House by the call be opposed to the previous question, and negative it, the debate, however important, must, under the existing rule, stop, and the subject go off until the next day. Mr. WILLIAMS took the same ground, and insisted that the motion for a call was a privileged motion of the highest class, and came in of right. Mr. MASON, of Virginia, took a different view, and contended that the former decision of the House had been correct: because a call for the previous question, until seconded, was an imperfect motion, and not regularly in possession of the House. Mr. SUTHERLAND thought it was of little consequence which way the question was determined; but was in favor of standing by the decision, for consistency's sake. The House being now full, Mr. McKINLEY withdrew his appeal. Mr. BRIGGS renewed it, and demanded the yeas and nays; and they were ordered. Mr. WISE moved an adjournment; but it was nega tived. The motion for a call was now withdrawn. Mr. BRIGGS inquired whether the question of order fell with the withdrawal of the call. The CHAIR replied in the affirmative. The question then being on the seconding of the previous question, it was negatived: Ayes 96, noes 100. So the House refused to order the previous question. The question then being on the motion to recommit the bill with instructions, Mr. POLK demanded the yeas and nays; and they were ordered. Mr. BURGES obtained the floor, and, having commenced a speech, moved that the House adjourn. Mr. POLK asked the yeas and nays on this motion; whereupon Mr. BURGES withdrew it. Mr. FILLMORE now demanded a division of the question; and it was accordingly put, first, simply on recommitment, and decided in the negative: Yeas 91, nays 115. So the House refused to recommit the bill. A motion to adjourn was negatived: Yeas 93, nays 102. The question then recurring on the amendment offered by Mr. GORDON, (proposing to make collectors the custodiers of the revenue, &c.,) and the amendment thereto, moved by Mr. EwING, (proposing a plan for a currency board, &c.) [H. OF R. land Hall, Thomas H. Hall, Halsey, Hamer, Hannegan, Mr. BOON moved the previous question. Mr. FOSTER and Mr. MARDIS remonstrated; but Mr. BOON refused to withdraw the motion. Mr. BURGES moved an adjournment; whereupon the yeas and nays were demanded, but refused, and the motion was decided in the affirmative: Ayes 95, noes 86. So the House adjourned. THURSDAY FEBRUARY 12. Mr. CASEY, from the Committee on the Public Lands, reported a bill granting a bounty in land to the organized militia men, mounted militia men, and rangers, who defended the frontier during the late war with Great Britain. After the first reading of the bill, Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, moved that the bill be rejected, (being the form of motion in course, when objection is made to the second reading of a bill.) In support of this motion, he said that the bill was calculated to extend a system which, in his opinion, it was the policy and interest of the United States to check. The class of troops embraced in the bill were regularly employed on a contingent service, at one dollar a day. No bounty was intended to be given to them, and they were not entitled to it any more than the militia. If the bill should pass, Congress would be compelled to extend the same provision to at least one hundred thou The question on the amendment of Mr. EWING was So the amendment was rejected. The amendment moved by Mr. GORDON was then decided by yeas and nays, as follows: Yeas 33, nays 161. YEAS-Messrs. John Q. Adams, Heman Allen, John J. Allen, Chilton Allan, Archer, Barber, Beale, Beaty, Campbell, Claiborne, William Clark, Clayton, Amos Davis, Davenport, Deberry, Foster, Gamble, Gholson, Gordon, Griffin, Heath, Letcher, Lewis, Martindale, McComas, Pickens, Robertson, Spangler, Steele, William P. Taylor, Wilde, Williams, Wise--33. NAYS-Messrs. John Adams, William Allen, Ashley, Banks, Barringer, Baylies, Bean, Beaumont, Bell, Binney, Bockee, Boon, Bouldin, Briggs, Brown, Bunch, Burns, Bynum, Cage, Cambreleng, Carmichael, Carr, Casey, Chaney, Chilton, Chinn, Samuel Clark, Clay, Coffee, Cramer, Crane, Darlington, Day, Denny, Dickerson, Dickinson, Dunlap, Evans, Edward Everett, Ewing, Ferris, Fillmore, Forester, Fowler, William K. Fuller, Fulton, Galbraith, Garland, Gillet, Gilmer, Gorham, Graham, Grayson, Grennell, Joseph Hall, Hi He believed that the most arduous service performed during the late war was by the militia who were called out to defend the Atlantic border, and, if the bounty was given to any troops, it ought to be given to them. He had not a word to say against the character of the services performed by the rangers; but, if we established the principle of this bill, we should be obliged to grant a similar bounty to the forty of fifty thousand militia called out by the State of Virginia during the war, and to the militia called out by all the rest of the States. For the purpose of checking the delusive expectations to which the bill would give rise, he