1.--_Report of the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives of the United States, to which was referred so much of
the President's Message as relates to the Bank of the United States._
April 13th, 1830: pp. 31. 8vo.
2.--_Message of the President of the United States to both Houses of
Congress._ December 8th, 1830.
When the President first presented the question of re-chartering the
Bank of the United States to the national legislature, at the opening of
the session of 1829-30, the measure was viewed very differently by
different men. We do not speak of the vulgar herd of politicians, great
and small, who approve or condemn indiscriminately all measures of the
government, but of that more elevated and independent class, who ask
nothing of any administration than that it shall do its duty; and who
judge of its acts as they seem to be legal, useful, and wise. To some
the president's course appeared to be highly objectionable. The bank
charter had then six years to run, and, consequently, they said, neither
this congress nor the next had any control over the subject. Nor could
it furnish matter of legislation, they added, whilst president Jackson
remained in office, unless he should, by being elected for a second
term, give his sanction to a principle which he had pronounced impolitic
and dangerous. To have brought forward the subject, under these
circumstances, with no very doubtful intimation of his own wishes, was
as unnecessary as it was unusual, and implied a want of confidence in
those who were ultimately to decide the question.
To others, however, this early notice of the subject seemed to be
justified by its importance, and they thought that the public could not
be too soon engaged in discussing the merits of a question which in so
many ways concerned the general welfare. Of this opinion seemed to be
the committee of the house of representatives, to which this part of the
message was referred, and which, after giving the subject a full
consideration, reported in favour of renewing the charter of the present
bank, and against the substitute for it which the president had ventured
to suggest.
The subject being thus fairly before the people, and in fact undergoing
a very thorough investigation in the public journals, it was expected
that the president would be contented with having done his duty on the
occasion, and, if not silenced by the gentle dissuasive of the senate,
or the bold and uncompromising logic of the house, he would merely
regret that truth should be so hoodwinked by prejudice, or that error
should have found so many apologists and supporters in those august
bodies, and that he would leave the question where it properly belonged,
and where he himself had placed it--with "the legislature and the
people." It was, then, with no little surprise, perceived, that the
succeeding annual message, which is at the head of this article, had
brought the same subject to the notice of the legislature, consisting
precisely of the same individuals as before, when nothing was pretended
to have occurred to induce them to change their former opinion, and when
the only reason which had been given, at the preceding session, for
inviting the consideration of what neither required nor admitted
immediate legislation, no longer existed. Public attention had been
fully drawn to the subject. The stockholders of the bank, who are
profiting by the good management of the institution, and who naturally
wish the charter renewed, had taken the alarm, and, trusting to the
omnipotence of truth, had every where invited investigation and
discussion--and all those who hoped to profit by the new national bank,
or who felt themselves bound to second the wishes of the administration,
had opposed the renewal of the charter, through the prints devoted to
the same cause.
When the avowed purpose of the president had been thus completely
answered, by his first communication to congress, it is natural to ask
what could have prompted the second? Were the majorities in both houses
of congress personally hostile to the president, or unfriendly to his
administration; and was it necessary for him to defend himself from
party prejudice by an appeal to the people? That could not be; for it is
notorious that the president's friends, personal or political, are most
numerous in both houses, and this advantage is a daily theme of party
boast and congratulation. Were the chairmen of the respective committees
his political opponents, and did they insidiously endeavour to bring his
party into discredit for the purpose of advancing their own? But they
were among his most zealous adherents--nay, it may be questioned whether
there was a single individual in the United States to whom the president
was more indebted for the vindication of his character before the
people, than to Mr. M'Duffie, who wrote one of the reports;--unless it
might be to Mr. Adams, when secretary of state. Was it then expected,
that the house of representatives, which had disregarded his
recommendation, would now approve his project? It is impossible that the
president or his advisers could have believed they would carry their
complaisance so far. They must have known that the subject would be
referred to the same committee, composed of the same persons, as that of
the preceding year, and who would be likely, if they reported at all,
not only to support their first opinions by further arguments, but to
express their disapprobation of a course so wanting in respect to the
legislature, and so little calculated to promote harmony between the
different branches of the government. As, then, we are compelled to give
the negative to all these suppositions, we must infer that the object of
this extraordinary course has been to influence public opinion. It seems
essential to the views of the present executive of the United States, to
put down the present national bank, and to erect another on its ruins;
and this favourite purpose it hopes to attain by bringing the
president's personal and official influence to bear on the question;
and, under the forms of the constitution, to appeal from his party in
congress, to his party in the nation.
On the dignity or good faith of this course we will not make any
comment; but since the question is thus brought before the people, we
will cheerfully meet it, and inquire how far the measure recommended by
the president, against the opinions of the immediate representatives of
the people, seems calculated to advance the public interest, or to
promote a distinct and peculiar interest. We shall fearlessly, though
temperately, examine the president's propositions, both as to the
existing national bank and its proposed substitute; and we shall look at
the subject with a single eye to the public good, for we have no other
interest in the question than what is common to every citizen of the
United States. We know that there is much good sense in this nation,
and although there is a full share of prejudice too, yet no one need
despair, that the former, if properly addressed, will eventually
prevail.