SECOND FISCAL AGENT: BILL PRESENTED: PASSED: DISAPPROVED BY THE
PRESIDENT.
This second attempt at a fiscal bill has two histories--one public
and ostensible--the other secret and real: and it is proper to write
them both, for their own sakes, and also to show in what manner the
government is worked. The public history will be given first, and
will be given exclusively from a public source--the debates of
Congress. We begin with it as it begins there--an extemporaneous
graft upon a neglected bill lying on the table of the House of
Representatives. Early in the session a bill had been brought in
from a select committee on the "currency," which had not been
noticed from the time of its introduction. It seemed destined to
sleep undisturbed upon the table to the end of the session, and
then to expire quietly upon lapse of time. Soon after the rejection
of the first fiscal under the qualified veto of the President,
Mr. Sergeant of Pennsylvania moved the House (when in that state
which is called Committee of the Whole) to take up this bill for
consideration: which was done as moved. Mr. Sergeant then stated
that, his intention was to move to amend that bill by striking out
the whole of it after the enacting clause, and inserting a new bill,
which he would move to have printed. Several members asked for the
reading of the new bill, or a statement of its provisions; and Mr.
Sergeant, in compliance with these requests, stood up and said:
"That, as several inquiries had been made of him with regard to
this bill, he would now proceed to make a short statement, to
show in what respects it differed from that recently before this
House. He would say, first, that there were two or three verbal
errors in this bill, and there were words, in two or three
places, which he thought had better have been left out, and
which were intended to have been omitted by the committee. There
were several gentlemen in the present Congress who entertained
extreme hostility to the word 'bank,' and, as far as he was
concerned, he felt every disposition to indulge their feelings;
and he had therefore endeavored throughout this bill to avoid
using the word 'bank.' If that word anywhere remained as
applicable to the being it was proposed to create by this law,
let it go out--let it go out. Now the word 'corporation' sounded
well, and he was glad to perceive it gave pleasure to the House.
At all events, they had a new _word_ to fight against. Now the
difference between this bill and that which passed this House
some days ago, would be seen by comparison. The present differed
from the other principally in three or four particulars, and
there were some other parts of the bill which varied, in minor
particulars, from that which had been before the House a few
days ago. Those differences gentlemen would have no difficulty
in discovering and understanding when the bill should have
been printed. He would now proceed to answer the inquiries of
gentlemen in reference to this bill. Mr. S. then stated the
following as the substantial points of difference between the
two bills:
"1. The capital in the former bill was thirty millions, with
power to extend it to fifty millions. In this bill twenty-one
millions, with power to extend it to thirty-five millions. 2.
The former bill provided for offices of discount and deposit.
In this there are to be agencies only. 3. The dealings of the
corporation are to be confined to buying and selling foreign
bills of exchange, including bills drawn in one State or
territory, and payable in another. There are to be no discounts.
4. The title of the corporation is changed."
This was Friday, the 20th of August. The next day--the bill offered
in amendment by Mr. Sergeant having been printed and the House
gone into committee--that member moved that all debate upon it in
committee of the whole should cease at 4 o'clock that afternoon,
and then proceed to vote upon the amendments which might be
offered, and report those agreed upon to the House. And having
moved this in writing, he immediately moved the previous question
upon it. This was sharp practice, and as new as sharp. It was then
past 12 o'clock. Such rapidity of proceeding was a mockery upon
legislation, and to expose it as such, Mr. Roosevelt of New York
moved to amend the time by substituting, instanter, for 4 o'clock,
remarking that they might as well have no time for discussion as
the time designated. Several members expressing themselves to
the same effect, Mr. Sergeant extended the time to 4 o'clock on
Monday evening. The brevity of the time was still considered by
the minority, and justly, as a mockery upon legislation; and their
opinions to that effect were freely expressed. Mr. Cave Johnson
asked to be excused from voting on Mr. Sergeant's resolution, giving
for the reason that the amendment was a new bill just laid upon the
table of members, and that it would be impossible for them to act
understandingly upon it in the short time proposed. Mr. Charles
Brown of Pennsylvania also asked to be excused from voting, saying
that the amendment was a bill of thirty-eight printed pages--that it
had only been laid upon their tables ten minutes when the motion to
close the debate at 4 o'clock was made--and that it was impossible
to act upon it with the care and consideration due to a legislative
act, and to one of this momentous importance, and which was to
create a great fiscal corporation with vast privileges, and an
exclusive charter for twenty years. Mr. Rhett of South Carolina
asked to be in like manner excused, reducing his reasons to writing,
in the form of a protest. Thus:
"1. Because the rule by which the resolution is proposed is
a violation of the spirit of the Constitution of the United
States, which declares that the freedom of speech and of the
press shall not be abridged by any law of Congress. 2. Because
it destroys the character of this body as a deliberative
assembly: a _right_ to deliberate and discuss measures being
no longer in Congress, but with the majority only. 3. Because
it is a violation of the rights of the people of the United
States, through their representatives, inherited from their
ancestors, and enjoyed and practised time immemorial, to speak
to the taxes imposed on them, when taxes are imposed. 4. Because
by the said rule, a bill may be taken up in Committee of the
Whole, be immediately reported to the House, and, by the aid of
the previous question, be passed into a law, without one word of
debate being permitted or uttered. 5. Because free discussion of
the laws by which the people are governed, is not only essential
to right legislation, but is necessary to the preservation of
the constitution, and the liberties of the people; and to fear
or supress it is the characteristic of tyrannies and tyrants
only. 6. Because the measure proposed to be forced through
the House within less than two days' consideration is one
which deeply affects the integrity of the constitution and the
liberties of the people; and to pass it with haste, and without
due deliberation, would evince a contemptuous disregard of
either, and may be a fatal violation of both."
