The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1831-1858, 1832-10-10

and the Siate Banks, in like manner are free L
foreign ownership. Whatever State has created
debt, has been willing that foreigners should be
come purchasers, and dcsroas of it. How
long is it, sir, since Congress itself passed a law
vesiing new powers in the President Of the United
States over the cities in this district for the yer,
purpose at increasing their credit abroad. the bet
Ter TO enable them to borrow money to nav theji
subscriptions to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
IL is easy 10 say that there is danger to liberty nan
ger to Independence. in Bank open to foreigI
Observation-Disclosures il is easy 10 say any thing
But neither reason nor experience proves any suci
danger. The foreign stakeholder cannot be di
rector. lie has no voice even in the choice of di
rect"rs. His money is placed entirely in the MAJ.
agement of the directors appointed by the Presi.
dent and Senate and by the American stockhold.
efs. 30 tar as there is dependence, or influence
either way, it is to the disadvantage of the foreign
stockhoder. He has parted with the control owe,
MS own property, instead of exercising control
over the property the actions of others
And, sir, let IL now be added, in further answer IN
inns whole class Of objections, That experience has
abundantly conuted them all. This government,
has existed forty-three years, and has maintained
In iuil being and operation, Bank such as now
proposed to be renewed, for thrty-sx wears out Of
the forty three, We have never Tor a moment had
BANK not subject to every one of these objections
always, Foreigners might be stockholders always,
IoTeigh SOCK has been exempt from State taxation
as much as at present; always tine same power
and privileges; always all that which is now
called 6 monopoly" "gratuty,"a present. u
has been possessed by the bank And vet there
has been found no danger to liberty, no intro.
ducton of foreign influence, and no accumrla-
tlon OF irresponsible power in few hands. can.
not but hope, therefore, that the people of the
| United States will not now yield up their iudr-
ment TO those notions which would reverse all onr
past experience, and persuade us 10 discontinue a
useful institution from the influence of vague and
uH,oahaed defamation against its danger to the
puDhc Liberties. Our liberties indeed must stand
upon very frail foundations if the Governmen, can.
NOT without endangering them avail itself of those
common facilities, in the collection of its revenues
and the management of its finances, which ali OH
er governments, in commercial countries. find usn-
full and necessary. In order to Justify its alarm co
the security OF our independence the MESSAGE
supposes case. 1t supposes that the Bank should
pass principally into the hands oil the subjects Of
foreign country, and that we should be involved in
war with that country, and then il excaims what
would De our condition." Why, sir, it is plain
that all the advantages would be on our side The
Bank would still be our institution, subject to our
own laws, and all its directors elected BY ourselves;
and our means would be enhanced not by the con-
hscaton and pIunder, but by the proper use of the
foreign capital in our hands And, sir, it is sim
gular enough, that this very state of war, from
which this argument against Bank is drawn, is
the very thing which more than all Others convinc-
cd the country and the government of the necessi-
ty OF National Bank So much was the want of
such an institution felt. in the late war, that the
subject engaged the attention of Congress. con-
stantly, from the declaration Of that war down to
the time when the existing Bank was actually es-
tabllshed so that, in this respect, as well as IN
others, the argument of the message is directly op-
posed tn the whole experience of the government.
and to the general and long settled convictions OF
the country.
now proceed, sir. to few remarks upon the
Presidents constitutional objections to the Bank.
and cannot ioIbear to say in regard to them that
he appears to me to have assumed very extraordi-
nary grounds of reasoning. He denies that the
constltutionality of the bank is settled question.
1t It be not, will II ever become So or what dispu-
ted question can be settled have alredy OBJ
served, that for thrtysix years out of the forty.
| three, during which the government has been in
being, a Bank has existed such as is now proposed
to be continued.
AS early as 1871, after great delberation, the
hrst Bank Charter was passed by Congress and ap-
proved by President Washington. It established
ted o tie peseaf BBaHne in i. Bank like h bs
could take lands in payment of its debts that
charter, like the present, gave the states no power
OF taxation; it allowed foreigners to hold stock it
restrained Congress from creating other Banks 1t
gave also exclusive privileges and in all its partic
ulars it was, according to the doctrines of the mes
sage, as Objectionable rs that now existing. That
| Bank continued twenty years. In 1916, the pre-
sent institution was established and has been, ever
since, in full operation Now, sir, the question of
the power of Congress to create such institutions,
has been contested in every manner known to our
constitution and Laws. The forms of the govern
ment furnish no new mode, in which to try this
question. 1t has been discussed over and over
again, IN Congress- il has been argued and solemn
ly adludged in the Supreme Court; every Presi-
dent, except the present. has considered it a set
tied question; many Of the State Legislatures have
their for, haD D. III
tribunals of the States, in every instance have
supported its consttutionalty; and beyond all
doubt and dispute, the general public opinion of
the country, has at all times given, and does now
give, its full sanction and appreciation to the exer-
else OF this power, as being constitutional power.
There has been no opinion, questioning the power,
expressed or intimated, at any time, by either
House OF Congress, by any President or by any
spectacle judicial tribunal Now, sir, if this prac-
tee Of near forty years. if these repeated exeftiOns
of the power. if this solemn adjudication of the
Supreme Court, with the concurrence and appro-
baton OF public opinion, do not settle the question,
how is any question ever TO be settled about which
any one may choose to raise doubt ? The argu-
ment OF the message, upon the Congressional pre-
cedents, is either bold and gross fallacy, else
1t is an assertion without proofs and against known
facts. The message admits, that in 1871, Congress
decided in favor of bank but it adds that anoth-
er Congress in 1871, decided against it. Now, if
it be meant that in 1911, Congress decided against
the Bank, on Constitutional ground, then the
ser;ion is wholly incorrect, and against notorious
facts. 1t is perfectly well known, that many men,
bers IN both Houses, voted against the Bank, in
1911, who had doubt at all of the Constitutional
power OF Congress. They were entirely governed
by other reasons given at the time. appeal, sir,
to the honorable member from Maryland, ((iener-
al smith, who was then member OF the Senate,
and voted against the Bank, whether he and others,
who were on the same SIDE did not give those
votes on other well known grounds, and not at all
on the constitutional ground!
| IGen. Smith here rose and said, that he voted
against the Bank in 1871 but not at all on consti
tuiional grounds, and had no doubt such was the
case with other members
We all know, sir, Continued Dir. Webster,) the
fact 10 be as the gentleman from Maryland has sta
ted it. Every man who recollects, or who has read
the political occurrences of that day, knows it.
Therefore, if the message intends to say, that in
1911, Congress denied the existence of any such
constitutional power the declaration is unwarrant-
eds altogether at variance with the facts II on
the other hand, it only intesds 10 say, that Con-
gress decided against the proposition then before
1t on some other grounds, then 1t alleges that which
is nothing at all to the purpose. The argument;
| then, either assumes for truth that which is not
! true, or eIse the whole statement is immateriai
and futile, But, whatever value others may attach
to this argument, the message thinks so highly OF
It, that il proceeds to repeat it. "One Congress"
it says, in 1875 decided against Bank, another,
in 1916, decided in its favor. There is nothing in
precedent, the refore, which, if its authority were
admitted, ought to weigh IN favor Of the act before
me-" Now, sir, since IT is known 10 the whole
| country, one cannot but wonder how it should re-
main unknown to the President, that Congress did
moi decide against Bank IN 1915. On the contra
ry that yefy Congress passed bill for creating a
Bank by very large majorities. In one form il is