SECRETARY'S REPORT ON THE REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS.
In the first days of the session Mr. Clay called the attention
of the Senate to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury,
communicating the fact that he had ordered the public deposits to
cease to be made in the Bank of the United States, and giving his
reasons for that act, and said:
"When Congress, at the time of the passage of the charter of the
bank, made it necessary that these reasons should be submitted,
they must have had some purpose in their mind. It must have
been intended that Congress should look into these reasons,
determine as to their validity; and approve or disapprove them,
as might be thought proper. The reasons had now been submitted,
and it was the duty of Congress to decide whether or not they
were sufficient to justify the act. If there was a subject
which, more than any other, seemed to require the prompt action
of Congress, it certainly was that which had reference to the
custody and care of the public treasury. The Senate, therefore,
could not, at too early a period, enter on the question--what
was the actual condition of the treasury?
"It was not his purpose to go into a discussion, but he had
risen to state that it appeared to him to be his duty as a
senator, and he hoped that other senators took similar views
of their duty, to look into this subject, and to see what was
to be done. As the report of the Secretary of the Treasury
had declared the reasons which had led to the removal of the
public deposits, and as the Senate had to judge whether, on
investigation of these reasons, the act was a wise one or not,
he considered that it would not be right to refer the subject to
any committee, but that the Senate should at once act on it, not
taking it up in the form of a report of a committee, but going
into an examination of the reasons as they had been submitted."
Mr. Benton saw two objections to proceeding as Mr. Clay
proposed--one, as to the form of his proposition--the other, as
to the place in which it was made. The report of the Secretary,
charging acts of misconduct as a cause of removal, would require
an investigation into their truth. The House of Representatives
being the grand inquest of the nation, and properly chargeable
with all inquiries into abuses, would be the proper place for the
consideration of the Secretary's report--though he admitted that
the Senate could also make the inquiry if it pleased; but should do
it in the proper way, namely, by inquiring into the truth of the
allegations against the bank. He said:
"He requested the Senate to bear in mind that the Secretary
had announced, among other reasons which he had assigned for
the removal of the deposits, that it had been caused by the
misconduct of the bank, and he had gone into a variety of
specifications, charging the bank with interfering with the
liberties of the people in their most vital elements--the
liberty of the press, and the purity of elections. The Secretary
had also charged the bank with dishonoring its own paper on
several occasions, and that it became necessary to compel it
to receive paper of its own branches. Here, then, were grave
charges of misconduct, and he wished to know whether, in the
face of such charges, this Congress was to go at once, without
the previous examination of a committee, into action upon the
subject?
"He desired to know whether the Senate were now about to
proceed to the consideration of this report as it stood, and,
without receiving any evidence of the charges, or taking any
course to establish their truth, to give back the money to this
institution? He thought it would be only becoming in the bank
itself to ask for a committee of scrutiny into its conduct,
and that the subject ought to be taken up by the House of
Representatives, which, on account of its numbers, its character
as the popular branch, and the fact that all money bills
originated there, was the most proper tribunal for the hearing
of this case. He did not mean to deny that the Senate had the
power to go into the examination. But to fix a day now for the
decision of so important a case, he considered as premature.
Were the whole of the charges to be blown out of the paper by
the breath of the Senate? Were they to decide on the question,
each senator sitting there as witness and juror in the case?
He did not wish to stand there in the character of a witness,
unless he was to be examined on oath either at the bar of the
Senate, or before a committee of that body, where the evidence
would be taken down. He wished to know the manner in which the
examination was to be conducted; for he regarded this motion as
an admission of the truth of every charge which had been made in
the report, and as a flight from investigation."
