Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1834-02-12
CON GREs AL.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF FL
NANCE-1CoNcLUDED

bank respects the bill OF exchange drawn Uy
the Secretary of the Treasury on the Govern
ment of France and purchased by the bank.
The general facts connected with this case
are these: -,
Bv the late treaty of indemnity between the
u. States and France, it was stipulated that the
French Government should pay to that OF tne
u States twenty millions OF francs, 10 De as
tribnted among those American citizens who mad
claims against France for the unlawful seizure,
capture. and condemnation of their vessels ana
property. the whole sum TO be paid IN annual IN
stalments of four millions one hundred and six
ty-six thousand sx-hundred and sixty francs,
each, into the hands ofsuch persons as shall De
authorized by the Government OF the U. states
to receive it; the first instament to be paid at
the expiration OF one year next IolloWlhS tle
exchange of the ratification.
On the expiration of the year, the Secretary
drew bill of exchange, signed by hlmseH as
Secretary, on the French Government Tor the
amount of this instalment and sold II 10 the
bank like any other bill OF exchange, ana re-
ceived the proceeds by credit of the amount to
the account of the Treasurer in the bank.
On presentment of the bill at the French
Treasury. payment was refused; the bill was
accordingly duly protested, and 1t was then Ia
ken up by a third person tor account OF the
bank The damages accruing on TINS Dill, ac-
cordng to law and to constant usage IN sucn
cases. are one hundred and htty-elght thousand
dollars.
If this bill had been transferred by the bank,
as probably it was, the bank itself would have
been answerable for damages even at nlgher
rate. if a third person had not taken up the Oil
for the honor of the bank.
On receiving information Of the protest ofthe
hill the officers of the bank, as was their duty,
gave immediate notice to the Treasury Depart
ment. and accompanied that notice with the IN
formation ALWAYS made in such cases, that the
drawers of the bill would be held answerable
for the damages. Such is the substance OF the
facts in this case.
The bank it would appear, was willing to col
lect the bill on account OF Government, ana 10
credit the Treasury with the proceeds when re-
ceived; course ofproceedings, which had this,
to recommend it that the money to be received
on the bill was TO be received by the Government
simpy in trust for claimants under the French
treaty and was not ultimately destined TO the
ordinary uses of the Treasury. On the contra
nv. indeed before the dishonor OF the bill was
known, it had been made, already, the legal du-
tv of the Secretary to place the fund, so soon
as received, at interest for the benefit of the
claimants.
But it was thought best to sell the bill, and to
realize at once its amount into the treasury;
and the bill was sold to the bank, in preference
to Others offering to purchase, for no reason, 1t
is to be presumed except that the terms of the
bank were more satisfactory. The bill was thus
purchased by the bank, and its proceeds credit
ed TO the Treasury. This was mere Tansac-
ton of the purchase and sale OF Dill OF eX-
change There was no trust conhded TO the
bank and no fiscal agency in the whole matter
Indeed tine agency of the bank had been decll-
ned the Secretary preferring to deal With 1t not
as an agent, but as purchaser, proposing to
il not to collect the bill, but to buy IT. On beng
RENTED TO Europe, and presented for payment
the bill was protested By the universal COM
mercial law, the Government, on the occurrence
nah 10 RI ho h1n for
the amount of the BILL with damages. These
damages may be ultimately claimed, with JUS
tics from the French Governmental the bill was
drawn upon sufficient grounds, and on proper
authoritity; in other words il the obligation OF
the French Government was such that 1t was
bound to accept and pay the bill; but unless there
be something in the case to vary the general
rule. which the committee do not perceive these
damages were part of the debt which had be-
come due to the bank, as much as the principal
sum of the bill. If this be so, how could
the directors renqush this part of the debt any
more than the other? They are agents for the
corporation; they act as trustees, and have no
authority. without consideration, to release, Ell
cher TO the Government or to individuals debts
due or properly belonging to the corporation.
1t has been suggested that the bank should
have taken up this bill, when protested on Co.
vernment account Two answers may be given
20 this suggestion; the first is, that the bill had
been taken up ny q correspondent dDIOdu lOI
account of the bank, before it was known in the
United States that it had been protested. The
second is, that it would have been unlawful for
the bank TO have advanced such amount to the
Government, or on account of Government for
the purpose of taking up this BILL or for any
other purpose, without an act OF Congress. The
express words of the charter forbid it.
But. as a reason for removing the depostes,
it appears to the committee quite immaterial
whether the bank be right or wrong in claiming
these damages If wrong it will not recover
them 1t is not to judge of its own rights; and
if the appropriate tribunals shall decide that
the bank was acting on this occasion, or ought
to have acted as the agent of the Government
or that it was its duty to take up the bill on &C.
count Of Government, then the damages will
not be awarded to it. And in the worst aspect
ofthis case, how can its conduct in this respect
be any possible reason to justify the removal of
the deposites2 What connexion has this oc-
currence with the safe keeping of the public
treasures, or with the renting them from place
to place, to meet the convenience of the Govern
ment according to the duty of the bank under
the charter2 The bank thinks itself entitled to