INDEPENDENT TREASURY, OR, DIVORCE OF BANK AND STATE: PASSED IN
THE SENATE: LOST IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
This great measure consisted of two distinct parts: 1. The _keeping_
of the public moneys: 2. The hard money currency in which they
were to be paid. The two measures together completed the system
of financial reform recommended by the President. The adoption of
either of them singly would be a step--and a step going half the
distance--towards establishing the whole system: and as it was well
supposed that some of the democratic party would balk at the hard
money payments, it was determined to propose the measures singly.
With this view the committee reported a bill for the Independent
Treasury--that is to say, for the keeping of the government moneys
by its own officers--without designating the currency to be paid
to them. But there was to be a loss either way; for unless the
hard money payments were made a part of the act in the first
instance, Mr. Calhoun and some of his friends could not vote
for it. He therefore moved an amendment to that effect; and the
hard money friends of the administration supporting his motion,
although preferring that it had not been made, and some others
voting for it as making the bill obnoxious to some other friends
of the administration, it was carried; and became a part of the
bill. At the last moment, and when the bill had been perfected as
far as possible by its friends, and the final vote on its passage
was ready to be taken, a motion was made to strike out that
section--and carried--by the helping vote of some of the friends of
the administration--as was well remarked by Mr. Calhoun. The vote
was, for striking out--_Messrs._ Bayard, Buchanan, Clay of Kentucky,
Clayton (Jno. M.), Crittenden, Cuthbert, Davis of Mississippi,
Fulton, Grundy, Knight, McKean, Merrick, Morris, Nicholas, Prentiss,
Preston, Rives, Robbins, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Smith of
Indiana, Southard, Spence, Swift, Talmadge, Tipton, Wall, White,
Webster, Williams--31. On the other hand only twenty-one senators
voted for retaining the clause. They were--_Messrs._ Allen, of
Ohio, Benton, Brown of North Carolina, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama,
Hubbard of New Hampshire, King of Alabama, Linn of Missouri, Lumpkin
of Georgia, Lyon of Michigan, Mouton of Louisiana, Niles, Norvell,
Franklin Pierce, Roane of Virginia, Smith of Connecticut, Strange
of North Carolina, Trotter of Mississippi, Robert J. Walker, Silas
Wright, Young of Illinois--21.
This section being struck from the bill, Mr. Calhoun could no longer
vote for it; and gave his reasons, which justice to him requires to
be preserved in his own words:
"On the motion of the senator from Georgia (Mr. CUTHBERT), the
23d section, which provides for the collection of the dues of
the government in specie, was struck out, with the aid of a
few on this side, and the entire opposition to the divorce on
the other. That section provided for the repeal of the joint
resolution of 1816, which authorizes the receipt of bank notes
as cash in the dues of the public. The effects of this will be,
should the bill pass in its present shape, that the government
will collect its revenue and make its disbursements exclusively
in bank notes; as it did before the suspension took place in
May last. Things will stand precisely as they did then, with
but a single exception, that the public deposits will be made
with the officers of the government instead of the banks, under
the provision of the deposit act of 1836. Thus far is certain.
All agree that such is the fact; and such the effect of the
passage of this bill as it stands. Now, he intended to show
conclusively, that the difference between depositing the public
money with the public officers, or with the banks themselves,
was merely nominal, as far as the operation and profits of the
banks were concerned; that they would not make one cent less
profit, or issue a single dollar less, if the deposits be kept
by the officers of the government instead of themselves; and, of
course, that the system would be equally subject to expansions
and contractions, and equally exposed to catastrophes like the
present, in the one, as the other, mode of keeping.
"But he had other and insuperable objections. In giving the bill
originally his support, he was governed by a deep conviction
that the total separation of the government and the banks was
indispensable. He firmly believed that we had reached a point
where the separation was absolutely necessary to save both
government and banks. He was under a strong impression that the
banking system had reached a point of decrepitude--that great
and important changes were necessary to save it and prevent
convulsions; and that the first step was a perpetual separation
between them and the government. But there could be, in his
opinion, no separation--no divorce--without collecting the
public dues in the legal and constitutional currency of the
country. Without that, all would prove a perfect delusion; as
this bill would prove should it pass. We had no constitutional
right to treat the notes of mere private corporations as cash;
and if we did, nothing would be done.
"These views, and many others similar, he had openly
expressed, in which the great body of the gentlemen around
him had concurred. We stand openly pledged to them before the
country and the world. We had fought the battle manfully and
successfully. The cause was good, and having stood the first
shock, nothing was necessary, but firmness; standing fast on
our position to ensure victory--a great and glorious victory
in a noble cause, which was calculated to effect a more
important reformation in the condition of society than any in
our time--he, for one, could not agree to terminate all those
mighty efforts, at this and the extra session, by returning to
a complete and perfect reunion with the banks in the worst and
most dangerous form. He would not belie all that he had said and
done, by voting for the bill as it now stood amended; and to
terminate that which was so gloriously begun, in so miserable
a farce. He could not but feel deeply disappointed in what he
had reason to apprehend would be the result--to have all our
efforts and labor thrown away, and the hopes of the country
disappointed. All would be lost! No; he expressed himself too
strongly. Be the vote what it may, the discussion would stand.
Light had gone abroad. The public mind had been aroused, for the
first time, and directed to this great subject. The intelligence
of the country is every where busy in exploring its depths and
intricacies, and would not cease to investigate till all its
labyrinths were traced. The seed that has been sown will sprout
and grow to maturity; the revolution that has been begun will go
through, be our course what it may."
The vote was then taken on the passage of the bill, and it was
carried--by the lean majority of two votes, which was only the
difference of one voter. The affirmative vote was: Messrs. Allen,
Benton, Brown, Clay of Alabama, Cuthbert, Fulton, Hubbard, King,
Linn, Lumpkin, Lyon, Morris, Mouton, Niles, Norvell, Pierce, Roane,
Robinson, Sevier, Smith of Connecticut, Strange, Trotter, Walker,
Wall, Williams, Wright, Young--27. The negatives were: Messrs.
Bayard, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Crittenden,
Davies, Grundy, Knight, McKean, Merrick, Nicholas, Prentiss,
Preston, Rives, Robbins, Ruggles, Smith of Indiana, Southard,
Spence, Swift, Talmadge, Tipton, Webster, Hugh L. White--25.
The act having passed the Senate by this slender majority was sent
to the House of Representatives; where it was lost by a majority of
14. This was a close vote in a house of 236 present; and the bill
was only lost by several friends of the administration voting with
the entire opposition. But a great point was gained. Full discussion
had been had upon the subject, and the public mind was waked up to
it.