BANK PROCEEDINGS, ON SEEING THE DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT, IN
RELATION TO THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS.
Immediately on the publication in the _Globe_ of the "Paper read
to the Cabinet," the bank took it into consideration in all
the forms of a co-ordinate body. It summoned a meeting of the
directors--appointed a committee--referred the President's "Paper"
to it--ordered it to report--held another meeting to receive the
report--adopted it (the government directors, Gilpin, Wager, and
Sullivan voting against it)--and ordered five thousand copies of
the report to be printed. A few extracts from the report, entitled
a Memorial to Congress, are here given, for the purpose of showing,
_First_, The temper and style in which this moneyed corporation,
deriving its existence from the national Congress, indulged itself,
and that in its corporate capacity, in speaking of the President of
the United States and his cabinet; and, _next_, to show the lead
which it gave to the proceedings which were to be had in Congress.
Under the first head, the following passages are given:
"The committee to whom was referred on the 24th of September,
a paper signed 'Andrew Jackson,' purporting to have been read
to a cabinet on the 18th, and also another paper signed 'H.
D. Gilpin, John T. Sullivan, Peter Wager, and Hugh McEldery,'
bearing date August 19th, 1833--with instructions to consider
the same, and report to the board 'whether any, and what steps
may be deemed necessary on the part of the board in consequence
of the publication of said letter and report,' beg leave to
state--
"To justify this measure is the purpose of the paper signed
'Andrew Jackson.' Of the paper itself, and of the individual who
has signed it, the committee find it difficult to speak with the
plainness by which alone such a document, from such a source,
should be described, without wounding their own self-respect,
and violating the consideration which all American citizens
must feel for the chief magistracy of their country. Subduing,
however, their feelings and their language down to that
respectful tone which is due to the office, they will proceed
to examine the history of this measure, its character and the
pretexts offered in palliation of it.
"1st. It would appear from its contents and from other sources
of information, that the President had a meeting of what is
called the cabinet, on Wednesday, the 18th September, and there
read this paper. Finding that it made no impression on the
majority of persons assembled, the subject was postponed, and
in the mean time this document was put into the newspapers.
It was obviously published for two reasons. The first was to
influence the members of the cabinet by bringing to bear upon
their immediate decision the first public impression excited by
misrepresentations, which the objects of them could not refute
in time--the second was, by the same excitement, to affect the
approaching elections in Pennsylvania, Maryland and New Jersey.
Its assailants are what are called politicians (i.e., the
assailants of the bank)."
Such is the temper and style in which the President of the United
States is spoken of by this great moneyed corporation, in a memorial
addressed to Congress. Erecting itself into a co-ordinate body,
and assuming in its corporate capacity an authority over the
President's act, it does not even condescend to call him President.
It is "Andrew Jackson," and the name always placed between inverted
commas to mark the higher degree of contempt. Then the corporation
shrinks from remarking on the "paper" itself, and the "individual"
who signed it, as a thing injurious to their own self-respect,
and only to be done in consideration of the "office" which he
fills, and that after "subduing" their feelings--and this was the
insolence of the moneyed power in defeat, when its champion had
received but forty-nine votes for the Presidency out of two hundred
and eighty-eight given in! What would it have been in victory? The
lead which it gave to the intended proceedings in Congress, is well
indicated in these two paragraphs, and the specifications under them:
"The indelicacy of the form of those proceedings corresponds
well with the substance of them, which is equally in violation
of the rights of the bank and the laws of the country.
"The committee willingly leave to the Congress of the United
States, the assertion of their own constitutional power, and the
vindication of the principles of our government, against the
most violent assault they have ever yet encountered; and will
now confine themselves to the more limited purpose of showing
that the reasons assigned for this measure are as unfounded as
the object itself is illegal."
The illegality of the proceeding, and the vindication of the
constitution, and the principles of the government, from a most
violent assault, are the main objects left by the bank to the
Congress; the invalidity of the reasons assigned for the removal,
are more limited, and lest the Congress might not discover these
violations of law and constitution, the corporation proceeds to
enumerate and establish them. It says:
"Certainly since the foundation of this government, nothing
has ever been done which more deeply wounds the spirit of
our free institutions. It, in fact, resolves itself into
this--that whenever the laws prescribe certain duties to an
officer, if that officer, acting under the sanctions of his
official oath and his private character, refuses to violate
that law, the President of the United States may dismiss
him and appoint another; and if he too should prove to be a
'refractory subordinate,' to continue his removals until he
at last discovers in the descending scale of degradation some
irresponsible individual fit to be the tool of his designs.
