Mr. CHAIRMAN:—Lest I should fall into the too common error of being
mistaken in regard to which side I design to be upon, I shall make it
my first care to remove all doubt on that point, by declaring that I am
opposed to the resolution under consideration, in toto. Before I proceed
to the body of the subject, I will further remark, that it is not
without a considerable degree of apprehension that I venture to cross
the track of the gentleman from Coles [Mr. Linder]. Indeed, I do not
believe I could muster a sufficiency of courage to come in contact with
that gentleman, were it not for the fact that he, some days since,
most graciously condescended to assure us that he would never be found
wasting ammunition on small game. On the same fortunate occasion,
he further gave us to understand, that he regarded himself as being
decidedly the superior of our common friend from Randolph [Mr. Shields];
and feeling, as I really do, that I, to say the most of myself, am
nothing more than the peer of our friend from Randolph, I shall
regard the gentleman from Coles as decidedly my superior also, and
consequently, in the course of what I shall have to say, whenever I
shall have occasion to allude to that gentleman, I shall endeavor
to adopt that kind of court language which I understand to be due to
decided superiority. In one faculty, at least, there can be no dispute
of the gentleman’s superiority over me and most other men, and that is,
the faculty of entangling a subject, so that neither himself, or
any other man, can find head or tail to it. Here he has introduced a
resolution embracing ninety-nine printed lines across common writing
paper, and yet more than one half of his opening speech has been made
upon subjects about which there is not one word said in his resolution.
Though his resolution embraces nothing in regard to the
constitutionality of the Bank, much of what he has said has been with
a view to make the impression that it was unconstitutional in its
inception. Now, although I am satisfied that an ample field may be found
within the pale of the resolution, at least for small game, yet, as
the gentleman has traveled out of it, I feel that I may, with all due
humility, venture to follow him. The gentleman has discovered that some
gentleman at Washington city has been upon the very eve of deciding our
Bank unconstitutional, and that he would probably have completed his
very authentic decision, had not some one of the Bank officers placed
his hand upon his mouth, and begged him to withhold it. The fact
that the individuals composing our Supreme Court have, in an official
capacity, decided in favor of the constitutionality of the Bank, would,
in my mind, seem a sufficient answer to this. It is a fact known to all,
that the members of the Supreme Court, together with the Governor, form
a Council of Revision, and that this Council approved this Bank charter.
I ask, then, if the extra-judicial decision not quite but almost made
by the gentleman at Washington, before whom, by the way, the question of
the constitutionality of our Bank never has, nor never can come—is to
be taken as paramount to a decision officially made by that tribunal,
by which, and which alone, the constitutionality of the Bank can ever be
settled? But, aside from this view of the subject, I would ask, if the
committee which this resolution proposes to appoint are to examine into
the Constitutionality of the Bank? Are they to be clothed with power to
send for persons and papers, for this object? And after they have found
the bank to be unconstitutional, and decided it so, how are they to
enforce their decision? What will their decision amount to? They cannot
compel the Bank to cease operations, or to change the course of its
operations. What good, then, can their labors result in? Certainly none.
The gentleman asks, if we, without an examination, shall, by giving the
State deposits to the Bank, and by taking the stock reserved for the
State, legalize its former misconduct. Now I do not pretend to possess
sufficient legal knowledge to decide whether a legislative enactment
proposing to, and accepting from, the Bank, certain terms, would have
the effect to legalize or wipe out its former errors, or not; but I can
assure the gentleman, if such should be the effect, he has already got
behind the settlement of accounts; for it is well known to all, that the
Legislature, at its last session, passed a supplemental Bank charter,
which the Bank has since accepted, and which, according to his doctrine,
has legalized all the alleged violations of its original charter in the
distribution of its stock.
I now proceed to the resolution. By examination it will be found that
the first thirty-three lines, being precisely one third of the whole,
relate exclusively to the distribution of the stock by the commissioners
appointed by the State. Now, Sir, it is clear that no question can arise
on this portion of the resolution, except a question between capitalists
in regard to the ownership of stock. Some gentlemen have their stock in
their hands, while others, who have more money than they know what to
do with, want it; and this, and this alone, is the question, to settle
which we are called on to squander thousands of the people’s money.
