Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-12-04

po'' nduc " titnc Wneo, III that course
had been wrong, ii was in the power OF
Congress TO have prevented il. The fact
OF general regulation having been adopt
Ell tor discounting notes for payment of
the second instalment, was acknowledged
TO the committee who vet reported TO this
house recommendation that the com
miiiee be discharged from the further
consideration OF the subject. Mr.. l..
said he wo1'd not now enter into an in
vesiigaiion ofthe conduct of the bank on
HAT OCCASION: his Impression at the time
had been, that the arrangement was be-
nehcial To the community, by facilitating
and expeditlng the organization of the
bank, &c. but that IL was AN imprudent
one, on the part of The directors of that
institution, whose object it should be TO
adhere TO the very line of their duty, as
pointed out by the charter. The point.
however, 10 which he desired 10 call the
attention ut the house, was, that when the
corrective and remedy were in their hands
" lie act was wrong, committee having
been instructed TO enquire into it, and
having reported the fact, the house had
not thought proper 10 interfere at all i'm
the business. Under these circums,an.
ces, said he, il would be harsh indeed. at
new lights which experience has afforded
us, to censure the bank for having done
that to which, at this time, we taciily con
scented. A distinction, of course, must
be drawn between the second and third
nsialments, in regard to the mode of
payment the pay ment of the latter by
notes, discounted for that purpose, every
body anticipated. The bank was then
IN full operation, discountng all good
paper offered ioit, and could not be ex-
pecied TO pass law of exclusion i'm re-
gardto its own stockholders, WHO had as
fair claim at least as Others TO accom-
mediation /: indeed, there never perhaps
had gone bank into operation i'm which
tue same thing had not occurred; il was
Therefore expected OF the Bank of the
United States in regard In the third in
stalment on lis stock, and could not be
considered as forming ground of COM
plant against II. Another specific OBJ
Jeci OF the enquiry was, whether the bank
or lis branches had sold drafts and re-
ceived premium thereoa. The gentle
man from New York had stated, with
grcai randor, as he understood him, that
he did not consider II an imputation on
the bank that ii had refused TO pay spe-
Gle Tor its notes al any other branch than
that from which they issued and that
lie therefore did not mean TO contend
thai the bank ou9ht 10 have made it's pa.
per and that I'll lis branches payable in
differently at the bank or al any and all
OF lis branches. Connected very CLOSELY
with this subject, Mr.. L. said, was the
practice OF seiting drafts on distant banks
for premium. He knew, he said. that
much OF the disapprobation Of the con
duct OF the bank proceeded from the dis
appointment OF an expectation that il
would can't anal sustain a currency which
should be of equal value throughout the
Union; and, il might be of some impor-
lance, as many of the members of the
present Congress were not members OF
the last, 10 advert TO circumstances which
proved that the expectation referred to
was never entertained iii this house the
time the bank was Incorporated. The
Congress which preceded that by which
the bank was established, Mr.. l.. said
had had under its consideration bill TO,
establishing bank, one clause of which
did provide that the bank aud all its
branches should be obliged 10 pay the
notes of each other; b. which means, il
practicable, the paper of all would have
been every where of an equal value. /. &. .
That clause. however, was not inserted in
the bill which actually passed. If there
were no other, this would be sufficient
proof. from the records of the house, that
II was not expected that currency that
should be every where of equal value
would be established. But, lurther-in
the act Incorporating the bank, there is a
provision that the bank shall charge noth-
ing 10 the government tor difference oil
exchange. Was this not, Mr.. l.. asked,
positive proof that il was expected that
the bank would charge in some cases the
difference of exchange? Was it not
proof, that IL was the expectation of the
trainers of the law, that The present state
Of things would result He would not
cutter at all into the general question,
whether it would or would mol he posi-
bic for the Bank of the United States 10
equaiiZe, without great loss, the exchange
between different sections of fine coun-
try, il by their charter they were bound
to do so. Ii ii we're practicable, il would
be even now their interest TO do il but,
Mr.. {. SAID, hr believed ii would be Who'll
ly impraciicablc. The question was moi,
however, whether il was possible for the
United States to effect it, whether iiwouId
be beneficial TO the country or to the in
siiiuiiOn, but whether The bank was bound
10 effect the object. The exclusion OF
the clause having this object, after il had
been included in a like bill before Con
gress, at the preceding session, and, in
addition, the express exception OF the
government from all charge for difference
ofexchange, showed that it was not ex-
pecied OF the bank. II, however, he
were TO 20 into The discussion of the
praciicabiity of establishing a circulating
medium of equal value in every part Of
the country, il would appear not only
that ~ the reason of the thing it was not
practicable, but experience also would
shew thai in large empire il is visionary
to look for it.-Even in England, as gen-
tlemen well knew, when the bank paid in
specie, The value of bank note in differ
ent parts of The country was not the same.