Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1833-12-07


passages in the correspondence Of Mr.. Crawford
with the Bank, about the period above mention
ed might be referred to, equally indicating the
same opinion; and at that day no doubt seems to
have been entertained of the power or OF the du
" Of the Secretary in relation to this subject 1t
does not appear to have been then even suggest.
ed, that the right Of removal depended ON the sol
vency Of the Bank, or the safety of the public
money committed to its custody % the contra.
~, in the passage above quoted, the superior
safety Of the State Banks Is BY no means regard
ed as necessary to give him the right to make the
transfer to them. For he declares that he will
give the deposites to the State Banks, on account
Of their weakness, and to protect them from the
Bank Of the United States, If By means OF its su-
peror strength, it sought to Cypress them. Nor
can any distinction be taken between the trans
fer Of part, and the transfer Of the whole SUN,
remaining on deposite. The language OF the
charter recognises no such distinction, and the
principle asserted by Mr.. Crawford. would have
led him to the removal Of the whole amount OF
the public money to the State Banks, il pressure
on the part of the Bank Of the United States had
rendered such measure necessary. in order to
support the State Banks in their legitimate exer-
tions TO MAINTAIN their credit.
The language Of the law therefore, and the
usage and practice of the Government under it..
establish the following principles
lst That the power OF removal was intended
to be reserved exclusively to the Secretary OF the
| Treasury. and that according to the stpuations
in the charter, Congress could not direct II to be
done.
! I'd. That the power reserved to the Secretary
Of the Treasury. does not depend for its exercise
merely on the safety of the public money in the
hands Of the Bank, nor upon the fidelity with
which it has conducted itself; but has the right
TO remove the deposites, aud il is his duty 10 re
move them, whenever the public interest or con-
yenence will be promoted by the change.
Taking these two principles as unquestonable,
| proceed 10 state the reasons which induced me
TO believe that it was necessary for the interest
and convenience Of the people that the Bank OF
the United States should cease to be the deposit
tory Of the public money.
The charter of the Bank will expire. accord
Ing to the existing on the subject, on the third
Of March, 1886; and for two years after the ter
mina,ion If the charter. il is authorized to use
its corporate maine for the final settlement and
| liquidation vi the affairs and accounts Of the cor
poraon, and for the sale and disposition OF their
estate-but not for any other purpose. 1t is the
duty Of the Executive Departments of the Go
, vrrnment to exercise the powers conferred on
Them, and to regulate the discretion confded to
them, according TO the existing laws and they
oaonot be allowed To speculate on the chances Of
future changes by the Legislative authority
Perhaps there may be cases, IN which the discre
non vested in all Executive Department might
with proprety be IN some degree influenced by
the expectation of future legislation. Blu: they
must be cases IN which the prime pies Of justice.
or the public interest mauiiesty call for an alter
alton of the law, or Where some expression Of the
pubic opinion has strongly indicated that a
change will probably be made. But where no
thing OF this hiud exists. an Executive officer Of
! the GoYernmen, Is not authorized to regulate a
discretion, which the la@'has entrusted to him.
upon the assumption that the law will be chang
ed
In deciding upon the course which it was my
duty to pursue in relation to the jeposites did
not feel myself justified in anticipating the re.
newal OF the charter On either OF the above men.
timed grounds. 1t is very evident that the
Bank has no claim to renewal, founded on the
justice Of Congress. For, independently Of the
many serious and insurmountable objections,
which its own conduct has furnished, IL can not
be supposed that the grant To this corporation
Of exclusive privileges, at the expense OF the
rest Of the community, for twenty years, can
give it right to demand the still further enjoy.
ment Of its profitable monopoly. Neither could
l act upon the assumption mat the pu0ilc interest
required the re.charter Of the Bank; because |
am firmly persuaded that the la~ which created
this corporation, IN many Of ITS provisions. is
not warranted BY the Constitution. and that the
existence Of such powerful munied monopoly, IS
dangerous to The liberties Of the people, aud to
the purity OF our political institutions.
The manifestations Of public opinion. Instead
Of being favorable to a renewal, have been de.
cidediy to the contrary. And | have always
regarded the result Of the last election Of the
President Of the United States, as the declara-
ton Of a maturity at the people that the charter
ought not TO be renewed. 1t is not necessary to
state here, what is now matter Of history The
question OF the renew Of the charter was 10.
troduced into the election BY the corporation It.
self Its voluntary application to Congress for
the renewal Of its charter four wears before
1t expired, and upon the eve OF the election of
President, was understood all sides, as bring.
ing forward that question for incidental decision,
at the then approaching election. 1t was &C.
cordingly argued nn both sides. before the ui.
bunal Ut the people, aod their verdict pronounced
against the Bank by the elpc lion of the cand,