What interest, let me ask, have the people in the settlement of this
question? What difference is it to them whether the stock is owned by
Judge Smith or Sam Wiggins? If any gentleman be entitled to stock in the
Bank, which he is kept out of possession of by others, let him assert
his right in the Supreme Court, and let him or his antagonist, whichever
may be found in the wrong, pay the costs of suit. It is an old maxim,
and a very sound one, that he that dances should always pay the fiddler.
Now, Sir, in the present case, if any gentlemen, whose money is a burden
to them, choose to lead off a dance, I am decidedly opposed to the
people’s money being used to pay the fiddler. No one can doubt that the
examination proposed by this resolution must cost the State some ten or
twelve thousand dollars; and all this to settle a question in which
the people have no interest, and about which they care nothing. These
capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the
people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves we are
called upon to appropriate the people’s money to settle the quarrel.
I leave this part of the resolution and proceed to the remainder. It
will be found that no charge in the remaining part of the resolution, if
true, amounts to the violation of the Bank charter, except one, which I
will notice in due time. It might seem quite sufficient to say no more
upon any of these charges or insinuations than enough to show they are
not violations of the charter; yet, as they are ingeniously framed and
handled, with a view to deceive and mislead, I will notice in their
order all the most prominent of them. The first of these is in relation
to a connection between our Bank and several banking institutions in
other States. Admitting this connection to exist, I should like to see
the gentleman from Coles, or any other gentleman, undertake to show that
there is any harm in it. What can there be in such a connection, that
the people of Illinois are willing to pay their money to get a peep
into? By a reference to the tenth section of the Bank charter, any
gentleman can see that the framers of the act contemplated the holding
of stock in the institutions of other corporations. Why, then, is it,
when neither law nor justice forbids it, that we are asked to spend our
time and money in inquiring into its truth?
The next charge, in the order of time, is, that some officer, director,
clerk or servant of the Bank, has been required to take an oath of
secrecy in relation to the affairs of said Bank. Now, I do not know
whether this be true or false—neither do I believe any honest man
cares. I know that the seventh section of the charter expressly
guarantees to the Bank the right of making, under certain restrictions,
such by-laws as it may think fit; and I further know that the requiring
an oath of secrecy would not transcend those restrictions. What, then,
if the Bank has chosen to exercise this right? Whom can it injure? Does
not every merchant have his secret mark? and who is ever silly enough
to complain of it? I presume if the Bank does require any such oath of
secrecy, it is done through a motive of delicacy to those individuals
who deal with it. Why, Sir, not many days since, one gentleman upon this
floor, who, by the way, I have no doubt is now ready to join this hue
and cry against the Bank, indulged in a philippic against one of the
Bank officials, because, as he said, he had divulged a secret.
Immediately following this last charge, there are several insinuations
in the resolution, which are too silly to require any sort of notice,
were it not for the fact that they conclude by saying, “to the great
injury of the people at large.” In answer to this I would say that it
is strange enough, that the people are suffering these “great injuries,”
and yet are not sensible of it! Singular indeed that the people should
be writhing under oppression and injury, and yet not one among them
to be found to raise the voice of complaint. If the Bank be inflicting
injury upon the people, why is it that not a single petition is
presented to this body on the subject? If the Bank really be a
grievance, why is it that no one of the real people is found to ask
redress of it? The truth is, no such oppression exists. If it did, our
people would groan with memorials and petitions, and we would not be
permitted to rest day or night, till we had put it down. The people know
their rights, and they are never slow to assert and maintain them, when
they are invaded. Let them call for an investigation, and I shall ever
stand ready to respond to the call. But they have made no such call. I
make the assertion boldly, and without fear of contradiction, that no
man, who does not hold an office, or does not aspire to one, has ever
found any fault of the Bank. It has doubled the prices of the products
of their farms, and filled their pockets with a sound circulating
medium, and they are all well pleased with its operations. No, Sir, it
is the politician who is the first to sound the alarm (which, by
the way, is a false one.) It is he, who, by these unholy means, is
endeavoring to blow up a storm that he may ride upon and direct. It is
he, and he alone, that here proposes to spend thousands of the people’s
public treasure, for no other advantage to them than to make valueless
in their pockets the reward of their industry. Mr. Chairman, this work
is exclusively the work of politicians; a set of men who have interests
aside from the interests of the people, and who, to say the most of
them, are, taken as a mass, at least one long step removed from honest
men. I say this with the greater freedom, because, being a politician
myself, none can regard it as personal.
