Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-06-05
,Ewcaty-second Cos,grcss.--sess. \
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.
Monday, May IL
Mr.. ADAMS REPoRr:-( Continucd }

Among the objects Of investigation authorized bv tho
majority OF the committee, tansccning in the opinion of
the subscriber, the powers delegated TO them BIZ The
luton oil the House. and therefore uuwarrancd and pro
per- We're six SETS OF nerrcgatoes, amounting in all to
one hundred and sixty questions addressed by one
member OF the committee TO the President OF the Bank
never submitted TO the committee for their consideration
but drawn up, large portion OF them, alter the committee
sad c'osed Uelr examinations at Philadelphia and ailer
The subscriber had returned to Waslng,o aud resumed
his eatinthe House They reminded him Of certain po-
phnr works OF instruction Tor chrt in which universal
or particular Histories absrusc and prolnd sciences ere
Taught by question and answer The subscriber has found
many OF hcm upon rcrnsal passing his powers Of conprc
hension, but they appear TO comprise compendium
OF political economy, and the skeleton Of a profound
dissertation upon coins. currency paper credit crcula
ton and banking The subscriber cannot withhold his
admiration from the comprehensive views aid profound
knowledge OF the subject discovered in those in
quires, and believes that satisfactory answers 10 them
might form very useful second, though somewhat arg-
or volume, TO the Legislative and Documentary History
Of the Bank of the United States coulrcd by the ndeti-
gable research and industry of the Clerk of the House of
Representatives, and his associate. But large portion of
the questions might, with propety, be addressed i'm
circular 10 the Presidents all tie banks the four GUAR
ers of the Globe, than the President of the Bank of the
y. States And 1t may be doubted whether of many of
the inquiries convention of all the bankers i'm the world
would not he reduced 10 the necessity Of leaving them rs
they found hento be solved only by the ingenuity or
sagacity OF their author The subscriber objected TO item
they presented in clusters; not but that some of the
questions might be within the compass of the poes and
duties OF the Committee but that they buried in such
mass OF Heterogeneous matter that il would have occ,
pied the Committee to the last moment of their happily
mcn The subscriber believed il quite unjustitsblc I'M
der the authority OF the Committee TO make of this ngu-
ry general dsputalon upon banking.
Upon the of documents and tabular statcr,cnie
collected by the Committee, and reported TO the House
the subscriber has so imperfect knowledge that he can
form distinctive opinion. He has never had access IN
the greater part of them They were called for by rcso
uiios submitted by the Chairman and ono or two other
members Of the Committee, without disclosing the objects
which 1t was expected they would eucidate Most Of the
time, while the Comniitec at Philadelphia, was con-
umod in the compilation of them by the officers of the
Bank When collected, they remained in the possession
oil inc Chairman oil the Committee TO enable him to prepare
his report and the subscriber has even seen cons.
cradle portion of them. II will conne himself therefore
TO those which have been noticed in the rcpor of the Clair
man and majority OF the Committee
l. The charge Of usurv, hcrng been taken some tnn
years since by the Branch Bank Lexington set forth
IN the case OF tc Corporation against Owens and others
reported IN the second Volume oil Peters Reports
argued and adiudged iDte Supreme Court of Tic United
States, was one OF those upon which the chairman OF the
committee had largely eXpalated i'm his speeches az the
time when lie brought forward his resolution of inves,iea
ton NO Information varying the state OF the facts nc hny
then explained, obtoncd b.? the Committee /,
was then sufficiently shown, that in III the transactions nj
tins case there had been neither usury nor any np re-
semong usGry, on the part of the Bank. That it was
case in which the Bank had done but had suffered
gevous wrong transaction, in which the subscriber las
no hesitation in saying that il the parties had been on 10th
sides individuals the plea upon which The defendants
treated themselves from e engagements which thcv had
contracted, would have been in wise crcditaie TO
them. "
The Bank had discounted promissory NOE Of Owens
or hVe thousand dollars, upon which the other efe
were joint sgners with him.