moved its rejection. Mr. CASEY did not wish, he said, at this time, to go into a discussion of the bill, but merely to say that it had for some time been under consideration in the Committtee on the Public Lands, before which it was brought upon a memorial from the Legislature of Illinois, referred to that committee. He hoped the bill would take the regular course, and be printed, together with the long report accompanying it, which would explain to the House the principles on which the bill rested. H. OF R.] Bounty Land. [FEB. 12, 1835. If the bill were suffered to be committed and lie over, we should have petitions from all parts of the country for the extension of its provisions to every class of troops who served during the war. No service, he was sure, was performed during the war harder than that of the Virginia militia called out to defend the seaboard. The service at Norfolk was attended with more danger and hardship from pestilence, not to speak of any other danger, than any service performed by the rangers or other troops. There was no reason why the bounty proposed to be given to the rangers, should not be given also to the militia. Mr. CLAY thought, he said, that the gentleman from North Carolina was disposed to treat this proposition rather too unceremoniously. There was nothing in it, as it appeared to him, so shocking as to induce the House to reject it without consideration. In the principal view taken by the gentleman he was mistaken. He said the bill would lead to the extension of the bounty to a hundred thousand militia; but there was an essential difference between the ordinary militia and the troops proposed to be provided for in the bill. The militia served only for three months in many instances, and never longer than six months; but the rangers were bound to serve twelve months, and did serve for that Mr. SPEIGHT regarded this motion of his colleague, time. This was as long as the thirty-ninth regiment of he said, as very unfortunate, because it operated to exinfantry of the regular army had been required to serve. clude all the morning business properly before the Mr. C. referred to that regiment, because of its having House. He was called on by this motion to vote against been, perhaps, the only one that did not serve for a a bill, with the details of which he was necessarily unlonger period. In what did the services of the regular acquainted. While he professed to be as great an adtroops differ from those of the class of troops proposed vocate for the interests of the old States in the public to be provided for in this bill. Had the rangers any lands as any one, he felt also for the gallant men who advantage in pay over the regular troops? They were had left their families and their homes for the defence bound to furnish their own horses, arms, and accoutre- of the country, and he was very willing to make a small ments, and to provide for their own subsistence, and donation in land to every individual who braved the their pay was one dollar per day; but the regular in-hardships of war to protect those who remained quietly fantry were provided by the Government with arms, at home. He desired that the bill might take the usual clothing, subsistence, &c. He would not pledge him- course, and asked the yeas and nays on the motion of self to vote for the bill, but it was not so palpably mon- his colleague. strous and absurd, on its face, as to render it proper for the House to refuse to consider it. The gentleman said this was a contingent service. In what was it contingent more than any other service? The rangers were called out for the defence of the frontier, and were always either in camp or in action; and they were in as much active service as any troops who served during the war. He hoped the House was not prepared to reject the bill in the manner proposed. Mr. CHILTON rose, he said, not to detain the House with many remarks on the subject, but to express a hope that claims of so meritorious a character as were those of these troops would be allowed some consideration. He was not disposed to extend the pension system to all who served during the war, but he would be gratified if every individual who was engaged in that war, and who was in such indigent circumstances that he could not procure a quarter section of land to settle and cultivate, should have it given to him by the Government. The bill was not of so explicit a character as he could desire. He could not see how far it was intended to carry the system. When the subject came up ultimately for decision, the House could modify the bill, but he hoped it would now be read twice and committed. Mr. VINTON was glad, he said, that the member from North Carolina had made this motion. He thought it time for the House to take care of the public land as well as of the other property of the public. This bill embraced not only the rangers, but all the militia who served during the war, without regard to the term of service. A man who has enlisted for fifteen days was entitled under it to