Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1820-04-14
From the National InteIIigencer.
CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES..
Monday, .aprI lO-h continuation.
When our Reporter entered the Hall
Mr.. Mercer was on the floor. He wss ex :
aiming the condition OF the Banks of the
District, and comparing it with that OF o.
theirs in the United States to which he con-
tended they stood in no disadvantageous
comparison. He then proceeded to reply
to an observation which had been made, TO
the effect that the Branch Bank of the Uni
ted States was competent to do all the actual
transaction business of the District. This
he denied on various grounds, the evils OF a
monied aristocracy the distinction OF IN
terests in the District, requiring separate
institutions for each the impracticability OF
calling in, within any reasonable period. the
amount of debt due to the Banks, especially
without substituting for it something like an
equal amount OF bank capital---which it
could not be expected that the Bank of the
U. S. would draw from the commercial cities
where it is now employed.
Mr.. Warheld followed, on the same side
of the question. He denied that the bank
capital of the District is too large, when we
take into view the great extent OF country in
Virginia, and that portion of Maryland de
pending on the District for market for its
produce. No fraud or misconduct, or want
of punctuality, on the pc TT Of the Banks,
had been alleged; no petition bad been pre-
sented fron. any part of this District, Or from
any portion of the United States, against a
ewal of the charters Of the banks. In no
part OF the Union, had the increase of popu-
lation, or the progress of Improvement been
more rapid than in this District. The inha-
bitants were all enterprising people, and
had done much wlhin short time. Their
enterprise ought not to be cramped. nor
their exertioAs paralized by the destruction
of the Banks, sc. The Branch Bank here,
he commended, could not be competent to
the business of the District nor would it
be wise, he said, 10 make the interests of
the Bank exclusively dependant on that 10
stitution, sc. For these and other reasons
he was opposed to the motion before the
committee.
The question was then taken on Mr..
Cobb's motion and decided in the negative
by a large majority.
Mr.. MLean, OF Kentucky, moved to a.
mend the bill by adding to it a provision to
make the individual property of the stock
holders of the Banks liable for all the debts
of the Banks.
Mr.. Mercer remarked. that this provision
was unprecedented in any other bank char
ter in the United States /; which itself was
strong argument against the amendment.
Mr. M'Lean defended his amendment
The constitution of one of the states, he
said, contained provision that no bank
should ever be incorporated therein without
such fundamental condition. If to be found
in the charter OF no other bank, it was high
time the principle should be established. for
reasons which he led at large and nei-
ther here, nor any where else, would he vote
for the charter OF any Bank which did not
contain such provision.
Mr.. Brush objected to the er post facto o.
peration otthls proposition, as it would go
to change the nature OF existing contracts.
He had no objection, he said, to modify it
so as TO operate respectively.
Mr.. Warheld spoke against the motion.
Mr.. M'Lean modified his motion so as to
make it take effect from and alter the expl-
ration oil the present charters ofthe Banks.
Mr.. Mercer made some observations to
. sLew, that such provision was unnecessa.
sry, and would be oppressive, and therefore
ought not to be incorporated in the bill.
/ Mr. M'Lean replied. Among other argu-
ments. he likened Banks to associations, or
partnerships for carrying on mercantile or
trading business, of which no one ever
doubted that eveFy partner in the concern
I was liable for the debts of the firm, &c.