bolts and bars. The coal pit from which he gets supply, is within twenty feet of the works.

Mr. Palmer had a hand in manufacturing the first bar of iron that was made west of the mountains, and is now the owner, and has in use the roller and housings that | were then used.

Four miles from Brownsville, upon the Red Stone creek, Jonathan Sharpless has a two vat paper mill, where he manufactures every description of printing and writing paper.

I see nothing to prevent Brownsville from retaining the high reputation it has acquired in steam-boat build. ing, and steam engines; indeed there are few places, if any, that possess as many advantages for other works. The town has twenty-five thousand inhabitants, five places of public worship, viz. one Episcopal, two Methodists, one Quaker, and one Catholic, and a bank of unquestionable credit.

There is a bridge now being built over the Monongahela, on stone piers, six hundred and sixty feet long, besides the abutments.

From the United States Gazette.

BIOGRAPHY OF GOV. HIESTER. Circumstances put me in possession of many facts in relation to the life of the late GENERAL JOSEPH HIESTER, which induce a belief that their publication, more especially those which relate to his conduct in the war of independence would be acceptable to a people who have in truth delighted to do him honor while he remained amongst them. I think the facts cannot fail to imbue our population with the same sound principles and zealous feelings of patriotism which at an early period and throughout a long and unostentatious but useful and honorable life animated the deceased. No man knows how soon the day may come, when his services may be required by his country, and he may be called upon to make sacrifices of feeling and interest to contribute his mite towards her freedom and happiness. Our political horizon is not cloudless. There are floating dark spots in the south, which, though now no larger than a man's shield, may, by the breath of faction, be blown together and form a dark mass, which shall overshadow the Union. In such times it behoves every cit izen to examine the great questions which agitate the Union, and make up his mind to adopt that course of conduct which patriotism and honor shall make out. The early, manly, and disinterested course of devotion to their country's welfare, which distinguished the lives of many of our citizens, will now well bear to be reviewed not only to do honor to them and their memories, but to invite us to emulate their virtues.

It was in the twenty-third or twenty-fourth year of his age that General Joseph Hiester first rallied under the standard of his country, and took up arms in defence of her independence. It was a gloomy period, at which many hearts, that had beaten high, were sickened and sad in the bosoms of those who now had melancholy forebodings of the issue of the contest in which they had cheerfully embarked; at a time when the great, the good, the peerless Washington had much cause to complain of the want of men and means to meet the enemies of his country.

It was late in the year 1775, or early in 1776, that Joseph Hiester, then a vigorous, powerful, and influential young man, called together, by beat of drum, his fellow townsmen of Reading, Pennsylvania, to take into consideration the alarming state and gloomy prospects of their country. Reading was then an inconsiderable town with a small population. Having convened about twenty-five or thirty, he explained to them the necessity there was that they also should be up and doing in the cause of their common country. He stated that their beloved General was then believed to be in a most perilous situation, in New Jersey; that his friends and fellow-soldiers were but few, while his foes and the

foes of America were thickening and multiplying on every side. Having so far as in his power, embarked the sympathies and roused the patriotism of his hearers he expressed his anxious desire to raise a company of volunteers, and march to the assistance of Washington. He was heard with attention and respect, and his proposition was kindly received. He then laid $40 on the drum head and said, "I will give this sum, as a bounty, and the appointment of a sergeant, to the first man who will subscribe the articles of association to form a volunteer company to march forthwith and join the Commander-in-chief; and, I also pledge myself, said he, to furnish the company with blankets and necessary funds for their equipment and on the march." This promise he honorably and faithfully fulfilled. After our young Captain had thus addressed his neighbours, they consulted together, and Mathias Babb stepped forward from amongst them, signed the articles and took the money from the drum head. This example, and further advancements of smaller sums of money, induced twenty men, on that evening, to subscribe to the articles of association. Notices and invitations were sent through the neighbourhood; other meetings were held, and in ten days from the first meeting, Captain Hiester had eighty men enrolled. They were promptly organized and ready to march to join the Commander-in-chief.