Again, it is charged, or rather insinuated, that officers of the Bank
have loaned money at usurious rates of interest. Suppose this to be
true, are we to send a committee of this House to inquire into it?
Suppose the committee should find it true, can they redress the injured
individuals? Assuredly not. If any individual had been injured in this
way, is there not an ample remedy to be found in the laws of the land?
Does the gentleman from Coles know that there is a statute standing in
full force making it highly penal for an individual to loan money at a
higher rate of interest than twelve per cent? If he does not he is too
ignorant to be placed at the head of the committee which his resolution
purposes and if he does, his neglect to mention it shows him to be too
uncandid to merit the respect or confidence of any one.
But besides all this, if the Bank were struck from existence, could
not the owners of the capital still loan it usuriously, as well as now?
whatever the Bank, or its officers, may have done, I know that
usurious transactions were much more frequent and enormous before the
commencement of its operations than they have ever been since.
The next insinuation is, that the Bank has refused specie payments.
This, if true is a violation of the charter. But there is not the
least probability of its truth; because, if such had been the fact, the
individual to whom payment was refused would have had an interest in
making it public, by suing for the damages to which the charter entitles
him. Yet no such thing has been done; and the strong presumption is,
that the insinuation is false and groundless.
From this to the end of the resolution, there is nothing that merits
attention—I therefore drop the particular examination of it.
By a general view of the resolution, it will be seen that a principal
object of the committee is to examine into, and ferret out, a mass of
corruption supposed to have been committed by the commissioners
who apportioned the stock of the Bank. I believe it is universally
understood and acknowledged that all men will ever act correctly unless
they have a motive to do otherwise. If this be true, we can only suppose
that the commissioners acted corruptly by also supposing that they were
bribed to do so. Taking this view of the subject, I would ask if the
Bank is likely to find it more difficult to bribe the committee of
seven, which, we are about to appoint, than it may have found it to
bribe the commissioners?
(Here Mr. Linder called to order. The Chair decided that Mr. Lincoln
was not out of order. Mr. Linder appealed to the House, but, before the
question was put, withdrew his appeal, saying he preferred to let the
gentleman go on; he thought he would break his own neck. Mr. Lincoln
proceeded:)
Another gracious condescension! I acknowledge it with gratitude. I know
I was not out of order; and I know every sensible man in the House knows
it. I was not saying that the gentleman from Coles could be bribed, nor,
on the other hand, will I say he could not. In that particular I leave
him where I found him. I was only endeavoring to show that there was at
least as great a probability of any seven members that could be selected
from this House being bribed to act corruptly, as there was that the
twenty-four commissioners had been so bribed. By a reference to
the ninth section of the Bank charter, it will be seen that those
commissioners were John Tilson, Robert K. McLaughlin, Daniel Warm, A.G.
S. Wight, John C. Riley, W. H. Davidson, Edward M. Wilson, Edward L.
Pierson, Robert R. Green, Ezra Baker, Aquilla Wren, John Taylor, Samuel
C. Christy, Edmund Roberts, Benjamin Godfrey, Thomas Mather, A. M.
Jenkins, W. Linn, W. S. Gilman, Charles Prentice, Richard I. Hamilton,
A.H. Buckner, W. F. Thornton, and Edmund D. Taylor.
These are twenty-four of the most respectable men in the State. Probably
no twenty-four men could be selected in the State with whom the people
are better acquainted, or in whose honor and integrity they would
more readily place confidence. And I now repeat, that there is less
probability that those men have been bribed and corrupted, than that
any seven men, or rather any six men, that could be selected from the
members of this House, might be so bribed and corrupted, even though
they were headed and led on by “decided superiority” himself.