Mr. Clay then submitted two resolutions in relation to the subject,
the second of which after debate, was referred to the committee on
finance. They were in these words:
"1st. That, by dismissing the late Secretary of the Treasury,
because he would not, contrary to his sense of his own duty,
remove the money of the United States in deposit with the Bank
of the United States and its branches, in conformity with the
President's opinion, and by appointing his successor to effect
such removal, which has been done, the President has assumed the
exercise of a power over the Treasury of the United States, not
granted to him by the constitution and laws, and dangerous to
the liberties of the people.
"2d. That the reasons assigned by the Secretary of the Treasury
for the removal of the money of the United States deposited in
the Bank of the United States and its branches, communicated to
Congress on the 3d day of December, 1833, are unsatisfactory and
insufficient."
The order for the reference to the finance committee was made in
the Senate at four o'clock in the afternoon of one day; and the
report upon it was made at noon the next day; a very elaborate
argumentative paper, the reading of which by its reporter (Mr.
Webster) consumed one hour and a quarter of time. It recommended
the adoption of the resolution; and 6000 copies of the report were
ordered to be printed. Mr. Forsyth, of Georgia, complimented the
committee on their activity in getting out a report of such length
and labor, in so short a time, and in the time usually given to the
refreshment of dinner and sleep. He said:
"Certainly great credit was due to the committee on finance for
the zeal, ability, and industry with which the report had been
brought out. He thought the reference was made yesterday at four
o'clock; and the committee could hardly have had time to agree
on and write out so long a report in the short space of time
intervening since then. It was possible that the subject might
have been discussed and well understood in the committee before,
and that the chairman had time to embody the sentiments of the
various members of the committee previous to the reference. If
such was the case, it reminded him of what had once happened in
one of the courts of justice of the State of Georgia. A grave
question of constitutional law was presented before that court,
was argued for days with great ability, and when the argument
was concluded, the judge drew from his coat pocket a written
opinion, which he read, and ordered to be recorded as the
opinion of the court. It appeared, therefore, that unless the
senator from Massachusetts carried the opinion of the committee
in his coat pocket, he could not have presented his report with
the unexampled dispatch that had been witnessed."
Mr. Webster, evidently nettled at the sarcastic compliment of Mr.
Forsyth, replied to him in a way to show his irritated feelings, but
without showing how he came to do so much work in so short a time.
He said:
"Had the gentleman come to the Senate this morning in his
usual good humor, he would have been easily satisfied on
that point. He will recollect that the subject now under
discussion was deemed, by every body, to be peculiarly fitted
for the consideration of the committee on finance; and that,
three weeks ago, I had intimated my intention of moving for
such a reference. I had, however, delayed the motion, from
considerations of courtesy to other gentlemen, on all sides.
But the general subject of the removal of the deposits, had
been referred to the committee on finance, by reference of
that part of the President's message; and various memorials,
in relation to it, had also been referred. The subject has
undergone an ample discussion in committee. I had been more
than once instructed by the committee to move for the reference
of the Secretary's letter, but the motion was postponed,
from time to time, for the reasons I have before given. Had
the gentleman from Georgia been in the Senate yesterday, he
would have known that this particular mode of proceeding was
adopted, as was then well understood, for the sole purpose of
facilitating the business of the Senate, and of giving the
committee an opportunity to express an opinion, the result of
their consideration. If the gentleman had heard what had passed
yesterday, when the reference was made, he would not have
expressed surprise."
The fact was the report had been drawn by the counsel for the
bank, and differed in no way in substance, and but little in form,
from the report which the bank committee had made on the paper,
"purporting to have been signed by Andrew Jackson, and read to what
was called a cabinet." But the substance of the resolution (No.