This company and other troops were, at that time, enlisted and organized under the legislature or the executive council of Pennsylvania, I do not recollect which, for the purpose of forming a disposable force called the Flying Camp. The success which was consequent upon Capt. Hiester's efforts to raise a volunteer company, led to the determination to raise a battalion or regiment. It was early ascertained, that the liberality and popularity of Capt. Hiester, would secure him the highest office in the troops, about to be raised. This state of public opinion could not be mistaken or misunderstood, and Capt. Hiester was generally regarded as the future commander of the troops about to be raised. At this point of time, Mr. Haller, also a citizen of Reading, called upon Mr. Hiester and expressed strong desire to join the army, but on condition that he, Mr. Hiester, would relinquish in his, Mr. Haller's favor all claims to the command.

Mr. Haller frankly admitted that he was not disposed to go, unless elected Colonel, and that he well knew he could not attain that rank in any other way, than through the resignation and good offices of Capt. Hiester. Mr. Hiester heard with patient attention, all that was argued and suggested by Mr. Haller, and in answer said: The office you seek must be the gift of our fellow soldiers, but I do assure you I am not anxious for command or distinction, further than they may enable me the more effectually to serve our country. I will willingly yield all claim, rather than that our country shall not have your services. The declaration thus made, was followed up by Capt. Hiester, who freely conversing with the troops, and declining to be a candidate for the office claimed, used his influence in favor of Mr. Haller. The facility with which Capt. Hiester con. sented to the wishes of Mr. Haller, and a reliance upon the pure motives which had induced him thus to yield rank and precedence to another, was the cause of a new application of a similar nature. Mr. Edward Burd was desirous to obtain the rank of Major, yet was satisfied how hopeless would be any opposition he could make to the election of Capt. Hiester, whose promotion to that rank was the more anxiously desired by the men, from the public spirited and handsome manner in which he had declined the Coloneley, and succeeded in pursuading the men to elect another. The feelings thus every where manifested, did not, however, deter Mr. Burd, from attempting to attain the station which he ardently desired. He waited on Capt. Hiester, laid before him his wishes, stated his knowledge of public opinion, his belief that he could be of advantage to the public service, and his anxiety that Capt. Hiester would forego

constitution, subversive of the rights of the states, and dangerous to the liberties of the people, I felt it my duty, at an early period of my administration, to call the attention of Congress to the practicability of organizing an institution combining all its advantages, and obviating these objections. I sincerely regret that, in the act before me, I can perceive none of those modifications of the bank charter, which are necessary, in my opinion, to make it compatible with justice, with sound policy, or with the constitution of our country.

The present corporate body, denominated the president, directors and company of the Bank of the United States, will have existed, at the time this act is intended to take effect, twenty years. It enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking under the authority of the general government, a monopoly of its favor and support, and, as a necessary consequence, almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange. The powers, privileges and favors bestowed upon it, in the original charter, by increasing the value of the stock far above its par value, operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stockholders.

An apology may be found for the failure to guard against this result, in the consideration that the effect of the original act of incorporation could not be certainly foreseen at the time of its passage. The act before me proposes another gratuity to the holders of the same stock, and, in many cases, to the same men, of at least seven millions more. This donation finds no apology in any uncertainty as to the effect of the act. On all hands, it is conceded that its passage will increase at least, twenty or thirty per cent. more, the market price of the stock, subject to the payment of the annuity of $200,000 per year, secured by the act; thus adding, in a moment, one fourth to its par value. It is not our citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank, are held by foreigners. By this act, the American republic proposes virtually, to make them a present of some millions of dollars. For these gratuities to foreigners, and to some of our own opulent citizens, the act secures no equivalent whatever. They are the certain gains of the present stockholders under the operation of this act, after making full allowance for the payment of the bonus.