Besides all other objections to this rapid legislation, it was
a virtual violation of the rules of the House, made under the
constitution, to prevent hasty and inconsiderate, or intemperate
action; and which requires a bill to be read three times, each time
on a different day, and to be voted upon each time. Technically an
amendment, though an entire new bill, is not a bill, and therefore,
is not subject to these three readings and votings: substantially
and truly, such an amendment is a bill; and the reason of the rule
would require it to be treated as such.
Other members asked to be excused from voting; but all being denied
that request by an inexorable majority, Mr. Pickens of South
Carolina stood up and said: "It is now manifest that the House does
not intend to excuse any member from voting. And as enough has been
done to call public attention to the odious resolution proposed to
be adopted, our object will have been attained: and I respectfully
suggest to our friends to go no further in this proceeding!" Cries
of "agreed! agreed!" responded to this appeal; and the motion of Mr.
Sergeant was adopted. He, himself, then spoke an hour in support
of the new bill--one hour of the brief time which was allowed for
discussion. Mr. Wise occupied the remainder of the evening against
the bill. On Monday, on resuming its consideration, Mr. Turney
of Tennessee moved to strike out the enacting clause--which, if
done, would put an end to the bill. The motion failed. Some heated
discussion took place, which could hardly be called a debate on the
bill; but came near enough to it to detect its fraudulent character.
It was the old defunct Bank of the United States, in disguise, to
come to life again in it. That used-up concern was then in the hands
of justice, hourly sued upon its notes, and the contents collected
upon execution; and insolvency admitted. It could not be named in
any charter: no reference could be made to it by name. But there
was a provision in the amended bill to permit it to slip into full
life, and take the whole benefit of the new charter. Corporations
were to be allowed to subscribe for the stock: under that provision
she could take all the stock--and be herself again. This, and other
fraudulent provisions were detected: but the clock struck four! and
the vote was taken, and the bill passed--125 to 94. The title of
the original bill was then amended to conform to its new character;
and, on the motion of Mr. Sergeant was made to read in this wise:
"_An act to provide for the better collection, safe keeping, and
disbursement of the public revenue, by means of a corporation to
be styled the Fiscal Corporation of the United States._" Peals of
laughter saluted the annunciation of this title; and when it was
carried to the Senate, as it immediately was, for the concurrence of
that body, and its strange title was read out, ridicule was already
lying in wait for it; and, under the mask of ridicule, an attack was
made upon its real character, as the resuscitation of Mr. Biddle's
bank: and Mr. Benton exclaimed--
"Heavens what a name! long as the moral law--half sub-treasury,
and half national bank--and all fraudulent and deceptive, to
conceal what it is; and entirely too long. The name is too
long. People will never stand it. They cannot go through all
that. We must have something shorter--something that will do for
every day use. Corporosity! that would be a great abridgment;
but it is still too long. It is five syllables, and people
will not go above two syllables, or three at most, and often
hang at one, in names which have to be incontinently repeated.
They are all economical at that, let them be as extravagant as
they may be in spending their money. They will not spend their
breath upon long names which have to be repeated every day.
They must have something short and pointed; and, if you don't
give it to them, they will make it for themselves. The defunct
Fiscal Bank was rapidly taking the title of fiscality; and, by
alliteration, rascality; and if it had lived, would soon have
been compendiously and emphatically designated by some brief and
significant title. The Fiscal Corporation cannot expect to have
better luck. It must undergo the fate of all great men and of
all great measures, overburdened with titles--it must submit to
a short name. There is much virtue in a name; and the poets tell
us there are many on whose conception Phoebus never smiled,
and at whose birth no muse, or grace, was present. In that
predicament would seem to be this intrusive corporosity, which
we have received from the other House, and sent to our young
committee, and which has mutation of title without alteration
of substance, and without accession of euphony, or addition of
sense. Some say a name is nothing--that a rose by any other
name would smell as sweet. So it will; and a thorn by any other
name would stick as deep. And so of these fiscals, whether to
be called banks or corporations. They will still be the same
thing--a thorn in our side--but a short name they must have.
This corporosity must retrench its extravagance of title.
"I go for short names, and will give reasons for it. The people
will have short names, although they may spoil a fine one; and
I will give you an instance. There was a most beautiful young
lady in New Orleans some years ago, as there always has been,
and still are many such. She was a _Creole_, that is to say,
born in this country, of parents from Europe. A gentleman who
was building a superb steamboat, took it into his head to honor
this young lady, by connecting her name with his vessel; so he
bestowed upon it the captivating designation of LA BELLE CREOLE.
This fine name was painted in golden letters on the sides of his
vessel; and away she went, with three hundred horse power, to
Kentucky and Ohio. The vessel was beautiful, and the name was
beautiful, and the lady was beautiful; but all the beauty on
earth could not save the name from the catastrophe to which all
long titles are subjected. It was immediately abbreviated, and,
in the abbreviation, sadly deteriorated. At first, they called
her the _bell_--not the French _belle_, which signifies fine
or beautiful--but the plain English _bell_, which in the Holy
Scriptures, was defined to be a tinkling cymbal. This was bad
enough; but worse was coming. It so happens that the vernacular
pronunciation of _creole_, in the Kentucky waters, is cre-owl;
so they began to call this beautiful boat the _cre-owl_! but
things did not stop here. It was too extravagant to employ two
syllables when one would answer as well, and be so much more
economical; so the first half of the name was dropped, and
the last retained; and thus _La Belle Creole_--the beautiful
creole--sailed up and down the Mississippi all her life by the
name, style, title, and description of, THE OWL! (Roars of
laughing in the Senate, with exclamations from several, that it
was a good name for a bank--that there was an Owl-Creek Bank in
Ohio once, now dead and insolvent, but, in its day, as good as
the best.)