the bounty of one hundred and sixty acres. If the rangers knew the terms of service at the time when they enlisted, and if they had been paid according to the terms of their enlistment, upon what ground could they now come to the Government for a bounty in land? You gave your revolutionary soldiers, who served during the whole war, one hundred acres only, and at a time when the land was worth very little in comparison with its present value. The land we now propose to give was in the midst of flourishing and populous States; whereas, the bounty land given to revolutionary officers and soldiers was in a far distant and unsettled wilderness, and virtually in possession of numerous and formidable Indian tribes. Mr. CHILTON ALLAN said, whatever were the exact provisions of the bill, the course proposed by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. WILLIAMS] was very unusual. There were no two members who understood the bill in the same way, and yet it was proposed to reject it without consideration. How much time did the House expend in considering bills in which a single individual only was concerned, and yet it was now proposed to reject, without consideration, a bill embracing a large class of claims. If the bill was not sufficiently precise and distinct, it could be modified so as to be intelligible; and, if it were so fraught with mischief as to be unworthy of the countenance of the House, its rejection, after due consideration, would carry with it more moral influence. Mr. REYNOLDS said this subject was presented to the House by a memorial from the Legislature of Illinois. If the proposition was entirely destitute of any merit, it ought still to be treated with common respect, as coming from the Legislature of a State. [Mr. WILLIAMS here rose to explain. He said that no course, in regard to any bill, which was in order under the rules of the House, could be supposed to be disrespectful to a proposition or to the source whence it proceeded.] Mr. REYNOLDS did not intend, he resumed, to impute to the gentleman the design of treating the bill disrespectfully. He contended that both the merits of the proposition and the character of the source from which it came, entitled it to a deliberate consideration by the House. The gentleman from Ohio opposed the bill because the rangers got all they were entitled to under their contract. But how many individuals were every year relieved by the House, who had no claims upon ground of rigid contract? If these men deserved the bounty as much as other troops who had already received it, there was as little impropriety in giving it to them now as there would have been at the time when the contract was made. He trusted that the motion would not be sustained. Mr. ASHLEY said that he had risen to make some explanations, inasmuch as he believed the services of these troops were not duly appreciated by the House. He believed that no class of troops had done more real service than the rangers, who were enlisted for twelve months, to defend the frontier. They were obliged to purchase their own horses, clothes, arms, and subsistence; and, though their pay was a dollar a day, their compensation could not be considered as greater than that of the regular infantry of the United States. They had not only to subsist their horses, but when they were disabled, they were obliged to procure others, or go on foot. He had had, himself, the honor of a command in this corps, and he had frequently known the men, after losing a horse, to hire or buy another. He had no doubt that their actual expenses were fully equal to all the pay they received. As many of these men were lost in this service as of the regular troops in any other service. He was, therefore, clearly of opinion that they should receive the same bounty that the infantry received, although it was not in the contract, yet it was as proper to give it now as it was in the first instance. He did not altogether approve of the details of the bill, and when it came before the House, he should move some amendments to it. Mr. EWING said the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. VINTON] was very careful of the public land; and he thought he ought to be equally so of those who guarded and defended the land. He hoped the bill would be suffered to take the ordinary course, and that the men who served in defence of the frontier would be placed on a footing of equality with those who had already been rewarded. Mr. LINCOLN rose, he said, to offer a few words in explanation of the vote he should give. Though a member of the Committee on Public Lands, he was not aware that the bill was to be reported this morning, and he was not prepared to go into the discussion of its provisions. It provided for a bounty in land to a particular class of troops who served in the last war. These troops were enlisted for twelve months, and it was stipulated that they should have one dollar per day; and the grant of the proposed bounty, in addition to that allowance, would be regarded as warranting