In all seriousness, I ask every reasonable man, if an issue be joined
by these twenty-four commissioners, on the one part, and any other
seven men, on the other part, and the whole depend upon the honor and
integrity of the contending parties, to which party would the greatest
degree of credit be due? Again: Another consideration is, that we have
no right to make the examination. What I shall say upon this head I
design exclusively for the law-loving and law-abiding part of the House.
To those who claim omnipotence for the Legislature, and who in the
plenitude of their assumed powers are disposed to disregard the
Constitution, law, good faith, moral right, and everything else, I have
not a word to say. But to the law-abiding part I say, examine the Bank
charter, go examine the Constitution, go examine the acts that the
General Assembly of this State has passed, and you will find just as
much authority given in each and every of them to compel the Bank to
bring its coffers to this hall and to pour their contents upon this
floor, as to compel it to submit to this examination which this
resolution proposes. Why, Sir, the gentleman from Coles, the mover of
this resolution, very lately denied on this floor that the Legislature
had any right to repeal or otherwise meddle with its own acts, when
those acts were made in the nature of contracts, and had been accepted
and acted on by other parties. Now I ask if this resolution does not
propose, for this House alone, to do what he, but the other day, denied
the right of the whole Legislature to do? He must either abandon the
position he then took, or he must now vote against his own resolution.
It is no difference to me, and I presume but little to any one else,
which he does.
I am by no means the special advocate of the Bank. I have long thought
that it would be well for it to report its condition to the General
Assembly, and that cases might occur, when it might be proper to make an
examination of its affairs by a committee. Accordingly, during the
last session, while a bill supplemental to the Bank charter was pending
before the House, I offered an amendment to the same, in these words:
“The said corporation shall, at the next session of the General
Assembly, and at each subsequent General Session, during the existence
of its charter, report to the same the amount of debts due from said
corporation; the amount of debts due to the same; the amount of specie
in its vaults, and an account of all lands then owned by the same, and
the amount for which such lands have been taken; and moreover, if said
corporation shall at any time neglect or refuse to submit its books,
papers, and all and everything necessary for a full and fair examination
of its affairs, to any person or persons appointed by the General
Assembly, for the purpose of making such examination, the said
corporation shall forfeit its charter.”
This amendment was negatived by a vote of 34 to 15. Eleven of the 34 who
voted against it are now members of this House; and though it would
be out of order to call their names, I hope they will all recollect
themselves, and not vote for this examination to be made without
authority, inasmuch as they refused to receive the authority when it was
in their power to do so.
I have said that cases might occur, when an examination might be proper;
but I do not believe any such case has now occurred; and if it has,
I should still be opposed to making an examination without legal
authority. I am opposed to encouraging that lawless and mobocratic
spirit, whether in relation to the Bank or anything else, which is
already abroad in the land and is spreading with rapid and fearful
impetuosity, to the ultimate overthrow of every institution, of every
moral principle, in which persons and property have hitherto found
security.
But supposing we had the authority, I would ask what good can result
from the examination? Can we declare the Bank unconstitutional, and
compel it to desist from the abuses of its power, provided we find such
abuses to exist? Can we repair the injuries which it may have done to
individuals? Most certainly we can do none of these things. Why
then shall we spend the public money in such employment? Oh, say the
examiners, we can injure the credit of the Bank, if nothing else, Please
tell me, gentlemen, who will suffer most by that? You cannot injure, to
any extent, the stockholders. They are men of wealth—of large capital;
and consequently, beyond the power of malice. But by injuring the credit
of the Bank, you will depreciate the value of its paper in the hands of
the honest and unsuspecting farmer and mechanic, and that is all you can
do. But suppose you could effect your whole purpose; suppose you could
wipe the Bank from existence, which is the grand ultimatum of the
project, what would be the consequence? why, Sir, we should spend
several thousand dollars of the public treasure in the operation,
annihilate the currency of the State, render valueless in the hands of
our people that reward of their former labors, and finally be once more
under the comfortable obligation of paying the Wiggins loan, principal
and interest.