"Mr. B. continued. I do not know whether owl will do for this
child of long name, and many fathers; but we must have a name,
and must continue trying till we get one. Let us hunt far and
wide. Let us have recourse to the most renowned Æsop and his
fables, and to that one of his fables which teaches us how an
old black cat succeeded in getting at the rats again after
having eaten up too many of them, and become too well known,
under her proper form, to catch any more. She rolled herself
over in a meal tub--converted her black skin into white--and
walked forth among the rats as a new and innocent animal that
they had never seen before. All were charmed to see her! but a
quick application of teeth and claws to the throats and bellies
of the rats, let them see that it was their old acquaintance,
the black cat; and that whitening the skin did not alter the
instincts of the animal, nor blunt the points of its teeth and
claws. The rats, after that, called her the meal-tub cat, and
the mealy cat. May we not call this corporosity the meal-tub
bank? A cattish name would certainly suit it in one particular;
for, like a cat, it has many lives, and a cat, you know, must
be killed nine times before it will die; so say the traditions
of the nursery; and of all histories the traditions of children
are the most veracious. They teach us that cats have nine lives.
So of this bank. It has been killed several times, but here it
is still, scratching, biting, and clawing. Jackson killed it in
1832; Tyler killed it last week. But this is only a beginning.
Seven times more the _Fates_ must cut the thread of its hydra
life before it will yield up the ghost.
"The meal tub! No insignificant, or vulgar name. It lives in
history, and connects its fame with kings and statesmen. We all
know the Stuarts of England--an honest and bigoted race in the
beginning, but always unfortunate in the end. The second Charles
was beset by plots and cabals. There were many attempts, or
supposed attempts to kill him; many plots against him, and some
very ridiculous; among the rest one which goes by the name of
the meal-tub plot; because the papers which discovered it were
found in the meal-tub where the conspirators, or their enemies,
had hid them.
"Sir, I have given you a good deal of meal this morning; but you
must take more yet. It is a _fruitful_ theme, and may give us a
good name before we are done with it. I have a reminiscence, as
the novel writers say, and I will tell it. When a small boy, I
went to school in a Scotch Irish neighborhood, and learnt many
words and phrases which I have not met with since, but which
were words of great pith and power; among the rest shake-poke.
(Mr. ARCHER: I never heard that before.) Mr. BENTON: but you
have heard of poke. You know the adage: do not buy a pig in the
poke; that is to say, in the bag; for poke signifies bag, or
wallet, and is a phrase much used in the north of England, and
among the Scotch Irish in America. A pig is carried to market in
a poke, and if you buy it without taking it out first, you may
be 'taken in.' So corn is carried to a mill in a poke, and when
brought home, ground into meal, the meal remains in the poke, in
the houses of poor families, until it is used up. When the bag
is nearly empty, it is turned upside down, and shaken; and the
meal that comes out is called the shake-poke, that is to say,
the last shake of the bag. By an easy and natural metaphor, this
term is also applied to the last child that is born in a family;
especially if it is puny or a rickety concern. The last child,
like the last meal, is called a shake-poke; and may we not call
this _fiscalous corporation_ a shake-poke also, and for the same
reason? It is the last--the last at all events for the session!
it is the last meal in their bag--their shake-poke! and it is
certainly a rickety concern.
"I do not pretend to impose a name upon this bantling; that
is a privilege of paternity, or of sponsorship, and I stand
in neither relation to this babe. But a name of brevity--of
brevity and significance--it must have; and, if the fathers and
sponsors do not bestow it, the people will: for a long name is
abhorred and eschewed in all countries. Remember the fate of
John Barebone, the canting hypocrite in Cromwell's time. He
had a very good name, John Barebone; but the knave composed a
long verse, like Scripture, to sanctify himself with it, and
intituled himself thus:--'Praise God, Barebone, for if Christ
had not died for you, you would be damned, Barebone.' Now, this
was very sanctimonious; but it was too long--too much of a good
thing--and so the people cut it all off but the last two words,
and called the fellow '_damned Barebone_,' and nothing else but
damned Barebone, all his life after. So let this corporosity
beware: it may get itself damned before it is done with us, and
Tyler too."
The first proceeding in the Senate was to refer this bill to a
committee, and Mr. Clay's select committee would naturally present
itself as the one to which it would go: but he was too much
disgusted at the manner in which his own bill had been treated to be
willing to take any lead with respect to this second one; and, in
fact, had so expressed himself in the debate on the veto message.
A motion was made to refer it to another select committee, the
appointing of which would be in the President of the Senate--Mr.
Southard, of New Jersey. Mr. Southard, like Mr. Sergeant, was the
fast friend of the United States Bank, to be revived under this
bill; and like him conducted the bill to the best advantage for
that institution. Mr. Sergeant had sprung the bill, and rushed it
through, backed by the old bank majority, with a velocity which
distanced shame in the disregard of all parliamentary propriety and
all fair legislation. He had been the attorney of the bank for many
years, and seemed only intent upon its revivification--no matter
by what means. Mr. Southard, bound by the same friendship to the
bank, seemed to be animated by the same spirit, and determined to
use his power in the same way. He appointed exclusively the friends
of the bank, and mostly of young senators, freshly arrived in the
chamber. Mr. King, of Alabama, the often President of the Senate
_pro tempore_, and the approved expounder of the rules, was the
first--and very properly the first--to remark upon the formation of
this one-sided committee; and to bring it to the attention of the
Senate. He exposed it in pointed terms.