the expectation of the same grant to every militia man. The provisions of the bill were enough to comprehend all the militia who served during the war, and applied as well to those who served for one day as to those who served a year. The bill, if passed, would, in his opinion, secure to every militia man, whether he served for a longer or shorter term, one hundred and sixty acres of land. Gentlemen might judge what quantity of the public lands would be required for this purpose. He thought the bill ought to be rejected in its present stage. [Here Mr. LINCOLN's remarks were cut off by the expiration of the hour; and, on motion of Mr. WATMOUGH, the House took up the orders of the day.] Mr. WATMOUGH asked the House to take up the navy bill, and after modifying it in the manner which had been proposed, to order it to be engrossed for a third reading; but the motion was objected to. STATE DEPOSITE BANKS. The House proceeded to the consideration of the bill to regulate the deposite of the public money of the United States in certain local banks; the motion of Mr. BooN for the previous question on the bill still pending, and not ascertained to have been seconded by a majority Mr. PATTON moved a call of the House. The SPEAKER, for reasons which he had before given, decided the motion to be out of order pending this, according to the settled rule of the House; though he was of opinion himself that the decision of the House which had settled the rule was incorrect, and ought to be reversed. Mr. PATTON appealed from the decision of the Chair. Mr. BRIGGS called for the yeas and nays on the question, and they were ordered. The question was then discussed for some time by [H. or R. Messrs. PATTON, MILLER, FOSTER, SPEIGHT, CAGE, SUTHERLAND, MERCER, E. EVERETT, J. Y. MASON, JONES, H. EVERETT, HALL of North Carolina, and HEATH, when the question was put, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?" and decided by yeas and nays, as follows: Yeas 91, nays 113. So the House decided that the decision of the Speaker, declaring a motion for a call of the House not to be in order between the making and the seconding of a call for the previous question, should not stand, and that the motion for a call was in order. The question being put upon the motion for a call of the House, it was negatived. The question was then put on seconding the call for the previous question. Mr. GRAHAM appealed to Mr. Boon to withdraw his motion for the previous question, but he refused. The question was thereupon put, and decided as follows: Ayes 97, noes 105. So the motion was not seconded. The question then recurring on the bill, Mr. BINNEY addressed the House at large in opposition to the bill; but proposed, in case it must pass, the following amendments: 1st. Requiring the returns of the State banks to be much more minute and extensive. 2d. Requiring the banks to retain specie in their vaults to the amount of one fourth of their circulation and of their public and private deposites. 3. Requiring the banks to pay two per cent. interest on public deposites. 4th. Requiring certain guards on the securities given. 5th. Requiring, if the deposites shall be removed by the Secretary of the Treasury, that he shall render his reasons to Congress; and if the same shall not be approved, the deposites to revert to the bank. 6th. The Secretary of the Treasury to publish monthly the returns from the banks, in two of the papers. Mr. PATTON said he was in favor of the principle of the bill. At the same time he was willing and determined, so far as it depended on him, that every member of the House should have an opportunity of submitting any amendment which he might deem calculated to perfect the details of the bill; whether these propositions of amendment came from those who were hostile or those who were friendly to its principle. For this purpose he was willing to sit as late every day as was pos sible, consistent with the physical capacity of members to remain in session, until the bill was finally disposed of by the House; and it was with this view he had that day demanded a call of the House when the previous question was moved, in order to defeat that motion. Mr. P. took it for granted that such amendments only would be proposed as were bona fide, and for no indirect and unavowed purpose. It was probable that he would agree to some of the amendments which might be offered by others, and he had it in view to propose one or two himself, which, however, are not of so material a character as to induce him to vote against the bill in case of their failure. Mr. P. proceeded to say that he did not feel so well informed on the principles of the banking system, or the course of trade as connected with the general question of currency, as to enable him now to speak upon the subject of the particular amendments offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BINNEX,] and which doubtless had been offered by him under a full conviction that they were proper and necessary for the perfection of the system