Litchfield enquirer., 1834-02-27

cssss, are one hundred and afty-efght thou. sand dollars.
 If this hill had been transferred by the bank, as probably it was, the bank itself would have been answerable for damages even at high l CT rate, if third person had not take0 up the bill for the honor of the bank.
 On receiving information of the protest ot the bill, the officers of the bank, as was their duty, gave immediate notice t0 the Treasury Department. and accompanied that notice with the information, always made in such cases. that the drawers of the bill would be held answerable for the damages. Such is the substances, of the facts in this case.
 The bank it:wouId appear. was willing to collect the bill on account of Government. and to credit the Treasury with the proceeds when received; a course of proceedings, which had this. to recommend it. that the mo- ney to he received on biil, was to be received by the Government simply in trust for claim. ntspDdeF the French treaty, and was Tit,t hl- einately destinsd to the Ordinary.uses of the Treasury. On the contrary, ipdeed before the dishonor of the bill was knUwn, it had been made, already. the legal duty fthe Sec retary to place the fund, sO as soon as receiv- ed. at interest for the benefit of the claimants. <. But 1t was thought best to sell the bill. and 70 feallze at once it's amount into the Yreasu-
 
 ffence tn others offering to purchase, for no sa,anc. it is to be presumed, except that the E t,erms of the hank were more satisfactoFy.- : sT,he hill ssas thus purchased by the bank. and ifs proceeds rtaited to the Treasury. This ,-as 5a mere tfansactfO-l of the Pssehasa aud saIe If \ biil of exchange. There was no trust .confided to the bank, and no fiscal agency in the whole matter. Indeed The agency ofthe bank had been declined, the Secretary prefer ring to deal with it not as an agent, but as purchaser, proposing to tt not to collect the bill, but to buy it. On being remiited to En- rope, and presented for payment. the b'ltwa protested. By the universal commercial lasv. the Government, on the Occurfence of this protest, because ausenahle to the baHklfo the amount of the bill, with damages. These damages may be ultimately claimed. with jus tice from the French Government if the bill was drawn upon sufficient grounds. and on proper authority; in other words, if the obll- eation of the French Government was auch that it was bound to accept and pay the bill; ; but unless there be something in the case to yary fire general rule, which the committee do not perceive, these damages were part Of ihe debt which had become due 10 the bank, as much as the principal sum of the bill. slf z this be SO, how could the directors relinquish < this part of the debt any more fhap the Ott- < er They ase agents for the corporation; si they act as. trustees, and have no authority without consideration. to release, either totht Government or to individuals, debts due, ol
 properly belonging to the corporatio1. -se It has been suggested that the bank should have taken up this bill. when protested or
 Government account. Two answers may bs
 given to this suggestion the first is, that tht bill had been taken up by correspondent a.
 broad for account Of the bank, before it wa.
 known in the United States that it had beer
 protested. The second is, thatit would hays
 been unlawful for the bank to have advanced
 such amount to the Government, or on ac
 count of Government, for the fpur2nse af Ia
 king up this hill. ar -far any other purpose
 without an act of Congress. The expres. a words of the charter forbid if. st5
 But, as reasDn for removing the dep0sites, 1t appears to the c6rnmittee quite imuiaterial whether the bank bs right or wrong in claim ing these daniagss.a If wroag it will n0tsre- cover them. It is not to j0dge of its own rights and if the appropriate tribunals shall decide that the bank was acting on this Occa- sion, or ought to have acted as lhe agent of (3oyernment, or that 1t was its duty 10 take up the sbill on account of Goyernment. then < tue damages will not be awarded t0 1t. And in the worst aspect of this case. how can Its conduct, in this respect; he any possible req. H0uk0 lUettAy 8ue F6x1Oy@t ,uL &tsg cYVSltGS s- What conncxiOn has this 6ceNfrsnee with the ! safe keeping of the public treasures, or with 2 the remitting them from place to place, to
 meet the eonvenisnce of the Government, ac- icofding tO3 the duty, of the bank under the charter? The bank thinks itself entitled t0 damages on a protested bill, purchased and held by itself, and drawn by the Government The Secretary of the Treasury thinks other wise. lf fthere De no feasov to doubt the sin :. cerity of the Secretary's conviction, there is as little to doubt the sincerity of that enter tained by the bank; and it is quite incOnceiv- able to the committee that the pendency of < such . difference of opinion. on such . a,ies- tion, should furnish apy reason whatever for
 withdrawing the deposites, unless it be at once admitted that the Secretary holds the power Of removal as perfectly arbitrary power. and may exerciseit, by way Of punishmer,t. when eser, in any particular. the conduct or .tl,e o
 pipions of the bank do not conform to bis pleasure. ' The Secretary does not argue this matter. He offers no reason in opposition 10 the legal right ot the bank. to the damages claimed.-- indeed, he hardly denies the right. He com,
 mences his Obsssv ations on the subiect bv saw . ing that the ruling principle of the bank is KS N.Own interest and cioses them with another sdeclarstisns that.as Ascal agent 0f tue public. , 1t availed itself of the disappointment off its principal fur the purpose cf enlarging its own
 profits. sslafa x s3 s'- .i N. \ N Assersions Ike these, however else they n.-a. e-a.ti !. st "a v