"Mr. KING observed, that in the organization of committees by
Congress, the practice had been heretofore invariable--the
usage uniform. The first business, on the meeting of each
House, after the selection of officers and organizing, was to
appoint the various standing committees. In designating those
to whom the various subjects to which it is proposed to call
the attention of Congress shall be referred, the practice
always has been to place a majority of the friends of the
administration on each committee. This is strictly correct,
in order to insure a favorable consideration of the various
measures which the administration may propose to submit to
their examination and decision. A majority, however, of the
friends of the administration, is all that has heretofore been
considered either necessary or proper to be placed on those
committees; and in every instance a minority of each committee
consists of members supposed to be adverse to the measures of
the dominant party. The propriety of such an arrangement cannot
fail to strike the mind of every senator. All measures should be
carefully examined; objections suggested; amendments proposed;
and every proposition rendered as perfect as practicable before
it is reported to the House for its action. This neither can,
nor will, be controverted. In the whole of his [Mr. KING's]
congressional experience, he did not know of a single instance
in which this rule had been departed from, until now. But there
has been a departure from this usage, sanctioned by justice
and undeviating practice, which had given to it the force and
obligation of law; and he [Mr. KING] felt it to be his duty to
call the attention of the Senate to this most objectionable
innovation. Yesterday a bill was reported from the House of
Representatives for the chartering of a fiscal corporation. It
was immediately taken up, read twice on the same day, and, on
the motion of the senator from Georgia, ordered to be referred
to a select committee. This bill embraced a subject of the
greatest importance, one more disputed upon constitutional
grounds, as well as upon the grounds of expediency, than any
other which has ever agitated this country. This bill, of such
vast importance, fraught with results of the greatest magnitude,
in which the whole country takes the liveliest interest, either
for or against its adoption, has been hurried through the other
House in a few days, almost without discussion, and, as he [Mr.
K.], conceived, in violation of the principles of parliamentary
law, following as it did, immediately on the heels of a similar
bill, which had, most fortunately for the country, received the
veto of the President, and ultimately rejected by the Senate.
The rules of the Senate forbade him to speak of the action of
the other House on this subject as he could wish. He regretted
that he was not at liberty to present their conduct plainly
to the people, to show to the country what it has to expect
from the dominant party here, and what kind of measures may be
expected from the mode of legislation which has been adopted.
The fiscal corporation bill has, however, come to us, and he
[Mr. KING] and his friends, much as they were opposed to its
introduction or passage, determined to give it a fair and open
opposition. No objection was made to the motion of the senator
from Georgia to send it to a select committee, and that that
committee should be appointed by the presiding officer. The
President of the Senate made the selection; but, to his [Mr.
K.'s] great surprise, on reading the names this morning in
one of the public papers, he found they were all members of
the dominant party: not one selected for this most important
committee belongs to the minority in this body opposed to the
bill. Why was it, he [Mr. KING] must be permitted to ask, that
the presiding officer had departed from a rule which, in all
the fluctuations of party, and in the highest times of party
excitement, had never before been departed from?
"There must have been a motive in thus departing from a course
sanctioned by time, and by every principle of propriety. It will
be for the presiding officer to state what that motive was. Mr.
King must be permitted to repeat, the more to impress it on the
minds of senators, that during more than twenty years he had
been in Congress, he had never known important committees to
be appointed, either standing or select, in which some member
of the then minority did not constitute a portion, until this
most extraordinary selection of a committee, to report on this
most important bill. Would it not [said Mr. KING] have been
prudent, as well as just, to have given to the minority a
fair opportunity of suggesting their objections in committee?
The friends of the measure would then be apprised of those
objections, and could prepare themselves to meet them. He [Mr.
KING] had not risen to make a motion, but merely to present this
extraordinary proceeding to the view of the Senate, and leave
it there; but, he believed, in justice to his friends, and to
stamp this proceeding with condemnation, he would move that two
additional members be added to the committee."
The President of the Senate, in answer to the remarks of Mr. King,
read a rule from Jefferson's Manual in which it is said that, a bill
must be committed to its friends to improve and perfect it, and
not to its enemies who would destroy it. And under this rule Mr.
Southard said he had appointed the committee. Mr. Benton then stood
up, and said:
"That is the _Lex Parliamentaria_ of England from which you
read, Mr. President, and is no part of our rules. It is English
authority--very good in the British Parliament, but not valid
in the American Senate. It is not in our rules--neither in the
rules of the House nor in those of the Senate; and is contrary
to the practice of both Houses--their settled practice for fifty
years. From the beginning of our government we have disregarded
it, and followed a rule much more consonant to decency and
justice, to public satisfaction, and to the results of fair
legislation, and that was, to commit our business to mixed
committees--committees consisting of friends and foes of the
measure, and of both political parties--always taking care that
the friends of the measure should be the majority; and, if it
was a political question, that the political party in power
should have the majority. This is our practice; and a wise and
good practice it is, containing all the good that there is in
the British rule, avoiding its harshness, and giving both sides
a chance to perfect or to understand a measure. The nature of
our government--its harmonious and successful action--requires
both parties to have a hand in conducting the public business,
both in the committees and the legislative halls; and this is
the first session at which committee business, or legislative
business, has been confined, or attempted to be confined, to one
political party. The clause which you read, Mr. President, I
have often read myself; not for the purpose of sending a measure
to a committee of exclusive friends, but to prevent it from
going to a committee of exclusive enemies--in fact to obtain for
it a mixed committee--such as the democracy has always given
when in power--such as it will again give when in power--and
such as is due to fair, decent, satisfactory, and harmonious
legislation."
