early invitation given to Congress, to take up the subject, by the President himself, the writer of the message seems to vary the ground of objection, and instead of complaining that the time of bringing forward this measure was premature, to insist, rather, that, after the report of the committee of the other House, the Bank should have withdrawn its application for the present! But that report offers no just ground, surely, for such withdrawal. The subject was before Congress; it was for Congress to decide upon it, with all the light shed by the report; and the question of postponement, having been made in both Houses, was lost, by clear majorities, in each. Under such circumstances, it would have been somewhat singular, to say the least, if the Bank itself had withdrawn its application. It is indeed known to every body, that the report of the committee, or any thing contained in that report, was very little relied on by the opposers of the renewal. If it has been discovered elsewhere, that that report contained matter important in itself, or which should have led to further inquiry, this may be proof of superior sagacity; for certainly no such thing was discerned by either House of Congress.

But, Sir, do we not now see, that it was time, and high time, to press this bill, and to send it to the President? Does not the event teach us, that the measure was not brought forward one moment too early? The time had come when the people wished to know the decision of the Administration on the question of the Bank. Why conceal it, or postpone its declaration? Why, as in regard to the Tariff, give out one set of opinions for the North, and another for the South?

An important election is at hand, and the renewal of the Bank charter is a pending object of great interest, and some excitement. Should not the opinions of men high in office, and candidates for reëlection, be known, on this as on other important public questions? Certainly, it is to be hoped that the people of the United States are not yet mere man-worshippers, that they do not choose their rulers without some regard to their political principles, or political opinions. Were they to do this, it would be to subject themselves voluntarily to the evils which the hereditary transmission of power, independent of all personal qualifications, inflicts on other nations. They will judge their public servants by their acts, and continue or withhold their confidence, as they shall think it merited, or as they shall think it forfeited. In every point of view, therefore, the moment had arrived, when it became the duty of Congress to come to a result, in regard to this highly-important measure. The interests of the Government, the interests of the people, the clear and indisputable voice of public opinion, all called upon Congress to act without further loss of time. It has acted, and its act has been negatived by the President; and this

result of the proceedings here, places the question, with all its connections and all its incidents, fully before the people.

Before proceeding to the Constitutional question, there are some other topics, treated in the message, which ought to be noticed. It commences by an inflamed statement of what it calls the "favor" bestowed upon the original Bank, by the Government, or, indeed, as it is phrased, the "monopoly of its favor and support ;" and through the whole message all possible changes are rung on the "gratuity," the "exclusive privileges," and "monopoly," of the Bank charter. Now, Sir, the truth is, that the powers conferred on the Bank are such, and no others, as are usually conferred on similar institutions. They constitute no monopoly, although some of them are of necessity and with propriety exclusive privileges. "The original act," says the message, "operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stockholders." What fair foundation is there for this remark? The stockholders received their charter not gratuitously, but for a valuable consideration in money, prescribed by Congress, and actually paid. At some times the stock has been above par, at other times below par, according to prudence in management, or according to commercial occurrences. But if, by a judicious administration of its affairs, it had kept its stock always above par, what pretence would there be, nevertheless, for saying that such augmentation of its value was a "gratuity" from Government? The message proceeds to declare, that the present act proposes another donation, another gratuity, to the same men, of at least seven millions more. It seems to me that this is an extraordinary statement, and an extraordinary style of argument, for such a subject and on such an occasion. In the first place, the facts are all assumed; they are taken for true without evidence. There are no proofs that any benefit to that amount will accrue to the stockholders; nor any experience to justify the expectation of it. It rests on random estimates, or mere conjecture. But suppose the continuance of the charter should prove beneficial to the stockholders; do they not pay for it? They give twice as much for a charter of fifteen years as was given before for one of twenty. And if the proposed bonus, or premium, be not, in the President's judgment, large enough, would he, nevertheless, on such a mere matter of opinion as that, negative the whole bill? May not Congress be trusted to decide, even on such a subject as the amount of the money premium to be received by Government for a charter of this kind?

But, Sir, there is a larger and a much more just view of this subject. The bill was not passed for the purpose of benefiting the present stockholders. Their benefit, if any, is incidental and collateral. Nor was it passed on any idea that they had a right to a renewed charter; although the message argues against such right, as if it

had been somewhere set up and asserted. No such right has been asserted by any body. Congress passed the bill, not as a bounty or a favor to the present stockholders, nor to comply with any demand of right, on their part; but to promote great public interests, for great public objects. Every Bank must have some stockholders, unless it be such a Bank as the President has recommended, and in regard to which he seems not likely to find much concurrence of other men's opinions; and if the stockholders, whoever they may be, conduct the affairs of the Bank prudently, the expectation is always, of course, that they will make it profitable to themselves, as well as useful to the public. If a Bank charter is not to be granted, because it may be profitable, either in a small or great degree, to the stockholders, no charter can be granted. The objection lies against all Banks.