of the bill on the principles of its friends. Nor is it my intention, said Mr. P., to enter into any elaborate discussion of the comparative advantages or disadvantages of carrying on the fiscal operations of the Government through the instrumentality of a Bank of the United States, or by the employment H. OF R.] Deposite Banks. of banks chartered by the States. The time for that dis- “He fighting fell, and falling fought, It was impossible to see that, while it was confessed that the question was settled, the honorable gentleman's argument was mainly intended to show that there could not be any safe reliance upon any means of conducting the financial concerns of the Government, without the aid of a Bank of the United States. This was doubtless the conscientious conviction of that gentleman, and now, as formerly, avowed with his usual frankness, and maintained with his accustomed ability. But why discuss that proposition? It is decided by that tribunal which has jurisdiction to decide it, (the representatives of the people,) and the decision has been sustained, and more than sustained, by the only earthly tribunal to which they are responsible--their constituents, the people themselves. The inquiry now presented, and which must be decided, is, what is to be done now that a Bank of the United States is out of the question? To that I wish to speak; but before I do so, it may be proper to devote a few remarks to some other topics which have been introduced into this debate, and to which I consider it proper that some reply should be made. [FEB. 12, 1835. conflict. I am ready to maintain that the proceedings of the executive department of the Government, in relation to the removal of the deposites, were not encroachments on the legislative department of the Government, or usurpations of power in violation of the limitations of the constitution and the prescriptions of law. I defy any man to show, by any fair reasoning, that those proceedings were in opposition to the principles of civil freedom, or that they placed the public revenues under the control of the Executive in any other form, or to any greater extent, than they have been placed under the uniform interpretation of, and universal practice under, the constitution and laws, from 1789 to the 1st day of October, 1833; and that any intimations that the decisions of this House on these questions justify the reflection that the representatives of the people are prostrated at the feet of the Executive by the influence of the power and patronage of the Government, is wholly unauthorized, and cannot be sustained. I have already shown, and can show more fully and conclusively hereafter, whenever it may be proper and necessary for me to do so, that the principles maintained here last winter, by myself and others who agreed with me, and which were understood to have received the sanction of a majority of this body, are in conformity with those recognised at the foundation of the Government, admitted ever since, and acted on by all parties, and were, by many of the enlightened statesmen who were instrumental in establishing the constitution, then and ever since deemed consistent with, and even essential to, the preservation of liberty and the public good. I have no more to say on these topics. I recur to the question. The Bank of the United States having ceased to be the depository of the public money, and this House having decided that they shall not be restored to that institution, what shall we do? Is it necessary and expedient that the present condition of the public money, deposited in the State banks, should be permitted to remain? Whether we shall define more precisely the extent of the executive authority in relation to it, and limit and restrain the discretion now con long-settled interpretation of those laws? And by what provisions, and under what conditions, the public money may be deposited in certain State banks? Or whether we can dispense with the use of the State banks, and resort to some other expedient? Another great battle, Mr. Speaker, (connected with or growing out of this bank struggle,) has been fought--fided to that department under the existing laws and the fought and won for us-and fought and lost for our opponents; as to which, some of the combatants seem unwilling to admit that they are beaten. Some gentlemen seem not to be satisfied with the triumphs they have celebrated, and the jubilations they have enjoyed! You of course understand, Mr. Speaker, that I allude to the questions arising and discussed here last winter, upon the removal of the public money from the Bank of the United States. The clamor and outcry then made against the Executive, for having committed flagrant encroachments on the legislative department, it seems to be the desire of some again to revive, and again to bring into discussion. Imputations upon the independence and integrity of judgment by which this House was governed in its decisions upon these questions, however common, and however much to be expected and