Mr. Benton, after sustaining Mr. King in his view of the rules
and the practice, told him that he was deceived in his memory in
supposing there had never been a one-sided committee in the Senate
before: and remarked:
"That senator is very correct at all times; but he will not take
it amiss if I shall suggest to him that he is in error now--that
there has been one other occasion in which a one-sided committee
was employed--and that in a very important case--concerning
no less a power than Mr. Biddle's bank, and even Mr. Biddle
himself. I speak of the committee which was sent by this Senate
to examine the Bank of the United States in the summer of
1834, when charged with insolvency and criminality by General
Jackson--charges which time have proved to be true--and when
the whole committee were of one party, and that party opposed
to General Jackson, and friendly to the bank. And what became
then of the rule of British parliamentary law, which has just
been read? It had no application then, though it would have
cut off every member of the committee; for not one of them was
favorable to the inquiry, but the contrary; and the thing ended
as all expected. I mention this as an instance of a one-sided
committee, which the senator from Alabama has overlooked, and
which deserves to be particularly remembered on this occasion,
for a reason which I will mention; and which is, that both these
committees were appointed in the same case--for the same Bank of
the United States--one to whitewash it--which it did; the other
to smuggle it into existence under a charter in which it cannot
be named. And thus, whenever that bank is concerned, we have to
look out for tricks and frauds (to say no more), even on the
high floors of national legislation."
Mr. Buchanan animadverted with justice and severity upon the tyranny
with which the majority in the House of Representatives had forced
the bill through, and marked the fact that not a single democratic
member had succeeded in getting an opportunity to speak against
it. This was an unprecedented event in the history of parties in
America, or in England, and shows the length to which a bank party
would go in stifling the right of speech. In all great measures,
before or since, and in all countries possessing free institutions,
the majority has always allowed to the adversary the privilege of
speaking to the measures which were to be put upon them: here for
the first time it was denied; and the denial was marked at the
time, and carried at once into parliamentary history to receive the
reprobation due to it. This was the animadversion of Mr. Buchanan:
"The present bill to establish a fiscal corporation was hurried
through the House of Representatives with the celerity, and,
so far as the democracy was concerned, with the silence of
despotism. No democratic member had an opportunity of raising
his voice against it. Under new rules in existence there, the
majority had predetermined that it should pass that body within
two days from the commencement of the discussion. At first,
indeed, the determination was that it should pass the first day;
but this was felt to be too great an outrage; and the mover was
graciously pleased to extend the time one day longer. Whilst
the bill was in Committee of the Whole, it so happened that, in
the struggle for the floor, no democratic member succeeded in
obtaining it; and at the destined hour of four in the afternoon
of the second day, the committee rose, and all further debate
was arrested by the previous question. The voice of that great
party in this country to which I am proud to belong, was,
therefore, never heard through any of its representatives in the
House against this odious measure. Not even one brief hour, the
limit prescribed by the majority to each speaker, was granted to
any democratic member."
The bill went to the committee which had been appointed, without
the additional two members which Mr. King had suggested; and which
suggestion, not being taken up by the majority, was no further
pressed. Mr. Berrien, chairman of that committee, soon reported it
back to the Senate--without alteration; as had been foreseen. He
spoke two hours in its favor--concluding with the expression that
the President would give it his approval--founding that opinion
on the President's message at the commencement of the session--on
his veto message of the first fiscal bill--on the report of the
Secretary of the Treasury--and on this Secretary's subsequent
plan for a bank framed with the view to avoid his constitutional
objections. Mr. Clay declared his intention to vote for the bill,
not that it went as far as he could wish, but that it would go a
good distance--would furnish a sound national currency, and regulate
exchanges. Mr. Archer, who had voted against the first bank, and
who was constitutionally opposed to a national bank, made a speech
chiefly to justify his vote in favor of the present bill. It was
well known that no alteration would be permitted in the bill--that
it had been arranged out of doors, and was to stand as agreed
upon: but some senators determined to offer amendments, merely to
expose the character of the measure, to make attacks upon the most
vulnerable points; and to develope the spirit which conducted it. In
this sense Mr. Benton acted in presenting several amendments, deemed
proper in themselves, and which a foreknowledge of their fate would
not prevent him from offering. The whole idea of the institution
was, that it was to be a treasury bank; and hence the pertinacity
with which "fiscal," synonymous with treasury, was retained in all
the titles, and conformed to in all its provisions: and upon this
idea the offered amendments turned.
"Mr. BENTON said he had an amendment to offer, which the Senate
would presently see was of great importance. It was, to strike
out from the ninth line of the first section the word 'States.'
It was in that provision assigning seventy thousand shares to
individual companies, corporations, or _States_. This was a new
kind of stockholders: a new description of co-partners with
stockjobbers in a banking corporation. States had no right to be
seduced into such company; he would therefore move to have them
struck out: let the word "States" be taken out of that line. To
comprehend the full force and bearing of this amendment it would
be necessary to keep in view that the sixteenth section of this
charter designates the Fiscal Corporation the Treasury of the
United States. It expressly says that--
"'All public moneys in deposit in said corporation, or
standing on its books to the credit of the _Treasurer_,
shall be taken and deemed to be _in the Treasury of the
United States_, and all payments made by the Treasurer
shall be in checks drawn on said corporation.'