2, of Mr. Clay's), gave rise to more serious objections than the
marvellous activity of the committee in reporting upon it with the
elaboration and rapidity with which they had done. It was an empty
and inoperative expression of opinion, that the Secretary's reasons
were "unsatisfactory and insufficient;" without any proposition
to do any thing in consequence of that dissatisfaction and
insufficiency; and, consequently, of no legislative avail, and of
no import except to bring the opinion of senators, thus imposingly
pronounced, against the act of the Secretary. The resolve was not
practical--was not legislative--was not in conformity to any mode
of doing business--and led to no action;--neither to a restoration
of the deposits nor to a condemnation of their keeping by the State
banks. Certainly the charter, in ordering the Secretary to report,
and to report at the first practicable moment, both the fact of a
removal, and the reasons for it, was to enable Congress to act--to
do something--to legislate upon the subject--to judge the validity
of the reasons--and to order a restoration if they were found to
be untrue or insufficient; or to condemn the new place of deposit,
if it was deemed insecure or improper. All this was too obvious to
escape the attention of the democratic members who inveighed against
the futility and irrelevance of the resolve, unfit for a legislative
body, and only suitable for a town meeting; and answering no purpose
as a senatorial resolve but that of political effect against public
men. On this point Mr. Forsyth said:
"The subject had then been taken out of the hands of the Senate,
and sent to the committee on finance; and for what purpose was
it sent thither? Did any one doubt what would be the opinion of
the committee on finance? Would such a movement have been made,
had it not been intended thereby to give strength to the course
of the opposition? He was not in the Senate when the reference
was yesterday made, but he had supposed that it was made for
the purpose of some report in a legislative form, but it has
come back with an argument, and a recommendation of the adoption
of the resolution of the senator from Kentucky; and when the
resolutions were adopted, would they not still be sent back to
that committee for examination? Why had not the committee, who
seemed to know so well what would be the opinion of the Senate,
imbodied that opinion in a legislative form?"
To the same effect spoke many members, and among others, Mr. Silas
Wright, of New-York, who said:
"He took occasion to say, that with regard to the reference
made yesterday, he was not so unfortunate as his friend from
Georgia, to be absent at the time, and he then, while the motion
was pending, expressed his opinion that a reference at four
o'clock in the afternoon, to be returned with a report at twelve
the next day, would materially change the aspect of the case
before the Senate. He was also of opinion, that the natural
effect of sending this proposition to the committee on finance
would be, to have it returned with a recommendation for some
legislative action. In this, however, he had been disappointed,
the proposition had been brought back to the Senate in the same
form as sent to the committee, with the exception of the very
able argument read that morning."
Mr. Webster felt himself called upon to answer these objections,
and did so in a way to intimate that the committee were not "green"
enough,--that is to say, were too wise--to propose any legislative
action on the part of Congress in relation to this removal. He said:
"There is another thing, sir, to which the gentleman has
objected. He would have preferred that some legislative
recommendation should have accompanied the report--that some
law, or joint resolution, should have been recommended. Sir, do
we not see what the gentleman probably desires? If not, we must
be green politicians. It was not my intention, at this stage
of the business, to propose any law, or joint resolution. I do
not, at present, know the opinions of the committee on this
subject. On this question, at least, to use the gentleman's
expression, I do not carry their opinions in my coat pocket. The
question, when it arrives, will be a very grave one--one of deep
and solemn import--and when the proper time for its discussion
arrives, the gentleman from Georgia will have an opportunity to
examine it. The first thing is, to ascertain the judgment of the
Senate, on the Secretary's reasons for his act."
The meaning of Mr. Webster in this reply--this intimation that
the finance committee had got out of the sap, and were no longer
"green"--was a declaration that any legislative measure they
might have recommended, would have been rejected in the House
of Representatives, and so lost its efficacy as a senatorial
opinion; and to avoid that rejection, and save the effect of the
Senate's opinion, it must be a single and not a joint resolution;
and so confined to the Senate alone. The reply of Mr. Webster was
certainly candid, but unparliamentary, and at war with all ideas
of legislation, thus to refuse to propose a legislative enactment
because it would be negatived in the other branch of the national
legislature. Finally, the resolution was adopted, and by a vote of
28 to 18; thus:
"YEAS.--Messrs. Bibb, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Ewing,
Frelinghuysen, Hendricks, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh,
Mangum, Naudain, Poindexter, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins,
Silsbee, Smith, Southard, Sprague, Swift, Tomlinson, Tyler,
Waggaman, Webster.
"NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Brown, Forsyth, Grundy, Hill, Kane, King
of Alabama, Linn, McKean, Moore, Robinson, Shepley, Tallmadge,
Tipton, White, Wilkins, Wright."
The futility of this resolve was made manifest soon after its
passage. It was nugatory, and remained naked. It required nothing
to be done, and nothing was done under it. It became ridiculous.
And eventually, and near the end of the session, Mr. Clay proposed
it over again, with another resolve attached, directing the return
of the deposits to the Bank of the United States; and making it
joint, so as to require the consent of both houses, and thus lead to
legislative action. In submitting his resolution in this new form
he took occasion to allude to their fate in the other branch of the
legislature, where rejection was certain, and to intimate censure
upon the President for not conforming to the opinion of the Senate
in its resolves; as if the adverse opinion of the House (from its
recent election, its superior numbers, and its particular charge of
the revenue), was not more than a counterpoise to the opinion of the
Senate. In this sense, he stood up, and said:
"Whatever might be the fate of these resolutions at the other
end of the capitol, or in another building, that consideration
ought to have no influence on the course of this body. The
Senate owed it to its own character, and to the country, to
proceed in the discharge of its duties, and to leave it to
others, whether at the other end of the capitol or in another
building, to perform their own obligations to the country,
according to their own sense of their duty, and their own
convictions of responsibility. To them it ought to be left to
determine what was their duty, and to discharge that duty as
they might think best. For himself, he should be ashamed to
return to his constituents without having made every lawful
effort in his power to cause the restoration of the public
deposits to the United States Bank. While a chance yet remained
of effecting the restoration of the reign of the constitution
and the laws, he felt that he should not have discharged this
duty if he failed to make every effort to accomplish that
desirable object.
"The Senate, after passing the resolution which they had already
passed, and waiting two months to see whether the Executive
would conform his course to the views expressed by this branch
of the legislature; after waiting all this time, and perceiving
that the error, as the Senate had declared it to be, was still
persevered in, and seeing the wide and rapid sweep of ruin over
every section of the country, there was still one measure left
which might arrest the evil, and that was in the offering of
these resolutions--to present them to this body; and, if they
passed here, to send them to the other House; and, should they
pass them, to present to the President the plain question, if he
will return to the constitutional track; or, in opposition to
the expressed will of the legislature, retain the control over
the millions of public money which are already deposited in the
local banks, and which are still coming in there."
Mr. Benton replied to Mr. Clay, showing the propriety of these
resolutions if offered at the commencement of the session--their
inutility now, so near its end; and the indelicacy in the Senate, in
throwing itself between the bank and the House of Representatives,
at a moment when the bank directors were standing out in contempt
against the House, refusing to be examined by its committee, and
a motion actually depending to punish them for this contempt.
For this was then the actual condition of the corporation; and,
for the Senate to pass a resolution to restore the deposits in
these circumstances, was to take the part of the bank against the
House--to justify its contumacy--and to express an opinion in favor
of its re-charter; as all admitted that restoration of the deposits
was wrong unless a re-charter was granted. Mr. B. said:
"He deemed the present moment to be the most objectionable time
that could have been selected for proposing to restore the
public deposits to the United States Bank. Such a proposition
might have been a proper proceeding at the commencement of the
session. A joint resolution, at that time, would have been the
proper mode; it could have been followed by action; and, if
constitutionally passed, would have compelled the restoration
of these deposits. But the course was different. A separate
resolution was brought in, and passed the Senate; and there it
stopped. It was a nugatory resolution, leading to no action.
