Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 182?-183?, 1832-07-20

4
taxation which this act proposes, will be 10
place the whole United States in the same
relation TO foreign countries which the west
ern States bear TO the eastern. When, by
tax on resident stockholders, the stock of
this bank is made worth ten or fifteen per
cent more 10 foreigners than TO silents,
most OF it will inevitably leave the coun-
try.
Ihuswill this provision, il its practical
effect, deprive the eastern q: we'll as the
southern anil western States, of the means
OF raising a revenue from the extension of
business and the great profits d this inslitu-
ton. 1t will make the American people
debtors TO aliens in nearly tho whole amount
due 10 this bank, and send across The Allan
TIC from two 10 five millions Of specie every
year, to pay The bank dividends
In another bits bearings this provision is
fraught with danger. OF the twenty-five
directors oithis bank, five are chosen by the
Government, and twenty by the citizen
stockholders From all voice in these cleo
lions the foreign stock holders are excluded
by the charter In proportion, therefore,
as the stock is transferred 10 foreign holders,
the extent of suffrage in the choice Of direct
ors is curtailed. Already is almost third
of the stock in foreign hands, and not repre-
sented in elections. IT is constantly passing
out OF the country, and this act will accele-
rate its departure. The entire control of
the institution would necessarily fall into the
hands Of few citizen stock holders, and the
ease with which the object would be accom-
plished, would bea temptation TO designing
men to secure that control in their own hands
by monopolising the remaining stock. There
is danger that n President and directors
would then be able 10 elect themselves from
year 10 year, and without responsibility or
control, manage the whole concerns ofthe
bank during The existence of lis charter
1t is easy 10 conceive that great evils 10 our
| country and lis Institutions might flow from
such concentration of power in The hands
ola few men irresponsible &c tie people.
Is there no danger to- our Liberty and indie
Pendence in q bank that, in It's nature, has so
little 10 bind il 10 our country? The presi-
dent OF the bank has iold us, that most of The
State banks exist by its iorbearance Should
It's influence become concentred, rs il may
under the operation OF such an act IS this in
The hands OF self-eiected directory, whose
interests are identified with those Of the for
eign stakeholder, will there not he cause TO
tremole Tor the purity of our elections, in
peace, and Tor the independence Of our coun-
Try IN war! Their power might be great
whenever they might choose To exert il -
but II this monopoly were regularly renewed
every fifteen or twenty years, on terms pro-
posed by themselves, they might seldom in
peace put forth their strength t. nhence e.
lections or control the affairs of the nation
But if any private citizen or public function
airy SHOULD interpose to curtai its powers. or
prevent renewal of lis privileges, it cannot
be doubted that he would be made 10 feel its
influence.
Should the stock Of the bank principally
pass into the hands of the subjects of a for
eign country, and we should unfortunately
become involved in war with that country,
what would be our condition; or the course
which would be pursued by bank almost
wholly owned by the subjects of a foreign
power, and managed by those whose inter
ests, if not affections, would run in the same
direction, there can he no doubt. All IFS op-
erations within, would he in aid of the hos
tile fleets and armies without controlling
our currency, receiving our public moneys,
and holding thousands of our citizen, in de-
pendence, it would be more formidable and
dangerous than the naval and military DOW.
er OF the enemy.
five must have bank with private stock
holders, every consideration Of sound policy,
and every impulse of American feeling, ad-
monishes that it should he purely A American.
lis stockholders should be composed exclu-
sively ofour own citizens, who at least ought
10 be friendly TO our government, and will
ing to support it in times of difficulty and
danger. So abundant is domestic capital,
that competition in subscribing for the stock
of local banks has recently led almost TO ri
OTIS. To bank exclusively Of American
stockholders, possessing The powers and priv
ileges granted by this act, subscriptions for
two hundred millions of dollars could be
readily obtained. Instead of sending a.
broad the stock OF the bank, in which The
government must deposit IFS funds, and on
which it must rely 10 sustain its credit in
times of emergency, il would rather seem 10
be expedient 10 prohibit its sale 10 aliens ,un-
der penalty OF absolute forfeiture.
IL is maintained by the advocates of the
bank, that its constiutionality, in all its fea-
lures, ought TO be considered as settled bv
precedent, and by the decision of the Su-
preme Court. To this conclusion cannot
assent. Mere precedent is dangerous
source OF authority, and should not be re-
garded as deciding questions OF constitution
al power, except where the acquiessence of
the people and the States can be considered
as well settled So far from This being the
case on this subject, an argument against the
bank might be based on precedent. One
Congress, in 1871, decided in favor of bank;
another, in 1911, decided against it, One
Congress, in 1915, decided against bank I
another, in 1916, decided in its favor. Pri- |
or to the present Congress, therefore, the
Precedents drawn from that source were G.
quail. 1--we resort 10 the States, the express
slons OF legislative, Judicial, and executive
opinions against the bank have been, proba- !