"Yes, sir! this _Fisc_ is to be the Treasury of the United
States; and the Treasury of the United States is to be converted
into a corporation, and not only forced into partnership with
individuals, companies, and corporations, but into joint stock
co-partnership with the States. The general government is to
appoint three directors, and the rest of the partners will
have the appointment of the other six. The corporators will
be two to one against the general government, and they will of
course have the control of the Treasury of this Union in their
hands. Now he was for sticking to the constitution, not only
in spirit and meaning, but to the letter; and the constitution
gives no authority to individuals, companies, corporations, and
States, to take the public Treasury of the Union out of the
hands of the general government. The general government alone,
and acting independently of any such control, is required by
the constitution to manage its own fiscal affairs. Here it
is proposed to retain only one-third of the control of this
Treasury in the hands of the general government--the other
two-thirds may fall exclusively into the hands of the States,
and thus the Treasury of the whole Union may be at the disposal
of such States as can contrive to possess themselves of the
two-thirds of the stock they are authorized to take. If it is
the object to let those States have the funds of the Treasury to
apply to their own use, the scheme is well contrived to attain
that end. He, however, was determined not to let that plan be
carried without letting the people know who were its supporters;
he should, therefore, demand the yeas and nays on his amendment."
"Mr. BERRIEN explained that the objection raised against the
sixteenth section was merely technical. The words did not convert
the bank into the United States Treasury; they merely provided for
a conformity with laws regulating the lodgment and withdrawal of
Treasury funds. The question was then taken on the amendment, which
was rejected as follows: Yeas--Messrs. Allen, Benton, Buchanan,
Clay of Alabama, King, Linn, McRoberts, Mouton, Nicholson, Pierce,
Sevier, Smith of Connecticut, Sturgeon, Tappan, Walker, Woodbury,
Wright, and Young--18. Nays--Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Berrien,
Choate, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Dixon, Evans, Graham, Henderson,
Huntington, Kerr, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Phelps, Porter,
Prentiss, Preston, Rives, Simmons, Smith of Indiana, Southard,
Tallmadge, White, and Woodbridge--28."
Mr. Benton then moved to strike out "corporations" from the
enumeration of persons and powers which should possess the faculty
of becoming stockholders in this institution, with the special view
of keeping out the Pennsylvania Bank of the United States, and whose
name could not be presented openly for a charter, or re-charter:
"The late United States Bank had means yet to keep a cohort
of lawyers, agents, cashiers, and directors, who would not
lose sight of the hint, and who were panting to plunge their
hands into Uncle Sam's pocket. There was nothing to prevent
the corporators of the late United States Bank becoming the
sole owners of these two-thirds of the stock in the new
Fiscality. The sixteenth fundamental rule of the eleventh
section is the point where we are to find the constitutionality
of this Fiscality. The little pet banks of every State may be
employed as agents. This is a tempting bait for every insolvent
institution in want of Treasury funds to strain every nerve and
resort to every possible scheme for possessing themselves of
the control of the funds of the United States. This object was
to defeat such machinations. On this amendment he would demand
the yeas and nays. The question was then taken on the amendment,
and decided in the negative as follows: Yeas--Messrs. Allen,
Benton, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Fulton, King, Linn,
McRoberts, Mouton, Nicholson, Pierce, Rives, Sevier, Smith of
Connecticut, Sturgeon, Tappan, Walker, Woodbury, Wright, and
Young--21. Nays--Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Berrien, Choate,
Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Dixon, Evans, Graham, Henderson,
Huntington, Kerr, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Phelps,
Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Simmons, Smith of Indiana, Tallmadge,
White, and Woodbridge--26."
Mr. Rives objected to the exchange dealings which this fiscal
corporation was to engage in, as being discounts when the exchange
had some time to run. He referred to his former opinions, and
corrected a misapprehension of Mr. Berrien. He was opposed to
discounts in every form; while this bill authorizes discounts to any
amount on bills of exchange. He offered no amendment, but wished
to correct the misunderstanding of Mr. Berrien, who held that this
bill, in this particular, was identical with the amendment offered
to the first bill by Mr. Rives, and that it was in strict conformity
with the President's message.
"Mr. BENTON fully concurred with the senator from Virginia
[Mr. RIVES], that cashing bills of exchange was just as much
a discounting operation as discounting promissory notes; it
was, in fact, infinitely worse. It was the greatest absurdity
in the world, to suppose that the flimsy humbug of calling
the discounting of bills of exchange--gamblers' kites, and
race-horse bills of exchange--a 'dealing in exchanges' within
the meaning of the terms used in the President's veto message.
As if the President could be bamboozled by such a shallow
artifice. Only look at the operation under this bill. A needy
adventurer goes to one of these agencies, and offers his
promissory note with securities, in the old-fashioned way, but
is told it cannot be discounted--the law is against it. The
law, however, may be evaded if he put his note into another
shape, making one of his sureties the drawer, and making the
other, who lives beyond the State line, his drawee, in favor
of himself, as endorser; and in that shape the kite will be
_cashed_, deducting the interest and a per centage besides in
the shape of exchange. Here is discount added to usury; and is
not that worse than discounting promissory notes?"
The President had dwelt much upon "local discounts," confining the
meaning of that phrase to loans obtained on promissory notes. He did
not consider money obtained upon a bill of exchange as coming under
that idea--nor did it when it was an exchange of money--when it was
the giving of money in one place for money in another place. But
that true idea of a bill of exchange was greatly departed from when
the drawer of the bill had no money at the place drawn on, and drew
upon time, and depended upon getting funds there in time; or taking
up the bill with damages when it returned protested. Money obtained
that way was a discount obtained, and on far worse terms for the
borrower, and better for the bank, than on a fair promissory note:
and the rapacious banks forced their loans, as much as possible into
this channel. So that this fiscal bank was limited to do the very
thing it wished to do, and which was so profitable to itself and so
oppressive to the borrower. This, Mr. Tappan, of Ohio, showed in a
concise speech.
