Article Text
sent that it should be held as a conspiracy to defraud the United States?
Mr. HUNTINGTON admitted that it was very desirable to prevent such frauds, but the courts were open, and he thought would provide a sufficient remedy. At all events, he could not consent to declare a fraudulent conveyance felony.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. BENTON moved the following amendments:
And provided further, That the following sections and parts of said bill shall be excepted from this repeal and shall remain and continue in force, to wit: Sections 19 and 20, section 21, section 25, section 2, and so much of the 19th section as makes it felony in disbursing officers and persons connected with the Post Office Department to use the public money for their own or other purposes; and a neglect or refusal to pay over public moneys on demand or to transfer or disburse them shall be prima facie evidence of an embezzlement of the same.
Sec. And be it further enacted, That the Bank of the United States, commonly called the Pennsylvania Bank of the United States, and its branches and the local banks and agencies owned by it, shall not be entrusted with the collection or safe-keeping or transfer or disbursement of the public moneys or any part thereof.
And he asked that the question be divided, and that a vote be taken on each question by yeas and nays, and they were ordered by the Senate.
The item with regard to the Bank of the United States at Philadelphia having been read,
Mr. CLAY said that he had no hesitation in declaring, after all the disclosures that had recently been made, that he should deprecate as much as any gentleman could do the employment of that bank by the Government as a depository for the public funds. He had intimated the opinion as much as three years ago that the Government was cut loose from that institution from the period of its charter by the State of Pennsylvania. But still he could not consent to the adoption of such an amendment as that proposed. If the Senate was to declare its disapprobation of the management of a particular bank, there were many others, such as the Owl Creek bank, &c., which might, with equal justice, be included in the denunciation. He did not, however, consider it as comporting with the dignity of the Senate to enter upon any such course of discrimination, and he hoped the amendment would not prevail.
Mr. BENTON admitted that other banks had behaved very badly, but the case of this bank stood distinguished from all others, because it had originally come into existence under a charter from the United States, and the eyes of foreigners were in a peculiar manner fixed upon it. Mr. B. proceeded to speak with much warmth against the course of the bank generally, and especially on its bringing upon itself the last suspension by an underhanded and swindling endeavor to break the New York banks. He accused it as having plotted the suspension in 1837, and as being in effect the only obstacle to a resumption of specie payments by all the banks of the South. They had recently made an effort to resume, but this bank had instantly run upon them and forced them to return to a suspension.
The question being now taken on Mr. CALHOUN'S amendment to the amendment of Mr. CLAY, it was decided by yeas and nays, as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Archer, Barrow, Benton, Berrien, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, of Alabama, Fulton, Kerr, King, McRoberts, Merrick, Nicholson, Pierce, Preston, Rives, Sevier, Smith, of Connecticut, Sturgeon, Tappan, Williams, Woodbury, Wright, Young-25.
NAYS-Messrs. Bates, Bayard, Choate, Clay, of Kentucky, Clayton, Dixon, Evans, Graham, Henderson, Huntington, Mangum, Miller, Morehead, Phelps, Porter, Prentiss, Simmons, Smith, of Indiana, Southard, Tallmadge, Walker, White-22.
So the amendment to the amendment was adopted.
The question then recurring on the amendment as thus amended, it was decided by yeas and nays, as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Benton, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, of Alabama, Fulton, King, McRoberts, Nicholson, Pierce, Sevier, Smith, of Connecticut, Sturgeon, Tappan, White, Williams, Woodbury, Wright, Young-19.
NAYS-Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Bayard, Berrien, Choate, Clay, of Kentucky, Clayton, Dixon, Evans, Graham, Henderson, Huntington, Kerr, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Phelps, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Rives, Simmons, Smith, of Indiana, Southard, Tallmadge, Walker, Woodbridge-29.
So the amendment, as amended, was rejected.
Mr. CLAY said that the effect of the last vote was, to leave the bill in the form in which it had been reported. If it should in this form pass both Houses of Congress, and become a law, the State Bank system, as regulated in 1836, would be revived and continue in force until a substitute should be adopted by Congress.
Mr. C. took it for granted that a substitute of some description would pass; but if, unfortunately, Congress should be unable to agree upon any substitute, whether in the form of a bank or other fiscal agent, then he presumed that Congress would set about discharging the duty of rendering the State bank system as efficient and perfect as possible After the gallant course pursued by the honorable Senator from Mississippi, (Mr. WALKER,) Mr. C. considered it as proper for him, also, to state that he would vote for that system under no circumstances-none whatever-none. He had ever been opposed to the plan, and would not have given his vote for the law of 1836 on any other ground than that that law contained the principle of a distribution of the surplus fund among the States. No, if gentlemen on the other side choose to put themselves in command of such a miserable fleet, he did not care under what Commodore, Mr. C. and his friends were ready to meet them upon any sea, and he doubted not that the encounter would result in such a victory as Perry had achieved on one of our great lakes, or the brave McDonough on another.
Mr. CALHOUN would say to the Senator from Kentucky that he was fighting against an imaginary flag if he supposed that the gentlemen on that side of the House meant to contend for the State bank system. No. They intended to go into battle under the noble flag of the sub-Treasury. He was glad that the Senator had been compelled to say that if the sub-Treasury should be repealed, the law of 1836 would be enforced. If that law as it now stood should in practice be found impracticable, the difficulty would fall chiefly in the South and Southwest.
Mr. CLAY said he had never doubted that the law 1836 would revive; but, when he had introduced his bill to repeal the sub-Treasury, he had given notice that that was the first in a series, and had avowed, openly, his preference for a Bank of the United States. If, then, the law of 1836 did revive in its present form, he hoped it would be but for a very short time. But, if otherwise, it must undergo a complete revision.
Mr. BAYARD admitted the culpability of the bank, but opposed the amendment as unnecessary, because the law of 1836 expressly prohibited the Government from employing any bank which did not pay specie.
Mr. WOODBURY, in reply to this, explained the construction of that law by the Treasury Department. When that Department had funds to deposite, and no bank could be found which conformed to the provisions of the law of 1836, the Department considered itself as thrown back on the previous law, and under that law at liberty to place the deposites in non specie-paying banks. What else could it do, unless it threw the money into the streets?
Mr. DIXON said he should vote against the amendment, both because be thought it improper to refer to individual banks, and especially because this bank assigned as one cause of its suspension the hard treatment of the United States Government.
The question being taken, the amendment was rejected as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Archer, Benton, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, of Ala., Fulton, King, McRo-