 25, intended by the charter to be transacted by a board con- March

4,

H. OF R.]

March 11,

18,

25,

30,

April 8,

15,

22,

29,

May

6,

13, 20,

when the money was repaid;"

$1,551,627 97 told that "the bank advanced $903,565 89 in Philadel 1,560,783 63 phia, and $921,590 18 in Paris, making $1,825,156 07.” 1,496,907 43 What a wonderful meaning some words have with the 1,052,862 10 bank! and how wonderfully easy it is to make one transac 1,082,560 88 tion count two or three times! Let us put it into phin 918,816 61 English, and see what was done. The bank bought the 746,613 61 bill in Philadelphia, and gave for it $903,565 89; she sent 826,070 90 it to London, and sold it to the Barings, and got her mo 814,046 61 ney returned, and, no doubt, nearly all the $18,000 pre 774,630 47 mium which she had made out of the United States. The 431,560 43 Barings sent the bill to Paris, and, when the French Gor ernment refused payment, the agents of the bank return! We shall see that, on the 11th February, the Treasurer had ed to the Barings the money which had been received at his credit, in bank, $717,264 22, to which, when the from them. Now, for my life, I can see but one advance proceeds of the French bill were added, his credit amounts by the bank in all this, and that was in Philadelphia. Be to $1,735,460 40 on the 18th February. On the 18th fore the bill was presented in Paris, it was sold in Lon March, the amount at his credit is $1,560,783 63, and on don, and the very proceeds of the sale went to pay the the 25th March it is $1,496,907 43. Between those two bill in Paris. "But if the bank did not advance the mo last days, to wit, the 22d March, the French bill came ney twice, she paid it twice." O, yes. But for whom back protested, as you may see stated in the last para- did she pay it in Paris-for herself or the United States' graph on the same page: "What makes the case stronger, For herself, truly, as endorser; and she got it back once is this: that on the 22d March, the day when the protest- between the two times. But we are also gravely toli, ed bill came back to the bank," &c. From their own those two payments " amounted to $1,825,156 07 actually statement, then, on the 11th February, by passing the advanced on account of this bill-a sum equal, within less proceeds of the French bill to the credit of the United than $2,000, to the whole funds of the Government in the States, the Treasurer had at his credit $1,700,000, which bank." And yet we find that when $700,000, "the was never diminished below $1,400,000, to the 22d March, transfer draft," was added to the sum at the credit of the when the French bill came back protested, being $500,000 Treasurer on the 11th of May, which was about $750,000, more than sufficient to pay that bill. I admit that placing and the amount of the French bill was taken from it, it it to the credit of the Treasurer was a payment to the left at the credit of the United States $431,560 43. United States as much as if it had been paid in specie. I admit that notice was given of an intention to loan it, and that it was liable to be withdrawn on the 20th of March; but I cannot agree that it was loaned and withdrawn at that time; and it is proved by their own showing that the identical proceeds of this identical French bill were not actually used by the Government for the payment of its ordinary expenses; and it is further proved that the Treasurer had at his credit $500,000 more than sufficient to pay this bill when it came back protested.

But the proposition advanced by the bank, that it has twice paid the French bill, is so superlatively ridiculous that it could not be believed by any one aware of the circumstances, if it were not made by authority of the directors themselves. Hear them:

"In the United States, then, the bank had paid the amount of the bill in its least convenient form. But when it was protested in Paris, the agents of the bank, finding a bill with its name upon it protested, came forward and paid it on account of the bank. So that the bank had actually paid for this bill twice over-once in Philadelphia, and once in Paris; that is, it had, of course, a 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.

But I will leave this ridiculous, this preposterous claim, set up by the bank, and turn your attention to something more than ridiculous-it is unconscionable and extortion ate. I mean the demand of $158,000, which the bank, not content_with making $18,000 premium, has claimed as damages for the non-payment of the bill by the French Government. This claim is based on a law of this Dis trict, allowing fifteen per cent. damages against the draw er, when the drawer fails to pay the bill. And it is urged upon the ground that damages had been claimed by the Government against Girard, when his correspondents had failed to honor the drafts purchased by the Government.

In the first place, the law never was intended to ope rate upon the Government, but was intended to fix a certain rate per cent. as stipulated damages to insure punc tuality among commercial men, and to prevent them from practising frauds on each other, by drawing and selling drafts when they had no right to expect the drafts would be honored. Not so with the Government. She never engages in commercial transactions, and is always ready and willing to pay all reasonable damages incurred by any of her citizens in dealing with her, and even to increase the amount, when the contracts operate hardly upon the contractors, and they incur losses by them.

But I will put this matter upon the best possible footing "What makes the case stronger is this: that, on the for the bank, and admit that she had a legal right to claim 22d of March, the day when the protested bill came back the damages; and I again say the demand is unconscion to the bank, the whole amount to the credit of the Treas-able. Let me suppose, Mr. Speaker, that you had dealury, throughout the whole United States, with the excep- ings and transactions to a large amount, which would artion of the Danish indemnity money, was $1,827,048 88. nually produce $100,000, and that your disbursements Now the bank had advanced $903,565 89 in Philadelphia, did not exceed 60 or $70,000; that you were to propose and $921,590 18 in Paris, making $1,825,156 07." to the gentleman from Pennsylvania to become your Really, Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss how to treat this banker, he agreeing to transmit your funds to any part statement-whether as a farrago of nonsense, or as a mat- the United States, and to have the use of your surplus ter gravely advanced with the expectation that any one funds, free of interest, until you should deem it proper to can be found so entirely destitute of common sense as to withdraw your business from him. Let me suppose that give it a moment's belief. We are gravely told, the bank you had made a large shipment to England, and that you paid the bill here in the least convenient form. Let me had $100,000 at your credit in your factor's hands, which ask any friend of the bank, what form could be more con- was well known to your banker; that you propose to sell venient than to pass it from the credit of the bank to the him a draft for the $100,000, and agree to take $95,000, credit of the United States, when not one dollar of it was which is passed to your credit on his books; that he sends drawn from the vault? If there be a more convenient the draft to England, and sells it at a small discount; and form, I would be glad to know it. Again: we are as gravely a few days before it becomes payable your factor fails;