Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1834-02-12


- ra.son whatever for Withdrawing the de-
noS;tes unless it be at once admitted that the
Secretary holds the power OF removal as per-
fectlv arbitrary power and may exercise IT, py
wav of punishment whenever, in any partlcu-
lar. the conduct or the opinions OF the bank DO
not conform to his pleasure.
The Secretary does not argue this matter
He offers no reason in opposition to the legal
right ofthe bank to the damages claimed. In
deed, he hardly denies the right. He common
ces his observations on the subject by saying
that the ruling principle of the bank is It's own
Interest," and closes them with another declara-
ton that as fiscal agent Of the public, 1t avail
ed itself of the disappointment OF It's pfihcipai
for the purpose of enlarging its own pro1lts.
Assertions like these, however else they may
be disposed of cannot be made subjects OF argu-
ment.
The last charge preferred against the oank,
is. that it has used its means with view 10 oo-
tain political power, and thereby secure the re-
newal of its charter.
The very statement Of such a charge, as
reason for removing the deposites is calcutta
ted to excite distrust in the wisdom ana propfl-
etv of that measure; because the charge, 100
general to be proved, is too general to be dlS-
proved; and since it must always rest mainly
on mere opinion, it might be made at any tlme,
by any Secretary, against any bank. Ii Woula
be, therefore, always convenient CLOAK uhdef
duct
If proof be made out that the funds OF the
bank have been applied to illegal objects, the
proper mode ofredresS and punishment shoulo
have been adopted, but what has this to 90 win
the deposites? As in the case OF the french
BILL the Secretary cannot justify the removal Vi
the deposites on any such ground as this, unless
it be conceded that he may use the power OF re-
moval as punishment for any offence OF any
kind which the bank, in his opinion, may nave
committed The committee have already eX-
pressed the opinion that no such latitude OF
bower belongs to him, and the assertion OF such
a power for such cause as is now under con-
sheraton, shows that the power ought never TO
belong to any Secretary; because the offence,
on account of which it is here proposed to be eX-
ercised, is political offence, incapable OF detl-
milton, depending merely on the Secretary's
opinion, and necessarily drawing into con-
sideration all the exciting cOntroverted topics
of the day. The bank, it is said, has sought to
obtain political power" What is the definition
ofsuch an offence as this? What acts constl-
tute it? How is it to be tried? Who is to be the
Judge? What punishment shall follow convic-
ton? All must see that charges OF this nature
are but loose and vague accusations, which
may be made at any time, and can never be
either proved or disproved; and to admit them
as sufficient grounds to justify the removal OF
the deposites, would be to cOncede to the Secre-
tary the possession ola power purely arbitrary.
The main fact relied on for this cause of re-
moval shows how extremely unsafe all proceed
ingS on any such reasons must be. The main
fact is, that between December 1880, and De-
cember 1881, the bank extended its loans twen-
ty millions of dollars; and it is further alleged
that as if to leave no doubt of the motive OF this
extraordinary conduct, it continued to add ra-
pidy to its loans, until in May, 1882, while It's
petition for renewal was pending those loans
L h,,I Snp
tary declares that this extraordinary Increase or
loans made in so short space of time, and on
the eve of contested election in which the bank
took an open and direct interest, demonstrates
that it was using its money to obtain hold up
on the people of the country to induce them, by
the apprehension of run to vote against the
candidate whom it desired to defeat This is
strong assertion, but so far as the Committee
perceive, it is assertion merely 1t is but the Sc
cretary's own inference from facts from which
very facts his predecessors in Office have drawn
no such conclusions
This great extension of the loans, be it re-
membered, took place in 1881. Why was it not
then complained of How should it have escap-
ed the vigilance of the Secretary at that day,
the time it took place? And if it did not es-
cape his vigilance why did he not then remove
the depostes! SO, also, as to the amount OF
loans in May, 1882. That amount was perfect
ly well known at the time, and if it proved any
offence, why was not the punishment inflicted
then2 How should all other Secretaries have
slept over this great mischief
Ii might further be well asked, what evidence
is there of the existence of any such motive as
is imputed to the bank in this extension of its
loans? There is no evidence but the mere fact
itself Of the extension, and it cannot be denied
that other and very different reasons for the eX-
tensions may have existed; so that the charge
is proved no otherwise than by inferring bad
motive from an act lawful in ITSELF and for which
good reasons may have existed, nor is it either
acknowledged, nor, so far as the committee
know, proved that the bank took an open and
direct interest, as corporation, in the election
referred to. The bank certainly was much in
terested in certain accusations which had been
brought against it, and which became subjects
of public discussion during the tendency of that
election. 1t had been charged with great mis-
conduct and gross violation of its charter
These accusations must undoubtedly have call
ed on the directors for answer. If made before
Congress- they were to answer before Congress;
if made judicially, they We're to answer in
the courts; if made in an official and formal
manner, and in that manner submitted to the
judgment of the country, the directors were