Every monopoly, and all exclusive privileges, are granted at the expense of the public, which ought to receive a fair equivalent. The many millions which this act proposes to bestow on the stockholders of the existing bank, must come, directly or indirectly, out of the earnings of the American people. It is due to thein, therefore, if their government sell monopolies and exclusive privileges, that they should at least exact for them as much as they are worth in open market. The value of the monopoly in this case may be correctly ascertained. The twenty-eight millions of stock would probably be at an advance of fifty per cent. and command in market, at least, forty-two millions of dollars, subject to the payment of the present bonus. The present value of the monopoly, therefore, is seventeen millions of dollars, and this the act proposes to sell for three millions, payable in fifteen annual instalments of $200,000 each.

It is not conceivable how the present stockholders can have any claim to the special favor of the government. The present corporation has enjoyed its monopoly during the period stipulated in the original contract. If we must have such a corporation, why should not the government sell out the whole stock, and thus secure to the people the full market value of the privileges granted? Why should not Congress create and sell twenty-eight millions of stock, incorporating the purchasers with all the powers and privileges secured in this act, and putting the premium upon the sales into the treasury?

But this act does not permit competition in the purchase of this monopoly. It seems to be predicated on

VOL. X.

the erroneous idea, that the present stockholders have a prospective right, not only to the favor, but to the bounty of government. It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners, and the residue is held by a few hundreds of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class: for their benefit does this act exclude the whole American people from competi tion in the purchase of this monopoly, and dispose of it for many millions less than it is worth. This seems the less excusable, because some of our own citizens, not now stockholders, petitioned that the door of competition might be opened, and offered to take a charter on terms much more favorable to the government and country.

But this proposition, although made by men whose aggregate wealth is believed to be equal to all the private stock in the existing bank, has been set aside, and the bounty of our government is proposed to be again bestowed on the few who have been fortunate enough to secure the stock, and, at this moment, wield the power of the existing institution. I cannot perceive the justice or policy of this course. If our government must sell monopolies, it would seem to be its duty to take nothing less than their full value; and if gratuities must be made, once in fifteen or twenty years, let them not be bestowed on the subjects of a foreign govern ment, nor upon a designated and favored class of men in our own country. It is but justice and good policy, as far as the nature of the case will admit, to confine our favors to our fellow citizens,and let each in his turn enjoy an opportunity to profit by our bounty. In the bearings of the act before me upon these points, I find ample reasons why it should not become a law.

It has been urged as an argument in favor of re-char tering the present bank, that the calling in its loans will produce great embarrassment and distress. The time allowed to close its concerns, is ample, and if it has been well managed, its pressure will be light, and heavy only in case its management has been bad. If, therefore, it shall produce a distress, the fault will be its own; and it would furnish a reason against renewing a power which has been so obviously abused. But, will there ever be a time when this reason will be less powerful? To acknowledge its force, is to admit that the bank ought to be perpetual, and as a conse quence, the present stockholders, and those inheriting their rights, as successors, be established a privileged order, clothed both with great political power, and en joying immense pecuniary advantages from their con nexion with the government.

The modifications of the existing charter, proposed by this act, are not such, in my view, as make it consistent with the rights of the states or the liberties of the people. The qualification of the right of the bank to hold real estate, the limitation of its power to establish branches, and the power reserved to Congress to forbid the circulation of small notes, are restrictions comparatively of little value or importance. All the objectiona ble principles of the existing corporation, and most of its odious features, are retained without alleviation.

The fourth section provides "that the notes or bills of the said corporation, although the same be on the faces thereof, respectively made payable at one place only, shall, nevertheless, be received by the said corpo. ration at the bank, or at any of the offices of the discount and deposit thereof, if intended in liquidation or payment of any balance or balances, due said corporation, or to such office of discount and deposit from any other incorporated bank." This provision secures to the state banks, a legal privilege in the Bank of the United States, which is withheld from all private citizens. If a state bank in Philadelphia, owe the Bank of the United States, and have notes issued by the St. Louis Branch, it can pay the debt with those notes; but if a merchant, mechanic, or other private citizen, be in like circumstances, he cannot by law pay his debt with those notes, but must sell them at a discount, or send them to St.