little to be regarded elsewhere, it was to be hoped would not have been indulged in here. I do not mean to enter upon the field of argument to vindicate myself, and those who agree with me on those questions, from such imputations. I cannot, however, reconcile it to my own feelings to pass them over in silence, and I will say, that whenever, wheresoever, and by whomsoever, the issue may be made upon the propriety of those decisions of the House, I am ready to meet it. Whenever that glove is thrown down, and the lists are regularly open for the trial of conclusions, I am ready, if an abler and more skilful advocate of the constitution will not do it, to take it up; and, armed with the panoply of truth and reason, without any vain and weak reliance upon my own powers, I do not fear the The employment of the State banks as depositories of the public money is called an experiment, and no little ingenuity has been displayed in ringing the changes on this word, with a view of ridiculing the idea of making an experiment on this subject. I am surprised that even some of the opponents of the Bank of the United States should speak of the employment of the State banks as depositories of, and as agents to collect, keep, and disburse, the public money, as an experiment. I deny that it can, with any propriety, be called an experiment. There is nothing novel in it. It has been going on from the time of the establishment of the first State bank to the present day. State banks have been selected and employed, as they are now selected and employed, by the Secretary of the Treasury, as fiscal agents of the Government, in collecting and disbursing the public money, during the whole period from the adoption of the constitution to the present moment; and this embraces periods when a Bank of the United States existed, and when it did not exist. Let me recall the recollection of the House to the history of the country on this subject. In the year 1811, when the old Bank of the United States had been in existence twenty years, and when judgment of death was about being pronounced upon it by the Congress of that time, a report made by the then Secretary of the Treasury showed that a large proportion, upwards, I believe, of one third of the whole of the public money in the treasury, was deposited in the State banks; and that, of twenty-one depositories, eleven of them were State banks, and nine consisted of the Bank of the United States and its branches. It is, moreover, a fact that, in all the New England States, during that whole time, there was but one branch of the United States Bank located, (in Boston,) notwithstanding the number of the collection districts, the hundreds of ports of entry, the vast amount of mercantile capital and commercial enterprise employed in these States. In Connecticut there was no branch of the United States Bank; none in Rhode Island, which, though small in territory, bas always been extensively engaged in foreign trade, and possessed a large amount of capital. So that, even after the first Bank of the United States had been in operation twenty years, the State banks were more frequently used as places for the deposite of the public money than the Bank of the United States and its branches; and the fiscal concerns of the Treasury, in reference to the collection, safe keeping, transfer, and disbursement, of the public money deposited in these banks, were as well and conveniently managed as in reference to that deposited in the Bank of the United States. When the Bank of the United States expired, in 1811, the same system of employing the State banks was continued and extended, and the whole revenue was collected through the State banks, and deposited in them, or such of them as were selected by the Secretary of the Treasury, and employed on such terms as were agreed on between the Treasury Department and the banks, respectively; and we have the authority of Mr. Gallatin, in a letter written in 1812, that "no difficulty has been experienced in the transmission of the public money; and, with the exception of Norfolk and Savannah, the revenue has generally been as well collected as heretofore." What was the cause or extent of the difficulty in the excepted places I am not informed, but I presume they were temporary and inconsiderable. I hold in my hand extracts which I have taken from the speeches made by gentlemen belonging to each of the great political parties which divided the country in 1811, and had intended to refer the House to them. Under present circumstances, however, I will not read them. They prove that the opinion was universal, at that time, that when the Bank of the United States ceased to exist, the employment of State banks must be extended to those places where theretofore the Bank of the United States and its branches had been used as depositories. All admitted that as the only alternative. The friends of the Bank of the United States insisted there was no other; and, as that would fail to answer the purpose, the Bank of the United States