"Mr. TAPPAN said, when senators on the other side declare that
this bank bill is intended to withhold from the corporation
created by it the power of making loans and discounts, he felt
himself bound to believe that such was their honest construction
of it. He was, however, surprised that any man, in the slightest
degree acquainted with the banking business of the country, who
had read this bill, should suppose that, under its provisions,
the company incorporated by it would not have unlimited power to
loan their paper and to discount the paper of their customers.
The ninth fundamental article says, that 'the said corporation
shall not, directly or indirectly, deal or trade in any thing
except foreign bills of exchange, _including bills or drafts
drawn in one State or Territory and payable in another_.' This
bill, in this last clause, sanctioned a mode of discounting
paper, and making loans common in the Western country. He spoke
of a mode of doing business which he had full knowledge of, and
he asked senators, therefore, to look at it. A man who wants a
loan from a bank applies to the directors, and is told, we can
lend you the money, but we do not take notes for our loans--you
must give us a draft; but, says the applicant, I have no funds
any where to draw upon; no matter, say the bankers, if your
draft is not met, or expected to be met, because you have no
funds, that need make no difference; you may pay it here,
_with the exchange_, when the time it has to run is out; so
the borrower signs a draft or bill of exchange on somebody in
New York, Philadelphia, or Baltimore, and pays the discount
for the time it has to run; when that time comes round, the
borrower pays into the bank the amount of his draft, with two,
four, six, or ten per cent., whatever the rate of exchange may
be, and the affair is settled, and he gets a renewal for sixty
days, by further paying the discount on the sum borrowed; and
if it is an accommodation loan, it it renewed from time to time
by paying the discount and exchange. Very few of the Western
banks, he believed, discounted notes; they found it much more
profitable to deal in exchange, as it is called; but this
dealing in exchange enables the banks to discount as much paper,
and to loan as much of their own notes, as the old-fashioned
mode of discounting; it is a difference in form merely, with
this advantage to the banks, that it enables them to get from
their customers ten or twelve per cent. on their loans, instead
of six, to which, in discounting notes, they are usually
restricted. How then, he asked, could senators say that this
bill did not give the power to make loans and discounts? He had
shown them how, under this law, both loans and discounts will be
made without limitation."
Mr. Benton then went on with offering his amendments, and offered
one requiring all the stockholders in this corporation Fisc (which
was to be the Treasury of the United States), to be citizens of the
United States, for the obvious reason of preventing the national
treasury from falling under the control of foreigners. M. Berrien
considered the amendment unnecessary, as there was already a
provision that none but citizens of the United States should take
the original stock; and the only effect of the provision would
be to lessen the value of the stock. Mr. Benton considered this
provision as a fraudulent contrivance to have the appearance of
excluding foreigners from being stockholders while not doing so.
The prohibition upon them as original subscribers was nothing, when
they were allowed to become stockholders by purchase. His amendment
was intended to make the charter what it fraudulently pretended
to be--a bank owned by American citizens. The word "original"
would be a fraud unless the prohibition was extended to assignees.
And he argued that the senator from Georgia (Mr. Berrien), had
admitted the design of selling to foreigners by saying that the
value of the stock would be diminished by excluding foreigners
from its purchase. He considered the answer of the senator double,
inconsistent, and contradictory. He first considered the amendment
unnecessary, as the charter already confined original subscriptions
to our own citizens; and then considered it would injure the price
of the stock to be so limited. That was a contradiction. The fact
was, he said, that this bill was to resurrect, by smuggling, the
old United States Bank, which was a British concern; and that the
effect would be to make the British the governors and masters of our
treasury: and he asked the yeas and nays on his motion, which was
granted, and they stood--19 to 26, and were: YEAS--Messrs. Allen,
Benton, Buchanan, Clay of Alabama, Cuthbert, Fulton, King, Linn,
McRoberts, Mouton, Nicholson, Pierce, Sevier, Sturgeon, Tappan,
Walker, Woodbury, Wright, and Young--19. NAYS--Messrs. Archer,
Barrow, Bates, Berrien, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Dixon, Evans,
Graham, Henderson, Huntington, Kerr, Mangum, Merrick, Miller,
Morehead, Phelps, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Rives, Simmons, Smith
of Indiana, Tallmadge, White, and Woodbridge--26. Considering this
a vital question, and one on which no room should be left for the
majority to escape the responsibility of putting the United States
Treasury in the hands of foreigners--even alien enemies in time of
war, as well as rival commercial competitors in time of peace--Mr.
Benton moved the same prohibition in a different form. It was to
affix it to the eleventh fundamental rule of the eleventh section
of the bill, which clothes the corporation with power to make rules
to govern the assignment of stock: his amendment was to limit these
assignments to American citizens. That was different from his first
proposed amendment, which included both original subscribers and
assignees. The senator from Georgia objected to that amendment as
unnecessary, because it included a class already prohibited as well
as one that was not. Certainly it was unnecessary with respect to
one class, but necessary with respect to the other--necessary in
the estimation of all who were not willing to see the United States
Treasury owned and managed by foreigners. He wished now to hear what
the senator from Georgia could say against the proposed amendment
in this form. Mr. Berrien answered: "He hoped the amendment would
not prevail. The original subscribers would be citizens of the
United States. To debar them from transferring their stock, would
be to lessen the value of the stock, which they rendered valuable
by becoming the purchasers of it." Mr. Benton rejoined, that his
amendment did not propose to prevent the original subscribers from
selling their stock, or any assignee from selling; the only design
of the amendment was to limit all these sales to American citizens;
and that would be its only effect if adopted. And as to the second
objection, a second time given, that it would injure the value
of the stock, he said it was a strange argument, that the paltry
difference of value in shares to the stockholders should outweigh
the danger of confiding the Treasury of the United States to
foreigners--subjects of foreign potentates. He asked the yeas, which
were granted--and stood--21 to 27: the same as before, with the
addition of some senators who had come in. These several proposed
amendments, and the manner in which they were rejected, completed
the exposure of the design to resuscitate the defunct Bank of the
United States, just as it had been, with its foreign stockholders,
and extraordinary privileges. It was to be the old bank revived,
disguised, and smuggled in. It was to have the same capital as the
old one--thirty-five millions: for while it said the capital was to
be twenty-one millions, there was a clause enabling Congress to add
on fourteen millions--which it would do as soon as the bill passed.
