Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-02-10

rauty OF the people, anu raise money Oy
taxes. They are "A mere ht, rnGre EN- ient
source of revenue than this hithy stream,
with its paper banks.
The refus i If the existing banks 70 re-
COVE these iiicgtimate children into their
f4nIi;ies, has much more weight with me
than all the assertions of this report If
they Thought they could safely increase
their business by 1t, they would have done
sn. Ifthey cguld not, neither can the banks
on their own capital, and call upon them
for specie trey are every one OF them broke
st once.
Trat the Virginia banks. if all incorpo-
rated ur(ler ore charter, issuing notes en-
titled 20 draw specie at every and each of
them, would not prevent the difference of
exchange as urged lp. 52l is not a correct
position. Tho it would be attended with
danger and expense TO eutit'e such notes
81 50 Gle, if there were one or two great
markets 20 which the notes of the branch
banks were drawn by trade, yet in the pre-
sent case where the trade is not direct to
Richmond or any place OF the supposed
branches, nc such danger wonld exist
And If the notes of MI tA.: banks in Virgi-
MIA, res ing upon solid foundation, were
entitled 10 specie NJ each other, 1t would
not be to equa!ize. but totally to prevent
the Origin It difference Of exchange
And that the u. -. bank lid not accom-
Pisli this ead, was owing, first, to the very
Important fact, which the committee en-
treiv overlook that thc notes OF one branch
werc rot entitled to specie at another *
secondly. to the circumstance that New
York and Philadelphia being the two great
ports OF entry and shipment, of all the in,--
portationsand expectations Of the u. States,
t1osc BANKS could not have stood the runs
which would have been made upon them,
in the notes of all the other branches, col
lected and accumulated there by the course
OF trade. Nor could these banks have ia
ken on themselves tine expense of trans
? rting specie from the several branches to
NewYork and Phiiaae! tia. But this We
~ report has already she@n, that there is
to little comm rcil intercourse between
Richmond and the country petitonng for
banks, to create such hazardous neces-
sity.
The-e e in the Report another detach-
ed adsurdity, which, as it bcllngs to no
particular branch of the question, I will
state here. 1t coasi lers th.t the uhchar-
tered baEls will facilitate the Ce!le ct;on of
revenue, while il denies their notes the Dri-
vilege Of being received in tx s-N
more. while it declares that ttxes SHALL be
PAYABLE only in specie 81 in the notes of
the now Gu rtered banks. How then can
these potes, by driving out Of the country
the only two things which will be received
rs taxes, facilitate the collection of taxes
This is to suppose the facility CT acquiring
noueyt t. bs in proportion to it's difficulty.
But that is an easy problem TO these fnan-
cicriDF magicians.
In the following paragraphs, the often
agitf'ed question concerning the utility of
banks IN an agricultural system is touched
m. 'Vhis is q most important question, not
OILY II The present enquiry, but TO the State
generally. / wish the Committee had con-
sidercd It mare auentive'y than it has
The pr udice against their hypothesis has
not, IS they believe, or ginated with Adam
Smith, whose book they so strongly recon-
mend That book Cannot be too often quo
ted nor 700 much admired, as AZ able ex-
Eosi5n OF that commercial system upon
which the greatness. and the glorY of C.
Britain DEPENDS. But. its principles are
generally, almost wholly, in9ppl:cable to
our tuation. This opinion, though, which
they ascribe to Adam Suith, originated
and has obtained is ground, from an
early period Of commercial history, to
the present day, and there is nothing in
this report TO refute, or even weaken it.
l0stiu n limited the interest of money in
ordinary cases 10 4 per cent. but allo we'd
more from merchants, both because their
profits wcr2 greater. and the risk OF losing
tn loan greater. Grotius informs rs, that
10 histime the interest of money in Holland
was per cent. in ordinary cases, and u
PR ct. 90 merch ants, for the lme reasons
given in the Roman Law. Lord Bacon
underworld 70 introduce the same policy
iuSo E,g' and but the commercial interest
even then prsdominating over all the 9TH
ers, his scheme was never adopted.
From the view which the committee has
taken IF this very Important subject, ii
does nnt Sem to be aware, that there IS a.
Ky other objection to baking in an agri-
cultural system, then tn shortneSs Of bank
loans. THIS, though cert; ~ very strong
OH cton, IS not the CT { one. Should re
not frs; consider the rate Of bank interest, |
an! then the rate Of agricultural profit p
For if the profit of a farmer be less than
the interest Of the money which he borrows
10 cultivate his farm, he loses not only the
difference, but the interest Of his whole |
capital, and that difference, as he might !
have converted his agricultural capital in
t. stock, and have derived from ta profit. |
I have been at some pains to learn, as tar |
as inquiry can inform us, in the absence of !
all statistic documents, what profit the |
farmers generally make on the capital |
employed in agriculture. computing their |
fixed as well rs circulating capital, and al |
lowing the legal interest on the money !
which such capital would bring in the mar |
ket--l have never yet seen three farmers, |
VINO would not, but for the rise in th3 Va, |
luc Of their property while II remains in |
l. 49, Al -.