ought to be rechartered; and, on the other hand, the opponents of the Bank of the United States, contending that the State banks had already been, to a great extent, employed; that they were entirely competent to constitute a safe, cheap, and convenient agency in enabling the Treasury to collect, safely keep, and conveniently disburse, the public money. Through all this time, then, from 1789 to 1816, through all administrations, and by all political parties, and especially by that party which was called "republican," this "infernal agency of State banks," as it has been characterized by one of my honorable colleagues, [Mr. ROBERTSON,] has been employed, under the superintendence of the Secretary of the Treasury, and, as it would seem, approved and admitted by all to be the best in the absence of a Bank of the United States. It is, then, (said Mr. P.,) a misapplication of terms to call the agency of State banks, as places of deposite for the public money, an experiment. It might have been called so in 1789. But surely its having been tested by [H. OF R. experience of its successful operation from that time down to 1816, without the loss of a dollar to the Treasury, justifies me in saying that it is no longer proper to call it an experiment. If any thing has occurred since to show that it cannot be depended on, undoubtedly it ought to be candidly considered and duly weighed. It is accordingly insisted that it has signally failed since 1816, and that this is proved by the state of the currency at that time, and by the one million of dollars of unavailable funds, now in the treasury, which we have regularly and ostentatiously paraded before us as the proof of the inability of the State banks to furnish safe, cheap, and convenient depositories. These unavailable funds consist of the notes of some insolvent State banks, which failed some years after the close of the war, and the notes of which, to the amount above mentioned, were in the treasury, and have not been redeemed; and of balances due from some State bank depositories. But do gentlemen suppose that we are so blind, or that we can be so blinded, as not to be able to trace this loss to its true cause? Do we not all know that the deranged and unsound state of our currency, the depreciation of the paper of some of the State banks, and the insolvency of others, at that time, grew out of the state of war? That all the resources of the country, public and private, were put in requisition to furnish the means of carrying on a war which, after all, left us with a burden of one hundred and twenty millions of debt? Can there be any man who supposes that there is something so magical in the name of a Bank of the United States, or so efficacious in the fact that it is created by this Government, instead of by the State Governments, as to believe that, if the Bank of the United States had been in full operation during the war, the same derangement of the currency would not have occurred-the same suspension of specie payments, the same depreciation of its paper, and that of other banks? The necessities of the country compelled almost all the State banks to stretch their credit to the utmost, to assist the Government, until it failed and was exhausted. All institutions of this kind, which did not close their vaults, cease all active business, and refuse all aid to the Government, were involved in the common calamities of the war, which affected the value of every species of property, and visited with its inflections all the recesses of trade, and every ramification of society. It was in the midst of this state of things that it was suggested to Congress, through the Treasury Department, to aid the resources of the country by establishing a Bank of the United States, which should be compelled to loan to the Government, when required, thirty millions of dollars; and was authorized to dispense with specie payments, with the consent of the President. This project failed in Congress. It was demonstrated by Mr. Webster, then a member of this House-and of whom I may say, however erroneous and objectionable are many of his political opinions, that he challenges the admiration of all for his profound sagacity and consummate ability-it was demonstrated by him that it was perfectly idle to establish a bank on such principles-that it would begin in insolvency, and that the whole scheme was little better than a sort of legalized bankruptcy; and yet such were the necessities of the Government, and the peculiar exigency of the times, that it seemed, by many of our most patriotic statesmen, to be demanded and justified. Congress, however, rejected it, and passed a sort of compromise bill, by a vote of 120 to 37, by which the bank was not required to loan money to the Government, and was bound to redeem its notes in specie. The veto was applied to this bill by Mr. Madison because of these features, which rendered the bill wholly useless in relieving the country during the exigencies of war. Who that looks back upon these historical rem |