Like the old bank, it was to have the United States for a partner,
owning seven millions of the stock. The stock was all to go to the
old Bank of the United States; for the subscriptions were to be made
with commissioners appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury--who,
it was known, would appoint the friends of the old bank; so that
the whole subscription would be in her hands; and a charter for
her fraudulently and deceptiously obtained. The title of the bill
was fraudulent, being limited to the management of the "_public_"
moneys, while the body of it conferred all the privileges known to
the three distinct kinds of banks:--1. Circulation. 2. Exchange. 3.
Discount and deposit--the discount being in the most oppressive and
usurious form on inland and mere neighborhood bills of exchange,
declared by the charter to be foreign bills for the mere purpose of
covering these local loans.
"Mr. WALKER moved an amendment, requiring that the bills in
which the Bank should deal should be drawn at short dates,
and on goods already actually shipped. It was negatived by
yeas and nays, as follows:--YEAS--Messrs. Allen, Benton,
Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama, Fulton, King, Linn,
McRoberts, Mouton, Nicholson, Pierce, Rives, Sevier, Smith
of Connecticut, Sturgeon, Tappan, Walker, Woodbury, Wright,
and Young--21. NAYS--Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Berrien,
Choate, Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Dixon, Evans, Graham,
Henderson, Huntington, Kerr, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead,
Phelps, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Simmons, Smith of Indiana,
Southard, Tallmadge, White, and Woodbridge--27. Mr. ALLEN moved
an amendment to make the directors, in case of suspension,
personally liable for the debts of the bank. This was negatived
as follows: YEAS--Messrs. Allen, Benton, Buchanan, Clay of
Alabama, Cuthbert, Fulton, King, Linn, McRoberts, Mouton,
Nicholson, Pierce, Sevier, Smith of Connecticut, Sturgeon,
Tappan, Walker, Woodbury, Wright, and Young--20. NAYS--Messrs.
Archer, Barrow, Bates, Berrien, Choate, Clay of Kentucky,
Clayton, Dixon, Evans, Graham, Henderson, Huntington, Kerr,
Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Morehead, Phelps, Porter, Prentiss,
Preston, Rives, Simmons, Smith of Indiana, Southard, Tallmadge,
White, and Woodbridge--28."
The character of the bill having been shown by the amendments
offered and rejected, there was no need to offer any more, and the
democratic senators ceased opposition, that the vote might be taken
on the bill: it was so; and the bill was passed by the standing
majority. Concurred in by the Senate without alteration, it was
returned to the House, and thence referred to the President for
his approval, or disapproval. It was disapproved, and returned to
the House, with a message stating his objections to it; where it
gave rise to some violent speaking, more directed to the personal
conduct of the President than to the objections to the bill stated
in his message. In this debate Mr. Botts, of Virginia, was the
chief speaker on one side, inculpating the President: Mr. Gilmer
of Virginia, and Mr. Proffit of Indiana, on the other were the
chief respondents in his favor. The vote being taken there appeared
103 for the bill, 80 against it--which not being a majority of
two-thirds, the bill was rejected: and so ends the public and
ostensible history of the second attempt to establish a national
bank at this brief session under the guise, and disguise, of a
misnomer: and a long one at that.
The negative votes, when rejected on the final vote for want of
two-thirds of the House, were:
"Messrs. Archibald H. Arrington, Charles G. Atherton, Linn
Banks, Benjamin A. Bidlack, Linn Boyd, David P. Brewster, Aaron
V. Brown, Charles Brown, William O. Butler, Patrick C. Caldwell,
John Campbell, Reuben Chapman, James G. Clinton, Walter Coles,
Richard D. Davis, John B. Dawson, Ezra Dean, Andrew W. Doig, Ira
A. Eastman, John C. Edwards, Joseph Egbert, Charles G. Ferris,
John G. Floyd, Charles A. Floyd, Joseph Fornance, James Gerry,
Thomas W. Gilmer, William O. Goode, Amos Gustine, William A.
Harris, John Hastings, Samuel L. Hays, Isaac E. Holmes, George
W. Hopkins, Jacob Houck, jr., George S. Houston, Edmund W.
Hubard, Robert M. T. Hunter, Charles J. Ingersoll, William
W. Irwin, William Jack, Cave Johnson, John W. Jones, George
M. Keim, Andrew Kennedy, Dixon H. Lewis, Abraham McClellan,
Robert McClellan, James J. McKay, John McKeon, Francis Mallory,
Albert G. Marchand, John Thompson Mason, James Mathews, William
Medill, John Miller, Peter Newhard, William Parmenter, Samuel
Patridge, Wm. W. Payne, Arnold Plumer, George H. Proffit, John
Reynolds, R. Barnwell Rhett, Lewis Riggs, James Rogers, Tristram
Shaw, Benjamin G. Shields, John Snyder, Lewis Steenrod, George
Sweney, Hopkins L. Turney, John Van Buren, Aaron Ward, Harvey M.
Watterson, John B. Weller, John Westbrook, James W. Williams,
Henry A. Wise, Fernando Wood."