For this note Owens received the sum of = goo dolare
IN no'es 81 ae 6Gnk Of kentucky, promising 10 pay
Tie same sum an specie in three years from The da,c
oil the note. a that time, the notes Of the Rank 81
Kentucky were deprecated, ard purcbasae in market
a. discount of 81 per cent Ovens received far -,
their nominal value ard promised payment for ,hc, il
specie hrce years after dac. The had been reccy-
ed by Tie LeXingion Branch, their nominal value and
parity Tor Government depositcs. To them they were
equivalent specie Within six months after ;b ans
action hey recovered their nominal value Had The Lex
ION branch retained thcm they would have been re-
P"" al cir lul value, with Lawful! interest; I'LL the time
payment Ihey never received dollar Of usurinls
Interest upon em--acver dollar more than was ac-
tunly paid 10 the holder of them bV the Bank of L on
lucky, fom which they had issued The none, ,yas
equivalent 10 specie 10 Owens himself al the fine yyIcr
nominal value. ~
But the Branch at Lexington in ,lc case before tlc
court was many suffer besides has been made the
victim OF special plea and demurrer The plea Get I'm m
the defendants 10 escape the pavmcnt Of AN l6nc b So,
or not that the notes of the Kentucky Bank were
value than specie TO the Branch at IcNineon the Ioorer
not that they were OF less value than specie to Owens e
borrower and receiver; not that AZ the when The MOI
was made payable they were Of less value than srcc
even IN the open market, but that at The time 7rp me
note OreiS 1ras discounted, The notes If the Ken
tuchy Ddnf 5ccrc GENERALLY DrpRFCrATr,- dat
100 dollars thereof nouinaliy were of the ct.nnF,r =
LUE OF only 81 dollars To this plea of cencyrI dcprlc;
tl2n ana current rHne there was perhaps ncau'iousy,
what the lawyers call demurrer ON the t3r of the
which demurrer, according the practice Of Judicial
courts precludcs Tie pdry from the bcrcG Of any o,e.
tV' Hah nose specially set forth in The plea Sueciol
PeaHng mas long been known among the practitioners
OF the law, the science Of spreading sn,rcs for Cc ,
wary and 50 odous hos il become from the frequency
WIN winch 1t Is thereby made operate with Injustice
that in many Saies Of This Union. Legislative acts
have abolished, IT altogether by providing that in all coecs
whacver defendant shall be liberty 10 fake the cen
cral ISSUE and give all special matter in evidence ucr
H. In This CASE however, the general issue did not siit
The purposes Of tie defendants They could not aver
t they had not made tie promise TO pay the money ,r
winch they were sued by the Bank They could not do
ny uidt the Kentucky Bank notice had becn 10 nc Ie.r.
could not deny that long before the note became povolc
me kentucky Bank notes had recovered their fail vluo
owens himself had not the face Join i'm the plea b,,t
ne JOINT gners OF his note finding il moro convenient 10
charge the Bank with usury than 10 fulfil their engage
mens, screened themselves from performance bv dis plea
OF general dCPreciofi0p, aud current rofys and Inv
aVcrnog ~ Their special plea contrary 10 The fact that
ucrc had been corrupt and UiirfrliH agreement be-
tween the Bank and Themselves tiiat The Bank should
receive more than lawful interest upon the loan fo
OWcns 10 was no such thing. There had no sucb
corrupt agreement: but the Bank by denurrng 10 the
plea, deprived iise Of the of dproving that allie
cation, and upon That state things the decision Of the
case, by bare and doubling majority Of the JUDGES of ,
Supreme Court against the Bank. With The uposf
dcicrcuce or the opinions OF that Court Tie b
IN is identical Tic JUDGES Of the Circuit Cort
for the District Of Kentucky had differed i'm opinion upor
the Tho judgment Of the Supreme Court was Je
ivcrcd by Judge Johnson, who declared hmselffo have
entertained cery serious dobts Of the sunicency Of the
av"rmcnts in The pg1 After SO ling ho.e dghts a..
adds ~ am content hoccUe 10 unite U fbe runrf ~
my brethren, 5ei0 Hiade mp TIVE ntAJourvy ON nil
point, ~ holding ibe 0CcrIcps to he sufficient beeo,,e
~ considerable dcorh n authorities on this subject
f1d II dccidca IL me case IF Boffon vs. Durham in
CrohfS Reports, Cr0 EH 6f2. that rHE coNfcsstov
OF THE oUO AMINO IMPLIED IN DEMURRER nil
affect rase uft usUgy. frlef a Vrpy sr.sfrsu ,,..r