Sir, the object aimed at by such institutions is to connect the public safety and convenience with private interests. It has been found by experience, that Banks are safest under private management, and that Government Banks are among the most dangerous of all inventions. Now, Sir, the whole drift of the message is to reverse the settled judgment of all the civilized world, and to set up Government Banks, independent of private interest or private control. For this purpose the message labors, even be yond the measure of all its other labors, to create jealousies and prejudices, on the ground of the alleged benefit which individuals will derive from the renewal of this charter. Much less effort is made to show, that Government, or the public, will be injured by the bill, than that individuals will profit by it. Following up the impulses of the same spirit, the message goes on gravely to allege, that the act, as passed by Congress, proposes to make a present of some millions of dollars to foreigners, because a portion of the stock is holden by foreigners. Sir, how would this sort of argument apply to other cases? The President has shown himself not only willing, but anxious, to pay off the three per cent. stock of the United States at par, notwithstanding that it is notorious that foreigners are owners of the greater part of it. Why should he not call that a donation to foreigners of many millions?

I will not dwell particularly on this part of the message. Its tone and its arguments are all in the same strain. It speaks of the certain gain of the present stockholders, of the value of the monopoly it says that all monopolies are granted at the expense of the public; that the many millions which this bill bestows on the stockholders, come out of the earnings of the people; that if Government sells monopolies, it ought to sell them in open market; that it is an erroneous idea, that the present stockholders have a prescriptive right either to the favor or the bounty of Government; that the stock is in the hands of a few, and that the whole Amer14

VOL. II.

ican people are excluded from competition in the purchase of the monopoly. To all this I say, again, that much of it is assumption without proof; much of it is an argument against that which nobody has maintained or asserted; and the rest of it would be equally strong against any charter, at any time. These objections existed in their full strength, whatever that was, against the first Bank. They existed, in like manner, against the present Bank at its creation, and will always exist against all Banks. Indeed, as to the bill now before us, all the fault found with that is, that it proposes to continue the Bank substantially as it now exists. "All the objectionable principles of the existing corporation," says the message, " and most of its odious features, are retained without alleviation;" so that the message is aimed against the Bank, as it has existed from the first, and against any and all others resembling it in its general features.

Allow me, now, Sir, to take notice of an argument founded on the practical operation of the Bank. That argument is this. Little of the stock of the Bank is held in the West, the capital being chiefly owned by citizens of the Southern and Eastern States, and by foreigners. But the Western and South-western States owe the Bank a heavy debt, so heavy that the interest amounts to a million six hundred thousand a year. This interest is carried to the Eastern States, or to Europe, annually, and its payment is a burden on the people of the West, and a drain of their currency, which no country can bear without inconvenience and distress. The true character and the whole value of this argument are manifest by the mere statement of it. The people of the West are, from their situation, necessarily large borrowers. They need money, capital,-and they borrow it, because they can derive a benefit from its use, much beyond the interest which they pay. They borrow at six per cent. of the Bank, although the value of money, with them, is at least as high as eight. Nevertheless, although they borrowed at this low rate of interest, and although they use all they borrow thus profitably, yet they cannot pay the interest without "inconvenience and distress;" and then, Sir, follows the logical conclusion, that, although they cannot pay even the interest without inconvenience and distress, yet less than four years is ample time for the Bank to call in the whole, both principal and interest, without causing more than a light pressure. This is

the argument.

Then follows another, which may he thus stated. It is competent to the States to tax the property of their citizens, vested in the stock of this Bank; but the power is denied of taxing the stock of foreigners therefore the stock will be worth ten or fifteen per cent. more to foreigners than to residents, and will of course inevitably leave the country, and make the American people debtors

to aliens in nearly the whole amount due the Bank, and send across the Atlantic from two to five millions of specie every year, to pay the Bank dividends. Mr. President, arguments like these might be more readily disposed of, were it not that the high and official source from which they proceed, imposes the necessity of treating them with respect. In the first place, it may safely be denied, that the stock of the Bank is any more valuable to foreigners than our own citizens, or an object of greater desire to them, except in so far as capital may be more abundant in the foreign country, and therefore its owners more in want of opportunity of investment. The foreign stockholder enjoys no exemption from taxation. He is, of course, taxed by his own government for his incomes, derived from this as well as other property; and this is a full answer to the whole statement. But it may be added, in the second place, that it is not the practice of civilized states to tax the property of foreigners under such circumstances. Do we tax,

or did we ever tax, the foreign holders of our public debt? Does Pennsylvania, New York, or Ohio, tax the foreign holders of stock in the loans contracted by either of these States? Certainly not. Sir, I must confess, I had little expected to see, on such an occasion as the present, a labored and repeated attempt to produce an impression on the public opinion, unfavorable to the Bank, from the circumstance that foreigners are among its stockholders. I have no hesitation in saying that I deem such a strain of remark as the message contains, on this point, coming from the President of the United States, to be injurious to the credit and character of the country abroad; because it manifests a jealousy, a lurking disposition not to respect the property of foreigners, invited hither by our own laws. And, Sir, what is its tendency but to excite this jealousy, and create groundless prejudices?

From the commencement of the Government, it has been thought desirable to invite, rather than to repel, the introduction of foreign capital. Our stocks have all been open to foreign subscriptions; and the State Banks, in like manner, are free to foreign ownership. Whatever State has created a debt, has been willing that foreigners should become purchasers, and desirous of it. How long is it, Sir, since Congress itself passed a law vesting new powers in the President of the United States over the cities in this district, for the very purpose of increasing their credit abroad, the better to enable them to borrow money to pay their subscriptions to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal? It is easy to say that there is danger to liberty, danger to independence, in a Bank open to foreign stockholders because it is easy to say any thing. But neither reason nor experience proves any such danger. The foreign stockholder cannot be a director. He has no voice even in the choice of directors. His money is placed entirely in the management of the directors appointed by the President and Senate and by the