Unhappily, there are never wanting men who will think as
their superiors wish them to think--men who regard more the
compensation than the duties of their office--men to whom daily
bread is sufficient consolation for daily shame.
"The present state of this question is a fearful illustration
of the danger of it. At this moment the whole revenue of
this country is at the disposal--the absolute, uncontrolled
disposal--of the President of the United States. The laws
declare that the public funds shall be placed in the Bank of the
United States, unless the Secretary of the Treasury forbids it.
The Secretary of the Treasury will not forbid it. The President
dismisses him, and appoints somebody who will. So the laws
declare that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, except
on warrants for appropriations made by law. If the Treasurer
refuses to draw his warrant for any disbursement, the President
may dismiss him and appoint some more flexible agent, who will
not hesitate to gratify his patron. The text is in the official
gazette, announcing the fate of the dismissed Secretary to
all who follow him. 'The agent cannot conscientiously perform
the service, and refuses to co-operate, and desires to remain
to thwart the President's measures. To put an end to this
difficulty between the head and the hands of the executive
department, the constitution arms the chief magistrate with
authority to remove the refractory subordinate.' The theory thus
avowed, and the recent practice under it, convert the whole free
institutions of this country into the mere absolute will of a
single individual. They break down all the restraints which the
framers of the government hoped they had imposed on arbitrary
power, and place the whole revenue of the United States in the
hands of the President.
"For it is manifest that this removal of the deposits is not
made by the order of the Secretary of the Treasury. It is a
perversion of language so to describe it. On the contrary, the
reverse is openly avowed. The Secretary of the Treasury refused
to remove them, believing, as his published letter declares,
that the removal was 'unnecessary, unwise, vindictive, arbitrary
and unjust.' He was then dismissed because he would not remove
them, and another was appointed because he would remove them.
Now this is a palpable violation of the charter. The bank and
Congress agree upon certain terms, which no one can change but
a particular officer; who, although necessarily nominated to
the Senate by the President, was designated by the bank and by
Congress as the umpire between them. Both Congress and the bank
have a right to the free and honest and impartial judgment of
that officer, whoever he may be--the bank, because the removal
may injure its interests--the Congress, because the removal
may greatly incommode and distress their constituents. In this
case, they are deprived of it by the unlawful interference of
the President, who 'assumes the responsibility,' which, being
interpreted, means, usurps the power of the Secretary.
"The whole structure of the Treasury shows that the design of
Congress was to make the Secretary as independent as possible
of the President. The other Secretaries are merely executive
officers; but the Secretary of the Treasury, the guardian of
the public revenue, comes into more immediate sympathy with
the representatives of the people who pay that revenue; and
although, according to the general scheme of appointment, he is
nominated by the President to the Senate, yet he is in fact the
officer of Congress, not the officer of the President.
"This independence of the Secretary of the Treasury--if it be
true in general--is more especially true in regard to the bank.
It was in fact the leading principle in organizing the bank,
that the President should be excluded from all control of it.
The question which most divided the House of Representatives
was, whether there should be any government directors at all;
and although this was finally adopted, yet its tendency to
create executive influence over the bank was qualified by two
restrictions: first, that no more than three directors should be
appointed from any one State; and, second, that the president
of the bank should not be, as was originally designed by the
Secretary of the Treasury, chosen from among the government
directors. Accordingly, by the charter, the Secretary of the
Treasury is every thing--the President comparatively nothing.
The Secretary has the exclusive supervision of all the relations
of the bank with the government."
These extracts are sufficient to show that the corporation charged
the President with illegal and unconstitutional conduct, subversive
of the principles of our government, and dangerous to our liberties
in causing the deposits to be removed--that they looked upon this
illegal, unconstitutional, and dangerous conduct as the principal
wrong--and left to Congress the assertion of its own constitutional
power, and the vindication of the principles of the government
from the assault which they had received. And this in a memorial
addressed to Congress, of which five thousand copies, in pamphlet
form, were printed, and the members of Congress liberally supplied
with copies. It will be seen, when we come to the proceedings of
Congress, how far the intimations of the memorial in showing what
ought to be done, and leaving Congress to do it, was complied with
by that body.