Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-02-13


Bank of the U. States, because without il,
neighborhood, they would have it in their power
to discount much more largely. Were they
not checked by this consideration, they might
go to the limits assigned by their charters. They
were afraid to issue beyond limited amount,
because they would subject themselves to calls
for specie beyond their ability to meet. How
was 1T that their dividends were SO small, unless
tor these reasons They were cramped by the
presence and influence of the Bank of the u.
States, and compelled to be cautious.
Mr. Moore withdrew the motion for supplying
the blank with the word ten which motion was
immediately renewed by Mr.. Colston.
The question was the put on fifteen, and
lost by a large majority.
Mr.. Loyal moved to fill the blank with II
years, and supported the melton on the grounds,
that II 1t was proper to extend the charter at all
1t was right to extend it for the longest period.
Mr.. Patteson of Buckingham advocated l2
ears. The question wasifthe Legislature would
i've all the advantages anticipated BY renewal,
which could only be realised by extending the
charter for considerable period, or by limiting
1T to short time, withhold all the benefits that
might be hoped from that measure.
The question on supplying the blank with 12
years, was taken, and lost by "a large majority.
Mr.. Colston advocated an extension for 10
years-he was willing to renew the charter
without exacting i bonus from the stockholders,
but not for too long a time. The question on
10 was carried in the negative ayes 72-noes
113.
MIR. Marshall then moved to supply the blank
with years.
Gen. Blackburn opposed that number
lie said he wished to live long enough to see
the end of that institution. IF 1t ,cas extended
TO Q gears, he could not hope from the order of
nature IN S,yy,jre y,,o fb..o,
rcould try and HUe it out.
Mr. Loyal again advocated the longest Pc
Rod, but the No. was rejected by majority
of 70 TO 126.
MIR. Davenport said he considered this ques-
ton as highly important-and called for the ayes
and noes, which motion was sustained.
MIR. Mason of Southampton, who had previ-
ousy expressed himselfin favor off years extern
sion, admitted that he had been convinced by
the reasoning of gentlemen, that it would be
lInpolitlc to compel both charters to expire at
the same time. He made this acknowledgment,
to explain the apparent inconsistency of the
vote he should give, with his former obserya-
tons.
MIR. Thompson of Fairfax desired to offer
single remark to the House. If the charter
was extended beyond 6 years, he should view it,
as new recognition and extension of the bank
ing principle. Extending it to that time, was
a measure of expediency, involving no princi-
pie. He thought that running together, and
expiring together, no evil could be anticipated
equal to the injurious consequences of banking.
Mr.. WitCher said he was entirely friendly to
the extension of the Charter. Onr sister states
around us, all had banks, which would expose us
to the evils of paper currency. He thought
therefore, that we ought to have one Of our own
over which we could exercise controul, and
from which we might expect sound currency
Vhr. Garland sand he was one of those, who
thought it difficult, if not impossible, to return
from paper, to a specie currency, and that it
as not possible for the state under present cir
cumstances to do it. He was in favor of
years, that both charters might expire at once
when the Legislature might possess a complete
controul over the system, and either extend a.
malgamate, or annihilate, as they thought best.
The question then taken by ayes and
noes, on filling the blank with 6, and carried in
the affirmative, ayes 120-noes 81.
| The bill being put on its passage
.Hr, GraVeS rose, for the purpose Of referring
question to the members ofthat House. II
asked if there was not rule which restraine
members from voting on questions in which ther
were directly interested. He said that for one,
were he stakeholder or a debtor, he could not
think himself at liberty to vote. He never held
nor never would hold any interest in these abo
minable institutions. He knew that they had
been profitable to few, to the stockjobber, and
the shaver, but he believed they had had ruin
GUS effect upon the people at large. They mnde
the strong stronger and the weak weaker. He
believed that if the liberties of this country were
IN danger, twas from the existence of these mo-
MED Arstocracies- A refusal to extend the char
ter, might injure few, but it would prove the
salvation of the country. Upon his motion to
exclude stockholders from voting, Mr.. G. called
the ayes and noes.
The Speaker hece read the rule of the House
referred to, by .ur. Graves, and decided from
precedent, that the rule in question was not ap
plicable to the present case.
Mr.. d romgoole appealed from the decision of
the chair. He commended that both stockholders
and debtors were directly interested in the fate
OF this question, and proceeded to prove the po-
slion, by reading various passages, from the
memorial of the stockholders itself.
.Nr. Colston said, he was neither a stockh0id-
er nor a debtor to this institution. He said
that L the views of the members from
New Kent, and Brunswick prevailed, that this
House was no legislature--for scarcely ques-
ton of taxation ofinternal improvement could
be started, in which members were not directly
and personally interested. The rule was intend
ed as the rule ofgood sense, and wasonly meant
to apply to those cases, in which the personal
interest of members predominated over public
considerations.
.Nr. Barton believed that the rules of evidence,
admitted persons thus interested to give testi-
mony, and if sos by a parity of reasoning, men,
bers ought not to be excluded from the right of
voting.
Wr. Dromgoole could see no affinity between
this case, and those put by the member from
Berkeley. Here the interest was direct and
personal, there it was general, affecting the