SENATORIAL INVESTIGATION OF THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.
This corporation had lost so much ground in the public estimation,
by repulsing the investigation attempted by the House of
Representatives, that it became necessary to retrieve the loss by
some report in its favor. The friends of the institution determined,
therefore, to have an investigation made by the Senate--by the
Finance Committee of that body. In conformity to this determination
Mr. Southard, on the last day of the session moved that that
committee should have leave to sit during the recess of the Senate
to inquire whether the Bank of the United States had violated its
charter--whether it was a safe depository of the public moneys--and
what had been its conduct since 1832 in regard to extension and
curtailment of loans, and its general management since that time.
The committee to whom this investigation was committed, consisted
of Messrs. Webster, Tyler, Ewing, Mangum, and Wilkins. Of this
committee all, except the last named, were the opponents of the
administration, friends of the bank, its zealous advocates in all
the questions between it and the government, speaking ardently in
its favor, and voting with it on all questions during the session.
Mr. Wilkins very properly refused to serve on the committee; and
Mr. King of Alabama, being proposed in his place, also, and with
equal propriety, refused to serve. This act of the Senate in thus
undertaking to examine the bank after a repulse of the committee
of the House of Representatives and still standing out in contempt
of that House, and by a committee so composed, and so restricted,
completed the measure of mortification to all the friends of the
American Senate. It was deemed a cruel wound given to itself by the
Senate. It was a wrong thing, done in a wrong way, and could have no
result but to lessen the dignity and respectability of the Senate.
The members of the committee were the advocates of the bank, and
its public defenders on all the points to be examined. This was a
violation of parliamentary law, as well as of the first principles
of decency and propriety--the whole of which require criminatory
investigations to be made, by those who make the accusations. It
was to be done in vacation; for which purpose the committee was
to sit in the recess--a proceeding without precedent, without
warrant from any word in the constitution--and susceptible of the
most abuseful and factious use. The only semblance of precedent
for it was the committee of the House in 1824, on the memorial of
Mr. Ninian Edwards against Mr. Crawford in that year; but that
was no warrant for this proceeding. It was a mere authority to an
existing committee which had gone through its examination, and made
its report to the House, to continue its session after the House
adjourned to take the deposition of the principal witness, detained
by sickness, but on his way to the examination. This deposition
the committee were to take, publish, and be dissolved; and so
it was done accordingly. And even this slight continuation of a
committee was obtained from the House with difficulty, and under
the most urgent circumstances. Mr. Crawford was a candidate for the
presidency; the election was to come on before Congress met again;
Mr. Edwards had made criminal charges against him; all the testimony
had been taken, except that of Mr. Edwards himself; and he had
notified the committee that he was on his way to appear before them
in obedience to their summons. And it was under these circumstances
that the existing committee was authorized to remain in session for
his arrival--to receive his testimony--publish it--and dissolve. No
perambulation through the country--no indefinite session--no putting
members upon Congress _per diems_ and mileage from one session to
another. Wrongful and abuseful in its creation, this peripatetic
committee of the Senate was equally so in its composition and
object. It was composed of the advocates of the bank, and its
object evidently was to retrieve for that institution a part of the
ground which it had lost; and was so viewed by the community. The
clear-sighted masses saw nothing in it but a contrivance to varnish
the bank, and the odious appellation of "whitewashing committee" was
fastened upon it.