It was such a one as a State legislature, or a public meeting,
might adopt, because they had no power to legislate on the
subject. But the Senate had the power of legislation; and, six
months ago, when the separate resolution was brought in, the
Senate, if it intended to act legislatively on the subject at
all, ought to have proceeded by joint resolution, or by bill, at
that time. But it thought otherwise. The separate resolution was
adopted; after adoption, no instruction was given to a committee
to bring in a bill; nothing was done to give legislative effect
to the decision of the Senate; and now, at the end of six
months, the first attempt is made to move in our legislative
capacity, and to pass a joint resolution--equivalent to a
statute--to compel the restoration of these deposits. This is
the state of the proceeding; and, Mr. B. must be permitted to
say, and to give his reasons for saying, that the time selected
for this first step, in our legislative capacity, in a case so
long depending, is most inappropriate and objectionable. Mr. B.
would not dwell upon the palpable objections to this proceeding,
which must strike every mind. The advanced stage of the
session--the propositions to adjourn--the quantity of business
on hand--the little probability that the House and the President
would concur with the Senate, or that two thirds of the two
Houses could be brought to pass the resolution, if the President
declined to give it his approbation. These palpable objections
must strike every mind and make it appear to be a useless
consumption of time for the Senate to pass the resolution.
"Virtually, it included a proposition to re-charter the bank;
for the most confidential friends of that institution admitted
that it was improper to restore the deposits, unless the bank
charter was to be continued. The proposition to restore them,
virtually included the proposition to re-charter; and that was
a proposition which, after having been openly made on this
floor, and leave asked to bring in a bill to that effect, had
been abandoned, under the clear conviction that the measure
could not pass. Passing from these palpable objections, Mr. B.
proceeded to state another reason, of a different kind, and
which he held to be imperative of the course which the Senate
should now pursue: he alluded to the state of the questions at
this moment depending between the Bank of the United States and
the House of Representatives, and the nature of which exacted
from the Senate the observance of a strict neutrality, and an
absolute non-interference between those two bodies. The House
of Representatives had ordered an inquiry into the affairs and
conduct of the bank. The points of inquiry indicated misconduct
of the gravest import, and had been ordered by the largest
majority, not less than three or four to one. That inquiry
was not yet finished; it was still depending; the committee
appointed to conduct it remains organized, and has only reported
in part. That report is before the Senate and the public; and
shows that the directors of the Bank of the United States have
resisted the authority of the House--have made an issue of power
between itself and the House--for the trial of which issue a
resolution is now depending in the House, and is made the order
of the day for Tuesday next.
"Here, then, are two questions depending between the House and
the bank; the first, an inquiry into the misconduct of the
bank; the second, a proposition to compel the bank to submit
to the authority of the House. Was it right for the Senate to
interpose between those bodies, while these questions were
depending? Was it right to interfere on the part of the bank?
Was it right for the Senate to leap into the arena, throw itself
between the contending parties, take sides with the bank, and
virtually declare to the American people that there was no
cause for inquiry into the conduct of the bank, and no ground of
censure for resisting the authority of the House? Such would,
doubtless, be the effect of the conduct of the Senate, if it
should entertain the proposition which is now submitted to it.
That proposition is one of honor and confidence to the bank. It
proceeds upon the assumption that the bank is right, and the
House is wrong, in the questions now depending between them;
that the bank has done nothing to merit inquiry, or to deserve
censure; and that the public moneys ought to be restored to her
keeping, without waiting the end of the investigation which
the House has ordered, or the decision of the resolution which
affirms that the bank has resisted the authority of the House,
and committed a contempt against it. This is the full and fair
interpretation--the clear and speaking effect--of the measure
now proposed to the Senate. Is it right to treat the House thus?
Will the Senate, virtually, intelligibly, and practically,
acquit the bank, when the bank will not acquit itself?--will
not suffer its innocence to be tested by the recorded voice
of its own books, and the living voice of its own directors?