It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent, and by the decision of the supreme court. To this conclusion, I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power, except where the acquiescence of the people and the states can be considered as well settled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argument against the bank might be based on precedent. One congress in 1791 decided in favour of a bank; another in 1811 decided against it. One congress in 1815, decided against a bank, another in 1816 decided in its favor. Prior to the present congress, therefore, the precedents drawn from that source were equal. If we resort to the states, the expressions of legislative, judicial, and Executive opinions against the bank, have been probably to those in its favor, as four to one. There is nothing in precedent, therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me.

If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this government. The Congress, the executive, and the court, must each for itself, be be guided by its own opinion of the constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the house of representatives, of the senate, and of the president to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval, as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the Judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the Judges, and on that point the president is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.

But in the case relied upon, the Supreme Court have not decided that all the features of this corporation are compatible with the constitution. It is true that the court have said that the law incorporating the bank is a constitutional exercise of power by Congress. But, taking into view the whole opinion of the court, and the reasoning by which they have come to that conclusion, I understand them to have decided that, inasmuch as a bank is an appropriate means for carrying into effect the enumerated powers of the general government, therefore, the law incorporating it is in accordance with that provision of the constitution which declares that Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying those pow

The principle here affirmed is, that "the degree of its necessity," involving all the details of a banking institution, is a question exclusively for legislative consideration. A bank is constitutional; but it is the province of the legislature to determine whether this or that particular power, privilege or exemption, is "necessary and proper," to enable the bank to discharge its duty to the government, and, from their decision, there is no ap peal to the courts of justice. Under the decision of the Supreme Court, therefore, it is the exclusive province of Congress and the president to decide, whether the particular features of this act are "necessary and proper," in order to enable the bank to perform conreniently and efficiently the public duties assigned to it as a fiscal agent, and therefore constitutional, or unnecessary and improper, and therefore unconstitutional. Without commenting on the general principle af firmed by the Supreme Court, let us examine the details of this act in accordance with the rule of legisla. tive action which they have laid down. It will be found that many of the powers and privileges conferred on it, cannot be supposed necessary for the purpose for which it is proposed to be created, and are not therefore means necessary to attain the end in view, and consequently not justified by the constitution.

The original act of incorporation, section 21; enacts "that no other bank shall be established by any future law of the United States during the continuance of the corporation hereby created, for which the faith of the United States is hereby pledged, provided Congress may renew existing charters for banks within the District of Columbia, not increasing the capital thereof, and may also establish any other bank or banks in said District, with capitals not exceeding in the whole six millions of dollars if they shall deem it expedient." This provision is continued in force, by the act before me, fifteen years from the 3d of March, 1836.

If Congress possessed the power to establish one bank, they had power to establish more than one, if, in their opinion, two or more banks, had been “necessary" to facilitate the execution of the powers delegated to them in the constitution. If they possessed the power to establish a second bank, it was a power derived from the constitution, to be exercised from time to time, and at any time when the interests of the country or the emergencies of the government might make it expedient. It was possessed by one Congress as well as another, and by all Congresses alike, and alike at every session. But the Congress of 1816 has taken it away from their successors for twenty years, and the Congress of 1832 proposes to abolish it for fifteen years more. It cannot be "necessary" or "proper" for Congress to barter away or divest themselves of any of the powers vested in them by the constitution to be exercised for the public good. It is not "necessary" to the efficiency of the bank, nor is it "proper" in relation to themselves and their successors. They may properly use the discretion vested in them; but they may not limit the discretion of their successors. This restriction on themselves, and grant of monopoly to the bank, is, therefore, unconstitutional.

In another point of view, this provision is a palpable