Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-01-14


enquiry into the subject That the mea-
sure adopted by the Bank, was unautho-
rised b. the charter, q single glance at tie
act OF incorporation, he ihoughf, would
prove. It was not competent, he insist
ed, for the Bank 10 receive auv notes
whatever III lieu OF the specie insialmant
and II they evaded one provision of the
law, they might others. lie wished. al
So, by the enquiry, to ascertain whether
the alledgcd regulation had been adonted
IN time to permit u general participa
ton in 1.-THE believed ii was not. aud
therefore that it would operate unfairly,
&c.
Mr.. G,Osvenor said, the real question
was, whether the Pack had power to re-
ceiYe us Own notes for the second inst2i-
ment. The directors had siiewn no dis
position ~ evade specie payments. Look
al the fact, said he They hav, seur 80
Europe 10 obtain large supply OF snecie,
and have thus taken means 10 ensure The
payment OF specie. After Shelving their
Willingness to comply with the njunc-
tons on the law, shall we, said Mr.. q. 90
into The Bank TO disturb them The
Bank was now negotiating largely for
specie III England and a trivial circun-
stance might create alarm ttere ana defeat
lie negotiation. For that reason he
thought the enquiry inexpcdient. The
Bank had manifested 10 SNmptom of O.
vadinS IT'S duty, but had shewn the reverse
had e'incrd desire to lay sure foun-
dation Tor specie payments. The only
way me Bank could have avoided the
regulation Was to have closed It's doors.
not 10 have commenced business until
ai'er Tie second lnstalment WAS paid, o.
ther"ise the subscribers would throw
IN. Il
thoughl there were no grounds for Ike
enquiry.
Mr.. Vide declared himself in favor of
the enquiry. lie referred TO the chart. r
TO prove that the regulation of Tie Bank
was unauthorized. ifilre Directors couId
| dllow The specie insialment 10 be paid in
'hiS way, they might also permit the stock
payments ana all others TO be evadc,i in
the same manner. Hewas In favor OF the
enquiry, 1t Tor no other reason. 10 ascer-
tam If the privilege had been extended
linpartIaily 10 the subscribers. and 10 all
! parts OF the country.
! Mir. h95eytsOii read the 9th rule of the
Charter, which prescribes, that the corpo-
ration shall not directly or indirectly deal
or trade IN any thing exceS bills of en-
change, gold or silver bullion, or i'm the
sale otgoods really and truly pledged for
money tent, ana not redeemed in due
iilhe' or goods which should be the pro-
ceeGs Oh us iands and that IT sir.ll not be
/ at 'iDerty 10 purchase any DubIic debt
whatsoever. MIR. r. asked, whether fhis
ruie did nciappiy to the regulation adont-
e; by The banA--wi!ethert the practice UNI
der THAT regulation was not trading in thu
pubic debt, and whether it would not vi.
oidle his rule of the charter Z! He ex.
pecsea the House would often have to In
| CURE mic The conduct Of the bank and
1 he was NOT unwilling 10 commence in TINS
instance, where ne believed they had FRO
cecdcd improperly.
Mr.. Smith of Nd. said, The pledge re-
| quired by The bank was not known n,
had understood il was to consist ofth,
stock OF the bank If SO MIR. Robertson,
objection would fail of course. II,
thought the mover Of the resolution ought
before lie brought 1T forward, to hay,
been sufficiently informed to state VIVA
KIND OF stock was required by the baul
in pledge; DIR. S. had at first been il
favor OF this enquiry, but subsequent re
lection had changed lbs opinion.
might have serious effect on the nego
Citations in England, for sDecie. biz pro
ducllg alarm and doubt Of HE inviolabi
lIty OF the charter, &c. lie confessed h
had not approved of tie regulation a
first, nor ana he entirely now (: but he ,Ii
not think IL any violation of the act of III
corporation. The directors were wen "a
tlsiied, he believed, thai great part oftii
stockholders would fail TO paw the In
staiment and forfeit their dividends. an
the Directors had consulted whether
wouldnot be better for the banl, TO n
lord them accommodation, rather tia
that should take place The re
suit was nearly tie same, and the t,y
cases presented ii distinction aimos
Without difference lie asked Mr.. 70,
syth what was the difference between ca,
rsing specie to the bank 10 paw the IN
sialmeht, aud paying in Boles viii on
hand TOR which they aisht receive syeci
with the other The directors. Inc said
bad 10 doubt well considered the subiec
and heard both sides Of the question l.,
fore they decided on their present cour,.
They were bound by the charter to MA
speci and II they do That they do notvit
late It'll they fail in that, then il is con
petent for the House 10 Interfere and II
ilIct the penalty. lie was opposed to IN
adoption Ct This resolution.
Mr.. Calhoun thought the 9Th rule off
charter, quoted by Mr.. Robertson l,a
$50 reiercncetO the regulation referred /,
and argued that the deposit required b
the Bank Was not that dealing or fradiu
which was prohibited by The rule. lie CO.
sldcrcd the notes Of tie Bank lie SAN
as specie. because they were comyertibI