These directors have refused to testify; they have refused to
be sworn; they have refused to touch the book; because, being
directors and corporators, and therefore parties, they cannot
be required to give evidence against themselves. And this
refusal, the public is gravely told, is made upon the advice of
eminent counsel. What counsel? The counsel of the law, or of
fear? Certainly, no lawyer--not even a junior apprentice to the
law--could give such advice. The right to stand mute, does not
extend to the privilege of refusing to be sworn. The right does
not attach until after the oath is taken, and is then limited
to the specific question, the answer to which might inculpate
the witness, and which he may refuse to answer, because he will
say, upon his oath, that the answer will criminate himself. But
these bank directors refuse to be sworn at all. They refuse to
touch the book; and, in that refusal, commit a flagrant contempt
against the House of Representatives, and do an act for which
any citizen would be sent to jail by any justice of the peace,
in America. And is the Senate to justify the directors for
this contempt? to get between them and the House? to adopt a
resolution beforehand--before the day fixed for the decision of
the contempt, which shall throw the weight of the Senate into
the scale of the directors against the House, and virtually
declare that they are right in refusing to be sworn?"
The resolutions were, nevertheless, adopted, and by the fixed
majority of twenty-eight to eighteen, and sent to the House of
Representatives for concurrence, where they met the fate which all
knew they were to receive. The House did not even take them up for
consideration, but continued the course which it had began at the
commencement of the session; and which was in exact conformity to
the legislative course, and exactly contrary to the course of the
Senate. The report of the Secretary of the Treasury, the memorial of
the bank, and that of the government directors, were all referred
to the Committee of Ways and Means; and by that committee a report
was made, by their chairman, Mr. Polk, sustaining the action of the
Secretary, and concluding with the four following resolutions:
"1. _Resolved_, That the Bank of the United States ought not to
be re-chartered.
"2. _Resolved_, That the public deposits ought not to be
restored to the Bank of the United States.
"3. _Resolved_, That the State banks ought to be continued
as the places of deposit of the public money, and that it
is expedient for Congress to make further provision by law,
prescribing the mode of selection, the securities to be taken,
and the manner and terms on which they are to be employed.
"4. _Resolved_, That, for the purpose of ascertaining, as far
as practicable, the cause of the commercial embarrassment and
distress complained of by numerous citizens of the United
States, in sundry memorials which have been presented to
Congress at the present session, and of inquiring whether the
charter of the Bank of the United States has been violated;
and, also, what corruptions and abuses have existed in its
management; whether it has used its corporate power or money
to control the press, to interfere in politics, or influence
elections; and whether it has had any agency, through its
management or money, in producing the existing pressure; a
select committee be appointed to inspect the books and examine
into the proceedings of the said bank, who shall report whether
the provisions of the charter have been violated or not; and,
also, what abuses, corruptions, or malpractices have existed
in the management of said bank; and that the said committee be
authorized to send for persons and papers, and to summon and
examine witnesses, on oath, and to examine into the affairs of
the said bank and branches; and they are further authorized
to visit the principal bank, or any of its branches, for the
purpose of inspecting the books, correspondence, accounts, and
other papers connected with its management or business; and that
the said committee be required to report the result of such
investigation, together with the evidence they may take, at as
early a day as practicable."
These resolutions were long and vehemently debated, and eventually,
each and every one, adopted by decided, and some by a great
majority. The first one, being that upon the question of the
recharter, was carried by a majority of more than fifty votes--134
to 82; showing an immense difference to the prejudice of the bank
since the veto session of 1832. The names of the voters on this
great question, so long debated in every form in the halls of
Congress, the chambers of the State legislatures, and in the forum
of the people, deserve to be commemorated--and are as follows:
"YEAS.--Messrs. John Adams, William Allen, Anthony, Archer,
Beale, Bean, Beardsley, Beaumont, John Bell, John Blair, Bockee,
Boon, Bouldin, Brown, Bunch, Bynum, Cambreleng, Campbell,
Carmichael, Carr, Casey, Chaney, Chinn, Claiborne, Samuel Clark,
Clay, Clayton, Clowney, Coffee, Connor, Cramer, W. R. Davis,
Davenport, Day, Dickerson, Dickinson, Dunlap, Felder, Forester,
Foster, W. K. Fuller, Fulton, Galbraith, Gholson, Gillet,
Gilmer, Gordon, Grayson, Griffin, Jos. Hall, T. H. Hall, Halsey,
Hamer, Hannegan, Jos. M. Harper, Harrison, Hathaway, Hawkins,
Hawes, Heath, Henderson, Howell, Hubbard, Abel Huntington, Inge,
Jarvis, Richard M. Johnson, Noadiah Johnson, Cave Johnson,
Seaborn Jones, Benjamin Jones, Kavanagh, Kinnard, Lane, Lansing,
Laporte, Lawrence, Lay, Luke Lea, Thomas Lee, Leavitt, Loyall,
Lucas, Lyon, Lytle, Abijah Mann, Joel K. Mann, Mardis, John Y.
Mason, Moses Mason, McIntire, McKay, McKinley, McLene McVean,
Miller, Henry Mitchell, Robert Mitchell, Muhlenberg, Murphy,
Osgood, Page, Parks, Parker, Patterson, D. J. Pearce, Peyton,
Franklin Pierce, Pierson, Pinckney, Plummer, Polk, Rencher,
Schenck, Schley, Shinn, Smith, Speight, Standifer, Stoddert,
Sutherland, William Taylor, Wm. P. Taylor, Francis Thomas,
Thomson, Turner, Turrill, Vanderpoel, Wagener, Ward, Wardwell,
Wayne, Webster, Whallon.--134.
"NAYS.--Messrs. John Quincy Adams, John J. Allen, Heman Allen,
Chilton Allan, Ashley, Banks, Barber, Barnitz, Barringer,
Baylies Beaty, James M. Bell, Binney, Briggs, Bull, Burges,
Cage, Chambers, Chilton, Choate, William Clark, Corwin, Coulter,
Crane, Crockett, Darlington, Amos Davis, Deberry, Deming, Denny,
Dennis, Dickson, Duncan, Ellsworth, Evans, Edward Everett,
Horace Everett, Fillmore, Foot, Philo C. Fuller, Graham,
Grennel, Hiland Hall, Hard, Hardin, James Harper, Hazeltine,
Jabez W. Huntington, Jackson, William C. Johnson, Lincoln,
Martindale, Marshall, McCarty, McComas, McDuffie, McKennan,
Mercer, Milligan, Moore, Pope, Potts, Reed, William B. Shepherd,
Aug. H. Shepperd, William Slade, Charles Slade, Sloane, Spangler
Philemon Thomas, Tompkins, Tweedy, Vance, Vinton, Watmough,
Edward D. White, Frederick Whittlesey, Elisha Whittlesey, Wilde,
Williams, Wilson, Young.--82."
The second and third resolutions were carried by good majorities,
and the fourth overwhelm overwhelmingly--175 to 42. Mr. Polk
immediately moved the appointment of the committee, and that
it consist of seven members. It was appointed accordingly, and
consisted of Messrs. Francis Thomas of Maryland, chairman; Everett
of Massachusetts; Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania; John Y. Mason of
Virginia; Ellsworth of Connecticut; Mann of New-York; and Lytle of
Ohio. The proceedings of this committee, and the reception it met
with from the bank, will be the subject of a future and separate
chapter. Under the third resolution the Committee of Ways and Means
soon brought in a bill in conformity to its provisions, which was
passed by a majority of 22, that is to say, by 112 votes against
90. And thus all the conduct of the President in relation to the
bank, received the full sanction of the popular representation;
and presented the singular spectacle of full support in one House,
and that one specially charged with the subject, while meeting
condemnation in the other.